Tagawa, Scott T.

5069 Background: Inhibition of androgen receptor (AR)-signaling results in increases in double-strand DNA breaks and genomic instability. PARP inhibitors (PARPi) are a standard treatment option for patients (pts) with homologous recombination repair mutations (HRRm). Combinations of PARPi and AR pathway inhibitors (ARPI) are associated with synthetic lethality in multiple pre-clinical studies. Clinical trials have suggested potential benefits with co-targeting PARPi and ARPI in pts with and without HRRm. Methods: Alliance A031902 compared radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) and overall survival (OS) as co-primary endpoints with enzalutamide and rucaparib (Enz/Ruca) versus enzalutamide plus placebo (Enz/Plac) for pts with metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) regardless of BRCA/HRRm status. This trial was conducted by the Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology in 36 centers in the US. Target sample size was 1,002 patients. Eligibility required mCRPC with or without measurable metastatic disease and was agnostic regarding HRRm status. The trial was discontinued in 10/2023 due to changes in the treatment landscape for this pt population. Results: Between 10/21 and 4/23, 61 pts were randomized to Enz/Ruca (n=30) or Enz/Plac (n=31). Known BRCA1/2 or PALB2 mutations were present in 1 pt (3.3%) in the Enz/Ruca arm and 1 pt (3.2%) in the Enz/Plac arm; wildtype in 14 (46.7%) vs 15 (48.4%), and unknown in 15 (50%) vs 15 (48.4%), respectively. Three patients (11.5%) in the Enz/Ruca arm discontinued due to an adverse event (AE) vs 0 in the Enz/Plac arm. Among response-evaluable pts, 7/26 (27%) in the Enz/Ruca arm discontinued due to disease progression vs 10/31 (33%) in the Enz/Plac arm. Most common grade 3+ AEs were anemia (33% vs 3%) and hypertension (17% vs 10%) in the Enz/Ruca arm and Enz/Plac arm, respectively. All 61 pts were evaluable for response assessment. PSA declines ≥50% and ≥90% were observed in 79% vs 45% and 60% vs 43% of pts receiving Enz/Ruca versus Enz/Plac, respectively. Median PFS in the Enz/Ruca vs Enz/Plac arms was 17.1 vs 14.2 mos, respectively (HR 1.13 [95% CI: 0.42-3.01], p=0.81), median rPFS (inclusive of unequivocal clinical progression) was 17.1 vs 11.7 mos ( HR 0.72; 95% CI: 0.31-1.67, p = 0.44), and median OS was not reached vs 27.0 mos (HR 0.65; 95% CI: 0.29-1.45, p=0.29). Conclusions: In this prematurely terminated phase III study, Enz/Ruca was generally well tolerated, with the safety profile consistent with prior PARPi/ARPI combinations. Efficacy outcomes for rPFS and OS are inconclusive due to limited sample size. Definitive conclusions regarding the clinical benefit of this combination cannot be determined from this study. Clinical trial information: NCT04455750 .

PURPOSE The continuous development of new imaging approaches, molecular phenotyping, genetic subtypes, prognosis assessments, and effective therapies across a range of disease states has created a need to redefine terminology and best practices for clinical trial conduct in patients with advanced prostate cancer. Methods We convened an international expert committee of diverse working groups, the Prostate Cancer Working Group 4 (PCWG4), between 2016 and 2025. Our objective was to formulate updated criteria based on emerging evidence and clinical trial data in a biomarker context to provide guidance for clinical trial design, eligibility, and end point assessments for patients with advanced prostate cancer. RESULTS PCWG4 redefines terminology around the disease state and previous therapies in a patient-centric context and terminology focused on androgen pathway modulation. We consider imaging, with a particular focus on positron emission tomography (PET)–defined disease. New recommendations are provided for disease state terminology, defining eligibility criteria, response and delay/prevent end points, intervals for reassessments including imaging, and patient-reported outcome determination. We provide recommendations in a biomarker-based context of use for the intended indication, reflective of patient benefit for specific interventions. We emphasize the need for development of validated PET imaging and molecular and phenotypic criteria as well as trial designs to appropriately risk stratify patients, predict and assess benefit, and measure post-treatment outcomes reliably in a trial framework. CONCLUSION PCWG4 updates recommendations on patient and tumor characterization, therapy development, and imaging criteria and extends guidance into earlier androgen pathway modulator–naïve/sensitive disease states to reflect an evolving, heterogeneous, and diverse patient population to optimize treatment benefits for all patients.

PURPOSE Hot flashes are a common side effect reported by men receiving androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) for the treatment of prostate cancer. We sought to determine whether oxybutynin could improve hot flash symptoms in men with prostate cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients with prostate cancer receiving a stable regimen of ADT with at least 28 hot flashes per week were randomly assigned to receive either oxybutynin 2.5 mg twice daily, oxybutynin 5 mg twice daily, or matching placebo for 6 weeks. The primary end point was the change in patient-reported hot flash scores since baseline at 6 weeks. Additional outcomes included incidence of adverse events (AEs), changes since baseline in Hot Flash–Related Daily Interference Scale (HFRDIS) scores, and patient-reported symptoms. RESULTS Eighty-eight patients were enrolled, with the 81 participants eligible for final analysis reporting an average of 10.1 (standard deviation [SD], 5.55) hot flashes per day and an average daily hot flash score of 18.2 (SD, 13.5) included in final analysis. On average, patients on the placebo arm, 2.5 mg oxybutynin arm, and 5 mg oxybutynin arm had reductions in hot flashes/day of 2.15, 4.77 ( P = .02), and 6.89 ( P < .001), respectively. Daily hot flash scores for placebo, 2.5 mg oxybutynin, and 5 mg oxybutynin reduced by an average of 4.85, 9.94 ( P = .07), and 13.95 ( P = .002) points, respectively. No treatment-related grade 3+ AEs occurred. HFRDIS total scores improved by 14.2 and 20.7 points in the 2.5 mg ( P = .042) and 5 mg ( P < .01) oxybutynin arms, respectively, compared with a 3.1-point improvement with placebo. CONCLUSION Oxybutynin is superior to a placebo for the management of ADT-associated hot flashes in men with prostate cancer.

TPS5126 Background: The treatment of advanced prostate cancer (PC) is challenging, with undesirable side effects that impact patient quality of life. Radioimmunotherapy (RIT) can localize therapy to specific tumor cells in multiple organs to reduce or eliminate damage to normal tissue. The cell surface glycoprotein prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) is an ideal therapeutic target as it is highly expressed by malignant prostate cells. There is a strong rationale for further investigation of the 177 Lu-labeled, chelator-conjugated antibody, 1 77 Lu-rosopatamab, as a potential first-line RIT candidate for the treatment of PC. Methods: This multinational, multicenter, prospective, randomized, open label phase 3 study will have 2 parts: a dosimetry and safety lead-in (n=30) and a randomized treatment expansion (n=490). In Part 1, patients will be divided into 3 groups (n=10 each) to receive 2 single intravenous (IV) injections of 76 millicuries (mCi) each, 14 days apart, of 177 Lu-rosopatamab with best standard of care (SoC) combinations with abiraterone, enzalutamide, or docetaxel to fully characterize biodistribution and safety profiles of 177 Lu-DOTA-rosopatamab + SoC. SoC received will be determined prior to treatment with 177 Lu-rosopatamab. In Part 2, patients will be enrolled in a 2:1 ratio to receive either the best SoC or 2 single IV injections of 76 mCi each of 177 Lu-rosopatamab, given 14 days apart, plus best SoC. SoC will be determined prior to randomization. Eligible patients must have PSMA-expressing metastatic castration-resistant PC (mCRPC) that have progressed despite prior therapy with either enzalutamide or abiraterone plus prednisone, and 1 line of prior taxane therapy or have refused or are ineligible for taxanes. Patients must have adequate organ function including at least 150x10 9 /L platelets, hemoglobin 10 g/dL, and have PSMA-positive disease on 68 Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT imaging as confirmed by a central reader. Key exclusion criteria include small cell histology, increased risk of hemorrhage or bleeding, known brain or hepatic metastases, or history of stroke, seizure, or treatment with radioisotopes within 6 months prior to randomization. The primary endpoint is radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS). Key secondary endpoint is OS. Additional secondary endpoints include 5-year overall survival, tumor objective response rate, time to symptomatic skeletal event, and health-related quality of life. An alpha control and 95% confidence intervals will be used; patients will be substratified between TLX591 + 2 nd ARPI or TLX591 + docetaxel. This study is currently enrolling. Clinical trial information: NCT06520345 .

TPS5125 Background: Prostate cancer (PC) is common and despite recent advances in treatment options, patients with metastatic disease still have poor outcomes. The double PSMA binding moiety of SAR-bisPSMA in 64 Cu-SAR-bisPSMA (imaging) and 67 Cu-SAR-bisPSMA (therapy) may offer advantages compared to currently used single-target PSMA agents. Clinical evidence demonstrated 2-3 times higher uptake of 64 Cu-SAR-bisPSMA compared to the single-target PSMA agent, 68 Ga-PSMA-11. Pre-clinical efficacy data of 67 Cu-SAR-bisPSMA in mice showed statistically significant tumor growth inhibition and increased survival in a PC xenograft study. These results led to the development of the SECuRE trial, which aims to assess the safety and anti-tumor efficacy of 67 Cu-SAR-bisPSMA in patients with metastatic castrate resistant PC (mCRPC). Methods: SECuRE is a Phase I/IIa multi-center, open-label, non-randomized, dose-escalation and cohort expansion study of 64 Cu-SAR-bisPSMA and 67 Cu-SAR-bisPSMA in patients with mCRPC. The target population is patients who have progressed despite having at least one androgen receptor pathway inhibitor and demonstrate positivity on 64 Cu-SAR-bisPSMA PET. The study comprises 3 phases: Dosimetry (N=6), Dose Escalation (N~24) and Cohort Expansion (N=24). The 67 Cu-SAR-bisPSMA dose levels investigated in the Dose Escalation Phase are: 4 GBq (cohort 1, single dose), 8 GBq (cohort 2, single dose), 12 GBq (cohort 3, single dose) and 24 GBq across two doses (cohort 4, two doses at the maximum tolerated dose or maximum feasible dose [MTD/MFD] established in cohorts 1-3; two additional doses may be offered in case of radiological non-progression). In the Cohort Expansion phase, participants will receive 2 doses of 67 Cu-SAR-bisPSMA at the recommended dose determined in the Dose Escalation Phase (those with radiological non-progression may be offered up to 2 additional doses). A recent protocol amendment increased the number of participants from 14 to 24 in the Cohort Expansion phase, in which 8 will receive combination therapy of 67 Cu-SAR-bisPSMA with enzalutamide. The primary and key secondary objectives include assessment of 64 Cu- and 67 Cu-SAR-bisPSMA’s safety and dosimetry and determining the anti-tumor efficacy of 67 Cu-SAR-bisPSMA. Response to 67 Cu-SAR-bisPSMA will be assessed biochemically (≥50% decline in prostate-specific antigen) and radiographically (by RECIST V1.1 and PCWG3). Clinical trial information: NCT04868604 .

Abstract Introduction: Most people who die from prostate cancer are older than 75 years. However, prostate cancer diagnosed at younger ages is often more aggressive. While epidemiologic studies have examined the association between age and survival in patients with prostate cancer overall, the clinical drivers of this relationship in patients with advanced disease remain unclear. We leveraged the International Registry of Men with Advanced Prostate Cancer (IRONMAN, NCT03151629) to (1) quantify the association between age and overall survival and (2) explore whether this association is explained by treatments. Methods: We included 3, 734 patients enrolled from 15 countries with new diagnoses of metastatic hormone sensitive (mHSPC, N=2, 642) or castration resistant prostate cancer (CRPC, N=1, 092). Age at enrollment was categorized as &lt;55, 55-59, 60-64 (reference), 65-69, 70-74, 75-79, 80-84, 85+ years. We computed age-specific death rates (95% confidence intervals [CIs]) by disease state (mHSPC, CRPC) at enrollment. To explore whether this relationship was explained by treatment, we fitted disease state-stratified Cox models and sequentially adjusted for (1) de novo metastatic status and country, and (2) baseline treatment (androgen deprivation therapy [ADT] alone, ADT + androgen receptor pathway inhibitors [ARPI], ADT + chemotherapy, ADT + ARPI + chemotherapy, other). Results: Over 5.5 years of follow-up (median: 3.2 years, IQR: 1.7, 4.8), 995 patients died from any cause. Younger patients were more likely to have de novo metastatic disease. Among those with mHSPC at enrollment, the age-specific death rates per 1, 000 person-years followed a J-shaped pattern: 80 (95% CI: 54, 117) in patients under 55 years, 58 (46, 74) in patients aged 60-64, 102 (78, 133) in patients aged 80-84, and 172 (125, 236) in patients aged 85 and older. The death rates among those with CRPC followed a similar pattern, albeit rates were higher in magnitude: 212 (95% CI: 140, 323) in patients under 55 years, 153 (115, 202) in patients aged 60-64, 200 (155, 258) in patients aged 80-84, and 204 (142, 291) in patients aged 85 and older. After adjusting for disease state, country, and the timing of diagnosis of metastases, death rates were substantially higher for ages 75-79 (HR 1.4; 95% CI 1.1, 1.7), 80-84 years (HR 1.6; 95% CI 1.2, 2.1), and 85 years and older (HR 2.0; 95% CI: 1.5, 2.7) compared to ages 60-64 years. Patients aged under 55 years had 1.4-fold higher death rates (95% CI: 1.0, 1.9) compared to those 60-64 years. After additionally adjusting for baseline treatment, overall survival remained worse for the older patients and the youngest age group with hazard ratios remaining meaningfully unchanged. Conclusion: Age at enrollment is associated with overall survival in people with advanced prostate cancer enrolled in IRONMAN in a J-shaped pattern. This relationship is not explained by differences in baseline treatment. Citation Format: Hannah E. Guard, Michelle O. Sodipo, Colleen B. McGrath, Anna Siefkas, Lauren E. Howard, Konrad H. Stopsack, Christopher M. Sauer, Robert Dreicer, Emilio Esteban, Hassan M. Dogo, Ademola Popoola, Charles Waihenya, Anders Bjartell, Kim N. Chi, Sebastien Hotte, Richard Cathomas, Deborah Enting, Scott Tagawa, Michael Ong, Michael Kolinsky, Vincent Khoo, Joaquin Mateo, Chidiebere N. Ogo, Rana R. McKay, Stefanie Fischer, Heather H. Cheng, Russell Szmulewitz, Young E. Whang, Anand Sharma, Frédéric Pouliot, Simon Crabb, Monica S. Chatwal, Miguel A. Climent, Raymond McDermott, Ian D. Davis, Camille Ragin, Folakemi T. Odedina, Simon Anderson, Simone Badal, Natalie Greaves, Karen A. Autio, Laurel Cannon, Alyssa Chan-Cuzydlo, Marie Grant, Travis Gerke, Hannah D. McManus, Philip W. Kantoff, Daniel J. George, Lorelei A. Mucci, IRONMAN investigator team. Disentangling the association between age and overall survival in an international cohort of patients with advanced prostate cancer [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2025; Part 1 (Regular Abstracts); 2025 Apr 25-30; Chicago, IL. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2025;85(8_Suppl_1):Abstract nr 4935.

Abstract Introduction: The standard of care for metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC) has evolved with the expanded approval of androgen receptor pathway inhibitors (ARPIs) alongside androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). ADT alone has been shown to affect cognitive function. However, the cognitive impact of distinct treatment combinations remains unclear. We investigated the association between first-line systemic treatments and the trajectory of subjective cognitive function among mHSPC survivors in the International Registry for Men with Advanced Prostate Cancer (IRONMAN). Methods: This analysis included 2435 newly diagnosed mHSPC patients enrolled across 15 countries between July 2017 and August 2024. Treatments were reported by site personnel and physicians. For this analysis, we focused on first-line systemic treatment and classified treatment groups at enrollment as ADT monotherapy (referent), ADT + ARPIs, or ADT + chemotherapy. Subjective cognitive function was assessed via the EORTC QLQ-C30 Cognitive Function subscale, with patient-reported scores (range 0-100) collected at enrollment and every 3 months for up to 5 years; higher scores reflect better cognitive function. Associations were estimated using linear mixed effects models with clustering by study site and country to examine differences at enrollment and across trajectories of subjective cognitive function by first-line treatment, adjusting for demographic and clinical factors. Results: Median age at enrollment was 70 years, with a median follow-up of 1.7 years. 724 (30%) participants were treated with ADT monotherapy, 1317 (54%) with ADT + ARPIs, and 394 (16%) with ADT + chemotherapy. Mean cognitive function scores at enrollment were 85.4 (Standard Deviation [SD] 19.5) for participants treated with ADT monotherapy, 86.7 (SD 17.3) for ADT + ARPIs, and 86.7 (SD 18.0) for ADT + chemotherapy. Cognitive function scores decreased by -0.60 points (95% Confidence Interval [CI] -0.72, -0.48) per year among those treated with ADT monotherapy, with similar rates observed for those treated with ADT + chemotherapy. Participants treated with ADT + ARPIs had a slower decline in cognitive function, with scores decreasing by -0.36 points (95% CI -0.60, -0.08) per year. Conclusion: In this international cohort of mHSPC survivors, subjective cognitive function scores were generally high at enrollment but declined over time. There was no evidence of worse cognitive function in those treated with ADT + ARPIs nor ADT + chemotherapy over time compared to ADT monotherapy. Cognitive functioning is a key component of survivorship, and defining cognitive trajectories associated with first-line treatment can inform supportive interventions, patient treatment decision-making, and clinical guidelines. Citation Format: Michelle O. Sodipo, Alicia K. Morgans, Erica T. Warner, Emily M. Rencsok, Lauren E. Howard, Colleen B. McGrath, Anna Siefkas, Konrad H. Stopsack, Christopher Sauer, Robert Drecier, Emilio Esteban, Hassan M. Dogo, Ademola Popoola, Charles Waihenya, Anders Bjartell, Kim Chi, Sebastien Hotte, Richard Cathomas, Deborah Enting, Scott Tagawa, Michael Ong, David Lorente, Elisabeth Heath, Rana McKay, Stefanie Fischer, Heather H. Cheng, Young E. Whang, Frederic Pouliot, Simon Crabb, Monica Chatwal, Miguel A. Climent, Raymond McDermott, Ian D. Davis, Camille Ragin, Folakemi Odedina, Natalie Greaves, Simone Badal, Simon Anderson, Sharon Harrison, Karen Autio, Laurel Cannon, Marie Grant, Alyssa Chan-Cuzydlo, Travis Gerke, Hannah D. McManus, Philip W. Kantoff, Daniel George, Sebastien Haneuse, Lorelei A. Mucci, on behalf of the IRONMAN Registry. First-line therapies and subjective cognitive function trajectories among international metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer survivors [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2025; Part 1 (Regular Abstracts); 2025 Apr 25-30; Chicago, IL. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2025;85(8_Suppl_1):Abstract nr 3630.

TPS303 Background: The treatment of advanced prostate cancer (PC) is challenging, with undesirable side effects that impact patient quality of life. Radioimmunotherapy (RIT) can localize therapy to specific tumor cells in multiple organs to reduce or eliminate damage to normal tissue. The cell surface glycoprotein prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) is an ideal therapeutic target as it is highly expressed by malignant prostate cells. There is a strong rationale for further investigation of the 177 Lu-labeled, chelator-conjugated antibody, 1 77 Lu-rosopatamab, as a potential first-line RIT candidate for the treatment of PC. Methods: This multinational, multicenter, prospective, randomized, open label phase 3 study will have 2 parts: a dosimetry and safety lead-in (n=30) and a randomized treatment expansion (n=490). In Part 1, patients will be divided into 3 groups (n=10 each) to receive 2 single intravenous (IV) injections of 76 millicuries (mCi) each, 14 days apart, of 177 Lu-rosopatamab with best standard of care (SoC) combinations with abiraterone, enzalutamide, or docetaxel to fully characterize biodistribution and safety profiles of 177 Lu-DOTA-rosopatamab + SoC combinations. SoC received will be determined prior to treatment with 177 Lu-rosopatamab. In Part 2, patients will be enrolled in a 2:1 ratio to receive either the best SoC or 2 single IV injections of 76 mCi each (equivalent to a 45 mCi/m 2 dose in a standard 1.7m 2 individual) of 177 Lu-rosopatamab, given 14 days apart, plus best SoC. SoC will be determined prior to randomization, and a change in planned SoC will not be permitted. Eligible patients must have PSMA-expressing metastatic castration-resistant PC (mCRPC) that have progressed despite prior therapy with either enzalutamide or abiraterone plus prednisone, and 1 line of prior taxane therapy or have refused or are ineligible for taxanes. Patients must have adequate organ function including at least 150x10 9 /L platelets, hemoglobin 10 g/dL, and have PSMA-positive disease on 68 Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT imaging as confirmed by a central reader. Key exclusion criteria include small cell histology, increased risk of hemorrhage or bleeding, known brain or hepatic metastases, or history of stroke, seizure, or treatment with radioisotopes within 6 months prior to randomization. The primary endpoint is radiographic progression-free survival. Key secondary endpoint is OS. Additional secondary endpoints include 5-year overall survival, tumor objective response rate, time to symptomatic skeletal event, and health-related quality of life. Clinical trial information: NCT04876651 .

121 Background: In the Phase 3 VISION trial, treatment with the prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA)-targeted radioligand therapy [ 177 Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 ( 177 Lu-PSMA-617) + protocol-permitted standard of care (SoC) significantly improved median radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS; 8.7 vs 3.4 months [mo]) and overall survival (OS; 15.3 vs 11.3 mo) in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) vs SoC alone. However, it is unclear how the addition of androgen receptor pathway inhibitors (ARPIs) affected 177 Lu-PSMA-617 treatment outcomes. Here we compared the efficacy and safety of 177 Lu-PSMA-617 in patients treated with vs without concomitant ARPIs. Methods: In VISION, adult patients with PSMA-positive mCRPC previously treated with ≥1 prior ARPI and 1–2 taxane chemotherapy regimens were randomized 2:1 to receive 177 Lu-PSMA-617 (7.4 GBq Q6W, 4–6 cycles) + SoC (which included ARPIs) vs SoC alone. In this secondary analysis, we assessed baseline characteristics, OS, rPFS, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) response rate, duration of PSA response, PSA-PFS, and safety among patients in the intervention arm who were treated with vs without concomitant ARPIs. Results: In total, 289 patients were treated with concomitant ARPIs and 262 patients were not (N=551). Imbalances between the groups were observed in some baseline characteristics: patients treated with concomitant ARPIs were younger, had lower ECOG performance scores, lower mean PSA and lactate dehydrogenase levels, and fewer prior taxane chemotherapy regimens. Baseline mean standardized [ 68 Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 uptake values and mean hemoglobin levels were well-balanced. A statistically significant difference in median OS was observed in patients treated with concomitant ARPIs vs those without (17.8 vs 12.4 mo; HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.58–0.89; nominal P=0.001). No statistically significant between-group differences were observed for rPFS, PSA response rate, duration of PSA response or PSA-PFS. The proportion of adverse events reported was similar in patients with or without concurrent ARPI, except for the number of adverse events leading to interruption of best supportive care/SoC, which was higher in patients treated with concurrent ARPIs. Conclusions: OS was significantly different in patients treated with concomitant ARPIs vs those without, while other efficacy endpoints were not. No new safety signals were observed for 177 Lu-PSMA-617 with concomitant ARPI. These findings may be confounded by varied exposure to ARPIs, or differing patient characteristics; patients who received concomitant ARPIs may represent a more favorable treatment population than those who did not. These findings should be considered as hypothesis-generating, and a multivariate analysis has been planned to ascertain the influence of these potential biases. Clinical trial information: NCT03511664 .