Trabulsi, Edouard J.

TPS7 Background: Penis cancer is a rare but potentially fatal disease. A limited body of evidence exists on which to base the majority of management decisions for patients with regional nodal metastases. Five-year survival for patients with a single involved inguinal lymph node treated with surgery alone is approximately 80%, whilst it ranges from 0 to 12% for patients with pelvic node involvement (N3). Additional strategies are required for the management regionally-advanced disease. InPACT (NCT02305654) aims to determine prospectively the relative benefits and sequencing of surgery, chemotherapy, and chemoradiotherapy in the management of patients with penis cancer who present with palpable or radiologically evident inguinal lymph node metastases. InPACT addresses the following questions: Is there a role for neoadjuvant therapy and, if so, which of the two options (chemotherapy or chemoradiotherapy) before surgery gives superior outcomes? Among patients whose inguinal node histology predicts a high risk of recurrence, does prophylactic pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND) plus chemoradiation to the inguinal and pelvic fields improve survival compared to chemoradiation alone? Methods: A Bayesian trial design aims to include a wide population of patients and incorporates two randomisations: InPACT-neoadjuvant and InPACT-pelvis. Participants are stratified by disease burden (extent of nodal involvement), by the presence or absence of high-risk radiological features, and by GFR. Participants with high disease burden where neoadjuvant treatment is thought to be indicated are randomised to neoadjuvant chemotherapy or neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. Participants with intermediate disease burden are randomised to one of 3 arms: Surgery alone or neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy followed by surgery, or neoadjuvant chemotherapy prior to surgery. Participants in the low-burden group proceed directly to surgery. Participants with postoperative inguinal node pathology that shows high-risk features may then proceed to InPACT-pelvis where randomisation is between adjuvant chemoradiotherapy ± PLND for those not previously treated with chemoradiotherapy & between PLND & observation for those previously treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. The study aims to recruit 200 participants. The primary outcome measure is overall survival, with secondary outcome measures of disease-specific survival, disease-free survival, and freedom from locoregional recurrence and distant metastasis. Feasibility, toxicity, the type/extent of surgical complications, and quality of life will be assessed as secondary endpoints for all the InPACT treatment arms. To October 2021, 65 participants have been recruited with centres open in the UK, US and Canada. Clinical trial information: NCT02305654.

PURPOSE Germline testing (GT) is a central feature of prostate cancer (PCA) treatment, management, and hereditary cancer assessment. Critical needs include optimized multigene testing strategies that incorporate evolving genetic data, consistency in GT indications and management, and alternate genetic evaluation models that address the rising demand for genetic services. METHODS A multidisciplinary consensus conference that included experts, stakeholders, and national organization leaders was convened in response to current practice challenges and to develop a genetic implementation framework. Evidence review informed questions using the modified Delphi model. The final framework included criteria with strong (> 75%) agreement (Recommend) or moderate (50% to 74%) agreement (Consider). RESULTS Large germline panels and somatic testing were recommended for metastatic PCA. Reflex testing—initial testing of priority genes followed by expanded testing—was suggested for multiple scenarios. Metastatic disease or family history suggestive of hereditary PCA was recommended for GT. Additional family history and pathologic criteria garnered moderate consensus. Priority genes to test for metastatic disease treatment included BRCA2, BRCA1, and mismatch repair genes, with broader testing, such as ATM, for clinical trial eligibility. BRCA2 was recommended for active surveillance discussions. Screening starting at age 40 years or 10 years before the youngest PCA diagnosis in a family was recommended for BRCA2 carriers, with consideration in HOXB13, BRCA1, ATM, and mismatch repair carriers. Collaborative (point-of-care) evaluation models between health care and genetic providers was endorsed to address the genetic counseling shortage. The genetic evaluation framework included optimal pretest informed consent, post-test discussion, cascade testing, and technology-based approaches. CONCLUSION This multidisciplinary, consensus-driven PCA genetic implementation framework provides novel guidance to clinicians and patients tailored to the precision era. Multiple research, education, and policy needs remain of importance.

4526 Background: Standard methotrexate, vinblastine, doxorubicin and cisplatin (MVAC) demonstrates a survival benefit in the neoadjuvant setting for patients (pts) with muscle invasive bladder cancer (MIBC). Compared with standard MVAC, AMVAC yielded higher response rates with less toxicity in the metastatic setting. Methods: Pts with MIBC, cT2-T4a, and N0-N1 with CrCl >=50 and adequate hepatic and marrow function were eligible. Pts received 3 cycles of AMVAC (methotrexate 30 mg/m2, vinblastine 3 mg/m2, doxorubicin 30 mg/m2, cisplatin 70mg/m2) on day 1, with pegfilgrastim 6 mg day 2 or 3, every 2 weeks. Pts with CrCl < 60 could receive cisplatin split over 2 days. Radical cystectomy (RC) with lymph node dissection was performed 4-8 weeks after the last dose of chemotherapy. Primary endpoint was pathologic complete response (pCR) rate. Results: Accrual is complete with 44 MIBC pts enrolled at 2 institutions (FCCC, TJU) over a 25 month period. Median age 64 (range 45-83). Three withdrew from study early and are not evaluable for response (2 physician discretion, 1 withdrawal of consent). An additional 8 are currently receiving treatment on study with toxicity and response data pending. Of the 33 evaluable pts for whom final data is available, 30 received all 3 cycles of AMVAC at full dose. Three pts received < 3 cycles due to grade 3 fatigue (1), low platelets (1), and disease progression precluding RC (1). 32/33 pts underwent RC, all within 8 weeks of last chemotherapy. Median time from start of chemotherapy to RC was 9.7 wks (range 4.6-13 wks). 13/33 pts (39.4%, 95% CI, 22.7-56.1%) had a pCR. An additional 3 (9.1%) were downstaged to non muscle invasive disease. For the intent to treat cohort (n=36) 8 pts had grade 3-4 AMVAC related adverse events, the most common being anemia (3), fatigue (3) and neutropenia (2) and overall pCR rate was 36.1%. (95% CI, 20.4-51.8%). All pts will have completed study treatment by April 2012. Final results will be presented. Conclusions: Neoadjuvant AMVAC is well tolerated and preliminary results show a pCR rate similar to that reported for standard 12-week MVAC, suggesting that AMVAC for three cycles (6 weeks) is a safe and efficient alternative.

PURPOSE Provide evidence- and expert-based recommendations for optimal use of imaging in advanced prostate cancer. Due to increases in research and utilization of novel imaging for advanced prostate cancer, this guideline is intended to outline techniques available and provide recommendations on appropriate use of imaging for specified patient subgroups. METHODS An Expert Panel was convened with members from ASCO and the Society of Abdominal Radiology, American College of Radiology, Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, American Urological Association, American Society for Radiation Oncology, and Society of Urologic Oncology to conduct a systematic review of the literature and develop an evidence-based guideline on the optimal use of imaging for advanced prostate cancer. Representative index cases of various prostate cancer disease states are presented, including suspected high-risk disease, newly diagnosed treatment-naïve metastatic disease, suspected recurrent disease after local treatment, and progressive disease while undergoing systemic treatment. A systematic review of the literature from 2013 to August 2018 identified fully published English-language systematic reviews with or without meta-analyses, reports of rigorously conducted phase III randomized controlled trials that compared ≥ 2 imaging modalities, and noncomparative studies that reported on the efficacy of a single imaging modality. RESULTS A total of 35 studies met inclusion criteria and form the evidence base, including 17 systematic reviews with or without meta-analysis and 18 primary research articles. RECOMMENDATIONS One or more of these imaging modalities should be used for patients with advanced prostate cancer: conventional imaging (defined as computed tomography [CT], bone scan, and/or prostate magnetic resonance imaging [MRI]) and/or next-generation imaging (NGI), positron emission tomography [PET], PET/CT, PET/MRI, or whole-body MRI) according to the clinical scenario.

94 Background: Technetium (Tc99m) trofolastat (USANC) is a novel urea-based small molecule SPECT radiotracer with utility in imaging overexpression of PSMA in prostate cancer (PCa). Unlike earlier agents targeting PSMA, this ligand is rapidly internalized and retained in tumors. We conducted an open-label, multicenter phase 2 study in the US and Europe (NCT01667536). An interim analysis was performed at approximately 50% accrual. Methods: Patients (pts) with confirmed adenocarcinoma of the prostate scheduled for RP with EPLND at high risk for disease outside of the prostate gland were eligible. High risk pts were ≥cT3 or Kattan nomogram score ≥130. Within 30 days of screening, pts required a bone scan and pelvic MRI. After enrollment, pts received trofolastat followed by whole-body planar and SPECT/CT imaging 3 to 6 hrs later. Pts then underwent RP with EPLND within 21 days. SPECT/CT images were evaluated centrally by 3 readers blinded to clinical information and compared to on-site pathology assessments using a common scoring template. The primary endpoint was the ability of trofolastat to detect PCa within the gland. Secondary endpoints included detection of extent and location within the gland, pelvic lymph nodes and comparative performance against MRI. Results: 84 pts were enrolled to date from 16 centers. Interim data is available for 54 pts. A majority (≥2/3) of SPECT/CT readers correctly identified the presence or absence of primary PCa in 51/54 (94%, 85-98 95% CI) patients including 2 true-negative cases treated with neoadjuvant enzalutamide. Sensitivity and specificity were 94% (84-98 95% CI) and 100% (34-100 95% CI) respectively. Conclusions: Based on the interim data available, trofolastat has accurately detected primary prostate carcinoma within the gland with high sensitivity and specificity in high-risk pts prior to surgery. Updated results, analyses of secondary endpoints, pelvic lymph nodes, and comparative performance vs. MRI from this ongoing study will be presented. Clinical trial information: NCT01667536. [Table: see text]

168 Background: The optimal timing of postoperative radiotherapy following radical prostatectomy (post-RP RT) is unclear. We hypothesized that a genomic classifier (GC) would provide prognostic and predictive insight into the development of clinical metastases in men receiving post-RP RT and inform decision-making. Methods: GC scores were calculated from 188 patients with pT3 or margin positive PCa, who received post-RP RT at Thomas Jefferson University and Mayo Clinic, between 1990 and 2009. The primary endpoint was clinical metastasis. Prognostic accuracy of the models were tested using c-index and decision curve analysis. Cox regression tested the relationship between GC and metastasis. Results: The cumulative incidence of metastasis at 5 years post-RT was 0%, 9%, and 29% for low, average, and high GC scores, respectively (p=0.002). In multivariable analysis, GC and pre-RP PSA were independent predictors of metastasis (both p<0.01). Within the low GC score (<0.4), there were no differences in the cumulative incidence of metastasis comparing those who received adjuvant or salvage RT (p=0.79). However, for patients with higher GC scores (≥0.4) cumulative incidence of metastasis at 5-year was 6% vs. 23% for patients treated with adjuvant vs. salvage RT (p<0.01). Conclusions: In patients treated with post-RP RT, GC is prognostic for the development of clinical metastasis beyond routine clinical/pathologic features. Though preliminary, patients with low GC are best treated with salvage radiation, while those with high GC benefit from adjuvant therapy. These findings provide the first rationale selection of timing of post-RP RT.

4 Background: Management of patients with a postoperative rising prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level is complex. Additional local treatment such as salvage radiation therapy (SRT) may be sufficient for many patients but some may require concurrent systemic therapy in order to delay or prevent metastatic disease. As PSA recurrence on its own is a poor surrogate for metastatic disease we hypothesized that the Decipher genomic classifier (GC), a validated predictor of metastasis may be able to better distinguish those patients where additional therapy is beneficial from those where SRT on its own is likely sufficient. Methods: Genomic classifier (GC) scores were calculated from 170 prostate cancer patients, who received SRT at the Veteran Affairs Medical Center Durham, Thomas Jefferson University and Mayo Clinic, between 1990 and 2010. SRT was defined as administration of RT with Pre-RT PSA levels > 0.2 ng/ml. GC and CAPRA-S scores were compared using survival c-index, competing-risks and Cox regression analysis for the prediction of metastasis. Results: Survival c-index for predicting metastasis 5 years post SRT was 0.85 (95% CI: 0.73-0.88) for GC and 0.63 (95% CI: 0.49-0.77) for CAPRA-S. The cumulative incidence of metastasis at 5 years post-SRT was 2.7%, 8.4%, and 33.1% for low, average, and high GC scores (p < 0.001) and 16.9%, 2.3% and 17.2% for low, average and high CAPRA-S scores (p = 0.113). In univariable analysis only GC, extraprostatic extension, path GS and Pre-RT PSA were significant predictors of metastasis. In multivariable analyses with clinical risk factors or the CAPRA-S risk model, GC was the only independent predictor of metastasis with a HR of 1.63 (1.22-2.18, p < 0.001) for a 10% unit increase in risk score. Conclusions: In patients treated with postoperative SRT for PSA recurrence, GC is a powerful predictor of metastasis. Patients with low Decipher have excellent prognosis with SRT and may avoid concurrent hormonal therapy. Patients with high Decipher risk are at highest risk for metastatic disease and SRT failure and may benefit from intensified systemic therapy.

12 Background: In 3 published randomized trials, adjuvant radiation therapy (ART) for prostate cancer (PCa) resulted in improved progression free survival. However, the impact on metastases and overall survival is unclear. To date, there have been no published prospective trials examining the impact of salvage radiation therapy (SRT) in this disease state. Hence, we conducted a retrospective, nonrandomized comparative study of ART, SRT, or no radiation following radical prostatectomy (RP) for men with pT3 disease or positive margins (adverse pathologic features, APF). Methods: 422 PCa men treated at 4 institutions with RP and having APF were analyzed with a primary end point of clinical metastasis. ART (n = 111), early SRT (n = 70) and delayed SRT (n = 83) were defined by PSA levels of < 0.2, 0.2 to 0.5, and ≥ 0.5 ng/mL, respectively, prior to RT initiation. Remaining 157 men who did not receive additional therapy prior to metastatic onset formed the no RT arm. Clinical-genomic risk was assessed by CAPRA-S and Decipher. Cox multivariable (MVA) model was used to evaluate the impact of treatment on outcome. Results: During study follow-up, 37 men developed metastasis with a median follow-up of 8 years. Both CAPRA-S and Decipher had independent predictive value on MVA for metastatic outcome (both p < 0.05). On MVA adjusting for clinical-genomic risk, delayed SRT and no RT had an HR of 4.31 (95%CI, 1.20-15.47) and 5.42 (95% CI, 1.59-18.44) for metastasis compared to ART. No significance difference was observed between early SRT and ART (p = 0.28). Men with low to intermediate CAPRA-S and low Decipher have a low rate of metastatic events regardless of treatment selection. In contrast, men with high CAPRA-S and Decipher benefit from ART, however the cumulative incidence of metastasis remains high. Conclusions: The decision as to the timing and need for additional local therapy following RP is nuanced and requires providers and men to balance risks of morbidity with improved oncologic outcomes. This analysis provides the most robust and accurate quantification of risk for these men. Post-RP treatment can be safely avoided for men who are low risk by clinical-genomic risk, whereas those at high risk should favor enrollment in clinical trials.