Taplin, Mary‐Ellen

Abstract Purpose: Inhibitors of the Ataxia telangiectasia and Rad3-related (ATR) protein kinase, a critical component of the DNA damage repair response, have synergistic anti-cancer activity with platinum compounds in preclinical models. We therefore conducted a Phase 2 study of the ATR inhibitor berzosertib+carboplatin vs. docetaxel+carboplatin in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. Patients and Methods: Patients previously treated with at least one androgen receptor pathway inhibitor and taxane underwent mandatory biopsy and were randomized 1:1 to receive Arm A (docetaxel 60 mg/m2+carboplatin AUC4 day 1; or carboplatin AUC5 if not a docetaxel candidate) or Arm B (berzosertib 90 mg/m2 days 2,9+carboplatin AUC5 day 1) every 21 days. The primary endpoint was overall response rate (ORR; ≥50% PSA decline or radiographic response). Results: Of 73 randomized patients, 65 received protocol treatment: 34 on Arm A (26 docetaxel+carboplatin; 8 carboplatin alone) and 31 on Arm B. Thirteen patients (38%) in Arm A and 20 (65%) in Arm B had ≥Grade 3 treatment-related adverse events (TrAEs). ORR was 15% in Arm A (5/34; 5/26[19%] with docetaxel+carboplatin) and 0% in Arm B (0/31). At interim analysis after 65 of planned 130 patients were treated, enrollment was halted due to futility. Homologous recombination repair deficiency status from tissue and blood did not correlate with clinical outcomes, but ATM-deficiency or high levels of phoshpo-KAP1 detected in tissue was associated with clinical benefit across both arms of the trial. Conclusions: Berzosertib+carboplatin demonstrated lower ORR and more frequent ≥grade 3 TrAEs compared to docetaxel+carboplatin in this heavily pre-treated, biomarker-unselected population. NCT03517969

This guideline has been updated. This ASCO Living Guideline is reviewed on an eight-week cycle. Please see the online dynamic version for the latest updates. Living guidelines are developed for selected topic areas with rapidly evolving evidence that drives frequent change in recommended clinical practice. Living guidelines are updated on a regular schedule by a standing expert panel that systematically reviews the health literature on a continuous basis, as described in the ASCO Guidelines Methodology Manual . ASCO Living Guidelines follow the ASCO Conflict of Interest Policy Implementation for Clinical Practice Guidelines . Living Guidelines and updates are not intended to substitute for independent professional judgment of the treating clinician and do not account for individual variation among patients. See appendix for disclaimers and other important information (Appendix I and Appendix II). Updates are published regularly and can be found on the ASCO Publications website .

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.

This guideline has been updated. This ASCO Living Guideline is reviewed on an eight-week cycle. Please see the online dynamic version for the latest updates. Living guidelines are developed for selected topic areas with rapidly evolving evidence that drives frequent change in recommended clinical practice. Living guidelines are updated on a regular schedule by a standing expert panel that systematically reviews the health literature on a continuous basis, as described in the ASCO Guidelines Methodology Manual . ASCO Living Guidelines follow the ASCO Conflict of Interest Policy Implementation for Clinical Practice Guidelines . Living Guidelines and updates are not intended to substitute for independent professional judgment of the treating clinician and do not account for individual variation among patients. See appendix for disclaimers and other important information ( Appendix 1 and Appendix 2 ). Updates are published regularly and can be found at www.asco.org/genitourinary-cancer-guidelines .

ASCO Guidelines provide recommendations with comprehensive review and analyses of the relevant literature for each recommendation, following the guideline development process as outlined in the ASCO Guidelines Methodology Manual . ASCO Guidelines follow the ASCO Conflict of Interest Policy for Clinical Practice Guidelines . Clinical Practice Guidelines and other guidance (“Guidance”) provided by ASCO is not a comprehensive or definitive guide to treatment options. It is intended for voluntary use by clinicians and should be used in conjunction with independent professional judgment. Guidance may not be applicable to all patients, interventions, diseases or stages of diseases. Guidance is based on review and analysis of relevant literature, and is not intended as a statement of the standard of care. ASCO does not endorse third-party drugs, devices, services, or therapies and assumes no responsibility for any harm arising from or related to the use of this information. See complete disclaimer in Appendix 1 and 2 (online only) for more . PURPOSE To provide evidence-based recommendations for patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). METHODS An Expert Panel including patient representation completed a systematic review of the evidence and made recommendations. RESULTS Depending upon prior treatment received, androgen receptor pathway inhibitors (ARPIs: enzalutamide, abiraterone with prednisone), poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors (PARPi), chemotherapeutic agents (docetaxel, cabazitaxel), radiopharmaceuticals (radium 223, 177 Lu-prostate-specific membrane antigen [PSMA]-617), and sipuleucel-T have demonstrated an overall survival (OS) benefit for patients with mCRPC. For patients with BRCA1 / 2 alterations who did not receive prior ARPI, the combination of PARPi and ARPI (talazoparib + enzalutamide, olaparib and/or niraparib + abiraterone) has shown clinical benefit. For patients with BRCA1 / 2 alterations who received prior ARPI or ARPI followed by docetaxel, olaparib showed OS benefit. In select patients with microsatellite instability-high/mismatch repair-deficient, pembrolizumab showed clinical efficacy. RECOMMENDATIONS Prior systemic therapy for castration-sensitive prostate cancer will determine subsequent therapy used for mCRPC. Continue androgen-deprivation therapy for patients with mCRPC indefinitely. Early adoption of somatic genetic testing and palliative care is recommended. Patients with mCRPC and bony metastases should receive a bone-protective agent. The panel recommends the combination of ARPI with PARPi in patients with BRCA1 / 2 alterations who did not receive prior ARPI. For patients who received prior ARPI, the panel recommends docetaxel chemotherapy. The panel recommends 177 Lu-PSMA-617 or cabazitaxel chemotherapy for patients who receive prior ARPI and docetaxel chemotherapy. For patients with BRCA1 / 2 alterations who received prior ARPI, the panel recommends PARPi monotherapy. Radium 223 is recommended for patients with symptomatic bone–only disease. Evidence for optimal sequencing for mCRPC regimens is lacking. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/genitourinary-cancer-guidelines .

AbstractCurrent US clinical practice guidelines for advanced prostate cancer management contain recommendations based on high‐level evidence from randomized controlled trials; however, these guidelines do not address the nuanced clinical questions that are unanswered by prospective trials but nonetheless encountered in day‐to‐day practice. To address these practical questions, the 2024 US Prostate Cancer Conference (USPCC 2024) was created to generate US‐focused expert clinical decision‐making guidance for circumstances in which level 1 evidence is lacking. At the second annual USPCC meeting (USPCC 2024), a multidisciplinary panel of experts convened to discuss ongoing clinical challenges related to 5 topic areas: biochemical recurrence; metastatic, castration‐sensitive prostate cancer; poly [ADP‐ribose] polymerase inhibitors; prostate‐specific membrane antigen radioligand therapy; and metastatic, castration‐resistant prostate cancer. Through a modified Delphi process, 34 consensus recommendations were developed and are intended to provide clinicians who manage prostate cancer with guidance related to the implementation of novel treatments and technologies. In this report, the authors review the areas of consensus identified by the USPCC 2024 experts and evaluate ongoing unmet needs regarding translational application of the current clinical evidence.

e17040 Background: Our aim was to evaluate two distinct clinical settings catering to US patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC): academic (A) and community (C) practice. We used data from a real-world non-interventional study (REASSURE; NCT02141438) examining the use of 223Ra. Methods: Patients with mCRPC who received at least one dose of 223Ra in the US were included. Enrolment occurred between 2014 and 2017; median follow-up was nearly 12 months. Our analysis included patient disease characteristics, treatment history, short- and long-term safety of 223Ra, patient overall survival (OS), and patient-reported pain (Brief Pain Inventory – Short Form [BPI–SF] scores). A clinically meaningful pain response was a ≥2-point decrease from a baseline score of ≥2 in the BPI-SF worst pain item during treatment until last dose. Results: Analysis included 498 patients (A: 147; C: 351). Comparing A with C, the median ages were 70 and 76 years, respectively, and the majority of patients (74% and 84%) had bone-only metastases. A higher percentage of patients in A (69%) than in C (49%) had completed at least one life-prolonging therapy (LPT) prior to 223Ra; these included abiraterone (A: 38%; C: 19%), enzalutamide (A: 32%; C:17%), docetaxel (A: 38%; C: 19%), and sipuleucel-T (A: 18%; C: 25%). Most patients received 5–6 223Ra injections in both settings (A: 65%; C: 71%). 223Ra was used concomitantly with LPTs in 48% of patients in A and 57% in C, predominantly with abiraterone (A: 25%; C: 25%) or enzalutamide (A: 25%; C: 36%); fewer patients in A (35%) received concomitant bone health agents than in C (52%). For safety outcomes, refer to the table. During treatment, 47% and 62% of patients with a baseline BPI-SF ≥2 had a clinically meaningful pain response in A and C, respectively. The median OS was 17.2 months (95% CI 14.0–19.4) in A and 18.4 months (14.8–21.0) in C. More patients in A (42%) than in C (26%) received a LPT after 223Ra, most commonly docetaxel (A: 25%; C: 12%). Conclusions: Patients treated in A tended to be younger and more heavily treated, as evidenced by a higher number of patients receiving LPTs prior to and following 223Ra treatment. Bone health agents were more frequently used in C. Additionally, more patients in C had a clinically meaningful pain response and more drug-related AEs were reported in A. Despite the observed differences, overall survival was comparable for both practice settings. Clinical trial information: NCT02141438 . [Table: see text]

PURPOSE Patients with biochemically recurrent prostate cancer (BRPC) after radical prostatectomy and a short PSA doubling time are at risk for distant metastases. Apalutamide, an androgen receptor antagonist, and abiraterone acetate plus prednisone (AAP) prolong survival in the metastatic setting. We evaluated whether intensification of androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) improves outcomes in BRPC. PATIENTS AND METHODS PRESTO is a randomized phase III, open-label trial in patients with BRPC and PSA doubling time ≤9 months (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03009981 ). Patients were randomly assigned 1:1:1 to receive a finite 52-week treatment course with ADT control, ADT + apalutamide, or ADT + apalutamide + AAP. The primary end point was PSA progression-free survival (PSA-PFS), defined as serum PSA >0.2 ng/mL after treatment completion. RESULTS Five hundred three patients were enrolled. The median PSA was 1.8 ng/mL (IQR, 1.0-3.6). At the first planned interim analysis, both experimental arms significantly prolonged PSA-PFS compared with the control arm (median, 24.9 months for ADT + apalutamide v 20.3 months for ADT; hazard ratio [HR], 0.52 [95% CI, 0.35 to 0.77]; P = .00047; median, 26.0 months for ADT + apalutamide + AAP v 20.0 months for ADT; HR, 0.48 [95% CI, 0.32 to 0.71]; P = .00008). Median time to testosterone recovery did not differ across treatment arms. The most common grade ≥3 adverse event was hypertension (7.5%, 7.4%, and 18% in ADT, ADT + apalutamide, and ADT + apalutamide + AAP arms, respectively). CONCLUSION Intensified AR blockade for a finite duration prolongs PSA-PFS with a manageable safety profile, without adversely affecting time to testosterone recovery. The addition of apalutamide to ADT should be considered in patients with high-risk BRPC.

5077 Background: In the phase 3 PRESTO study, intensified androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) with apalutamide (Apa) with or without abiraterone acetate plus prednisone (AAP), administered for a finite treatment period of 52 weeks, prolonged prostate-specific antigen progression-free survival (PSA PFS) in pts with high-risk biochemically relapsed prostate cancer (BRPC). We evaluated the association between PSA nadir within 3 months of treatment initiation with subsequent PSA PFS in this study. Methods: PRESTO is a randomized phase 3, open-label trial in pts with BRPC following radical prostatectomy (RP) and PSA doubling time (PSADT) ≤ 9 months, without distant metastases on conventional imaging (NCT03009981). Pts were randomized 1:1:1 to receive a finite 52-week treatment course with ADT, ADT + Apa, or ADT + Apa + AAP, stratified by PSADT (< 3 vs 3–9 months), with post-treatment follow-up. The association between PSA nadir within the first three months on treatment with subsequent PSA PFS was analyzed in a post hoc fashion. Results: 504 pts were randomized to ADT alone (N = 167), ADT + Apa (N = 168) or ADT + Apa + AAP (N = 169). 463 pts were evaluable for PSA nadir at 3 months. Across the three treatment arms, a PSA nadir of less than 0.1, between 0.1 – 0.2, and ≥ 0.2 ng/mL within the first three months of treatment was observed in 86.3%, 4.4%, and 9.3% of patients, respectively. A PSA nadir of < 0.2 ng/mL was reached within 3 months of treatment initiation in 79.8%, 96.9%, and 95.0% of pts randomized to the ADT, ADT + Apa, and ADT + Apa + AAP arms, respectively. The association between time to PSA nadir and subsequent PSA PFS was -0.30 (standard error = 0.03, Kendall’s tau modified for bivariate censoring), and median time to PSA nadir was 2.0 months (interquartile range 1.12 – 4.76 months). Failure to reach a PSA nadir < 0.2 ng/mL within the first three months of treatment was associated with a significantly shorter PSA PFS compared to pts with a PSA nadir ≤ 0.1 ng/mL (median PSA PFS of 13.9 vs. 22.8 months from 3 months post-treatment initiation; hazard ratio = 5.60, 95% CI: 3.58 – 8.75, p < 0.0001). There was also a significant difference in PSA PFS in those with a three-month PSA nadir between 0.1 – 0.2 vs ≤ 0.1 ng/mL (median PSA PFS 17.4 vs 22.8 months, HR = 2.63, 95:CI: 1.49 – 4.63, p = 0.0008). Conclusions: Using a landmark analysis at 3 months, a failure to reach PSA nadir less than 0.1 ng/mL within three months following initiation of ADT in BRPC is associated with shorter time to subsequent progression following treatment discontinuation. Follow-up is ongoing to integrate genomic profiling of primary prostate cancer tissues and whole blood RNA in pts with suboptimal PSA nadir to identify potential markers of relative androgen pathway inhibitor resistance. Clinical trial information: NCT03009981 .

PURPOSE Enzalutamide and abiraterone both target androgen receptor signaling but via different mechanisms. The mechanism of action of one drug may counteract the resistance pathways of the other. We sought to determine whether the addition of abiraterone acetate and prednisone (AAP) to enzalutamide prolongs overall survival (OS) in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) in the first-line setting. PATIENTS AND METHODS Men with untreated mCRPC were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive first-line enzalutamide with or without AAP. The primary end point was OS. Toxicity, prostate-specific antigen declines, pharmacokinetics, and radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) were also examined. Data were analyzed using an intent-to-treat approach. The Kaplan-Meier estimate and the stratified log-rank statistic were used to compare OS between treatments. RESULTS In total, 1,311 patients were randomly assigned: 657 to enzalutamide and 654 to enzalutamide plus AAP. OS was not statistically different between the two arms (median, 32.7 [95% CI, 30.5 to 35.4] months for enzalutamide v 34.2 [95% CI, 31.4 to 37.3] months for enzalutamide and AAP; hazard ratio [HR], 0.89; one-sided P = .03; boundary nominal significance level = .02). rPFS was longer in the combination arm (median rPFS, 21.3 [95% CI, 19.4 to 22.9] months for enzalutamide v 24.3 [95% CI, 22.3 to 26.7] months for enzalutamide and AAP; HR, 0.86; two-sided P = .02). However, pharmacokinetic clearance of abiraterone was 2.2- to 2.9-fold higher when administered with enzalutamide, compared with clearance values for abiraterone alone. CONCLUSION The addition of AAP to enzalutamide for first-line treatment of mCRPC was not associated with a statistically significant benefit in OS. Drug-drug interactions between the two agents resulting in increased abiraterone clearance may partly account for this result, although these interactions did not prevent the combination regimen from having more nonhematologic toxicity.