Carducci, Michael A.

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 Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) have shown progression-free survival (PFS) benefits of metastasis-directed therapy (MDT) without androgen deprivation therapy for oligometastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (omCSPC). Most patients with bone metastatic (BM) omCSPC recur with additional bone disease after MDT. We hypothesized the BM-targeting alpha-emitter radium-223 dichloride (Ra223) could target subclinical bone disease and delay progression. METHODS This is an investigator-initiated, multicenter, open-label phase II RCT. Eligible men with recurrent omCSPC with ≥one bone metastasis (≤three on conventional imaging and/or ≤five on molecular imaging) were randomly assigned (1:1) to stereotactic ablative radiation (SABR) MDT alone or SABR MDT with Ra223 (six cycles). Primary end point was composite PFS. RESULTS From August 9, 2019, to March 2, 2023, 64 patients were randomly assigned, 33 to SABR MDT and 31 to SABR MDT/Ra223 balancing for key covariates. Most SABR MDT/Ra223 patients (87%) received six cycles of Ra223. The median PFS was 11.8 months with SABR MDT and 10.5 months with SABR MDT/Ra223 (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.42 [95% CI, 0.79 to 2.56]; P = .24). Seven patients (11%) experienced grade 3 treatment-related adverse events (no grade 4 or 5), 2 of 33 (6%) with SABR and 5 of 30 (17%) with SABR MDT/Ra223. Patients with high-risk (HiRi) pathogenic mutations in ATM , BRCA1/2 , RB1 , or TP53 had worse PFS (HR, 5.95 [95% CI, 1.83 to 19.3]; P = .003). Greater T-cell receptor (TCR) unique productive rearrangements were prognostic for improved PFS independent of the treatment arm (aHR, 0.45 [95% CI, 0.21 to 0.96]; P = .04). CONCLUSION Adding Ra223 to SABR MDT in BM omCSPC does not delay progression of disease. We provide evidence for an HiRi mutational signature and TCR repertoire as prognostic biomarkers in omCSPC treated with SABR MDT, highlighting the importance of collecting biological correlates in RCTs for omCSPC.

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.

e17061 Background: ThePhase 3 VISION trial demonstrated that [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 prolonged overall survival (OS) in metastatic-castration resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) patients who progressed on taxane-based chemotherapy and androgen receptor-signaling inhibitors (ARSi). The expanded access program (EAP) (NCT04825652) was opened to provide access to [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 for eligible patients until regulatory approval was obtained. The VISION trial required strict inclusion and exclusion criteria, which may not represent the patient population encountered in clinical practice. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety profile of [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 in a real-world setting within the EAP and compare the results with those from the VISION trial. Methods: Patients enrolled in the EAP between May 2021 and March 2022 at four institutions in the United States with available toxicity and outcome data were included. Outcome measures included overall survival (OS), ≥50% PSA decline rates (PSA-RR), and incidences of toxicity according to Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) v5.0. Differences in baseline characteristics, toxicity, and PSA-RR between the EAP and VISION were evaluated using a t-test of proportions. Results: 117 patients with mCRPC were eligible and included. Patients enrolled in the EAP were similarly pretreated with taxane-based chemotherapy regimens (>1 taxane: 47% vs 40%; p=0.16) and more heavily pretreated with ARSi (>1 ARSi: 70% vs 46%; p<0.001). EAP patients had similar levels of ≥3 grade anemia (18% vs 13%; p=0.15), thrombocytopenia (13% vs 8%; p=0.13), and neutropenia (3% vs 3%; p=0.85) and higher levels of ≥3 grade lymphopenia (34% vs 8%; p<0.001). Patients treated within the EAP experienced numerically shorter OS (median OS: 13.7 vs 15.3 months) and similar PSA-RR (40% vs 46%; p=0.29). Median follow-up was numerically shorter in the EAP compared with VISION (14.7 mo vs 20.3 mo). Conclusions: mCRPC patients treated with [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 in a real-world setting were more heavily pretreated with ARSi, had a similar safety profile, and experienced numerically shorter OS and similar PSA-RR compared with VISION trial patients. A major limitation of this study is that we did not have access to individual patient data from the VISION trial, so we were not able to assess whether differences in OS between VISION and the EAP were statistically significant.

Background: Management strategies for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) have rapidly shifted in recent years. As novel imaging and therapeutic approaches have made their way to the clinic, providers are encountering increasingly challenging clinical scenarios, with limited guidance from the current literature. Materials and Methods: The US Prostate Cancer Conference (USPCC) is a multidisciplinary meeting of prostate cancer experts intended to address the many challenges of prostate cancer management. At the first annual USPCC meeting, areas of controversy and consensus were identified during a 2-day meeting that included expert presentations, full-panel discussions, and postdiscussion responses to questions developed by the USPCC cochairs and session moderators. Results: This narrative review covers the USPCC expert discussion and perspectives relevant to mCRPC, including neuroendocrine/aggressive-variant prostate cancer (NEPC/AVPC). Areas of broad agreement identified among USPCC experts include the benefits of poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors for patients with BRCA1/2 mutations, the use of radioligand therapy in patients with prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA)–positive mCRPC, and the need for clinical trials that address real-world clinical questions, including the performance of novel therapies when compared with modern standard-of-care treatment. Ongoing areas of controversy and uncertainty included the appropriateness of PARP inhibitors in patients with non-BRCA1/2 mutations, the optimal definition of PSMA positivity, and systemic therapies for patients with NEPC/AVPC after progression on platinum-based therapies. Conclusions: The first annual USPCC meeting identified several areas of controversy in the management of mCRPC, highlighting the urgent need for clinical trials designed to facilitate treatment selection and sequencing in this heterogeneous disease state.

Purpose: Castration-sensitive prostate cancer (CSPC) is a complex and heterogeneous condition encompassing a range of clinical presentations. As new approaches have expanded management options, clinicians are left with myriad questions and controversies regarding the optimal individualized management of CSPC. Materials and Methods: The US Prostate Cancer Conference (USPCC) multidisciplinary panel was assembled to address the challenges of prostate cancer management. The first annual USPCC meeting included experts in urology, medical oncology, radiation oncology, and nuclear medicine. USPCC co-chairs and session moderators identified key areas of controversy and uncertainty in prostate cancer management and organized the sessions with multidisciplinary presentations and discussion. Throughout the meeting, experts responded to questions prepared by chairs and moderators to identify areas of agreement and controversy. Results: The USPCC panel discussion and question responses for CSPC-related topics are presented. Key advances in CSPC management endorsed by USPCC experts included the development and clinical utilization of gene expression classifiers and artificial intelligence (AI) models for risk stratification and treatment selection in specific patient populations, the use of advanced imaging modalities in patients with clinically localized unfavorable intermediate or high-risk disease and those with biochemical recurrence, recommendations of doublet or triplet therapy for metastatic CSPC (mCSPC), and consideration of prostate and/or metastasis-directed radiation therapy in select patients with mCSPC. Conclusions: CSPC is a diverse disease with many therapeutic options and the potential for adverse outcomes associated with either undertreatment or overtreatment. Future studies are needed to validate and clinically integrate novel technologies, including genomics, AI, and advanced imaging, to optimize outcomes among patients with CSPC.

PURPOSE Patients with no evidence of disease (NED) after metastasectomy for renal cell carcinoma are at high risk of recurrence. Pazopanib is an inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor receptor and other kinases that improves progression-free survival in patients with metastatic RCC (mRCC). We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled multicenter study to test whether pazopanib would improve disease-free survival (DFS) in patients with mRCC rendered NED after metastasectomy. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients with NED after metastasectomy were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive pazopanib 800 mg once daily versus placebo for 52 weeks. The study was designed to observe an improvement in DFS from 25% to 45% with pazopanib at 3 years, corresponding to 42% reduction in the DFS event rate. RESULTS From August 2012 to July 2017, 129 patients were enrolled. The study was unblinded after 83 DFS events (92% information). The study did not meet its primary end point. An updated analysis at 60.5-month median follow-up from random assignment (95% CI, 59.3 to 71.0) showed that the 3-year DFS was 27.4% (95% CI, 17.9 to 41.7) for pazopanib and 21.9% (95% CI, 13.3 to 36.2) for placebo. Hazard ratio (HR) for DFS was 0.90 ([95% CI, 0.60 to 1.34]; Pone-sided = .29) in favor of pazopanib. Three-year overall survival (OS) was 81.9% (95% CI, 72.7 to 92.2) for pazopanib and 91.4% (95% CI, 84.4 to 98.9) for placebo. The HR for OS was 2.55 (95% CI, 1.23 to 5.27) in favor of placebo ( Ptwo-sided = .012). Health-related quality-of-life measures deteriorated in the pazopanib group during the treatment period. CONCLUSION Pazopanib did not improve DFS as the primary end point compared with blinded placebo in patients with mRCC with NED after metastasectomy. In addition, there was a concerning trend favoring placebo in OS.

4541 Background: PROSPER is a phase 3 National Clinical Trials Network study that accrued pts with clinical stage ≥T2 or TanyN+ RCC of any histology planned for radical/ partial nephrectomy. Pts were randomized to perioperative nivo followed by primary tumor resection and 9 cycles of nivo postoperatively or standard surgery followed by observation. To address concerns that core kidney bx might 1) not provide accurate diagnosis and 2) delay surgery due to adverse events (AEs) or scheduling, the study was amended from requiring all patients to undergo core bx prior to treatment for confirmation of RCC, to only require bx in patients randomized to the nivo arm. Herein, we report the accuracy and safety of primary tumor core bxs in predicting final histology and nuclear grade by both site and central pathology review as well as time from enrollment to surgery. We also report AEs of preoperative nivo. Methods: Concordance of both core bx and primary tumor by site and central pathology review of histology and grade (1-2 vs 3-4) are reported, along with the Cohen’s Kappa value, which measures the agreement and concordance (kappa=0 is no concordance and 1 is highest). AEs relating to core bxs and preoperative nivo, as well as time from enrollment to surgery for each arm, comparing pre- and post-amendment (dropping bx requirement in surgery alone arm) are also reported. Results: 387/404 pts in the nivo arm and 171/415 pts in the surgery alone arm had core bxs. 632 patients had both central pathology and site review available. 41 of all randomized patients (819) were considered as non-RCC and 26/41 were identified via bx. The median times from enrollment to surgery for nivo and control arms pre-amendment were 32d vs 19 d, and post-amendment were 21 d vs 14 d, respectively. The median (25th-75th percentile) number of days from last preoperative nivo to surgery was 14 d (9-20). AEs related to core bx, generally from bleeding, were reported in 13/558 (2.3%) pts. 2/13 bxs resulted in life-threatening complications. 21/353 (6%) of pts receiving nivo pre-surgery had ≥ grade 3-5 AE attributed to nivo. 181/353 (51%) pts had any grade AE attributed to nivo. Concordance between bxs and primary tumor pathologies for determining histological subtype was Kappa = 0.62. Agreement between central pathology and originating site review of primary tumor for determining nuclear grade was Kappa = 0.56, and concordance of histology was Kappa = 0.78. Conclusions: The PROSPER trial use of core bxs in advance of neoadjuvant therapy was generally safe, largely consistent with primary tumor histology and grade, and did not delay resection of the primary tumor. AEs of preoperative nivo were consistent with nivo AEs in metastatic disease. This approach is valid for future neoadjuvant trials. Clinical trial information: NCT03055013 .

AbstractBackgroundE3805 (CHAARTED) is a phase 3 trial demonstrating improved survival for men with metastatic hormone‐sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC) randomized to treatment with docetaxel (D) and androgen‐deprivation therapy (ADT) versus ADT alone. We assessed the association of baseline body mass index (BMI) and metformin exposure with quality of life (QOL) and prostate cancer outcomes including survival in patients enrolled in the CHAARTED study.MethodsWe performed a posthoc exploratory analysis of the CHAARTED trial of men with mHSPC randomized to treatment with ADT with or without D between 2006 and 2012. Cox proportional hazards models and Kruskal–Wallis test were used to evaluate the association between BMI with QOL and prostate cancer outcomes and between metformin exposure and survival.ResultsIn 788 of 790 enrolled patients with prospectively recorded baseline BMI and metformin exposure status, lower BMI was not associated with survival, but was associated with high volume disease (p < 0.0001) and poorer baseline QOL on functional assessment of cancer therapy–prostate (p = 0.008). Only 68 patients had prevalent metformin exposure at baseline in the CHAARTED trial. Four groups were identified: ADT + D + metformin (n = 39); ADT + D (n = 357); ADT + metformin (n = 29); and ADT alone (n = 363). Baseline clinicopathologic characteristics were similar between groups. In this small exploratory multivariable analysis, metformin exposure was not associated with survival (hazard ratio: 1.15; 95% confidence interval: 0.81–1.63, p = 0.44).ConclusionsThere was no link between baseline BMI and survival, but lower baseline BMI was associated with features of greater cancer burden and poorer QOL.