Armstrong, Andrew J.

Abstract Purpose: Mutations in hematopoietic progenitor cells accumulate with age leading to clonal expansion, termed clonal hematopoiesis (CH). CH in the general population is associated with hematopoietic neoplasms and reduced overall survival (OS), predominantly through cardiovascular adverse events (CVAE). Because androgen receptor pathway inhibitors (ARPI) used in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) are also associated with CVAEs and because CH negatively impacted survival in an advanced solid tumor cohort, we hypothesized that CH in mCRPC may be associated with increased CVAEs and inferior survival. Experimental Design: A targeted DNA sequencing panel captured common CH mutations in pretreatment blood samples from 957 patients enrolled in Alliance A031201: a randomized trial of enzalutamide ± abiraterone/prednisone in the first-line mCRPC setting. The primary outcome was the impact of CH on OS; the secondary outcomes were progression-free survival (PFS) and CVAEs. Results: Baseline comorbidities were similar by CH status. No differences in OS/progression-free survival were detected regardless of treatment arm or the variant allele frequency threshold used to define CH [primary: 2% (normal-CH, N-CH); exploratory: 0.5% (low-CH) and 10% (high-CH, H-CH)]. Patients with H-CH (7.2%) and TET2-mutated N-CH (6.0%) had greater odds of any CVAE (14.5% vs. 4.0%; P = 0.0004 and 12.3% vs. 4.2%; P = 0.010, respectively). More major CVAEs were observed in patients with H-CH (5.8% vs. 1.9%; P = 0.042) and N-CH (3.4% vs. 1.8%; P = 0.147). Conclusions: CH did not affect survival in patients with mCRPC treated with ARPIs in A031201. H-CH and TET2-mutated CH were associated with more CVAEs. These findings inform the risk/benefit discussion about ARPIs in mCRPC.

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.

164 Background: Lurbinectedin (L) is a novel inhibitor of oncogenic transcription that was granted accelerated approval by the Food and Drug Administration in June 2020 for the treatment of metastatic small cell lung cancer (SCLC) following disease progression on or after platinum-based chemotherapy (PBC). Prostatic small cell or neuroendocrine carcinoma (SC/NEPC) is a high-grade, invasive malignancy that accounts for < 1% of all prostate cancers. SC/NEPC is distinct from prostatic adenocarcinoma and behaves similar to SCLC. NCCN guidelines for SC/NEPC recommend following the SCLC treatment guidelines. Using these guidelines, L may be used as a second-line treatment in patients (pts) with SC/NEPC who progress on or after PBC. We aimed to characterize the baseline characteristics, clinical course and therapeutic outcomes of pts treated with L for SC/NEPC. Methods: After IRB approval, 18 cases were gathered from 4 academic oncology centers. Baseline patient data, prior treatments and L treatment outcomes, including best radiographic and serologic responses, overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS) and treatment toxicity were assessed. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to calculate OS and PFS from the L start date. Clinical benefit rate (CBR) included pts with complete response (CR), partial response (PR) and stable disease (SD) on imaging. Results: At the time of first L dose, all had metastatic disease with 2-6 distinct sites of metastases, most commonly bone (14/18, 77.8%), lymph nodes (14/18, 77.8%) and liver (13/18, 72.2%); median age was 63.5 (Range: 53-84); 11 pts (61.1%) had an ECOG 0-1; 4 pts (22.2%) had an ECOG of 2-3. The median total number of systemic therapies administered prior to L was 4 (Range: 2-7). All pts received PBC prior to L. The most common dose of L prescribed was 3.2 mg/m2 every 21 days (15/18, 83.3%). Androgen deprivation therapy was administered in conjunction with L in 9 pts (50%). The median number of cycles of L was 5 (Range: 1-10). L was discontinued due to toxicity in 1 patient (5.6%), disease progression in 10 pts (55.6%), transition to hospice in 2 pts (11.1%), 3 pts (16.7%) died while receiving treatment (not due to L toxicity), and 2 pts (11.1%) remained on L at the time of data reporting. The median OS and PFS from date of first L dose was 6.01 months (0.23 – 16.69) and 3.35 months (0.16 – 7.79), respectively. CBR was 9/16 (56.3%) with partial response in 5 pts (31.3%), stable disease in 4 pts (25%), and progressive disease in 7 pts (43.8%). Two pts did not have post-treatment imaging available to assess response. There were no hospitalizations for L treatment related adverse events (tRAE). The most common tRAE were grade I and II fatigue and anemia; 9 pts (50%) experienced no tRAE. The only grade IV toxicity was neutropenia in 3 pts (16.7%). Conclusions: L is a well-tolerated and active treatment option for patients with SC/NEPC. Prospective studies are needed to determine the role of L in the treatment of SC/NEPC.

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.

5002 Background: In the phase 3 VISION study, gallium (68Ga) gozetotide (68Ga-PSMA-11) PET/CT imaging was used to determine eligibility for lutetium (177Lu) vipivotide tetraxetan (177Lu-PSMA-617). Given that 177Lu-PSMA-617 targets PSMA, we assessed the association between quantitative PSMA imaging parameters and treatment outcomes. Methods: In VISION, adults with mCRPC with ≥ 1 PSMA-positive (+) and no PSMA-negative lesions meeting the exclusion criteria were enrolled. In this sub-study, the association between imaging data from pre-enrollment 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT scans of pts in the 177Lu-PSMA-617 group and clinical outcomes was assessed. Imaging data meeting quality requirements were analyzed for 548/551 pts. PSMA expression was quantified by 5 PET parameters: PSMA+ lesions by region, mean standardized uptake value (SUVmean), maximum SUV (SUVmax), PSMA+ tumor volume, and tumor load (PSMA+ tumor volume × SUVmean). Parameters were extracted from the whole body and 4 regions. Association between PET parameters and radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS; primary objective), overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), and prostate–specific antigen 50 (PSA50) response was assessed. Results: Most pts (92.7%) had PSMA uptake in bone. In both the whole-body and regional analyses, statistically significant associations of PSMA PET parameters to clinical outcomes were observed (whole-body data shown in Table). Higher whole-body SUVmean was associated with improved clinical outcomes; pts in the highest quartile (SUVmean: rPFS, ≥ 10.2; OS, ≥ 9.9) had a median rPFS and OS of 14.1 and 21.4 months, vs 5.8 and 14.5 months for those in the lowest quartile (< 6.0; < 5.7), respectively. Absence of PSMA+ lesions in bone, liver, and lymph node, and lower PSMA+ tumor load, were indicators of good prognosis. Conclusions: Higher SUVmean is strongly associated with improved outcomes with 177Lu-PSMA-617; clinical efficacy for different SUV levels vs the SoC arm is being assessed. Data support use of 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT scan to identify pts who will benefit from PSMA-targeted radioligand therapy.[Table: see text]

Abstract Purpose: Men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) have limited treatment options after progressing on hormonal therapy and chemotherapy. Here, we evaluate the safety and efficacy of atezolizumab (anti–PD-L1) + radium-223 dichloride (radium-223) in men with mCRPC. Patients and Methods: This phase Ib study evaluated atezolizumab + radium-223 in men with mCRPC and bone and lymph node and/or visceral metastases that progressed after androgen pathway inhibitor treatment. Following safety assessment of concurrent dosing, 45 men were randomized 1:1:1 to concurrent or one of two staggered dosing schedules with either agent introduced one cycle before the other. This was followed by a safety–efficacy expansion cohort (randomized 1:1:1). The primary endpoints were safety and objective response rate (ORR) by RECIST 1.1. Secondary endpoints included radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS), PSA responses, and overall survival (OS). Results: As of October 4, 2019, 44 of 45 men were evaluable. All 44 had ≥1 all-cause adverse event (AE); 23 (52.3%) had a grade 3/4 AE. Fifteen (34.1%) grade 3/4 and 3 (6.8%) grade 5 AEs were related to atezolizumab; none were related to radium-223. Confirmed ORR was 6.8% [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.4–18.7], median rPFS was 3.0 months (95% CI, 2.8–4.6), median PSA progression was 3.0 months (95% CI, 2.8–3.3), and median OS was 16.3 months (95% CI, 10.9–22.3). Conclusions: This phase Ib study demonstrated that atezolizumab + radium-223, regardless of administration schedule, had greater toxicity than either drug alone, with no clear evidence of additional clinical benefit for patients with mCRPC and bone and lymph node and/or visceral metastases.

The NCCN Guidelines for Prostate Cancer address staging and risk assessment after a prostate cancer diagnosis and include management options for localized, regional, and metastatic disease. Recommendations for disease monitoring and treatment of recurrent disease are also included. The NCCN Prostate Cancer Panel meets annually to reevaluate and update their recommendations based on new clinical data and input from within NCCN Member Institutions and from external entities. This article summarizes the panel’s discussions for the 2021 update of the guidelines with regard to systemic therapy for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer.

5565 Background: mCRPC patients (pts) tend to have a poor prognosis and limited treatment (tx) options, especially those with concomitant bone metastases (mets). We explored the ability of combination tx with atezo (anti–PD-L1) and r-223 (α-particle emitter) to stimulate anti-tumor immunity in mCRPC pts. Methods: This Phase Ib study evaluated the safety and tolerability of atezo + r-223 in pts with mCRPC and multiple bone mets, visceral mets and/or lymphadenopathy who progressed after androgen pathway inhibitor tx. The initial cohort phase evaluated the safety and tolerability of a concurrent dosing schedule (CDS), in which atezo and r-223 were administered on the same day. Following assessment of CDS, pts were randomized 1:1:1 to CDS or 1 of 2 staggered dosing schedules (atezo or r-223 introduced a full cycle before the other). This was followed by an expansion of enrollment (randomized 1:1:1). Pts got atezo 840 mg IV q2w and r-223 at 55 kBq/kg IV 6 times at 4-wk intervals until unacceptable toxicity or loss of clinical benefit. Exploratory measures of efficacy included investigator-assessed ORR (RECIST 1.1), PSA response rate, time to PSA progression, radiographic PFS (rPFS; PCWG2 criteria) and OS. Biopsy samples were collected at baseline and prior to cycle 2 to evaluate changes in the tumor microenvironment during tx. Results: As of Oct 4, 2019, 45 pts were enrolled and 44 had evaluable data. Baseline characteristics were generally similar across groups. All 44 evaluable pts had ≥ 1 all-cause AE; 23 (52.3%) had Gr 3-4 AE. Eight pts (18.2%) had Gr 5 AE as per protocol reporting of deaths; 4 (9.1%) were from disease progression. Median follow-up was 13.9 mo (range, 1.7–34.2). Confirmed ORR was 6.8% (95% CI: 1.43, 18.66). Confirmed PSA response rate was 4.5% and median time to PSA progression was 3.0 mo (95% CI: 2.8, 3.3). Median rPFS was 3.0 mo (95% CI: 2.8, 4.6) and median OS was 16.3 mo (95% CI: 10.9, 22.3). Changes in PD-L1 and CD8 IHC were consistent with the known mechanism of action of atezo, as were changes in alkaline phosphatase with radium. Conclusions: No dose-limiting toxicities, safety signals, or changes in serum biomarkers were observed beyond the known safety profiles of atezo and r-223. This Phase 1b study did not seem to show clinical benefit from combination tx. Ongoing subgroup and biomarker analyses may provide additional insights. Studies of PD-1/PD-L1 targeted therapies in combination with tumor-directed radiation in molecularly selected mCRPC pts are planned or underway. Clinical trial information: NCT02814669 .

5008 Background: Androgen receptor (AR) signaling is an important growth mechanism in mCRPC, providing the rationale for treatment with AR axis inhibitors such as ENZ and AAP. Targeting AR with anti-androgens such as ENZ can result in compensatory autocrine and paracrine androgenic stimulation. Therefore, using ENZ with the androgen biosynthesis inhibitor AAP to dampen these resistance mechanisms could improve clinical outcomes relative to ENZ alone. Methods: Men with progressive mCRPC by Prostate Cancer Working Group 2 criteria were eligible. Prior treatment with taxanes for mCRPC and any prior treatment with ENZ or AAP was exclusionary. Patients (pts) were randomized 1:1 to ENZ or ENZ/AAP at standard FDA-approved doses. Randomization was stratified by prior chemotherapy and Halabi prognostic three risk groups. Castrating therapy was maintained. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS) defined as the date of randomization from date of death or last follow-up. The log-rank test had 90% power to detect a hazard ratio for OS of 0.77 with a one-sided type I error rate of 0.025. Secondary endpoints included radiographic progression free survival (rPFS) and on-treatment PSA declines. Exploratory endpoints included imaging changes, and changes in serum biomarkers such as androgens, angiokines, and circulating microRNA and RNA. The primary analysis was based on the stratified log-rank test adjusting on the stratification factors. Results: Between January 2014 and August 2016, 1311 men were randomized: 657 to ENZ and 654 to ENZ/AAP. Groups were well balanced between arms, including stratification variables. 15.6% of pts were high risk, 35.3% intermediate, and 48.1% low. Median OS was 33.6 mo (95% CI 30.5-36.4) and 32.7 mo (29.9-35.4) respectively, two-sided p = 0.53. Fifty percent PSA decline rate was 80% vs. 76.5%. Grade 3-5 adverse events (AE) (all attributions) were 55.6% and 68.8% respectively. Treatment discontinuation due to AEs occurred in 5% and 12%, pt withdrawal in 5% and 13%, and progression or death in 57% and 48% of pts respectively. Conclusions: Addition of abiraterone acetate to enzalutamide did not prolong survival in men with mCRPC. The combination resulted in more AEs than enzalutamide alone. Support: U10CA180821, U10CA180882, U24CA196171; https://acknowledgments.alliancefound.org . Clinical trial information: NCT01949337.