Petrylak, Daniel P.

Abstract Purpose: Prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA)–directed therapies provide meaningful clinical benefit in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC), yet responses remain limited, underscoring the need for additional biomarkers of PSMA expression heterogeneity. In this study, we explored the relationship between PSMA imaging and PSMA expression on circulating tumor cells (CTC) in our early-phase trial using a PSMA-targeted small molecule. Experimental Design: This phase I study investigated EC1169, a small molecule conjugated to a tubulysin analog warhead, and 99mTc–EC0652, a PSMA imaging agent. Part A (dose escalation) identified the recommended phase II dose. Part B (dose expansion) assessed radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) as its primary endpoint. We enrolled and treated 103 patients with mCRPC. Most part B patients underwent 99mTc–EC0652 PSMA imaging. A CTC assay assessed PSMA-positive CTCs and their association with response and PSMA imaging. Results: 99mTc–EC0652 single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) imaging demonstrated increased sensitivity for detecting bone lesions compared with standard scans (computed tomography/bone scans). Using an optimized CTC assay, we observed that patients with a decrease in PSMA+ CTCs at baseline versus C3D1 displayed a longer rPFS (8 vs. 2.9 months; P = 0.04). Importantly, patients with predominantly PSMA-positive disease on 99mTc–EC0652 imaging also harbored PSMA-negative CTCs, with a subset displaying neuroendocrine prostate cancer–like morphology. Conclusions: Although EC1169 showed limited activity, CTC and imaging analyses showed significant heterogeneity in PSMA expression on CTCs in patients with predominantly PSMA-positive lesions on SPECT. Our study highlights the importance of assessing both PSMA-based CTC and imaging assays in future validation trials.

Abstract The roles of nucleoplasm-residing nucleoporins (NUP) in solid tumors, including prostate cancer, remain unknown. In this study, we reveal the clinical significance and mechanistic role of the off-pore NUP, soluble POM121 (sPOM121), as a crucial transcriptional regulator that enhances the aggressiveness of metastatic prostate cancer. Using orthogonal methodologies in human samples, sPOM121 was identified as the predominantly expressed nucleoplasmic NUP in prostate cancer. Unbiased proteomic and epigenomic studies demonstrate that sPOM121, through its C-terminus, interacts with the chromatin remodeler SMARCA5 at gene promoter sites and localizes at nuclear condensates, reprogramming gene expression. Indeed, sPOM121 regulates a distinct oncogenic gene network, including β-catenin, leading to prostate cancer progression and immune evasion. Importantly, targeting the sPOM121/β-catenin axis in patient-derived preclinical and syngeneic mouse models halts prostate cancer aggressiveness and enhances antitumor immunity. Taken together, these findings reveal previously unknown actionable reprogramming functions of off-pore NUPs in solid tumors. Significance: This study uncovers how oncogenic signaling programs are transcriptionally heightened by the NUP sPOM121 in metastatic prostate cancer. Localization of sPOM121 at active transcriptional nuclear condensates propels disease progression and immune evasion, offering novel anticancer therapeutic opportunities.

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.

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.

TPS354 Background: Carriers of germline pathogenic variants or mutations in BRCA2 and BRCA1 (referred to here as gBRCA1/2m) are enriched in metastatic prostate cancer (PrCa), and now have FDA-approved options for PARP inhibitors in late-stage disease. The NCCN guidelines recommends germline genetic testing for PrCa patients with metastatic, node positive and high risk localized prostate cancer. Prior studies have shown that gBRCA1/2m carriers with PrCa are more likely to have high-risk disease (6,7) and to develop lethal disease even after curative intent treatment (8,9). In other gBRCA1/2m-related cancers (breast, ovarian and pancreas), platinum-based regimens are part of neoadjuvant and front-line metastatic therapy options. Carboplatin is a well-tolerated, widely available and inexpensive DNA-damaging alkylating agent that is familiar to oncologists. The study hypothesis is that 4 cycles of neoadjuvant carboplatin, followed by radical prostatectomy for patients with localized high/very high risk PrCa and g BRCA1/2m will result in a meaningful pathologic complete response (pCR) rate. Methods: S2210 is a single-arm, open label study of 12 wks neoadjuvant carboplatin (4 cycles of AUC 5 every 21 days), followed by radical prostatectomy. Key eligibility criteria include people with high/very high-risk disease: cT3a or Grade Group 4-5 PrCa and/or PSA>20 ng/mL, have no evidence of distant metastases by conventional imaging (PSMA-PET-detected mets permitted if conventional imaging is negative and surgeon deems PSMA-detected sites resectable), who are candidates for radical prostatectomy and carboplatin, and have documented evidence of gBRCA1/2m through testing in a CLIA-certified lab. ADT prior to registration is permitted but must be discontinued on study. The study hypothesis is that the study treatment will result in ³30% rate of pathologic complete response (pCR, primary endpoint). A two-stage design will be used such that if ³1 of first 20 eligible patients achieves pCR, 20 further evaluable patients will be enrolled. This design has a significance level of 4.7%, and a power of 99%. Secondary endpoints include biochemical recurrence-free (at 2-, 3-, 5-yrs), metastasis-free and overall survival. Translational/correlative studies include analysis of 2nd allele inactivation in tumor, HRD signature, and ctDNA signature for monitoring of recurrence. S2210 was activated in August 2023. Clinical trial information: NCT05806515 .

Purpose: The advent of new imaging agents offers enhanced sensitivity and specificity in the detection and staging of prostate cancer. A growing array of treatment options and ongoing advancements in imaging technologies allow earlier and more extensive detection of metastatic disease and shifting the boundaries between disease states previously defined by conventional imaging. This review seeks to synthesize existing data and expert opinion to better guide patient management in the new era of targeted precision imaging (TPI). Materials and Methods: The Radiographic Assessments for Detection of Advanced Recurrence VI Group gathered to develop pathways/recommendations regarding how TPI could best be deployed, given approvals of key radiotracers including 18F-fluciclovine, 68Ga-PSMA, and 18F-DCFPyL positron emission tomography/CT. Results: Radiographic Assessments for Detection of Advanced Recurrence VI Group members developed consensus pathways/suggestions based on the best available evidence for use of TPI in prostate cancer. Conclusions: Patients with prostate cancer have the potential to benefit from judicious use of TPI. However, additional research is needed to ensure that TPI is used appropriately and provides actionable findings that inform treatment decisions for these patients.

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.

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.