Citations

162 Background: Clinical trial conduct in advanced prostate cancer has changed dramatically with the continued development of new imaging approaches, molecular phenotypes and genetic subtypes, prognosis assessments, and effective therapies across a range of disease states. This created a need to redefine terminology and best practices for clinical trials. Methods: We convened PCWG4, an international expert committee of multidisciplinary working groups, between 2016 and 2025 to update and expand PCWG2-3 recommendations based on emerging evidence and clinical trial data in an innovative biomarker and imaging context to provide guidance for clinical trial design, eligibility, and endpoint assessments. Results: PCWG4 redefines terminology around disease states and prior therapies in a patient-centric context, considering imaging modalities, with a particular focus on PET-defined disease. New recommendations are provided for disease state terminology, defining eligibility criteria, imaging and non-imaging-based responses. We define delay/prevent endpoints including responses by pathology, ctDNA, circulating tumor cells, and PSA declines, and specify intervals for re-assessments including imaging, biomarker assessments, and patient reported outcomes. We propose new imaging-specific rPFS criteria including guidance with serial PSMA PET/CT imaging (Table). We provide recommendations in a biomarker-based context for the 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. Conclusions: PCWG4 expands guidance on patient and tumor profiling, as well as therapy development, to include both androgen deprivation therapy sensitive and resistant settings, reflecting today’s more heterogeneous and diverse patient population to optimize outcomes. PCWG4-defined radiographic progression by imaging modality for patients with metastatic disease. Pretreatment Scan On-treatment Scan #1(≥week 8) On-treatment Scan #2 All Subsequent Scans Bone scintigraphy Comparator Comparator for subsequent scansPOD never called here POD:PCWG3 criteria (2+2 additional new lesions) POD:≤5 new lesions: PCWG3 criteria 2 new lesions confirmed≥6 new lesions CT/MRI Any measurable disease Comparator PCWG3/RECIST PCWG3/RECIST PCWG3/RECIST PSMA PET Bones, and lymph nodes and lung metastases (non-RECIST qualifying by + on PET only) Comparator POD:≤5 new lesions: 2 new lesions confirmed on a subsequent scan≥6 new lesions Same as prior Same as prior Liver and non-pulmonary viscera Comparator POD:Any single new lesion that represents disease Same as prior Same as prior

TPS892 Background: Enfortumab Vedotin (EV) plus pembrolizumab (Pembro) is now first-line therapy for advanced urothelial carcinoma (UC), yielding ~30% complete response (CR) rates; nevertheless, most patients (pts) progress within 1 year and median overall survival (OS) remains < 3 years. In muscle invasive bladder cancer, local consolidation after systemic therapy improves outcomes, suggesting that residual, treatment-refractory intravesical disease drives relapse. We hypothesize that cytoreductive cystectomy/nephroureterectomy (CC/U)—with metastasis-directed therapy (MDT) as needed—can consolidate responses to EV/Pembro and extend benefit in regionally advanced or metastatic UC. CAST-AI prospectively evaluates this multimodal strategy and integrates correlative studies of exosomal Nectin-4 and circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) from blood and urine as predictive/MRD biomarkers. Methods: CAST-AI is a phase II, decentralized single-arm trial enrolling pts with histologically confirmed UC of the bladder or upper urinary tract with ≥N1 and/or M1 disease and ECOG PS 0–2 who are potential surgical candidates (planned n = 75). Treatment: EV 1.25 mg/kg IV D1 & D8 + Pembro 200 mg IV D1 q21d, ≥4 cycles; MDT permitted any time pre-surgery. Response assessments occur q9 weeks (±4) to 18 months, then q12 weeks (±4). Surgical eligibility requires: (A) fitness for surgery; (B) complete or partial response (CR/PR) or, for select low-burden/unmeasurable disease, urologist-adjudicated candidacy; (C) all distant sites addressed; and (D) procedure in pt’s best interest. Post-CC/U maintenance EV/Pembro is encouraged per clinical discretion and guided by definitive surgical pathology results, which provide true pathologic staging often unattainable through imaging after systemic therapy. Primary endpoint: 12-month progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints: Objective response rate (ORR), CR rate, down-staging at CC/U, PFS, OS, and safety (using CTCAE). Exploratory endpoints: longitudinal exosomal Nectin-4 and ctDNA dynamics as MRD and early relapse indicators; tissue–blood–urine Nectin-4 concordance; pt-reported tolerability (using CIPN20). Key exclusions: > 20% variant histology or disallowed subtypes (e.g., micropapillary, plasmacytoid, sarcomatoid, neuroendocrine); prior chemotherapy for UC; contraindications to surgery/EV/ICI; or active uncontrolled comorbidities/infections. Status: Enrollment is open and ongoing, with 25 of 75 pts enrolled as of September 2025. The trial uses a decentralized model, allowing pts to receive EV/Pembro at their local facility, with central coordination, biospecimen shipping, and surgical evaluation at Mayo Clinic or affiliated sites. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT06764095. Clinical trial information: NCT06764095 .

TPS276 Background: Metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) can evolve into a neuroendocrine-like subtype with aggressive behavior and poor outcomes (1). Nuclear Receptor-Binding SET Domain Protein 2 (NSD2) is overexpressed in prostate cancer and is a driver of both androgen-receptor (AR)-dependent signaling and of neuroendocrine differentiation, where cancer cells lose AR dependence and response to AR pathway inhibitors (ARPIs) (2,3,4). In studies of patient-derived neuroendocrine prostate cancer (NEPC) models, genetic depletion of NSD2 led to restoration of AR expression, reversal of adeno-to-neuroendocrine differentiation, and re-sensitization to ARPI (4). We hypothesize that NSD2 inhibition can reverse resistance to ARPIs in patients with progressive mCRPC, including with neuroendocrine differentiation. KTX-2001 is an oral, potent and selective small molecule inhibitor of NSD2. It is the sponsor’s second NSD2 inhibitor to enter the clinic. The sponsor’s first in class NSD2 inhibitor, KTX-1001, was shown to be tolerable and have preliminary efficacy in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (5). Methods: STRIKE-001 (NCT07103018) is a multicenter, open-label phase 1 dose escalation trial of KTX-2001 monotherapy (Part A) and KTX-2001 + darolutamide (Part B). Key inclusion criteria are males age ≥18 years with mCRPC, progression after receiving ARPI, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance score of 0-1, willingness to undergo biopsy if safe and feasible, and life expectancy of ≥6 months. Participants take KTX-2001 by mouth once daily alone (Part A) or with darolutamide 600 mg twice daily (Part B). Dose escalation of KTX-2001 in Parts A and B will follow a 3+3 design and occur in parallel at multiple planned dose levels. Primary objectives are to assess the safety and tolerability, determine MTD, and determine RP2D(s) for further study of KTX-2001 alone and in combination with darolutamide. Secondary objectives include characterization of efficacy and PK parameters for both KTX-2001 monotherapy and in combination with darolutamide. Exploratory objectives include study of pharmacodynamic effects, circulating tumor cells, and cell-free DNA. 1. Conteduca V, Eur J Cancer 2019. 2. Parolia A, Nat Genet 2024. 3. Aytes A, Nat Commun 2018 4. Li J, bioRxiv 2023.07.18.549585 5. Bories P, Blood Vol 144, Suppl 1,2024. Clinical trial information: NCT07103018 .

Background Corticosteroid injections (CSIs) are widely employed for chronic pain. These injections include peripheral nerve blocks and trigger point injections, injections of large appendicular joints, the axial facet and sacroiliac joints, and the epidural space. These injections may be performed in patients who have been recently vaccinated or plan to be vaccinated. This multisociety multispecialty position statement aims to develop evidence-based statements and recommendations (SRs) on the safe interval between CSIs and COVID-19 and influenza vaccine administration. Methods Development of the position statement was approved by the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine Board of Directors and several other societies that agreed to participate. The scope of the SRs was agreed on to include the efficacy of COVID-19 and influenza vaccines, adverse events related to the CSIs, specifically the effect of CSIs on the hypothalamic–pituitary axis, incidence of COVID-19 in patients who had CSIs during the pandemic, incidence of influenza in patients who had CSIs during the influenza season, and recommend a reasonable interval between CSIs and COVID-19 and influenza vaccination 20 mg/day of prednisone s. Experts were assigned topics to perform a comprehensive literature review and draft SRs, which were refined and voted for consensus (≥75% agreement) using a modified Delphi process. A modified version of the US Preventive Services Task Force grading of evidence and strength of recommendation was followed. Results All SRs were approved by all participants after four rounds of discussion. The Practice Guidelines Committees and Boards of Directors of the participating societies also approved all SRs. If a vaccine has been recently administered or planned, then for non-urgent indications, the CSI should be offered at least 1 week before or after vaccine administration. For healthy patient(s), CSI, or vaccine administration may be performed without a 7-day interval after informed discussion with the patient and consent regarding the risk of blunted vaccine efficacy. For non-healthy patients, shared decision-making should include discussion of diminished vaccine effectiveness and the possibility of influenza or COVID-19 infection. Conclusions In this position statement, we provide recommendations on the optimal timing between CSIs and COVID-19 or influenza vaccine.

Introduction To examine within-class sulfonylurea safety, we compared risks of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and severe hypoglycemia among adults with type 2 diabetes (T2D) and moderate cardiovascular risk following sulfonylurea initiation. Research design and methods We conducted a target trial emulation including adults ≥21 years old with T2D and moderate cardiovascular risk who initiated glimepiride, glipizide or glyburide between 2014 and 2021, using claims data from Optum Labs Data Warehouse and the Medicare fee-for-service 100% sample. Study outcomes were MACE (primary), expanded MACE and its components and emergency department or hospital encounters for hypoglycemia, ascertained during follow-up through 2022. Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was applied using propensity scores estimated using the super learner ensemble, and outcomes were examined using IPTW Cox proportional hazards models. Results The weighted study cohort comprised 314 699 patients (mean age 66.9 years, 52.0% men, 76.6% non-Hispanic white). At 1 year, MACE was experienced by 2.5%, 2.7% and 2.8% of patients starting glimepiride, glipizide and glyburide, respectively. Compared with glimepiride, glyburide and glipizide were associated with higher risk of MACE (HR 1.10, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.16 for glyburide; HR 1.05, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.07 for glipizide). At 1 year, severe hypoglycemia was experienced by 0.3%, 0.3% and 0.4% of patients starting glimepiride, glipizide and glyburide, respectively. Glyburide was associated with a greater risk of severe hypoglycemia compared with glipizide (HR 1.43, 95% CI 1.23 to 1.65), while glipizide was associated with a lower risk compared with glimepiride (HR 0.82, 95% CI 0.77 to 0.87). Conclusions Among adults with T2D and moderate cardiovascular risk, glimepiride was associated with lowest risk of MACE and glipizide with lowest risk of severe hypoglycemia. These results can help inform treatment selection if sulfonylureas are used for glucose-lowering.

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.

Importance There is a need for greater recognition of clinical psychopharmacology endpoints, including instances where specific psychotropic medications may become unnecessary, redundant, contradictory, or otherwise inappropriate and therefore merit deprescribing. Objective To address circumstances warranting psychotropic medication deprescribing. Evidence Review The American Society of Clinical Psychopharmacology convened a panel of 45 international psychopharmacology experts who developed and completed a multiround Delphi survey and conducted a focused literature review between January and May of 2025, in order to identify areas of consensus or disagreement on key aspects of the deprescribing of psychotropic medications. These included collaborative risk-benefit assessments with patients; pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic factors; pharmacogenomics; distinguishing redundant or conflictual from complementary mechanisms of action; managing adverse effects; assuring medication adherence; drug tolerance or tachyphylaxis; medication misuse; and the psychological context and ramifications of deprescribing. Findings Consensus was achieved on 44 of 50 final Delphi statements (88%). Panelists unanimously agreed that components of a pharmacotherapy regimen should undergo periodic review to ensure that treatments target relevant symptoms and have favorable risk-benefit ratios. Key points of consensus were that deprescribing: (1) should not occur without first assessing medication adherence; (2) merits consideration if less than partial therapeutic response is apparent, or if treatment goals have been reached and relapse prevention is not a long-term objective; (3) involves psychological ramifications that warrant attention; (4) should be followed by close clinical monitoring; and (5) risk-benefit decisions should ideally involve active patient participation within a shared decision-making model. Conclusions and Relevance Through this Consensus Statement, the Task Force identified circumstances in which the selective elimination of certain psychotropic medications may be clinically indicated. Empirical trials are needed to assess the implementation of deprescribing protocols and gauge their safe, effective, and acceptable outcomes.