Citations

ABSTRACT Background Sunlight has profound impacts on physical and mental health, beyond vision, including effects on circadian rhythms, alertness, mood, and sleep. A family history of any mood disorders is strongly associated with psychiatric disorders including bipolar disorder. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the association between a family history of any mood disorder in patients with bipolar I disorder and solar insolation at varied international onset locations. Methods Data for this analysis were available from 5842 patients with a diagnosis of bipolar I disorder obtained at 83 collection sites in both hemispheres. This included 4752 patients from 71 collection sites in the northern hemisphere and 1090 patients from 12 collection sites in the southern hemisphere. Patient data variables were obtained from records or interviews. Solar insolation data were obtained from The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Power database for each onset location, and the ratio of the mean monthly minimum/mean monthly maximum solar insolation was calculated. Typically, the ratio is largest near the equator (little yearly change in solar insolation) and smallest near the poles (large yearly change in solar insolation). Results A significant relationship was found between a family history of any mood disorder, the ratio of the mean monthly minimum/mean monthly maximum solar insolation, and gender. The odds of a family history of mood disorder increased as patient location nears the poles and decreased near the equator. Female gender also increased the odds of having a family history of a mood disorder. Conclusions This study highlighted the association between family history, solar insolation, and gender in international patients with bipolar I disorder. Given the profound effects of sunlight on human health, the family of patients with bipolar disorder who live in the same location with the same solar insolation, and especially females, may be at increased risk for a mood disorder.

Integration of the high-risk human papillomavirus 16 (HPV16) genome into the host chromosome, frequently driven by microhomology-mediated end joining (MMEJ), is a critical step in the carcinogenesis of HPV-associated tumors. However, the mechanisms by which viral oncoproteins manipulate the error-prone MMEJ pathway remain poorly defined. Here, we demonstrate that the HPV16 E6 oncoprotein upregulates MMEJ to facilitate viral genome integration. This heightened MMEJ activity is driven by a marked increase in the protein levels of DNA polymerase theta (PolΘ), a central enzyme of the MMEJ pathway. Mechanistically, we show that the elevation of PolΘ levels in response to HPV16 E6 expression is dependent on the host E3 ubiquitin ligase UBE3A/E6AP but is independent of p53 degradation. E6 redirects UBE3A to enhance the ubiquitination and degradation of RAD23A, a shuttle protein required for delivering polyubiquitinated PolΘ to the proteasome. Consequently, the loss of functional RAD23A phenocopies the effect of HPV16 E6, leading to PolΘ protein stabilization and increased MMEJ activity. By elucidating the E6-UBE3A-RAD23A-PolΘ axis, our findings reveal a mechanism through which HPV manipulates the host DNA repair machinery to promote its integration and oncogenic potential.

Background Antitumor immune responses induced by oncolytic immunotherapy (OI) are often followed by upregulation of programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1). As such, the combination of OI with blockade of the programmed cell death protein-1 (PD-1)/PD-L1 axis has demonstrated therapeutic activity in preclinical and clinical trials. The purpose of this study is to understand further the immune-mediated mechanism of interaction between oncolytic viruses and anti-PD-1 therapy. Methods Tumor cells and immune cells (splenocytes) were cultured separately, or in co-culture with vusolimogene oderparepvec, an oncolytic herpes simplex virus expressing the fusogenic gibbon-ape leukemia virus-fusogenic membrane glycoprotein protein (GALV) and granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF), also known as RP1. Viral replication, interferon (IFN) responses and PD-L1 expression were analyzed using wild-type, IFNAR1, TNFAR1 and STING knockout splenocytes. In vivo studies evaluated immune cell infiltrates into the tumor following RP1 administration with anti-PD-1 therapy. Results RP1 replication was evident in tumor cells but not splenocytes. This was also accompanied by upregulated IFN expression in cultured splenocytes that was absent in cultured tumor cells. However, when these cell types were co-cultured, splenocytes mediated an interferon response to RP1 via STING that was transmitted to tumor cells in a non-touch-dependent manner. Tumor cells responded to these input signals via upregulation of cell surface major histocompatibility complex-I and PD-L1 through tumor intrinsic JAK-STAT signaling. In vivo, an IFN signature was observed following intratumoral injection of RP1, both in injected and non-injected tumors, which was further increased when combined with anti-PD-1 therapy. Marked upregulation of PD-L1 was observed in tumors injected with RP1 accompanied by the recruitment of CD11b+Ly6G+neutrophils into the tumor microenvironment, which stained positive for PD-L1. Conclusion Overall, the data demonstrate that RP1 remodels the tumor microenvironment through a combination of direct and indirect effects on both tumor and immune cells, resulting in an overall more inflamed phenotype.

TPS577 Background: Pembrolizumab (pembro) for one year following resection of localized high risk clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) in a phase 3 trial resulted in improvement in relapse-free survival and overall survival (Choueiri, NEJM 2024). However, 20% of patients still experienced a relapse within 2 years with no biomarker yet identified to predict who will respond to or needs adjuvant therapy. Addition of a tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) to immunotherapy (IO) is a standard of care in metastatic ccRCC, but to date no studies have addressed the addition of a TKI to IO in the adjuvant setting. Subsequently, phase 3 STRIKE! was developed to explore the benefit of 6 months of tivozanib (tivo) added to pembro vs pembro alone in the adjuvant setting for resected high risk ccRCC. Methods: Eligible patients have an ECOG performance status ≤2 and a histologically confirmed diagnosis of RCC with clear cell component with or without sarcomatoid features after complete resection of the primary tumor, with pathology revealing pT2 grade 4 disease or any grade ≥ T3 or TxN1. Patients are also eligible if they developed metastasis within a year after resection and then underwent resection, definitive radiation or ablation of solid, isolated, soft tissue metastases (excluding brain and bone lesions) with no evidence of active disease (M1NED). Patients will be randomized 1:1 to intravenous pembro for 48 weeks with or without the addition of tivo 1.34 mg by mouth daily D1-21 q28D for 6 months stratified by stage (T2T3 vs T4/N1 vs M1NED) . With no limit on dose holds or interruptions of tivo, dose reductions of tivo to 0.89 mg D1-21 q28D or tivo 0.89 mg every other day are allowed. No dose reductions of pembro are permitted. Following baseline imaging to confirm no disease, imaging is performed every 12 weeks for first year, every 16 weeks for second year, every 24 weeks for third year and then annually until 5 years after registration or progression. The primary endpoint will be disease-free survival (DFS) as assessed by investigator, with secondary endpoints being overall survival, safety and tolerability. The study will enroll 1040 patients to detect a minimum detectable hazard ratio of 0.67 (24-month DFS 84% in experimental arm) with 90% power. Quality of life analysis will compare global quality of life and fatigue between the two arms. Imaging and specimens will be banked for future research. The study opened to accrual in April 2025 and at this time 106 patients have enrolled. Clinical trial information: NCT06661720 .

46 Background: Primary results from the randomized, multicenter, open-label, phase 3 TRITON3 (NCT02975934) study demonstrated that rucaparib significantly improved radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) vs physician’s choice of DTX or an ARPI. ECOG PS is used as a predictor of prostate cancer survival. In this post hoc analysis, we report results from the BRCA1/2 subgroup of pts stratified by ECOG PS. Methods: Pts with disease progression after 1 prior second-generation ARPI in any setting were randomized 2:1 to rucaparib 600 mg BID or physician’s choice of DTX or ARPI (abiraterone acetate or enzalutamide). Primary endpoint was rPFS by independent radiology review (IRR). Objective response rate (ORR) for pts with measurable disease and overall survival (OS) were key secondary endpoints. Crossover from physician’s choice to rucaparib was allowed after radiographic progression was confirmed by IRR. Data cutoff was August 25, 2022. Results: Of 302 pts in the BRCA1/2 population, 147 had an ECOG status of 0 (97 rucaparib; 50 physician’s choice) and 155 had ECOG 1 (104 rucaparib; 51 physician’s choice). Baseline characteristics and demographics were generally similar between arms for pts in the ECOG 0 and ECOG 1 groups. Median rPFS favored rucaparib vs physician’s choice for pts with ECOG 0 (11.4 vs 8.2 months; HR, 0.48 [95% CI, 0.30-0.76]) and ECOG 1 (10.9 vs 6.1 months; HR, 0.48 [95% CI, 0.31-0.74]) (Table). Additionally, rPFS favored rucaparib for ECOG 0 and ECOG 1 including those whose prespecified physician’s choice was ARPI or docetaxel (Table). The confirmed ORR (95% CI) of rucaparib vs physician’s choice for ECOG 0 was 54% (37%–69%) vs 16% (3%–40%); the ORR for ECOG 1 was 37% (22%–53%) vs 18% (5%–40%), respectively. Median OS was similar between arms for rucaparib or physician’s choice; median OS was 23.7 vs 21.7 months (HR, 0.91 [95% CI, 0.61–1.37]) for ECOG 0 and 21.8 vs 20.4 months (HR, 0.85 [95% CI, 0.58–1.24]) for ECOG 1. Conclusions: Rucaparib improved rPFS and ORR in pts with BRCA-mutated prostate cancer with an ECOG PS of 0 or 1. OS was similar for these groups in both arms. These data support rucaparib as a treatment option for pts with BRCA-mutated mCRPC, whether ECOG 0 or 1. Clinical trial information: NCT02975934 . Median rPFS in patients in the ECOG 0 and ECOG 1 groups. Rucaparib, n Physician’s choice, n rPFS Rucaparib, median months rPFS Physician’s choice, median months HR (95% CI) rPFS, ECOG 0 97 50 11.4 8.2 0.48 (0.30–0.76) rPFS, ECOG 1 104 51 10.9 6.1 0.48 (0.31–0.74) rPFS, physician’s choice ARPI, ECOG 0 51 24 11.2 5.6 0.42 (0.22–0.78) rPFS, physician’s choice docetaxel, ECOG 0 46 26 11.5 8.8 0.49 (0.24–0.98) rPFS, physician’s choice ARPI, ECOG 1 52 17 11.2 4.5 0.33 (0.16–0.68) rPFS, physician’s choice docetaxel, ECOG 1 52 34 10.7 7.1 0.59 (0.34–1.01)

352 Background: Glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP1) receptor expression in prostate cancer tissue has raised concerns that GLP1 receptor agonists (GLP1A) may influence tumor growth or progression. We compared prostate cancer severity at diagnosis among patients receiving GLP1A versus other glucose lowering therapies. Methods: A retrospective chart review identified patients who received GLP1A or alternative second-line glucose lowering agents (DPP4/SGLT2 inhibitors) and were subsequently diagnosed with prostate cancer. Patients receiving both drug classes were excluded. Baseline demographics (race, ethnicity, age), comorbidities (diabetes, myocardial infarction, peripheral vascular disease) concomitant medications (insulin, metformin, statins), appointments (within past year) and laboratory values (HbA1c, eGFR) at therapy initiation were recorded. Primary outcomes included Gleason grade group and metastatic presentation within three months of diagnosis. Propensity score matching balanced baseline characteristics between groups. Mann-Whitney U tests compared grade groups. Chi-square tests compared metastatic presentation, reporting odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Multivariable logistic regression identified predictors of grade group (low-grade: 1-2; high-grade: ≥3) and metastatic presentation, reporting OR with 95% CI. A p value <0.05 indicated a significant association. Results: Of 260 propensity-matched patients (GLP1A: 130, comparison: 130), 87% were White and 95% were Non-Hispanic/Non-Latino in each group. Median HbA1c was 7% (IQR: 6.4-8) in GLP1A group versus 7.5% (6.2-8.5) in comparison group. Median eGFR was 75mL/min/1.73m 2 (IQR: 61.5-90.0) in GLP1A group versus 60.0 (52.0-80.5) in comparison group. High-grade disease occurred in 33 (25%) GLP1A patients and 37 (29%) comparison patients. Among patients with available imaging (GLP1A: 40; comparison: 32), metastatic presentation occurred in 7 (18%) GLP1A group and 7 (22%) comparison group patients. No significant differences were observed in grade group (GLP1A median: 2; IQR: 1-2 vs. comparison median: 2; 1-3; p=0.44) or metastatic presentation (OR: 1.32; 95%CI: 0.41-4.25; p=0.64) between groups. In multivariable analysis, higher HbA1c was associated with high-grade disease in GLP1A group (OR: 1.83; 95%CI: 1.07-3.35; p=0.03) while higher eGFR was associated with low-grade disease in the comparison group (0.97; 0.93-0.99; p=0.04). Conclusions: GLP1A use was not associated with prostate cancer grade or metastatic presentation at diagnosis compared to alternative glucose-lowering agents. However, the association between elevated HbA1c and high-grade disease in GLP1A patients suggests a potential impact of poor glycemic control on tumor biology. Prospective studies are needed to elucidate the relationship between metabolic dysregulation and prostate cancer severity.

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

144 Background: Androgen receptor pathway inhibitors (abiraterone acetate [AAP], apalutamide [APA], enzalutamide [E], darolutamide [DARO] have become the cornerstone for pts with PCa due to survival benefits. Comparative data on fracture risk among ARPi are limited. This study quantified the risk of bone fractures with ARPi plus androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) and compared fracture risk across different ARPi agents. Methods: MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched from inception through September 1 st 2025 to identify positive phase III trials assessing ARPi in addition to ADT in pts with PCa (m0CRPC, mCSPC, mCRPC). Trials were included if they reported bone fractures in either arm. Pairwise, random-effects meta-analysis was conducted using Paul-Mendel approach. Sensitivity analyses using Hartung-Knapp (HK) adjustment was performed to assess robustness of results. To assess the comparative risk of bone fractures among different ARPi agents, mixed treatment comparisons were made using frequentist network meta-analysis. P-scores were computed to assess relative treatment rankings. Treatment effect was expressed as odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Results: This systematic review included 13 phase III trials with 15468 pts (8890 received ARPi+ADT, 6578 received ADT alone). A total of 596 (6.7%) bone fractures were observed with ARPi+ADT compared to 180 (2.74%) with ADT alone. Patients receiving ARPi+ADT were associated with an increased risk of bone fractures compared to those receiving ADT (OR: 2.40; 95% CI: 1.93-2.98). Sensitivity analyses with HK adjustment showed consistent results (2.40; 1.88-3.06). There was no statistically significant effect modification by PCa clinical setting (p: 0.27). Mixed treatment comparisons showed a statistically significant increased risk of bone fractures with AAP+ADT (2.35; 1.29-4.27), APA+ADT (2.04; 1.47-2.86), and E+ADT (3.13; 2.44-4.00) but not with DARO+ADT (1.30; 0.80-2.08) when compared to ADT alone. Among different ARPi agents, E+ADT was associated with an increased risk compared to APA+ADT (1.54; 1.01-2.33) and DARO+ADT (2.44; 1.41-4.17). Ranking analysis showed that E+ADT was ranked as potentially the least safe treatment (P score: 0.05) in terms of relative fracture risk followed by AAP+ADT (P score: 0.30), APA+ADT (P score: 0.43), DARO+ADT (P score: 0.76). Sensitivity analyses limiting to mCSPC trials only showed consistent results. Conclusions: The risk of bone fractures varies among different ARPi agents, with enzalutamide posing the highest relative risk and darolutamide the lowest. These differences may guide treatment selection, particularly in pts with mCSPC and bone metastases. Prospective studies adjusting for covariates are needed to evaluate bone-protective strategies to mitigate fracture risk particularly in mCSPC patients who are considering treatment with ARPi.

127 Background: Bone metastases affect up to 90 % of patients with metastatic hormone-resistant prostate cancer (mHRPC) and cause substantial morbidity from skeletal-related events (SREs) such as fracture, spinal-cord compression, and palliative interventions. Bone-modifying agents (BMAs) including bisphosphonates and denosumab reduce SRE risk and are NCCN-recommended, however, real-world use remains inconsistent. Methods: Patients with mHRPC treated from January 2017-September 2024 across Mayo Clinic sites were identified using SQL-based EHR queries confirmed by manual chart review. Bone Metastases were detected through keyword searchers of radiology reports and confirmed through manual chart review. SRE-prevention dosing was defined as zoledronic acid 4mg IV or denosumab 120mg SC; osteoporosis dosing was excluded. SREs were identified using diagnosis codes and text-pattern searches for radiotherapy, surgery, fracture, and spinal-cord compression. Descriptive statistics summarized BMA utilization and SRE incidence. Categorical variables were compared using Chi-square tests, and a risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals was calculated to evaluate association between early BMA initiation and SRE risk. Results: Among 778 patients with mHRPC, 685 (88 %) had bone metastases (mean age 70.5 years). Of these, 169 (24.7 %) had an SRE, and 261 (38.1 %) received BMAs at SRE-prevention doses (denosumab n = 157 [60 %]; zoledronic acid n = 104 [40 %]). Based on a chi-square test, combined SRE incidence did not differ significantly (No BMA 23 %, denosumab 23 %, zoledronic 33 %; p = 0.069). Bone pain at baseline was more common in patients who later received a BMA (136 [68 %]) than in those who did not (82 [41 %]; p < 0.001). Among 200 randomly sampled non-BMA patients, 83 had no recorded BMA discussion (66 also lacked bone pain), 38 lacked dental clearance, 32 had uncompleted plans and 18 declined therapy. Early BMA initiation (before first bone metastases) was associated with fewer SREs (16 % vs 29 %; RR 0.56, 95 % CI 0.33–0.96). Conclusions: Less than half of bone-metastatic mHRPC patients received BMAs. Non-initiation was often linked to modifiable factors such as delayed dental clearance or lack of treatment discussions, highlighting the need for system-level strategies to improve timely bone-directed care. SREs were common, affecting one quarter of patients. Small sample size precluded meaningful comparison of the impact of BMAs on SRE incidence however early BMA initiation may lower SREs. Incidence of SREs stratified by no BMA vs BMA treatment. SRE No BMA BMA Overall Pathological Fracture 6.4% (27/424) 4.9% (13/261) 5.8% (40/685) Radiotherapy to Bone 13.9% (59/424) 18.8% (49/261) 15.7% (108/685) Spinal Cord Compression 0.7% (3/424) 3.1% (8/261) 1.6% (11/685) Surgery to Bone 2.1% (9/424) 0.3% (1/261) 1.5% (10/685) Combined 23% (98/424) 27.2% (71/261) 24.7% (169/685)