Citations

The NCCN Guidelines for Testicular Cancer provide recommendations for the multidisciplinary approach to the diagnostic workup, treatment, and follow-up for testicular germ cell tumors, including both seminoma and nonseminoma. These NCCN Guidelines Insights discuss the current treatment recommendations and supporting clinical data for seminomas as presented in Version 2.2025 of the NCCN Guidelines for Testicular Cancer.

Objectives To reassess the role of primary retroperitoneal lymph node dissection (RPLND) in patients with marker‐negative non‐seminomatous germ cell tumour (NSGCT) clinical stage (CS) 2a, to explore results in patients with CS 2b and to evaluate surgical methods, recurrence, and adjuvant chemotherapy indications. Materials and Methods Data from 17 institutions were collected, comprising 305 men who underwent primary RPLND for CS 2 NSGCT. Regression analyses were conducted to predict histology in the RPLND specimen and disease‐free survival (DFS). Results A larger retroperitoneal lymph node diameter was associated with pure teratoma in the RPLND specimen (odds ratio [OR] 1.02, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.01–1.07; P = 0.03), but no association was observed with DFS. The 5‐year DFS rates in marker negative CS 2a and 2b were 79% and 76%. In men with non‐teratomatous viable cancer in the RPLND specimen, the 5‐year DFS rates for CS 2a and 2b were 95% and 87% with adjuvant chemotherapy, and 67% and 74% without adjuvant chemotherapy. We did not identify an association between the number of adjuvant chemotherapy cycles and DFS. Conclusions Our study suggests considering primary RPLND not only in marker‐negative CS 2a but also in CS 2b. Further research should determine the efficacy of primary RPLND in men with CS 2c and marker‐positive CS 2, as well as which patients may benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy and the optimal cycle number.

5006 Background: The PRESTO trial (NCT03009981) showed that in patients with biochemically relapsed prostate cancer following radical prostatectomy with a PSA doubling time of ≤ 9 months and without evidence of metastatic disease by conventional imaging, intensified androgen receptor blockade for 52 weeks (androgen deprivation therapy [ADT] plus apalutamide [Apa], or ADT plus Apa and abiraterone acetate [Abi] plus prednisone) prolonged PSA progression-free survival compared to ADT alone (Aggarwal et al, JCO 2024). Here we report the HRQOL results. Methods: HRQOL measures included the Hot Flash Related Daily Interference Scale (HFRDIS), Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC)-26 Sexual domain, PROMIS Fatigue Short Form and EQ-5D-5L, which assesses overall HRQOL in the 504 randomized patients. Published minimally important difference thresholds for these HRQOL measures are: HFRDIS 1.66 points, EPIC Sexual 10-12, PROMIS Fatigue 3-5, and EQ-5D-5L 0.06. General linear mixed modeling was used to estimate between-arm mean differences in HRQOL according to an intent-to-treat approach. Results: Mean changes from baseline to end of treatment (EOT) for each arm and for each HRQOL measure are summarized in Table. No statistically significant mean difference was reported between intensified androgen receptor blockade (Arm B, Arm C) vs ADT alone (Arm A) in any HRQOL measure. Further, numerical differences across arms for all HRQOL measures are below published minimally clinically important difference thresholds. Conclusions: Intensified androgen receptor blockade with Apa or Apa/Abi added to 52 weeks of ADT improves PSA progression-free survival without negatively affecting HRQOL. These HRQOL results add further support to intensification of androgen blockade in patients with high-risk biochemically recurrent prostate cancer. Clinical trial information: NCT03009981 . [Table: see text]

With improved medical treatments, the prognosis for many malignancies has improved, and more patients are presenting for transplant evaluation with a history of treated cancer. Solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients with a prior malignancy are at higher risk of posttransplant recurrence or de novo malignancy, and they may require a cancer surveillance program that is individualized to their specific needs. There is a dearth of literature on optimal surveillance strategies specific to SOT recipients. A working group of transplant physicians and cancer-specific specialists met to provide expert opinion recommendations on optimal cancer surveillance after transplantation for patients with a history of malignancy. Surveillance strategies provided are mainly based on general population recurrence risk data, immunosuppression effects, and limited transplant-specific data and should be considered expert opinion based on current knowledge. Prospective studies of cancer-specific surveillance models in SOT recipients should be supported to inform posttransplant management of this high-risk population.

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 biochemically recurrent prostate cancer (BRPC) after radical prostatectomy and a short PSA doubling time are at risk for distant metastases. Apalutamide, an androgen receptor antagonist, and abiraterone acetate plus prednisone (AAP) prolong survival in the metastatic setting. We evaluated whether intensification of androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) improves outcomes in BRPC. PATIENTS AND METHODS PRESTO is a randomized phase III, open-label trial in patients with BRPC and PSA doubling time ≤9 months (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03009981 ). Patients were randomly assigned 1:1:1 to receive a finite 52-week treatment course with ADT control, ADT + apalutamide, or ADT + apalutamide + AAP. The primary end point was PSA progression-free survival (PSA-PFS), defined as serum PSA >0.2 ng/mL after treatment completion. RESULTS Five hundred three patients were enrolled. The median PSA was 1.8 ng/mL (IQR, 1.0-3.6). At the first planned interim analysis, both experimental arms significantly prolonged PSA-PFS compared with the control arm (median, 24.9 months for ADT + apalutamide v 20.3 months for ADT; hazard ratio [HR], 0.52 [95% CI, 0.35 to 0.77]; P = .00047; median, 26.0 months for ADT + apalutamide + AAP v 20.0 months for ADT; HR, 0.48 [95% CI, 0.32 to 0.71]; P = .00008). Median time to testosterone recovery did not differ across treatment arms. The most common grade ≥3 adverse event was hypertension (7.5%, 7.4%, and 18% in ADT, ADT + apalutamide, and ADT + apalutamide + AAP arms, respectively). CONCLUSION Intensified AR blockade for a finite duration prolongs PSA-PFS with a manageable safety profile, without adversely affecting time to testosterone recovery. The addition of apalutamide to ADT should be considered in patients with high-risk BRPC.

What is the role of pcRPLND in men with retroperitoneal vital cancer after first-line chemotherapy? This question arises because of the potential predictive value of miR371 in identifying residual cancer even before pcRPLND! @cdfankhauser shared data within a multicenter cohort study redefining future practice in the miR371 era.

5077 Background: In the phase 3 PRESTO study, intensified androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) with apalutamide (Apa) with or without abiraterone acetate plus prednisone (AAP), administered for a finite treatment period of 52 weeks, prolonged prostate-specific antigen progression-free survival (PSA PFS) in pts with high-risk biochemically relapsed prostate cancer (BRPC). We evaluated the association between PSA nadir within 3 months of treatment initiation with subsequent PSA PFS in this study. Methods: PRESTO is a randomized phase 3, open-label trial in pts with BRPC following radical prostatectomy (RP) and PSA doubling time (PSADT) ≤ 9 months, without distant metastases on conventional imaging (NCT03009981). Pts were randomized 1:1:1 to receive a finite 52-week treatment course with ADT, ADT + Apa, or ADT + Apa + AAP, stratified by PSADT (< 3 vs 3–9 months), with post-treatment follow-up. The association between PSA nadir within the first three months on treatment with subsequent PSA PFS was analyzed in a post hoc fashion. Results: 504 pts were randomized to ADT alone (N = 167), ADT + Apa (N = 168) or ADT + Apa + AAP (N = 169). 463 pts were evaluable for PSA nadir at 3 months. Across the three treatment arms, a PSA nadir of less than 0.1, between 0.1 – 0.2, and ≥ 0.2 ng/mL within the first three months of treatment was observed in 86.3%, 4.4%, and 9.3% of patients, respectively. A PSA nadir of < 0.2 ng/mL was reached within 3 months of treatment initiation in 79.8%, 96.9%, and 95.0% of pts randomized to the ADT, ADT + Apa, and ADT + Apa + AAP arms, respectively. The association between time to PSA nadir and subsequent PSA PFS was -0.30 (standard error = 0.03, Kendall’s tau modified for bivariate censoring), and median time to PSA nadir was 2.0 months (interquartile range 1.12 – 4.76 months). Failure to reach a PSA nadir < 0.2 ng/mL within the first three months of treatment was associated with a significantly shorter PSA PFS compared to pts with a PSA nadir ≤ 0.1 ng/mL (median PSA PFS of 13.9 vs. 22.8 months from 3 months post-treatment initiation; hazard ratio = 5.60, 95% CI: 3.58 – 8.75, p < 0.0001). There was also a significant difference in PSA PFS in those with a three-month PSA nadir between 0.1 – 0.2 vs ≤ 0.1 ng/mL (median PSA PFS 17.4 vs 22.8 months, HR = 2.63, 95:CI: 1.49 – 4.63, p = 0.0008). Conclusions: Using a landmark analysis at 3 months, a failure to reach PSA nadir less than 0.1 ng/mL within three months following initiation of ADT in BRPC is associated with shorter time to subsequent progression following treatment discontinuation. Follow-up is ongoing to integrate genomic profiling of primary prostate cancer tissues and whole blood RNA in pts with suboptimal PSA nadir to identify potential markers of relative androgen pathway inhibitor resistance. Clinical trial information: NCT03009981 .