Antonarakis, Emmanuel S.

Abstract Purpose: This multicenter, single-arm, phase II trial evaluated the safety and efficacy of cabazitaxel and carboplatin followed by abiraterone, plus androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), in patients with high-volume metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC). Patients and Methods: Eligible patients had high-volume mCSPC and ≤3 months of prior ADT. Patients received six 21-day cycles of cabazitaxel (20 mg/m2) and carboplatin (AUC 4) with continuous ADT, followed by maintenance abiraterone (1,000 mg daily) and prednisone (5 mg daily). The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients free of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) or radiographic progression at 12 months. Secondary endpoints included complete PSA response (≤0.2 ng/mL), objective response, progression-free survival (PFS), and safety. Overall survival (OS) was also reported. Results: Sixty-one participants were enrolled at eight sites. The median age was 64 years, median baseline PSA was 6.6 ng/mL (0.07–745.7 ng/mL), 73.3% had Gleason grade group 5, 69.5% had 10 or more metastases, and 19.6% had a homologous recombination repair (HRR) mutation. PSA PFS at 12 months was 84.6% [95% confidence interval (CI), 72.5%–91.7%], and OS at 12 months was 94.8% (84.7%–98.3%). Complete PSA response was 66.7%, and complete objective response was 30.7%. Contrary to our hypothesis, relative to HRR wild-type patients, HRR-mutated patients (19.6%) had numerically fewer complete PSA responses (33.3% vs. 70.3%) and inferior PFS (HR, 2.43; 95% CI, 0.93–6.39). Common side effects of this quadruplet regimen included fatigue, nausea, and diarrhea. Conclusions: Cabazitaxel and carboplatin followed by abiraterone, together with ADT, were feasible, safe, and efficacious in patients with high-volume mCSPC and warrant further study in larger randomized trials.

Abstract Background Clival metastases are a rare and clinically aggressive manifestation of advanced prostate cancer, associated with cranial nerve palsy and poor survival. The molecular features of prostate cancers giving rise to clivus metastases remain unknown. Patients and methods We performed a multi-center retrospective study across six institutions, identifying prostate cancer patients with radiographically confirmed clival metastases and available next-generation sequencing (NGS) data. Baseline characteristics and clinical outcomes were collected. Genomic alterations from tissue- and/or blood-based assays were aggregated at the patient level and compared with a publicly available metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) cohort (SU2C/PCF). Results Fifty-nine patients with clival metastases contributed 87 molecular assays. More than half of patients had Gleason grade group 5 cancer and presented with de novo metastatic (M1) disease. The median interval from initial prostate cancer diagnosis to clival metastasis was 71.4 months (95% CI, 42.0-101.7), while median overall survival following clival involvement was only 15.3 months (95% CI, 6.9-22.8). Compared with the SU2C/PCF mCRPC cohort, clival metastases showed significant enrichment of BRAF and CHEK2 alterations as well as homologous recombination repair (HRR) with relative depletion of AR-related, PI3K pathway, and G2–M pathway alterations. Conclusion Prostate cancers giving rise to clival metastases exhibit a distinct molecular profile enriched for DNA damage–repair and RAF kinase alterations, suggesting unique metastatic biology and potential therapeutic vulnerabilities.

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.

Indications for and implications of germline genetic testing (GGT) in patients with prostate cancer have expanded over the past decade, particularly related to precision therapies and management. GGT has become the standard of care for many cancers such as breast, ovarian, colorectal, pancreatic, and metastatic prostate cancer, and it is imperative that patients be offered timely and equitable access to testing as it can inform patient-physician shared decision making for management of the current cancer as well as anticipatory guidance for disease progression. Additionally, GGT guides screening for and prevention of secondary malignancies for the patient and cascade testing for at-risk family members. Here, we present data supporting the notion that clinicians should offer all patients with prostate cancer the opportunity to undergo comprehensive GGT for pathogenic germline variants known to be associated with familial cancer and/or known to have implications for treatment and management.

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.

AbstractBackgroundPARP (poly(ADP‐ribose) polymerase) inhibitors (PARPi) are now standard of care in metastatic castrate‐resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) patients with select mutations in DNA damage repair (DDR) pathways, but patients with ATM‐ and BRCA2 mutations may respond differently to PARPi. We hypothesized that differences may also exist in response to taxanes, which may inform treatment sequencing decisions.MethodsmCRPC patients (N = 158) with deleterious ATM or BRCA2 mutations who received taxanes, PARPi, or both were retrospectively identified from 11 US academic centers. Demographic, treatment, and survival data were collected. Kaplan−Meier analyses were performed and Cox hazard ratios (HR) were calculated for progression‐free survival (PFS) as well as overall survival (OS), from time of first taxane or PARPi therapy.ResultsFifty‐eight patients with ATM mutations and 100 with BRCA2 mutations were identified. Fourty‐four (76%) patients with ATM mutations received taxane only or taxane before PARPi, while 14 (24%) received PARPi only or PARPi before taxane. Patients with ATM mutations had longer PFS when taxane was given first versus PARPi given first (HR: 0.74 [95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.37−1.50]; p = 0.40). Similarly, OS was longer in patients with ATM mutations who received taxane first (HR: 0.56 [CI: 0.20−1.54]; p = 0.26). Among patients with BRCA2 mutations, 51 (51%) received taxane first and 49 (49%) received PARPi first. In contrast, patients with BRCA2 mutations had longer PFS when PARPi was given first versus taxane given first (HR: 0.85 [CI: 0.54−1.35]; p = 0.49). Similarly, OS was longer in patients with BRCA2 mutations who received PARPi first (HR: 0.75 [CI: 0.41−1.37]; p = 0.35).ConclusionsOur retrospective data suggest differential response between ATM and BRCA2 mutated prostate cancers in terms of response to PARPi and to taxane chemotherapy. When considering the sequence of PARPi versus taxane chemotherapy for mCRPC with DDR mutations, ATM, and BRCA2 mutation status may be helpful in guiding choice of initial therapy.

Clinical trials frequently include multiple end points that mature at different times. The initial report, typically based on the primary end point, may be published when key planned co‐primary or secondary analyses are not yet available. Clinical Trial Updates provide an opportunity to disseminate additional results from studies, published in JCO or elsewhere, for which the primary end point has already been reported. The initial STOMP and ORIOLE trial reports suggested that metastasis-directed therapy (MDT) in oligometastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (omCSPC) was associated with improved treatment outcomes. Here, we present long-term outcomes of MDT in omCSPC by pooling STOMP and ORIOLE and assess the ability of a high-risk mutational signature to risk stratify outcomes after MDT. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS) calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method. High-risk mutations were defined as pathogenic somatic mutations within ATM, BRCA1/ 2, Rb1, or TP53. The median follow-up for the whole group was 52.5 months. Median PFS was prolonged with MDT compared with observation (pooled hazard ratio [HR], 0.44; 95% CI, 0.29 to 0.66; P value < .001), with the largest benefit of MDT in patients with a high-risk mutation (HR high-risk, 0.05; HR no high-risk, 0.42; P value for interaction: .12). Within the MDT cohort, the PFS was 13.4 months in those without a high-risk mutation, compared with 7.5 months in those with a high-risk mutation (HR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.25 to 1.11; P = .09). Long-term outcomes from the only two randomized trials in omCSPC suggest a sustained clinical benefit to MDT over observation. A high-risk mutational signature may help risk stratify treatment outcomes after MDT.

PURPOSE Two poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors (olaparib and rucaparib) are US Food and Drug Administration–approved for patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) harboring BRCA1/ 2 mutations, but the relative efficacy of PARP inhibition in BRCA1- versus BRCA2-altered mCRPC is understudied. METHODS We conducted a multicenter retrospective analysis involving 12 sites. We collected genomic and clinical data from 123 patients with BRCA1/ 2-altered mCRPC who were treated with PARP inhibitors. The primary efficacy end point was the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) response (≥ 50% PSA decline) rate. Secondary end points were PSA progression-free survival (PSA-PFS), clinical or radiographic PFS, and overall survival. We compared clinical outcomes, and other genomic characteristics, among BRCA1- versus BRCA2-altered mCRPC. RESULTS A total of 123 patients (13 BRCA1 and 110 BRCA2) were included. PARP inhibitors used were olaparib (n = 116), rucaparib (n = 3), talazoparib (n = 2), and veliparib (n = 2). At diagnosis, 72% of patients had Gleason 8-10 disease. BRCA1 patients were more likely to have metastatic disease at presentation (69% v 37%; P = .04). Age, baseline PSA, metastatic distribution, and types of previous systemic therapies were similar between groups. There were equal proportions of germline mutations (51% v 46%; P = .78) in both groups. BRCA1 patients had more monoallelic (56% v 41%; P = .49) and concurrent TP53 (55% v 36%; P = .32) mutations. PSA 50 responses in BRCA1- versus BRCA2-altered patients were 23% versus 63%, respectively ( P = .01). BRCA2 patients achieved longer PSA-PFS (HR, 1.94; 95% CI, 0.92 to 4.09; P = .08), PFS (HR, 2.08; 95% CI, 0.99 to 4.40; P = .05), and overall survival (HR, 3.01; 95% CI, 1.32 to 6.83; P = .008). Biallelic (compared with monoallelic) mutations, truncating (compared with missense) mutations, and absence of a concurrent TP53 mutation were associated with PARP inhibitor sensitivity. CONCLUSION PARP inhibitor efficacy is diminished in BRCA1- versus BRCA2-altered mCRPC. This is not due to an imbalance in germline mutations but might be related to more monoallelic mutations and/or concurrent TP53 alterations in the BRCA1 group.

AbstractBackgroundThe goal of this study is to evaluate germline genetic variants in African American men with metastatic prostate cancer as compared to those in Caucasian men with metastatic prostate cancer in an effort to understand the role of genetic factors in these populations.MethodsAfrican American and Caucasian men with metastatic prostate cancer who had germline testing using multigene panels were used to generate comparisons. Germline genetic results, clinical parameters, and family histories between the two populations were analyzed.ResultsA total of 867 patients were included in this retrospective study, including 188 African American and 669 Caucasian patients. There was no significant difference in the likelihood of a pathogenic or likely‐pathogenic variants (PV/LPVs) between African American and Caucasian patients (p = .09). African American patients were more likely to have a variant of unknown significance than Caucasians (odds ratio [OR] = 1.95; p < .0001). BRCA1 PV/LPVs were higher in African Americans (OR = 4.86; p = .04). African American patients were less likely to have a PV/LPV in non‐BRCA DNA repair genes (OR = 0.30; p = .008). Family history of breast (OR = 2.09; p = .002) or ovarian cancer (OR = 2.33; p = .04) predicted PV/LPVs in Caucasians but not African‐Americans. This underscores the limitations of family history in AA men and the importance of personal history to guide germline testing in AA men.ConclusionsIn metastatic prostate cancer patients, PV/LPVs of tested genes did not vary by race, BRCA1 PV/LPVs were more common in the African American subset. However, PV/LPVs in non‐BRCA DNA repair genes were less likely to be encountered in African Americans. Family history associated with genetic testing results in Caucasians only.

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.