Spratt, Daniel E.

387 Background: Level 1 evidence supports treatment of high-risk and node positive PCa using 4-9 weeks of radiotherapy (RT) combined with 18-36 months of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) with or without abiraterone acetate plus prednisone (AAP). While effective, some cancers recur, and this prolonged treatment is associated with inconvenience and variable morbidity. We aimed to determine whether the biological synergy of stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) with a 6-month combination of ADT, AAP, and the PARP inhibitor niraparib, could enable a shorter intensified, yet safe and effective, therapeutic alternative. Methods: ASCLEPIuS (NCT04194554) is a multicenter investigator-initiated phase I/II trial in high-risk or node positive, homologous recombination unselected, PCa. Patients received 6 months of ADT, AAP, niraparib and SBRT to the prostate (37.5-40 Gy) +/- pelvic lymph nodes (25 Gy). Focal prostate/nodal boosting was permitted. The phase I primary endpoint was the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of niraparib using the time-to-event continuous reassessment method (3 dose levels: 100 mg and 200 mg held during SBRT, or 200 mg concurrent with SBRT). Dose limiting toxicities (DLT) were any persistent grade 4+ hematologic toxicity or any grade 3+ rectal/urinary toxicity at least possibly related to treatment as assessed by CTCAE v5.0. Patient reported quality of life (QOL) was assessed with the EPIC-26 short form. Linear mixed models were used to compare scores over time. Results: Accrual began in Nov. 2020 with a transition from phase I to phase II in May 2023 after enrolling 54 men. Median follow-up of the phase I cohort is 12.1 months (IQR 9.4-18.9), 80% (n=43) had Grade Group 4-5, median PSA was 17 ng/mL (range, 1-73), 15% (n=8) had cN+ disease, and 76% (n=41) received nodal RT. There were 0 DLTs to date, no grade 3+ rectal or urinary toxicities, and 5 serious adverse events at least possibly attributable to study treatment (anemia, non-rectal gastrointestinal, syncope, infection, musculoskeletal). The most common grade 3 toxicities were hypertension (n = 11, 21%) and leukopenia (n=6, 11%). Transient dose reductions or holds of AAP or niraparib occurred in 10 and 11 patients, respectively. There were no statistically significant declines in patient reported urinary QOL at 6- or 12-months post-treatment compared to baseline (all p >0.15). A transient decline in bowel QOL at 6-months occurred (p<0.01), which improved by 12-months (p=0.16). Conclusions: Our phase I findings support the short-term safety and tolerability of the combination of SBRT to the prostate and nodes, ADT, AAP, and niraparib at an MTD of 200 mg in men with high-risk or node positive PCa. Our trial completed phase II enrollment in May 2024, and longer-term safety, efficacy, and genomic correlations will be presented in the future. Clinical trial information: NCT04194554 .

410 Background: Inflammasomes are multiprotein complexes that regulate inflammation-associated signaling pathways. Although inflammation plays a crucial role in cancer cell proliferation, the specific role of inflammasomes in prostate cancer (PCa) remains underexplored. This study aims to elucidate the expression of inflammasome-related genes in PCa and assess their association with clinical outcomes. Methods: De-identified transcriptome data from a cohort of 52,266 radical prostatectomy (RP) samples tested (2016-2024) with the Decipher prostate genomic classifier (Veracyte, San Diego, CA) were retrieved from the GRID registry (NCT02609269). Expression analysis focused on 33 genes involved in inflammatory pathways. Outcomes analysis was conducted on a retrospective cohort of 855 patients treated with RP (META855), using Cox regression analysis, adjusting for baseline pathological characteristics. Results: Analysis of baseline gene expression in the GRID RP cohort revealed that most genes exhibit low baseline expression, whereas HSP90AB1, APP, TXN, and TXNIP demonstrate strong expression signals. Higher expression of most genes was associated with higher rate of Gleason grade group 4 or 5 in the GRID RP cohort. On survival analysis of the META855 cohort, higher expression (top 25%) of AIM2 and HSP90AB1 were associated with worse metastasis-free survival (p<0.05 for both). Conversely, both high and low expression levels of NLRP3 were associated with better metastasis-free survival outcomes following RP compared to average expression (p<0.05). On multivariable Cox regression analysis, adjusting for grade group, seminal vesicle involvement, lymph node involvement, and margin status, higher expression of AIM1 (HR 1.75) and HSP90AB1 (HR 1.60) were significantly associated with shorter time to metastasis following RP (p<0.05 for both). Conclusions: There is a molecular heterogeneity within pro-inflammatory genes among patients with PCa.Our findings showed thathigher expression of HSP90AB1 is linked to poorer oncological outcomes, whereas both high and low expression levels of NLRP3 are associated with better outcomes following RP.Further refinement is required to build a robust signature, along with external validation of these findings in other cohorts.

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.

The NCCN Guidelines for Prostate Cancer include recommendations for staging and risk assessment after a prostate cancer diagnosis and for the care of patients with localized, regional, recurrent, and metastatic disease. These NCCN Guidelines Insights summarize the panel's discussions for the 2024 update to the guidelines with regard to initial risk stratification, initial management of very-low-risk disease, and the treatment of nonmetastatic recurrence.

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.

The NCCN Guidelines for Prostate Cancer provide a framework on which to base decisions regarding the workup of patients with prostate cancer, risk stratification and management of localized disease, post-treatment monitoring, and treatment of recurrence and advanced disease. The Guidelines sections included in this article focus on the management of metastatic castration-sensitive disease, nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC), and metastatic CRPC (mCRPC). Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) with treatment intensification is strongly recommended for patients with metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer. For patients with nonmetastatic CRPC, ADT is continued with or without the addition of certain secondary hormone therapies depending on prostate-specific antigen doubling time. In the mCRPC setting, ADT is continued with the sequential addition of certain secondary hormone therapies, chemotherapies, immunotherapies, radiopharmaceuticals, and/or targeted therapies. The NCCN Prostate Cancer Panel emphasizes a shared decision-making approach in all disease settings based on patient preferences, prior treatment exposures, the presence or absence of visceral disease, symptoms, and potential side effects.

5094 Background: In prior studies, basal vs. luminal differentiation portends differential response to a) androgen suppression (AS) duration for high-risk prostate cancer (PCa) (NRG-GU-TS006) and b) docetaxel chemotherapy (CT) and AS for metastatic hormone-sensitive disease (CHAARTED). In NRG-GU-TS006, basal tumors appeared to benefit the most from longer duration of AS while those with luminal subtype did not whereas, in CHAARTED, luminal subtype had greater benefit from addition of CT. Herein, we examined basal-luminal subtyping to predict differential response to the addition of CT in the setting of high-risk PCa treated with AS and definitive radiotherapy (AS + RT) in NRG/RTOG 0521. Methods: Per pre-specified and approved NCI analysis plan (Navigator #1061), we obtained available NRG biobank biopsy specimens from patients enrolled on the NRG/RTOG 0521 phase III trial, which randomized patients to AS + RT +/- CT. The highest-grade tumors were profiled on clinical-grade whole-transcriptome arrays (Veracyte, San Diego, CA). Basal-luminal subtypes were generated using a 215-gene PCa subtyping classifier (PSC), a second generation PAM50 basal-luminal model. Treatment effects in Luminal Proliferating (LP) and non-LP subtypes were examined with Cox (for overall survival, OS, and metastasis-free survival, MFS) and Fine & Gray (for distant metastasis, DM) multivariable (MVA) models adjusted for age and trial risk stratification, as well as with restricted mean survival times (RMST). Results: Of 183 samples available for analysis (91 from control and 92 from the CT arm), 52 (28%) were classified as LP subtype. Median follow-up for OS was 9.9 years. No significant differences in clinical or pathological variables were observed between LP and non-LP subtypes. In MVA, we did not detect any significant LP subtype-by-CT treatment interaction but observed evidence of non-proportional hazards (Grambsch-Therneau test, p<0.05). In unselected patients, 5- and 10-year RMST difference between the arms was 0.9 (95% CI [-1.5, 3.4], p=0.46) and 5.7 (95% CI [-2.5, 13.9], p=0.17) months of OS. Stratifying by tumor subtype, at 5 years the RMST difference in months was 3.8 (95% CI [0.3, 7.2], p=0.03) for LP and -0.2 ([-3.4, 2.9], p=0.89) for non-LP. The RMST difference in months at 10-years was 13.7 (95% CI [-0.2, 27.5], p=0.053) for LP and 2.5 ([-7.6, 12.5], p=0.63) for non-LP. Conclusions: In pre-treatment biopsy samples from a Phase 3 trial cohort of localized high-risk men, luminal-basal subtyping of tumors demonstrated differential response to docetaxel CT. Similar to results from the CHAARTED trial of metastatic disease, LP tumors may derive greater benefit from addition of CT. Validation of these findings may enable effective earlier use of CT in men with PCa.

AbstractBackgroundProstate cancer (PCa) is a clinically heterogeneous disease. The creation of an expression‐based subtyping model based on prostate‐specific biological processes was sought.MethodsUnsupervised machine learning of gene expression profiles from prospectively collected primary prostate tumors (training, n = 32,000; evaluation, n = 68,547) was used to create a prostate subtyping classifier (PSC) based on basal versus luminal cell expression patterns and other gene signatures relevant to PCa biology. Subtype molecular pathways and clinical characteristics were explored in five other clinical cohorts.ResultsClustering derived four subtypes: luminal differentiated (LD), luminal proliferating (LP), basal immune (BI), and basal neuroendocrine (BN). LP and LD tumors both had higher androgen receptor activity. LP tumors also had a higher expression of cell proliferation genes, MYC activity, and characteristics of homologous recombination deficiency. BI tumors possessed significant interferon γactivity and immune infiltration on immunohistochemistry. BN tumors were characterized by lower androgen receptor activity expression, lower immune infiltration, and enrichment with neuroendocrine expression patterns. Patients with LD tumors had less aggressive tumor characteristics and the longest time to metastasis after surgery. Only patients with BI tumors derived benefit from radiotherapy after surgery in terms of time to metastasis (hazard ratio [HR], 0.09; 95% CI, 0.01–0.71; n = 855). In a phase 3 trial that randomized patients with metastatic PCa to androgen deprivation with or without docetaxel (n = 108), only patients with LP tumors derived survival benefit from docetaxel (HR, 0.21; 95% CI, 0.09–0.51).ConclusionsWith the use of expression profiles from over 100,000 tumors, a PSC was developed that identified four subtypes with distinct biological and clinical features.Plain language summary Prostate cancer can behave in an indolent or aggressive manner and vary in how it responds to certain treatments. To differentiate prostate cancer on the basis of biological features, we developed a novel RNA signature by using data from over 100,000 prostate tumors—the largest data set of its kind. This signature can inform patients and physicians on tumor aggressiveness and susceptibilities to treatments to help personalize cancer management.

Objectives: Deaths from an unknown cause are difficult to adjudicate and oncologic studies of comparative effectiveness often demonstrate inconsistencies in incorporating these deaths and competing events (eg, heart disease and stroke) in their analyses. In this study, we identify cancer patients most at risk for death of an unknown cause. Methods: This retrospective, population-based study used cancer registry data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database (1992-2015). The absolute rate of unknown causes of death (COD) cases stratified by sex, marital status, race, treatment, and cancer site were calculated and a multivariable logistic regression model was applied to obtain adjusted odds ratios with 95% CIs. Results: Out of 7,154,779 cancer patients across 22 cancer subtypes extracted from Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results, 3,448,927 died during follow-up and 276,068 (7.4%) of these deaths were from unknown causes. Patients with an unknown COD had a shorter mean survival time compared with patients with known COD (36.3 vs 65.7 mo, P < 0.001). The contribution of unknown COD to total mortality was highest in patients with more indolent cancers (eg, prostate [12.7%], thyroid [12.3%], breast [10.7%]) and longer follow-up (eg, >5 to 10 y). One, 3, and 5-year cancer-specific survival (CSS) calculations including unknown COD were significantly decreased compared with CSS estimates excluding cancer patients with unknown COD. Conclusion: Of the patients, 7.4% died of unknown causes during follow-up and the proportion of death was higher with longer follow-up and among more indolent cancers. The attribution of high percentages of unknown COD to cancer or non-cancer causes could impact population-based cancer registry studies or clinical trial outcomes with respect to measures involving CSS and mortality.