Shore, Neal D.

61 Background: 177 Lu-PSMA-617 was approved in March 2022 for patients with mCRPC pretreated with an androgen receptor pathway inhibitor (ARPI) and a taxane. There are limited data on the effectiveness of treatments post- 177 Lu-PSMA-617. The aim of this study was to describe prostate-specific antigen (PSA) responses among patients with mCRPC receiving a guideline-recommended therapy as the next therapy after 177 Lu-PSMA-617 treatment. Methods: This retrospective, observational study used real-world data from the PRECISION data platform, a proprietary dataset developed by Novartis, comprised of patient-level electronic health record and claims data that represent the US advanced prostate cancer population in the community, academic, urology, and medical oncology settings. Patients with mCRPC who received any guideline-recommended therapy at least 14 days after treatment with 177 Lu-PSMA-617 between March 23, 2022 and July 31, 2024 were included. Guideline-recommended therapies included abiraterone, enzalutamide, darolutamide, apalutamide, cabazitaxel, docetaxel, pembrolizumab, sipuleucel-T, niraparib, olaparib, talazoparib, rucaparib, and radium-223. Patients’ PSA values while on 177 Lu-PSMA-617 treatment were compared with their PSA values during the subsequent therapy course. Proportions of patients achieving reductions in PSA levels ≥50% (PSA50) and ≥80% (PSA80) were estimated. All analyses were descriptive. Results: A total of 152 patients receiving any subsequent guideline-recommended therapy after 177 Lu-PSMA-617 were identified. Mean age was 72.1 years. Most patients received an ARPI (n=93, 61.2%) – abiraterone (n=38), enzalutamide (n=37), darolutamide (n=10), or apalutamide (n=8) – as their subsequent therapy. Of patients who received a taxane (n=42, 27.6%), 24 received cabazitaxel and 18 received docetaxel. Median time to initiation of subsequent therapy was 206 days (interquartile range [IQR] 101–301 days) from 177 Lu-PSMA-617 initiation and 44 days (IQR 17–119 days) from 177 Lu-PSMA-617 discontinuation. Overall, among patients with sufficient information for PSA evaluation (n=30), 46.7% achieved PSA50 and 40.0% PSA80 post- 177 Lu-PSMA-617. Among patients receiving an ARPI, PSA50 was observed in 11/18 (61.1%) and PSA80 in 10/18 (55.6%). Among patients receiving a taxane, PSA50 and PSA80 were seen in 3/12 (25.0%) and 2/12 (16.7%), respectively. Conclusions: In this real-world analysis, the majority of patients who received guideline-recommended therapies after 177 Lu-PSMA-617 achieved at least a PSA50 response, suggesting that 177 Lu-PSMA-617 treatment does not preclude response to other subsequent therapies.

59 Background: There are several real-world data sources for prostate cancer (PC), each with its own limitations; the most notable limitation is an incomplete picture of the multidisciplinary clinical management of PC. The PRECISION data platform, the largest, most comprehensive, and continually updated real-world evidence source on patients with advanced PC to date, tries to address this limitation and shed light on PC management in both urology and oncology practices in both academic and community settings in the US. The platform includes a wide variety of PC-specific data variables among patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive PC (mHSPC) and metastatic castration-resistant PC (mCRPC) treated across the US. This study aims to provide an overview of the characteristics, treatment patterns, and clinical outcomes among patients with mHSPC and mCRPC included in PRECISION to date. Methods: A retrospective cohort study that included patients with a diagnosis of mHSPC or mCRPC (index date) in PRECISION between 2018 and 2024 (cohorts could overlap). For each cohort, patient characteristics and treatment patterns were evaluated descriptively. Results: The PRECISION platform currently includes 72,855 and 33,538 patients with mHSPC and mCRPC, respectively. Among the mHSPC cohort, the mean ± standard deviation (SD) age was 74.5±9.4 years; 67% and 33% were treated at oncology and urology centers, respectively; 40% and 60% were from academic and community settings, respectively. The average ± SD time from mHSPC to mCRPC was 11.2±11.7 months. Overall, 77.6% of patients were treated with androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT), of whom 64.7% had ADT combined with androgen receptor pathway inhibitors (ARPIs) including abiraterone acetate, enzalutamide, and apalutamide. Among the mCRPC cohort, the mean ± SD age was 74.1±9.3 years; similar treatment setting patterns as mHSPC were observed. Overall, 74.6% initiated a first-line (1L) therapy on/after mCRPC diagnosis; 52.1% had 1L ARPIs, 16.2% 1L immunotherapy, and 4.6% 1L taxane chemotherapy. In addition, 2.2% of patients received the recently US FDA-approved therapy, lutetium-177 vipivotide tetraxetan, at some point during their mCRPC disease duration. Conclusions: This analysis provides key insights into the patients included in the PRECISION data platform. This multidisciplinary dataset provides a 70/30 split between oncology and urology centers, and a 40/60 split between academic and community settings. The observed clinical profile, treatment patterns, and outcomes comprise the most comprehensive representation of current treatment practice in the US. Future analyses of clinical outcomes with existing and novel therapies could contribute significantly to our understanding of opportunities to improve the treatment of patients with mHSPC and mCRPC in the US.

56 Background: The broad therapeutic arsenal for mCRPC, with overlapping indications, makes selecting the optimal treatment sequence challenging in clinical practice. The aim of this study was to evaluate the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) responses and overall survival (OS) among patients with mCRPC receiving 177 Lu-PSMA-617 based on prior ARPI and taxane treatment exposure. Methods: This retrospective, observational study used real-world data from the PRECISION data platform, a harmonized dataset of advanced prostate cancer patients in the US from diverse clinical settings. Patients with mCRPC who had received ≥1 dose of 177 Lu-PSMA-617 between March 23, 2022 and July 31, 2024, after prior treatment with ≥1 ARPI and ≥1 taxane, were included. To assess PSA response, the baseline PSA value obtained within 90 days before starting 177 Lu-PSMA-617 was compared with the on-treatment PSA value obtained ≥28 days after 177 Lu-PSMA-617 initiation. The number of patients achieving PSA reductions ≥50% (PSA50) and ≥80% (PSA80) were estimated, with patients classified into two cohorts based on prior ARPI and taxane exposure: (1) prompt cohort: after only 1 ARPI and 1 taxane, and (2) deferred cohort: >1 ARPI and/or >1 taxane. Patient characteristics and treatment patterns were evaluated descriptively. OS from 177 Lu-PSMA-617 initiation was estimated using Kaplan–Meier methodology. Results: A total of 431 patients were included: 177 patients in the prompt cohort and 254 patients in the deferred cohort. Of patients in the deferred cohort, 185 (72.8%) received ≥1 ARPI and 1 taxane, 32 (12.6%) received 1 ARPI and ≥1 taxane, and 37 (14.6%) received ≥1 ARPI and ≥1 taxane. Median (interquartile range age was 73 (67–78) years and most demographic characteristics were balanced between groups. Patients in the deferred cohort had higher median PSA levels at baseline (63.1 ng/mL vs 25.2 ng/mL). PSA50 was observed in 18/33 (55%) patients in the prompt cohort vs 28/66 (42%) in the deferred cohort. PSA80 was observed in 13/33 (39%) patients in the prompt cohort vs 21/66 (31%) in the deferred cohort. Across both cohorts, median OS was 18.0 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 15.1 months–not reached [NR]). Median OS was NR in patients in the prompt cohort vs 15.1 months in patients in the deferred cohort (95% CI: 11.6 months–NR). Conclusions: In this large real-world study, prompt initiation of 177 Lu-PSMA-617 (after only 1 ARPI and 1 taxane) showed superior clinical outcomes versus deferred initiation of 177 Lu-PSMA-617. Patients were more likely to achieve a PSA reduction ≥50% and ≥80% and had longer OS with prompt initiation of 177 Lu-PSMA-617. These results may help to guide treatment sequencing in clinical practice.

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.

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.

5003 Background: [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 (177Lu-PSMA-617) prolonged radiographic progression-free survival vs change of androgen receptor pathway inhibitor (ARPI) in taxane-naïve patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) in PSMAfore (NCT04689828). We now present health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and pain outcomes at second interim analysis. Methods: Eligible patients had mCRPC, were candidates for change of ARPI after progression on one prior ARPI, and had ≥1 PSMA-positive and no exclusionary PSMA-negative metastatic lesions by [68Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT. Ineligible patients were candidates for PARP inhibition or had received prior systemic radiotherapy, immunotherapy or chemotherapy. Patients were randomized 1:1 to open-label 177Lu-PSMA-617 (7.4 GBq/6 weeks; 6 cycles) or ARPI change (abiraterone/enzalutamide). Patients with confirmed radiographic progression on ARPI change could cross over to 177Lu-PSMA-617. Secondary endpoints included time to worsening (TTW) in self-reported HRQoL (FACT-P, EQ-5D-5L) and pain (BPI-SF), defined as a composite of score worsening (prespecified thresholds), clinical progression (including new anti-cancer treatment) or death. Post hoc analyses of TTW in FACT-P and BPI-SF excluded clinical progression and death. The study was not powered for these endpoints and type I error was not controlled. Results: We randomized 468 patients (234/arm) with a median age of 72 years (range, 43–94). Median duration of exposure was 8.4 months for 177Lu-PSMA-617 and 6.5 months for ARPI change. 177Lu-PSMA-617 delayed TTW in FACT-P, EQ-5D-5L and BPI-SF scales and subscales vs ARPI change (Table). Results were similar in non-composite analyses. Incidence of grade ≥3 adverse events (AEs), serious AEs and AEs leading to discontinuation for 177Lu-PSMA-617 and ARPI change were 34% vs 44%, 20% vs 28% and 5.7% vs 5.2%, respectively. Conclusions: 177Lu-PSMA-617 delayed TTW in self-reported pain and HRQoL vs change of ARPI in taxane-naïve patients with PSMA-positive mCRPC. Clinical trial information: NCT04689828 . [Table: see text]

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.