Armstrong, Andrew J.

10610 Background: The role for genetic testing (GT) for prostate cancer (PCa) patients (pts) has expanded to find pts with germline pathogenic variants (PV) for therapeutic opportunities given FDA-approvals for PARP inhibitors in metastatic PCa as well as understanding familial cancer risk and opportunities for tailored screening and risk reduction. The PROMISE Registry (NCT04995198) was set up as a genetic registry to partner with PCa pts for rapid access to a new standard of care given insurance coverage and clinical implementation were initially major barriers. A second goal is to characterize disease features and treatment outcomes to inform management and provide updates about novel therapeutic clinical trials, both of which remain important to rare genetic variant carriers. Methods: PROMISE is a US decentralized prospective PCa genetic registry initiated in 2021 with initial phase to enroll and provide clinical-grade germline genetic testing (30 gene cancer-specific panel) to 5,000 PCa pts to identify ~500 PCa pts with variants of interest (pathogenic variants, PV, and variants of uncertain significance, VUS) in DNA repair genes for long-term clinical follow-up of 15 years (LTFU). Here, we report the initial phase testing results and identification of the LTFU cohort. Study design and enrollment strategy have been reported separately. Results: Between 2021-2026, 7,275 pts with any stage PCa across 50 US states self-consented to PROMISE, of which 5,674 (78%) of pts completed genetic testing, indicating feasibility of patient-directed, decentralized enrollment. We have identified 495 (8.7%) pts for LTFU. Baseline data is reported for n=367 (Table 1, will be updated at time of presentation). The most frequently observed PV/LPV variants being in CHEK2 (25%) , BRCA2 (23%) , ATM (12%) , and BRCA1 (4.6%). At the time of PCa diagnosis, the majority of LTFU pts had non-metastatic disease, with 47% of pts with Gleason>7, median PSA of 5 ng/mL, and median time from diagnosis to PROMISE GT of 25 months. Conclusions: PROMISE is a nationwide decentralized PCa genetic registry that has completed initial goal to recruit 5,000 PCa pts to offer germline genetic testing and recruit a cohort of 500 for LTFU. Data about diagnosis characteristics are reported, and analysis of ongoing disease course, treatment response/outcomes and overall survival is being collected. Clinical trial information: NCT04995198 . Long-term follow-up participant demographics. Characteristic Overall, N = 367 Age at Diagnosis (yrs) 63 (57, 69) Race N = 361 (6, nr) Asian, American Indian or Alaska Native, Multiracial, Other 22 (6.0%) Black or African American 22 (6.0%) White 317 (86%) Disease State at Diagnosis N = 348 (19, nr) Metastatic 46 (13%) Non-metastatic 302 (87%) Time from Diagnosis to PROMISE GT (months) 25 (4, 82) Gleason Score N = 280 (87, nr) </= 7 148 (53%) >7 132 (47%) PSA At Diagnosis (ng/mL) 5 (0, 10) (88, nr) Subjects with baseline data entered. nr=not reported. Median (Q1, Q3); n (%).

57 Background: Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the leading non-cancer cause of death among men with prostate cancer (PC), particularly during androgen-deprivation therapy. While CVD risk-prediction models are well established in the general population, barriers to integration within oncology workflows remain poorly defined. Guided by the PRISM and RE-AIM frameworks, this study evaluated multilevel determinants influencing adoption, feasibility, and sustainability of CVD risk-assessment tools in PC care. Methods: A national, cross-sectional survey of 45 physicians (medical oncology 49%, urology 38%, radiation oncology 13%) from 18 U.S. states was conducted. Respondents represented early- (27%), mid- (36%), and late-career (38%) clinicians across academic (87%) and community (13%) settings. Quantitative items mapped to PRISM/RE-AIM domains assessed adaptability, cost/resource feasibility, effectiveness, equity, and sustainability; open-ended responses explored contextual barriers and facilitators. Descriptive statistics summarized quantitative data. Results: Physicians reported moderate-to-high readiness to adopt a CVD risk-assessment tool, emphasizing workflow alignment and EHR integration over algorithmic complexity. Table 1 summarizes domain-specific findings. Ninety-three percent of respondents favored lab-independent models that minimize workflow disruption. Conclusions: Pre-implementation analysis highlighted that structural barriers, rather than algorithmic or statistical limitations, remain the primary obstacles to adopting CVD risk-assessment tools in prostate-cancer care. Physicians emphasized the need for EHR-integrated, non-laboratory-based, and time-efficient tools that align with routine oncology workflows and minimize cross-specialty friction. Addressing these practical and organizational determinants may be pivotal to achieving equitable, scalable, and sustainable cardio-oncology implementation across diverse practice settings. PRISM and RE-AIM constructs evaluation results. Construct Likely/Very Likely (%) Interpretation Perceived Effectiveness 87% Broad confidence in clinical utility Equity in Patient Reach 75% Strong perceived equity in reach Equity in Effectiveness 73% Expected to perform consistently across populations Adaptability to Workflow 71% High compatibility with existing clinic workflows Cost/Resource Feasibility 65% Feasible for resource-constrained settings Likelihood of Adoption 60% Moderate readiness for implementation Equity in Adoption 58% Equitable uptake possible despite resource differences Reach to Target Population 57% Moderate likelihood of reaching most patients Sustainability Over Time 51% Moderate long-term feasibility Consistency of Implementation 42% Need for standardized protocols

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

TPS276 Background: Metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) can evolve into a neuroendocrine-like subtype with aggressive behavior and poor outcomes (1). Nuclear Receptor-Binding SET Domain Protein 2 (NSD2) is overexpressed in prostate cancer and is a driver of both androgen-receptor (AR)-dependent signaling and of neuroendocrine differentiation, where cancer cells lose AR dependence and response to AR pathway inhibitors (ARPIs) (2,3,4). In studies of patient-derived neuroendocrine prostate cancer (NEPC) models, genetic depletion of NSD2 led to restoration of AR expression, reversal of adeno-to-neuroendocrine differentiation, and re-sensitization to ARPI (4). We hypothesize that NSD2 inhibition can reverse resistance to ARPIs in patients with progressive mCRPC, including with neuroendocrine differentiation. KTX-2001 is an oral, potent and selective small molecule inhibitor of NSD2. It is the sponsor’s second NSD2 inhibitor to enter the clinic. The sponsor’s first in class NSD2 inhibitor, KTX-1001, was shown to be tolerable and have preliminary efficacy in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (5). Methods: STRIKE-001 (NCT07103018) is a multicenter, open-label phase 1 dose escalation trial of KTX-2001 monotherapy (Part A) and KTX-2001 + darolutamide (Part B). Key inclusion criteria are males age ≥18 years with mCRPC, progression after receiving ARPI, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance score of 0-1, willingness to undergo biopsy if safe and feasible, and life expectancy of ≥6 months. Participants take KTX-2001 by mouth once daily alone (Part A) or with darolutamide 600 mg twice daily (Part B). Dose escalation of KTX-2001 in Parts A and B will follow a 3+3 design and occur in parallel at multiple planned dose levels. Primary objectives are to assess the safety and tolerability, determine MTD, and determine RP2D(s) for further study of KTX-2001 alone and in combination with darolutamide. Secondary objectives include characterization of efficacy and PK parameters for both KTX-2001 monotherapy and in combination with darolutamide. Exploratory objectives include study of pharmacodynamic effects, circulating tumor cells, and cell-free DNA. 1. Conteduca V, Eur J Cancer 2019. 2. Parolia A, Nat Genet 2024. 3. Aytes A, Nat Commun 2018 4. Li J, bioRxiv 2023.07.18.549585 5. Bories P, Blood Vol 144, Suppl 1,2024. Clinical trial information: NCT07103018 .

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.

PURPOSE Previous studies suggest that SPOP mutations result in increased sensitivity to androgen receptor pathway inhibitors (ARPIs) but are limited by lack of granular data. We hypothesize that SPOP mutations are associated with improved outcomes across the spectrum of advanced prostate cancer (PC). METHODS Using the real-world clinicogenomic Prostate Cancer Precision Medicine Multi-Institutional Collaborative Effort database, we analyzed outcomes based on SPOP mutation status. The primary end point was overall survival (OS) from the diagnosis of metastatic disease. Secondary end points included real-world progression-free survival (PFS) and PSA90 response. RESULTS Among 2,097 patients with metastatic PC, 5.5% (N = 115) had SPOP -mutated tumors. Compared with SPOP wild-type, patients with SPOP mutations were older at diagnosis (median 65 v 63 years; P = .001) and had higher (≥8) Gleason sum (68% v 54%; P = .02), higher incidence of lung metastasis (17% v 6%; P = .001), and increased frequency of intraductal features (13% v 5%; P < .001). SPOP mutations were associated with improved PSA90 response with first ARPI exposure in the castrate-resistant setting (60% v 40.6%; OR, 2.20 [95% CI, 1.15 to 4.19]; P = .02) but not in the castrate-sensitive setting (78.9% v 71.5%; OR, 1.49 [95% CI, 0.66 to 3.37]; P = .43). Median PFS with first ARPI did not differ in SPOP- mutated versus wild-type group in both the castrate-sensitive (24.2 v 19.2 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.80 [95% CI, 0.49 to 1.32]; P = .39) and castrate-resistant settings (15.0 v 12.4 months; HR, 0.81 [95% CI, 0.58 to 1.12]; P = .20). In multivariable analysis, SPOP mutations were associated with improved OS (HR, 0.65, P = .02). CONCLUSION SPOP mutations were associated with longer OS despite the presence of aggressive clinical features. The distinct clinical and molecular features of SPOP -mutated PC support its consideration as a unique molecular subtype with prognostic implications.

e17064 Background: Analyses of clinical trials data suggest thatBlack men have equal or even improved overall survival (OS) with certain treatments for mCRPC compared with other races. Moreover, retrospective analysis of the PROCEED registry indicated that Black men who received Sip-T, an autologous cellular immunotherapy, had longer survival compared with other men with mCRPC. The Abi Race and PANTHER clinical trials prospectively assessed the effect of ARPIs on clinical outcomes among Black and White patient (pt) cohorts, and included pts who had received Sip-T either prior to or during study. We combined data from Abi Race and PANTHER to investigate associations between OS, Sip-T and race. Methods: Data from the Abi Race (N=100) and PANTHER (N=93) studies were retrospectively pooled for this analysis. Propensity scores for Sip-T treatment were calculated based on Karnofsky performance status, race, Gleason score, and study. Kaplan-Meier estimates for OS, with and without inverse propensity score weighting, were generated and stratified by Sip-T use. This analysis was stratified by race to examine whether the relationship between Sip-T use and OS differed by race. Results: Of the 93 Black pts and 100 White patients included from both studies, 123 patients did not receive Sip-T, while 70 patients did (60 before study, 10 on study). Pts who received Sip-T had a median OS (mOS) of 44 months (95% Confidence Interval (CI) 39, NR) compared to 36 months (95% CI 31, 48) for those who did not. Weighted by propensity scores, Black men who received Sip-T had a mOS of 72 months (95% CI 43, NR), while those who did not had a mOS of 38 months (95% CI 30, NR). Among White men, patients who received Sip-T had a mOS of 39 months (95% CI 30, NR), while those who did not had a mOS of 32 months (95% CI 29, 48) (see Table). Conclusions: Our findings from an investigator-led retrospective analysis independent of sponsors provide independent clinical trial support of prior retrospective findings that suggest Black men with mCRPC who receive Sip-T may have a greater OS than White men. While our analysis controlled for factors that may influence the use of Sip-T, it is limited by potential unmeasured confounders or timing of Sip-T. Further, adequately powered prospective trials specifically evaluating outcomes with Sip-T by race in earlier clinical settings are needed. Drug support and funding for Abi Race and PANTHER were provided by Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC. Death counts and median overall survival (mOS) in months by race and Sipuleucel-T use. Black Men White Men Sipuleucel-T use Deaths / Total N No 36 / 64 38 / 59 Yes 12 / 29 24 / 41 Unweighted mOS (95% CI) No 36 (29, NR) 32 (29, 48) Yes 72 (43, NR) 39 (31, NR) Weighted mOS (95% CI) No 38 (30, NR) 32 (29, 48) Yes 72 (43, NR) 39 (30, NR) NR = not reached, mOS = median overall survival, CI = confidence interval.

PURPOSE Long-term androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) improves survival in men with high-risk localized prostate cancer (PCa) receiving radiotherapy (RT). Predictive biomarkers are needed to guide ADT duration. METHODS A multimodal artificial intelligence (MMAI)–derived predictive biomarker was trained for long-term (LT) versus short-term (ST) ADT using pretreatment digital prostate biopsy images and clinical data (age, prostate-specific antigen, Gleason, and T stage) from six NRG Oncology phase III randomized radiotherapy trials. The novel MMAI-derived biomarker was developed to predict the differential benefit of LT-ADT on the primary end point, distant metastasis (DM). MMAI predictive utility was validated on a seventh randomized trial, RTOG 9202 (N = 1,192), which randomly assigned men to RT + ST-ADT (4 months) versus RT + LT-ADT (28 months). Fine-Gray and cumulative incidence analyses for DM, and secondarily, death with DM, were performed. Deaths without DM were treated as competing risks. RESULTS In the validation cohort (median follow-up, 17.2 years), LT-ADT significantly improved DM from 26% to 17% (subdistribution hazard ratio [sHR], 0.64 [95% CI, 0.50 to 0.82], P < .001). A significant biomarker-treatment predictive interaction was observed ( P = .04) for DM, whereby MMAI biomarker–positive men (n = 785, 66%) had reduced DM with LT-ADT versus ST-ADT (sHR, 0.55 [95% CI, 0.41 to 0.73], P < .001), whereas no treatment benefit was observed for MMAI biomarker–negative men (n = 407; sHR, 1.06 [95% CI, 0.61 to 1.84], P = .84). The estimated 15-year DM risk difference between RT + LT-ADT and RT + ST-ADT was 14% in MMAI biomarker–positive men and 0% in MMAI biomarker–negative men. The MMAI biomarker was also prognostic for DM, irrespective of treatment (sHR, 2.35 [95% CI, 1.72 to 3.19], P < .001). CONCLUSION To our knowledge, the MMAI model is the first validated predictive biomarker to guide ADT duration with RT in localized/locally advanced PCa. Approximately one third of men with high-risk PCa could safely be spared the additional 24 months of ADT and the associated morbidity.

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.