Citations

PURPOSE Bone metastases (BM) occur in approximately 30% of patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) and are associated with poor survival and symptomatic skeletal events (SSEs). Radium-223, an alpha-emitting bone-seeking radioisotope, and cabozantinib, a tyrosine kinase inhibitor, have demonstrated activity in BM. RADICAL (Alliance A031801; ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04071223 ) evaluated cabozantinib ± radium-223 in mRCC with BM. METHODS This phase II trial enrolled patients with mRCC of any histology with ≥1 BM. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to cabozantinib ± radium-223, stratified by osteoclast-targeted therapy (OTT), prior therapy, opioid use, and International mRCC Database Consortium (IMDC) risk. The primary end point was SSE-free survival (SSE-FS). Secondary end points included safety, objective response rate (ORR), progression-free survival, and overall survival (OS). A target of 124 evaluable patients was planned, with a prespecified interim futility analysis at 50% of expected SSE-FS events; the trial would stop if the stratified hazard ratio (sHR) > 1.0. RESULTS The prespecified interim futility analysis was conducted after 90 patients were enrolled and crossed the futility boundary, leading to closure at 98 patients. The final analysis included all 98 patients. Median age was 63 years, 82.7% had clear cell histology, and 79.6% were using an OTT. IMDC risk was favorable (18.4%), intermediate (67.3%), and poor (14.3%). Median follow-up was 13.1 months. Median SSE-FS for cabozantinib with radium-223 versus cabozantinib was 16.7 versus 17.6 months (sHR, 1.46 [90% CI, 0.86 to 2.51]). Median OS was 28.3 versus 19.7 months (sHR, 1.40 [95% CI, 0.70 to 2.79]). ORR was 19.4% versus 25.0% ( P = .78). Grade ≥3 adverse events were similar across arms (69.6% v 75.5%). CONCLUSION Radium-223 did not improve SSE-FS when added to cabozantinib. The combination demonstrated a manageable safety profile.

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

TPS290 Background: Landmark randomized trials established the survival benefit of adding D to ADT in mCSPC. Building on this foundation, subsequent trials (PEACE-1 and ARASENS) demonstrated further survival improvements when androgen receptor pathway inhibitors (ARPI) were added to the ADT + D backbone. However, the independent contribution of D within the triplet regimen remains unclear given lack of prospective evaluation. Additionally, tumor suppressor gene (TSG) alterations involving TP53, PTEN, and RB1 are frequently observed in PC and are associated with aggressive biology and poor outcomes, providing an opportunity to enhance prognostic accuracy and optimize selection of candidates for treatment intensification. We hypothesize that adding D to ADT plus A will improve survival compared to ADT + A in mCSPC and stratification by TSG status may identify different treatment effects across molecular subgroups. Methods: ASPIRE is an open-label, two-arm, randomized phase 3 study to assess the benefit of D added to ADT plus A for patients with mCSPC. Eligible patients include those with confirmed adenocarcinoma of the prostate with evidence of distant metastatic disease on conventional imaging and are appropriate to receive D. Patients with metachronous low-volume disease or PSMA-PET only disease are excluded. Candidates must have next-generation sequencing (NGS) results from a CLIA-certified tissue test available for TSG status stratification at registration. Eligible patients will receive ADT plus A (240 mg PO daily) +/- D for up to 6 cycles until progression of disease by PCWG3/RECIST version 1.1 criteria. Prior therapy with ADT (with or without ARPI) initiated within 120 days before registration is permitted. The primary endpoint is overall survival (OS). Secondary endpoints include OS by TSG status; radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS); time to castration resistance; symptomatic skeletal event–free survival; time to worsening of disease-related symptoms (NCCN-FACT FPSI-17); safety and tolerability (CTCAE v5.0); PSA90 response at 6 weeks and 6 months; time to PSA progression; and objective response rate in patients with measurable disease. The study will enroll 1200 patients and is currently actively accruing patients. Clinical trial information: NCT06931340 .

TPS277 Background: Recent advances in genomic sequencing have deepened our understanding of the molecular complexity of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC), revealing multiple actionable alterations that now inform biomarker-driven treatment strategies. Accordingly, germline and somatic tumor profiling is recommended for all patients with mCRPC. Beyond DNA aberrations, gene expression profiling can uncover additional therapeutic targets and pathway activations. The phase 2 PREDICT trial is leveraging both DNA and RNA alterations to guide rationally designed, biomarker-based therapeutic approaches for patients with mCRPC. Methods: This multi-center, multi-arm, biomarker-driven phase 2 umbrella trial is evaluating rationally selected therapies for patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). The primary endpoint is objective response rate in patients with measurable disease, with secondary endpoints including radiographic progression-free survival, PSA response, time to first symptomatic skeletal event, overall survival, safety, and correlative biomarker analyses. Eligible patients must have progressive mCRPC of any histology, prior treatment with an androgen receptor pathway inhibitor (ARPI), and either prior or declined taxane chemotherapy, with both measurable and non-measurable disease permitted. Enrollment requires standard-of-care next-generation DNA sequencing from tissue or circulating tumor DNA performed in a CLIA-certified laboratory, and RNA-based allocation will use the CLIA-certified Caris MI Tumor Seek assay (whole exome and whole transcriptome sequencing) on tissue obtained within 12 months of study entry, with a real-time molecular tumor board reviewing results to confirm arm assignment. Patients with RB1 loss (DNA), an RB functional loss signature (RNA), or an NEPC signature (RNA) will receive the EZH1/2 inhibitor valemetostat; those with ≥2 of 3 tumor suppressor gene alterations (TP53, RB1, PTEN), FANC alterations (DNA), or SLFN11 overexpression (RNA) will receive cabazitaxel plus carboplatin; and those without study-defined alterations will receive physician’s choice of cabazitaxel, ARPI, or 177Lu-PSMA-617. The design permits incorporation of additional biomarker-defined arms, and up to 158 patients per arm (64 with measurable and 94 with non-measurable disease) will be accrued under a Simon two-stage minimax design, providing a one-sided type I error of 0.05 if the true response rate is 0.20 and 90% power if the response rate is 0.37 (Clinical trial information: NCT06632977). Clinical trial information: NCT06632977 .

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.

TPS4616 Background: Osseous metastases (OM) occur in approximately 30% patients with advanced RCC. Despite therapeutic advances, OM are associated with poor survival and risk of symptomatic skeletal events (SSEs). Cabozantinib targets multiple tyrosine kinases, including vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) receptors and MET (Mesenchymal-Epithelial Transition factor), which are overexpressed in OM, contributing to cabozantinib’s enhanced bone activity. Radium-223, an alpha-emitting bone-seeking radioisotope, prolongs survival in men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer to the bone. Building on this therapeutic approach targeting OM, our pilot study of radium-223 with VEGF inhibition in RCC with OM has also shown safety, improvement in circulating bone turnover markers, and early efficacy (McKay et al, CCR 2018). To address the unmet need to improve SSE rates and outcomes in RCC and OM, we designed a study investigating cabozantinib with or without radium-223 in patients with RCC with OM (NCT04071223). Methods: This is an open-label, multicenter randomized phase-2 study. Key inclusion criteria include metastatic RCC of any histology with ≥1 OM, at least 1 OM without prior radiation, any number of prior therapies, and Karnofsky performance status ≥ 60%. Use of a bone protecting agent is required unless contraindicated. Patients are randomized 1:1 to cabozantinib with (Arm A) or without (Arm B) radium-223. The starting dose of cabozantinib for Arm A is 40 mg by mouth daily to be escalated to 60 mg daily after cycle 1 (1 cycle = 28 days) if no persistent grade 2 or grade ≥3 toxicity. Radium-223 is administered at a fixed dose of 1.49 microcurie/kg IV every 28 days x 6 doses. The starting dose for cabozantinib in Arm B is 60 mg daily. The primary endpoint is SSE-free survival. Secondary endpoints include safety, progression-free survival, overall survival, time to first SSE, objective response rate, time to subsequent anti-cancer therapies, quality of life (QoL) measures, and correlative analyses including liquid biopsy and tumor tissue analysis. The study is designed to have 85% power to detect an improvement in 6-month SSE-free survival rate from 65% to 78% with one-sided α = 0.05 significance. To ensure 124 evaluable patients, target accrual is 134 (67 per arm). The group-sequential design includes a safety run-in and an interim analysis for futility when 50% of the expected number of events have been observed. The safety run-in, performed in the first 12 patients randomized to combination therapy, did not demonstrate dose limiting toxicities. Final data analysis will occur when 99 events have been observed. The study was activated in July 2020 and accrual is ongoing throughout the National Clinical Trials Network (NCTN). Continued site participation and enrollment are essential to evaluate this therapeutic strategy. Clinical trial information: NCT04071223 .

309 Background: Standard of care (SOC) treatment options for HR-PCa include RT with long-term androgen deprivation (LT-ADT) or RP with selective use of post-operative RT +/- androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). The optimal treatment approach has been assessed in retrospective population-based and multi-center comparisons, which have yielded mixed results with substantial bias. Therefore, we conducted an emulated randomized comparison of RT vs RP in HR-PCa leveraging patients enrolled in RCTs. Methods: We searched Medline for RCTs in HR-PCa with a SOC arm of an RT- or RP-based regimen. Inclusion required similar experimental treatment and contemporaneous enrollment in the same country to reduce bias. This identified 2 trials, NRG/RTOG 0521 (RT+LT-ADT +/- 6 cycles docetaxel [doce]), and CALGB 90203 (RP +/- neoadjuvant 6 cycles doce and ADT). Due to inherent difference in the biochemical recurrence criteria after RT vs RP, we chose inverse probability of treatment weighted (IPTW) cumulative incidence of distant metastasis (DM) as the primary endpoint, considering deaths as competing events. Death after DM was measured to create a harmonized metric of deaths likely attributed to PCa. To assess potential residual selection bias, death without DM to capture non-cancer associated deaths was analyzed. Results: Overall, 1290 patients (RT n=557, RP n=733) were included, with similar median follow-up of 6.4 years. Prior to IPTW, RP patients were significantly younger with lower baseline PSA compared to RT patients. Adjuvant (18%) and salvage therapy (44%) was used in RP cohort. Cumulative incidence of DM was significantly lower in patients who underwent RT compared to RP (8-year DM: 16% vs 23%; p=0.01; subdistribution hazard ratio [sHR] 0.48 [95%CI 0.34-0.69], p<0.001). 8-year rates of death after DM were 10% vs 8% (p=0.72) in the RP and RT patients, respectively. RT patients had significantly greater risk of death without DM (HR 2.09 [1.01-4.34], p=0.048) with early differences measured. On a cross-arm comparison, 8-year cumulative incidence of DM when comparing SOC RT+LT-ADT group versus the doce+ADT+RP group was 18% vs 21%, respectively (sHR 0.75 [0.45-1.24], p=0.26). Conclusions: HR-PCa patients enrolled on RCTs had significantly lower incidence of DM with an RT-based strategy compared to an RP-based approach. Longer follow-up is needed to assess deaths attributed to PCa. Despite the strengths of the comparison (use of cooperative group RCT data, contemporaneous enrollment in the same country, patients fit enough for chemotherapy, and IPTW adjustments) there appears to be residual unmeasured bias, as expected, based on greater early deaths without DM in the RT arm. Utilization of post-operative radiotherapy and ADT+Doce may mitigate differences between RP and SOC RT+LT-ADT.

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.