Citations

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 on select 2026 updates to the guidelines regarding nonmetastatic disease: the elimination of the very-low-risk group, updates to the Principles of Active Surveillance, and caution in the use of focal therapy in newly diagnosed patients.

The NCCN Guidelines for Prostate Cancer provide a framework on which to base decisions for patients with prostate cancer across the disease spectrum. The Guidelines sections included in this article focus on metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC), nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC), and metastatic CRPC (mCRPC). For patients with mCSPC, disease characteristics, such as whether metastases arose synchronously or metachronously and the degree of metastatic burden, impact therapy decisions, including how much treatment intensification is appropriate and when prostate-directed and/or metastasis-directed therapy should be considered. In the mCRPC setting, androgen deprivation therapy is continued with the sequential or concurrent addition of certain androgen receptor pathway inhibitors, 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, biomarkers, the extent and location of metastases, symptoms, and potential side effects.

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.

Abstract Importance Mitotane (Lysodren, o,p'-DDD [1-(o-chlorophenyl)-1-(p-chlorophenyl)-2,2-dichloroethane)] is currently the only United States Food and Drug Administration and European Medicines Agency-approved product for the treatment of adrenocortical carcinoma. Observations Mitotane is challenging to administer; however, its toxicities (specifically adrenal insufficiency) are well known, and the management of adverse consequences has established approaches. While often viewed through the prism of a cytotoxic agent, it can also interfere with hormone production making it a valuable asset in managing functional ACC. A recently completed prospective trial has shed some light on its use in the adjuvant setting, but further clarity is needed. Many think mitotane has a role in the advanced or metastatic setting, although prospective data are lacking and retrospective analyses are often difficult to interpret. Conclusions and relevance When used carefully and thoughtfully, especially in patients with hormonal excess, mitotane is an important component of the treatment armamentarium for ACC.

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.

LBA531 Background: Muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma (MIUC) is an aggressive disease with high relapse rates. Neoadjuvant platinum-based chemotherapy (NAC) is the standard of care in patients (pts) who are cisplatin (Cis)-eligible. However, many pts are Cis-ineligible or have persistent muscle-invasive disease after NAC and surgery. We evaluated pembrolizumab (Pembro) as adjuvant therapy in pts with high-risk MIUC following surgical resection. Methods: The AMBASSADOR study is an open-label, randomized, phase III trial that enrolled pts with histologically confirmed MIUC of the bladder, upper tract, or urethra who (1) had ≥ pT2 and/or pN+ or margins+ at surgery (radical cystectomy, nephrectomy, nephroureterectomy, or ureterectomy) following NAC or (2) ≥ pT3 and/or pN+ or margins+ at surgery without NAC and were either Cis-ineligible or declined adjuvant Cis-based therapy. Pts were registered ≥4 to 16 weeks after surgery and randomized 1:1 to receive Pembro 200 mg every 3 weeks for 1 year or observation (Obs). Randomization was stratified by pathologic stage, centrally tested PD-L1 status, and prior NAC. The dual primary endpoints were disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) with a target sample size of 739 pts and required 387 DFS and 320 OS events for final analysis. Secondary objectives included evaluation of DFS and OS in PD-L1-positive and -negative pts and assessing safety. Here we present the interim DFS and OS results. Results: Between 09/2017 and 08/2021 a total of 702 pts were randomized prior to early closure due to US FDA approval of nivolumab for MIUC pts: 354 pts to Pembro and 348 pts to Obs; 13.0% vs 21.6% withdrew from study without event in the Pembro vs Obs arms, respectively. 74 pts (21%) in the Obs arm received an immune checkpoint inhibitor. Median follow-up was 22.3 months (mos) for DFS and 36.9 mos for OS. The DFS endpoint (based on 319 events needed for interim analysis) crossed the efficacy boundary. Median DFS was 29.0 months (95% confidence interval (CI) 21.8‒not evaluable (NE)) with Pembro and 14.0 months (95% CI 9.7‒20.20) with Obs (hazard ratio (HR) 0.69 [95% CI 0.55–0.87]; p=0.0013). At the interim analysis (n = 257 events), median OS was 50.9 months (95% CI 43.9‒NE) with Pembro and 55.8 months (95% CI 53.3‒NE) with Obs (HR 0.98 [95% CI 0.76–1.26]; p=0.88). Grade 3+ adverse events occurred in 48.4% and 31.8% of pts in the Pembro and Obs arms, respectively. Conclusions: Adjuvant Pembro demonstrated a statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in DFS vs Obs for high-risk MIUC pts after radical surgery. The OS endpoint may have been impacted by pts on the Obs arm receiving a checkpoint inhibitor. Pembro was tolerable with no new safety signals. These results support adjuvant Pembro as a new therapeutic option for pts with MIUC with high risk for recurrence. Additional follow-up is ongoing for the final DFS/OS, PD-L1 subgroups, and ctDNA analyses. Clinical trial information: NCT03244384 .

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.