Citations

220 Background: There is a critical need to identify biomarkers of response and resistance to 177Lu-PSMA-617. Post-hoc analyses of VISION have explored the prognostic and predictive value of select clinical parameters. However, we are still in the early stages of deciphering which molecular changes are associated with favorable or adverse treatment outcomes. Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis of patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC), who received 177Lu-PSMA-617 at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, in the interval of March 2022 to March 2023. We included patients who provided research authorization, had a baseline PSA of at least 2 ng/mL, received at least 2 cycles of treatment, and had circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) genomic profiling performed by Guardant (83 gene panel) within 60 days of treatment initiation. Clinical, laboratory, genomic, and radiomic parameters were abstracted by trained research personnel. Two independent analyses of “response” and “resistance” were performed. Response to treatment was defined as 50% or greater decrease in PSA from baseline (PSA50 response: dichotomized yes versus no), and resistance was defined as non-decreasing or rising PSA during treatment (PSA non-response: dichotomized yes versus no). Associations between gene alterations and response and resistance were evaluated via Fisher’s exact tests. Results: Between March 2022 and March 2023, 273 patients received cycle 1 of 177Lu-PSMA-617. A total of 108 patients met the inclusion criteria. The median number of cycles at data cutoff was 6 (IQR: 4,6) with 57 (53%) patients receiving all 6 planned cycles. The median PSA at baseline was 16.65 ng/ml (IQR: 5.20, 66.12). A total of 65 patients (60%) experienced a PSA50 response. No molecular alterations were associated with a higher rate of PSA50 response; however, alterations in ARID1A, AR, and CHEK2 were associated with lack of PSA50 response (Fisher’s exact p < 0.05). Of the 108 evaluable patients, 20 (19%) met criteria for PSA non-response. Alterations in AR, ARID1A, MYC, TP53, CHEK2, ATM, EGFR, and NOTCH1 were significantly associated with PSA non-response (Fisher’s exact p < 0.05); in each case, the presence of the alteration was positively associated with resistance (i.e., more instance of PSA non-response). No biomarkers were found to be inversely associated with PSA non-response. Conclusions: ctDNA assessed by commercially available, targeted sequencing panels prior to treatment may be useful in identifying the patients least likely to benefit from 177Lu-PSMA-617. Further work is ongoing to integrate ctDNA findings with clinical parameters in the hopes of understanding the factors mediating response and resistance to therapy.

191 Background: Two randomized clinical trials have demonstrated that SABR can prolong time to progression in oligometastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (omCSPC) patients. However, there is a need for predictive tools to identify patients who will benefit from SABR alone or with systemic therapy. We investigated the prognostic value of PSMA-positive extracellular vesicles (PSMA+EVs) in a blinded observational study using blood samples from three independent patient cohorts. Methods: We obtained plasma samples from 157 omCSPC patients treated with SABR from the ORIOLE cohort (N=30, JHU) and STOMP-like cohorts (N=80, UGhent; N=47, Iridium Net). Baseline PSMA+EV levels (EV/ml) were measured by nanoscale flow cytometry. Primary clinical endpoints were biochemical progression (bPFS) and radiographic progression (rPFS). Optimal cutoffs for PSA (ng/ml) and PSMA+EV (EVs/ml) were defined as the point with the most significant log-rank test split. Kaplan-Meier curves and univariate Cox regression models were used to determine the association of PSMA+EV levels with clinical outcomes. Results: Twenty percent of patients (N=157 total) were diagnosed with bone scan, 79% with PET imaging, and 1% with other modalities. Ninety-four percent of patients presented with ≤3 metastases on imaging. In the pooled STOMP-like cohorts, median bPFS was 27.9 and 18.0 months for PSMA+EV low and high groups, respectively (p=0.039). Median rPFS was 36.0 versus 27.0 months (p=0.029). In the ORIOLE cohort, median bPFS was 24.3 and 5.9 months in PSMA+EV low and high, respectively (p=0.021). Median rPFS was 36.0 versus 11.1 months (p=0.019). High baseline PSMA+EV levels were associated with higher risk of both biochemical and radiographic progression (Table). Combination of baseline PSA low and PSMA+EV low outperformed either biomarker alone and better predicted risk of disease progression after SABR. Conclusions: While prospective biomarker-guided trials are warranted, a PSMA+EV blood test can aid patient selection by identifying omCSPC patients who may have durable responses to SABR without ADT. [Table: see text]

175 Background: It is well-known that patients with liver metastases from metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) have poorer or transient responses to many forms of systemic therapy. Data on outcomes following treatment with Lutetium-177–PSMA-617 is scarce. The VISION trial reports hazard ratios for overall survival in the subgroup of patients with liver metastases without disclosing the absolute duration of survival. Using real-world clinical data, we examine this important subgroup of patients, describing their PSA response rates and survival. Methods: A single institution database was assembled to include all patients receiving 177-Lu-PSMA-617 at Mayo Clinic Rochester, MN, and starting treatment in the interval of March 2022 to March 2023. Baseline clinicopathologic and imaging characteristics were abstracted. Patients were categorized based on the presence or absence of measurable liver metastases on their baseline PSMA PET scan. Best PSA response while on treatment was annotated and reported as percent decline from baseline. Survival was calculated from date of first cycle of 177-Lu-PSMA-617. PSA50 response and overall survival (OS) outcomes for the two groups (liver metastases versus no liver metastases) were compared using Chi square test and Kaplan-Meier method, respectively. Those with available pre-treatment circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) genomic profiling, performed by Guardant (83 gene panel), were assessed for the presence of pathogenic and likely pathogenic alterations. Findings are summarized using descriptive statistics. Results: The overall cohort consisted of 212 patients, including 29 (14%) with liver metastases on pre-treatment PSMA PET/CT. The median number of cycles received was 4 (range, 1-6) for patients with liver metastases and 6 (range, 1-6) for those without hepatic involvement. The observed PSA50 response trended lower for those with liver metastases (34.5% [10/29] versus 51% [94/183], p= 0.091). At median (IQR) follow-up of 10 (8-12) months, there was a numerical but not statistically significant difference in median OS (11.28 months versus NR, p=0.066). In the exploratory analysis of baseline ctDNA, BRCA2 copy number loss was relatively enriched among patients with liver metastases (4 of 19, 21%) versus patients without liver disease (5.7%, 9/158). Conclusions: Our data suggest that the presence of liver metastases predict poorer outcomes in patients receiving Lutetium-177–PSMA-617 treatment, which is similar to data reported with other forms of systemic therapy for mCRPC. To maximize the anti-tumor activity of radioligand therapy in the liver, combination approaches should be explored.

173 Background: The data for combining PARPi and ARPi in mCRPC have shown conflicting results. Here, we report a quantitative summary of benefits by clinically meaningful subgroups (HRR mutation status, BRCA mutation status) to guide the use of PARPi and ARPi combination in mCRPC setting. Methods: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL were systematically searched from each database’s inception through September 7, 2023. Phase III studies comparing PARPi + ARPi with ARPi + placebo in mCRPC were included. Radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) and overall survival (OS) in patient subgroups based on HRR and BRCA mutation status were assessed. Hazard ratios for rPFS and OS with 95% CI were collected at the level of each trial, and a random-effects meta-analysis was conducted using an inverse variance approach. Subgroup differences were assessed and p-value of interaction <0.1 was considered statistically significant. Results: The literature search identified 4976 studies from which 3 trials (11 references) – TALAPRO2, PROpel and MAGNITUDE met the inclusion criteria. A total of 2254 participants were eligible for analysis. PARPi + ARPi prolonged rPFS in patients with HRR mutations (HR: 0.55, 95%CI: 0.38-0.78) as well as in patients without HRR mutations (HR: 0.74, 95%CI: 0.63-0.88). There is no evidence of treatment interaction by HRR mutation status (p = 0.14). In patients harboring HRR mutations, improved rPFS was observed in those with BRCA mutations (HR: 0.28, 95%CI: 0.13-0.62) as well as those without BRCA mutations (HR: 0.72, 95%CI: 0.59-0.87). However, there is evidence that patients with BRCA mutations derived greater rPFS benefit as compared to patients without BRCA mutations (p =0.02). PARPi + ARPi showed no significant improvement in overall survival either in patients with HRR mutations (HR: 0.79, 95%CI: 0.59-1.05) or in patients without HRR mutations (HR: 0.92, 95%CI: 0.74-1.14). Conclusions: Genomic testing for HRR genes is mandatory to guide clinical decision making in mCRPC patients. Patients harboring BRCA mutations are most likely to derive clinically meaningful benefit from combination PARPi + ARPi treatment. [Table: see text]

171 Background: Treatment effects vary by volume of disease and timing of metastatic presentation in patients with mCSPC. Therefore, we updated the existing body of evidence to assess the comparative efficacy of systemic therapy in mCSPC by prognostic subgroups to inform clinical practice guidelines. Methods: This living systematic review was conducted using the living interactive evidence (LIvE) synthesis framework. Phase III clinical trials assessing contemporary systemic therapy in mCSPC and reporting overall survival (OS) by four prognostic subgroups were included. Prognostic subgroups included synchronous high volume (SHV), synchronous low volume (SLV), metachronous high volume (MHV), and metachronous low volume (MLV) disease. Mixed treatment comparisons were made using a network-meta-analytic approach in each subgroup. P-scores were used to assess relative treatment rankings in congruency with pairwise estimates. Higher scores indicated better efficacy. Results: This study included a total of nine trials with eight unique treatment options. In patients with SHV disease, darolutamide+docetaxel+ADT (DARO+D+ADT) significantly improved OS when compared to D+ADT (HR: 0.69; 0.57-0.85), enzalutamide (E)+ADT (HR: 0.67; 95% CI: 0.46-0.99), and apalutamide (APA)+ADT (HR: 0.65; 95% CI: 0.43-0.96). In patients with SLV disease, E+ADT (HR: 0.62; 95% CI: 0.42-0.91) and AAP+ADT (HR: 0.66; 95% CI: 0.49-0.89) significantly improved OS when compared to ADT. Although E+D+ADT trended toward improvement compared to other treatments, the results were not statistically significant. In patients withMHV disease, no statistically significant differences were observed among mixed treatment comparisons. However, OS with DARO+D+ADT trended toward improvement when compared to D+ADT (HR: 0.69; 95% CI: 0.39-1.23), APA+ADT (HR: 0.72; 95% CI: 0.23-2.33), E+ADT (HR: 0.67; 95% CI: 0.24-1.86), and E+D+ADT (HR: 0.59; 95% CI: 0.26-1.34). In patients with MLV disease, E+ADT significantly improved OS compared to ADT (HR: 0.51; 95% CI: 0.32-0.79), and D+ADT (HR: 0.48; 95% CI: 0.27-0.85). APA+ADT significant improved OS compared to ADT (HR: 0.22; 95% CI: 0.09-0.54), and D+ADT (HR: 0.21; 95% CI: 0.08-0.55). No other statistically significant differences were observed among mixed treatment comparisons. Conclusions: Current evidence suggests that triplet systemic therapy may be preferred in SHV, E systemic triplet and E hormonal doublet in SLV, DARO systemic triplet and APA hormonal doublet in MHV, and APA or E hormonal doublets in MLV mCSPC. [Table: see text]

111 Background: Comparative evidence of quality of life (QoL) outcomes regarding life-prolonging treatments for the management of first-line treatment of metastatic castration sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC) is not known. Methods: This systematic review uses the living interactive evidence synthesis framework (PMID: 36862387). Phase III randomized controlled trials assessing contemporary systemic treatments in mCSPC were included. Small sample size adjusted standardized mean differences (SMD; Hedges’ g) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were computed for global QoL at 3, 6, 12, and 24 mo. Positive SMD indicated better health-related QoL, with zero indicating a null effect. Mixed treatment comparisons were made using a network meta-analysis. P-scores were computed; a higher score indicated better QoL. Results: Of 10 clinical trials initially included, eight trials (15 references) reported QoL. At 3mo global QoL was improved with abiraterone (AAP)+ADT compared to D+ADT (SMD: 0.26; 95% CI: 0.13-0.39), enzalutamide (E)+ADT (0.18; 0.03-0.33), and ADT (0.14; 0.02-0.27). At 6mo, AAP+ADT significantly improved global QoL compared to D+ADT (0.74; 0.62-0.87), E+ADT (1.74; 1.56-1.92), and ADT (1.79; 1.65-1.93). D+ADT also improved global QoL at 6mo compared to ADT (1.05; 0.93-1.16) but not when compared to E+ADT. At 12mo, AAP+ADT improved global QoL compared to E+ADT (0.20; 0.05-0.34) and ADT (0.19; 0.07-0.31) but not compared to D+ADT (0.05; -0.07-0.17). D+ADT also improved global QoL at 12mo compared to ADT (0.14; 0.03-0.24) (Table). Global QoL has not been reported for ARASENS trial at this time. These results are available on the Living interactive website. Conclusions: The totality of evidence suggests improved global QoL with androgen-pathway inhibitors (API) doublet therapy. D+ADT may offer better QoL at longer 6 and 12 months of follow-up. QoL data for triplet therapy is still emerging and will be incorporated in the living review as soon as it becomes available. [Table: see text]

Background: Approximately 30% of renal cell carcinoma (RCC) cases present with de novo metastatic disease, while 20% to 30% of those with localized disease will develop metastases following surgical resection. Various drug classes have been investigated to treat RCC, including cytokine-based therapies, small molecule Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor (VEGF) tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) and antibody-based therapies. Up to 58% of patients fail to respond to primary immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy, and nearly all initial responders experience disease progression due to the development of secondary resistance. Consequently, novel treatment options are being investigated. Objective: Review the rapidly evolving ADC therapeutic landscape in metastatic RCC including recent trials, emerging ADCs targets, and future directions for ADCs in the treatment of advanced RCC. Methods: Literature review using the MEDLINE database on important trials and presentations from the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), and the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) conferences. Key words used included “renal cell carcinoma,” “RCC,” “metastatic RCC,” “advanced RCC,” “antibody-based therapies,” “immunotherapy,” “clinical trials,” and “emerging drugs.” Specifically for review of ADCs in RCC, the following search string was used with additional review of bibliographies from retrieved papers: “((antibody drug conjugate) OR (antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity) OR (chimeric antigen receptor)) AND ((kidney cancer) OR (renal cell carcinoma))”. Results: Several promising targets including MMP14, EGFR, MCT4, CA9, MET, CDH13, B7-H3, and PSMA were identified with relevant preclinical and clinical studies reviewed. Conclusions: While ADCs therapeutics have not shown benefit to date for renal cell carcinoma, there are ample promising candidates and targets for future research.

Abstract Background: Many patients use artificial intelligence (AI) chatbots as a rapid source of health information. This raises important questions about the reliability and effectiveness of AI chatbots in delivering accurate and understandable information. Purpose: To evaluate and compare the accuracy, conciseness, and readability of responses from OpenAI ChatGPT-4 and Google Bard to patient inquiries concerning the novel 177Lu-PSMA-617 therapy for prostate cancer. Materials and Methods: Two experts listed the 12 most commonly asked questions by patients on 177Lu-PSMA-617 therapy. These twelve questions were prompted to OpenAI ChatGPT-4 and Google Bard. AI-generated responses were distributed using an online survey platform (Qualtrics) and blindly rated by eight experts. The performances of the AI chatbots were evaluated and compared across three domains: accuracy, conciseness, and readability. Additionally, potential safety concerns associated with AI-generated answers were also examined. The Mann-Whitney U and chi-square tests were utilized to compare the performances of AI chatbots. Results: Eight experts participated in the survey, evaluating 12 AI-generated responses across the three domains of accuracy, conciseness, and readability, resulting in 96 assessments (12 responses x 8 experts) for each domain per chatbot. ChatGPT-4 provided more accurate answers than Bard (2.95 ± 0.671 vs 2.73 ± 0.732, p=0.027). Bard's responses had better readability than ChatGPT-4 (2.79 ± 0.408 vs 2.94 ± 0.243, p=0.003). Both ChatGPT-4 and Bard achieved comparable conciseness scores (3.14 ± 0.659 vs 3.11 ± 0.679, p=0.798). Experts categorized the AI-generated responses as incorrect or partially correct at a rate of 16.6% for ChatGPT-4 and 29.1% for Bard. Bard's answers contained significantly more misleading information than those of ChatGPT-4 (p = 0.039). Conclusion: AI chatbots have gained significant attention, and their performance is continuously improving. Nonetheless, these technologies still need further improvements to be considered reliable and credible sources for patients seeking medical information on 177Lu-PSMA-617 therapy.

Patients with advanced cancers who either do not experience initial response to or progress while on immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) receive salvage radiotherapy to reduce tumor burden and tumor-related symptoms. Occasionally, some patients experience substantial global tumor regression with a rebound of cytotoxic CD8 + T cells. We have termed the rebound of cytotoxic CD8 + T cells in response to salvage therapy as T cell resilience and examined the underlying mechanisms of resilience. Resilient T cells are enriched for CX3CR1 + CD8 + T cells with low mitochondrial membrane potential, accumulate less reactive oxygen species (ROS), and express more malic enzyme 1 (ME1). ME1 overexpression enhanced the cytotoxicity and expansion of effector CD8 + T cells partially via the type I interferon pathway. ME1 also increased mitochondrial respiration while maintaining the redox state balance. ME1 increased the cytotoxicity of peripheral lymphocytes from patients with advanced cancers. Thus, preserved resilient T cells in patients rebound after salvage therapy and ME1 enhances their resiliency.