Citations

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.

140 Background: In the phase II EXTEND iADT omPC basket, MDT+iADT improved progression-free survival (PFS) vs iADT. Here we present the primary results of the EXTEND cADT omPC basket. We further report a pre-specified combined analysis with updated results from the iADT basket and examine the effects of MDT on immunity. Methods: Patients with 1 to 5 omPC metastases were randomized 1:1 to MDT+cADT vs cADT (NCT03599765). MDT consisted of definitive local therapy. cADT consisted of ADT +/- second-generation anti-androgens. The primary endpoint was per-protocol PFS, defined by biochemical criteria (Prostate Cancer Working Group 3), radiologic measures (RECIST v1.1), clinical progression, or death. 87 patients were needed to show superiority at a one-sided P of 0.10 by log-rank test. CDR3 regions in rearranged T cell receptor (TCR) β-chains from pre- and post-enrollment peripheral blood were sequenced with immunoSEQ (Adaptive Biotech). TCR repertoire modulation was defined as having TCR expansion plus contraction using a false-discovery-corrected betabinomial model. TCR sequencing from the ORIOLE trial (NCT02680587) was assessed for external validation. Results: From 2018 to 2022, 87 randomized patients were treated per protocol (MDT+cADT: 45; cADT: 42). 39% had castrate resistant omPC. MDT was definitive radiotherapy in all cases. With median follow-up of 31 mo, median PFS was 47 mo after MDT+cADT vs 22 mo after cADT (HR 0.50; 95% CI 0.23 to 1.08; one-sided P = 0.036). In the combined analysis (N=174) with median follow-up of 42 mo, MDT+ADT improved PFS (HR 0.45; 95% CI 0.30 to 0.69; P < 0.001), radiologic PFS (HR 0.63; 95% CI 0.40 to 0.97; P = 0.038), and castration-resistance free-survival (HR 0.40; 95% CI 0.19 to 0.82; P = 0.013). MDT+ADT had higher odds of TCR repertoire modulation vs ADT (55% vs 15%, P < 0.001). This finding was validated in the ORIOLE trial (MDT: 57% vs observation: 19%, P = 0.03). Among the subset of patients with extreme responses, random forest modeling of 37 clinical/immune variables identified TCR repertoire modulation as the variable with highest importance; further, MDT+ADT induced TCR repertoire modulation in all patients with favorable responses (i.e. PFS > 4 years) and none with unfavorable responses (i.e. PFS < 1 year). Among all patients randomized to MDT+ADT, TCR repertoire modulation was associated with longer PFS (HR 0.21; 95% CI 0.06 to 0.76; P = 0.02). Conclusions: MDT+cADT met the PFS primary endpoint of the phase II EXTEND trial, warranting phase III testing. From the combined analysis, MDT+ADT may also improve longer term outcomes including radiologic PFS and castration-resistance-free survival. Improved outcomes may result from MDT-induced immunomodulation, with implications for future trial design. Clinical trial information: NCT03599765 .

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.

601 Background: Neuroendocrine carcinomas (NEC) of the genitourinary (GU) tract, including small cell (SC) NEC and large cell (LC) NEC, are rare aggressive malignancies. Although highly sensitive to cisplatin-based chemotherapy, GU metastatic NEC (mNEC) have limited data to support next therapies. Lurbinectedin, a marine-derived alkylating drug and a selective inhibitor of oncogenic transcription and DNA repair pathways, is FDA-approved for small cell lung cancer (SCLC) after progression on frontline platinum-based therapy, with a disease control rate (DCR) of 68.6%. It is unknown whether DCR is similar in SCLC and GU mNEC. Methods: We report the first multi-institutional series (n=14) of lurbinectedin in GU mNEC. Imaging-based best overall responses (BOR) were noted as complete (CR), partial (PR), stable (SD), progressive (PD) or non-evaluable (NE). DCR includes CR, PR, and SD. We use the Kaplan-Meier method for overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) from lurbinectedin start date. We define duration of response (DoR) from response date to progression or last contact date for patients (pts) with CR or PR. Results: Most pts had a median age at metastasis of 70.5 years (ICR: 64-74.5) [Table]. Primary locations were bladder (7/14, 50%), prostate (5/14, 35.7%) and ureter (2/14, 12.3%). Histology at diagnosis mostly consisted of mixed or pure SCNEC, with one exception of LCNEC. Most pts had visceral disease, prior immunotherapy and at least 2 prior lines of therapy for mNEC before lurbinectedin (8/14, 57.1%). DCR was 6/14 (42.8%), including 5 bladder pts and 1 prostate pt. Among bladder pts, BOR included one CR (1/7, 14.3%) for the LCNEC case, 2 PR (2/7, 28.6%), 2 SD (2/7, 28.6%) and 2 PD (2/7, 28.6%). Most prostate and ureteral pts either progressed on lurbinectedin or were NE (Prostate: 1 PR, 2 PD, and 2 NE; Ureteral: 1 PD and 1 NE). For all 14 pts, median OS was 11.47 months (95% CI: 2.17-13.63) and median PFS was 2.8 mo (1.4-10.9). Median DoR was 7.38 mo (2.3-9.53) for 4 responding pts (CR or PR). Treatment was stopped due to progression (9/14, 64.3%), three adverse events [thrombocytopenia, electrolyte abnormalities, cerebrovascular accident] (3/14, 21.4%), and pt preference (1/14, 7.1%). Conclusions: Lurbinectedin offers encouraging responses (DCR: 5/7, 71.4%) close to those in SCLC, in previously treated bladder mNEC. One CR was noted for a bladder pt with LCNEC. Responses were less appreciated in prostate and ureteral mNEC due to NE responses and limited number. Larger cohorts are needed to confirm survival benefit and genetic analyses are warranted to identify characteristics of responders. [Table: see text]

e17025 Background: PT-112 is a novel pyrophosphate-platinum conjugate that induces immunogenic cell death, reaches highest concentrations in bone (osteotropism), and synergizes with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in preclinical models. Phase I studies in solid tumors, as monotherapy and in combination with PD-L1 inhibitor avelumab (“PAVE”), as well as in multiple myeloma as monotherapy have demonstrated that PT-112 is well-tolerated and active. We present updated safety and exploratory efficacy findings in a mCRPC sub-population treated with PAVE, including a cohort of patients at a lower-frequency dosing schedule. Methods: A total of 32 mCRPC patients (pts) received 800 mg of avelumab on days 1 and 15 of a 28-day cycle, of whom 18 received PT-112 on days 1, 8 and 15 at 200mg/m2 (n = 17) or 150 mg/m2 (n = 1); a separate cohort of 14 received PT-112 on days 1 and 15 at 300 mg/m2 (n = 13) or 200mg/m2 (n = 1). Results: Median age was 68 (range 47-87) and number of prior lines of therapy (Tx) was 7 (2-12), including prior platinum-containing therapy in 11 (34%) and ICI Tx in 9 pts (28%). Baseline grade 2 anemia was seen in 7 (22%) pts. The most common treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) were anemia (47%) and thrombocytopenia (41%); 23 pts (72%) had ≥1 grade 3-4 TRAE, with no cases of bleeding, sepsis, or grade 5 TRAEs. Antitumor effects included 8 (25%) pts with a PSA reduction of ≥50% (PSA50); 5 (16%) were maintained through ≥1 follow-up. Of ten pts with RECIST-measurable disease, 3 had tumor volume reductions, one with a confirmed partial response (PR). Twenty-four (75%) pts experienced a reduction in serum alkaline phosphatase (ALP) (median reduction 15%), and improvement in patient-reported pain and quality of life was observed. For the 13 pts given 300 mg/m2 PT-112 bi-weekly, 7 (54%) had prior platinum-containing Tx and 4 (31%) had baseline grade 2 anemia. The most common TRAEs were anemia (69%) and thrombocytopenia (54%), with 11 (85%) pts having ≥1 grade 3-4 TRAE. Four pts (31%) had PSA50 reductions; 3 (23%) were maintained through ≥1 follow-up. Conclusions: PAVE is safe and generally well tolerated in mCRPC patients at the doses and schedules tested, providing meaningful antitumor effects in heavily pre-treated patients, including tumor volume, PSA and ALP reductions. Reductions in ALP may be indicative of anti-cancer activity at bone sites of disease. Although the sample sizes are small, the frequency of confirmed PSA50 responses and of grade 3-4 TRAEs was slightly higher in the group receiving biweekly 300 mg/m2 PT-112, and higher rates of TRAEs may be explained by higher baseline anemia and/or prior platinum Tx. Further clinical investigation of the combination of PT-112 plus ICIs in a less heavily pre-treated mCRPC population is warranted. A phase 2 study of PT-112 monotherapy in mCRPC is ongoing. Clinical trial information: NCT03409458.

5078 Background: Strategies integrating androgen targeted and locoregional therapies are being increasingly used in PCa with regional spread, but are rarely curative. Angiogenesis inhibitors delay progression in castration resistant PCa and may synergize with ADT through endothelial cell apoptosis in hormone naïve patients (pts). We hypothesized that the frontline combination of ADT with the potent VEGF inhibitor Axi would improve PCa control relative to ADT alone and allow for meaningful time off systemic therapy after surgical consolidation. Methods: Pts with either clinically detected LN+ (TxN1M0 or TxNxM1a) or very high risk for LN PCa were treated with ADT for 2 mos and then randomized 2:1 to respectively add open label Axi (5 mg PO bid) vs. continue ADT alone for 4 mos until surgery. Those responding with PSA ≤5 ng/mL were offered prostatectomy and extended pelvic lymphadenectomy (RP). ADT +/- Axi was withheld postoperatively and PSA measured q3 mos until 1 y. Primary objective: proportion of pts progression free (FFP) 12 mos after RP, defined as PSA ≤1.0 ng/mL and no radiation or ADT, aiming to detect a 35% difference favoring ADT+Axi. Results: 72 pts completed accrual. We report on the 54 pts with LN+ disease: median age 62 y (range 42-76), pretreatment PSA 22.9 ng/mL (range 3.6 - 404.4), 38 N1 / 16 M1a. Table shows presurgical therapy outcomes. Path responses in the prostate were similar between arms, but in 5 ADT+Axi vs. 0 ADT LN+ pts there was no residual nodal disease. Testosterone recovery: 24/26 ADT+Axi and 9/9 ADT RP pts by 6 mos. 21/36 ADT+Axi and 15/18 ADT pts have failed; 1 y FFP estimates 48.0% (SE 8.6%) and 16.7% (SE 8.3%), respectively (p = 0.02). 1 y undetectable PSA 9 pts (6 ADT+Axi). No grade 4 toxicities or unexpected side-effects were observed. Conclusions: 1 year after RP, ADT+Axi resulted in proportionally greater number of LN+ PCa pts off treatment and progression free than ADT alone. Tissue analysis is evaluating predictors of benefit to further develop angiogenesis inhibition as part of combination strategies for hormone naïve PCa. Clinical trial information: NCT01409200. [Table: see text]

259 Introduction: RA-223 prolongs OS in BM-CRPC pts but predictive markers are lacking. We hypothesized that molecular profiling of plasma-derived extracellular vesicles (EVs) from BM-CRPC pts treated with RA-223 would predict efficacy and inform development of combinations. Methods: Paired baseline (BL) and end of treatment (EoT) blood samples were collected from 25 pts treated with RA-223. Pts were stratified by median OS into 3 groups: 1) 6.3 months (range 3.3-8.5, n=5 pts, UnFav OS), 2) 18.2 months (range 12.6-19.4, n=7 pts, Middle OS) and 3) 27.6 months (range 23.1-33.8, n=13 pts, Fav OS). EVs were isolated from plasma and analyzed for specific proteins and RNA transcripts. Marker profiles by domain and analytic method were determined in pts from the stratified OS groups. Results: At EoT, there is enrichment of RNA transcripts and proteins involved in regulating immune responses, DNA Damage Response (DDR) and bone metabolism (Table). By benchmarking molecular signatures in pts with UnFav Os and Fav OS, we could analyze the molecular profiles of pts in the Middle OS group and stratify them to UnFav OS or Fav OS groups. Conclusion: Plasma-based molecular markers are predictive for RA-223 efficacy. An association between OS and immune and DDR profiles in men with BM-CRPC may indicate mechanism of action and identify subsets most likely to benefit. These preliminary results provide rationale for combination therapy with RA-223 and immune-checkpoint blockade or PARP inhibition. Clinical trial information: NCT02135484. [Table: see text]

169 Background: Cabozantinib (Cabo), a tyrosine kinase inhibitor of c-Met and VEGFR2, modulates the tumor microenvironment in a therapeutically favorable manner. We combined Cabo with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) in patients (pts) with androgen-dependent metastatic prostate cancer (PCa) (NCT01630590). Methods: Pts received Cabo (starting dose 60 mg PO daily) and ADT with a GnRH analogue. Pts could receive up to 3 months of ADT prior to initiating Cabo. Bone scan (BS) and CT scans were performed every 12 weeks (wks). Efficacy endpoints included response in markers, BS and RECIST, and time to castrate-resistant progression defined by radiographic progression, clinical progression, or receipt of additional anti-cancer therapy. Results: From 01/27/2014 to 01/12/2016, 62 pts were enrolled: 94% (58/62) with bone metastasis, 56% (35/62) with measurable disease, 15% (9/62) with visceral involvement and 26% (16/62) with prior treatment of their primary tumor. 79% (49/62) of pts have high volume disease defined by > 4 bone lesions and/or involvement of viscera. Median time from start of ADT to start of Cabo was 3.4 wks. Improvements in BS were observed in 81% (44/54) of evaluable pts including complete responses (CR) in 15% (8/54). In evaluable pts with measurable disease, best response was stable disease in 9% (3/33), PR in 61% (20/33) and CR in 30% (10/33). Reductions in PSA > 90%, bone specific alkaline phosphatase > 50% and urine N-telopeptides > 50% occurred in 83% (50/60), 87% (34/39), 86% (19/22) of evaluable pts, respectively. With a median follow up of 21.4 months (mo), median PFS is 15.6 mo. Median duration of Cabo treatment is 13 mo. Most common toxicities are Grade 3 hypertension (16%), pulmonary embolus (6%), diarrhea (4%), fatigue (3%), nausea (3%), and deep venous thrombosis (3%) with no Grade 4 events. Cabo dose reductions to 40 and 20 mg occurred in 68% and 18% of pts, respectively, with discontinuations due to toxicity in 10% of pts. Conclusions: Cabo plus ADT has potent clinical activity in pts with high volume androgen-dependent PCa including improvements BS and reduction in markers of bone stromal function. Studies are underway to identify biomarkers predictive of best response. Clinical trial information: NCT01630590.