Citations

5054 Background: Rucaparib significantly improved radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) versus physician’s choice of docetaxel or an androgen-receptor pathway inhibitor (ARPI) (abiraterone or enzalutamide) in men with BRCA mutations who were chemotherapy-naïve in the mCRPC setting and had received one prior ARPI in the phase 3 TRITON3 trial (NCT02975934). This post-hoc analysis evaluated whether the timing of prior ARPI therapy impacted the efficacy of rucaparib. Methods: Patients were randomized 2:1 to rucaparib (600 mg BID) or physician’s choice of docetaxel or ARPI, after progression on 1 prior second-generation ARPI in any setting. The primary endpoint was rPFS. Outcomes were analyzed according to whether patients received the prior ARPI in the metastatic castration sensitive (mCSPC) or castration resistant (mCRPC) setting. Data cutoff was August 25, 2022. Results: Of the 302 BRCA1/2 patients, 68 received prior ARPI in the mCSPC setting (42 rucaparib; 26 physician’s choice) and 234 in the mCRPC setting (159 rucaparib; 75 physician’s choice). Baseline characteristics were generally similar. Prior treatments in the mCSPC and mCRPC groups, respectively, included abiraterone (73.5% vs 53.0%), enzalutamide (29.4% vs 48.3%), and docetaxel (17.6% vs 24.8%). Median rPFS favored rucaparib over physician’s choice in both groups (mCSPC: 13.6 vs 8.2 months; HR 0.60 [95% CI, 0.32–1.15]; mCRPC: 11.2 vs 5.8 months; HR 0.43 [95% CI, 0.30–0.61]). Median OS was similar between treatments in both settings (mCSPC: 23.2 vs 21.7 months; HR 0.81 [95% CI, 0.47–1.41]; mCRPC: 23.2 vs 21.0 months; HR 0.91 [95% CI, 0.66–1.25]). Treatment-related adverse events occurred at comparable rates (89.6% vs 86.1%). Conclusions: Rucaparib demonstrated efficacy in patients with BRCA-mutated mCRPC, regardless of whether prior ARPI was administered in the mCSPC or mCRPC setting. Clinical trial information: NCT02975934 .

46 Background: Primary results from the randomized, multicenter, open-label, phase 3 TRITON3 (NCT02975934) study demonstrated that rucaparib significantly improved radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) vs physician’s choice of DTX or an ARPI. ECOG PS is used as a predictor of prostate cancer survival. In this post hoc analysis, we report results from the BRCA1/2 subgroup of pts stratified by ECOG PS. Methods: Pts with disease progression after 1 prior second-generation ARPI in any setting were randomized 2:1 to rucaparib 600 mg BID or physician’s choice of DTX or ARPI (abiraterone acetate or enzalutamide). Primary endpoint was rPFS by independent radiology review (IRR). Objective response rate (ORR) for pts with measurable disease and overall survival (OS) were key secondary endpoints. Crossover from physician’s choice to rucaparib was allowed after radiographic progression was confirmed by IRR. Data cutoff was August 25, 2022. Results: Of 302 pts in the BRCA1/2 population, 147 had an ECOG status of 0 (97 rucaparib; 50 physician’s choice) and 155 had ECOG 1 (104 rucaparib; 51 physician’s choice). Baseline characteristics and demographics were generally similar between arms for pts in the ECOG 0 and ECOG 1 groups. Median rPFS favored rucaparib vs physician’s choice for pts with ECOG 0 (11.4 vs 8.2 months; HR, 0.48 [95% CI, 0.30-0.76]) and ECOG 1 (10.9 vs 6.1 months; HR, 0.48 [95% CI, 0.31-0.74]) (Table). Additionally, rPFS favored rucaparib for ECOG 0 and ECOG 1 including those whose prespecified physician’s choice was ARPI or docetaxel (Table). The confirmed ORR (95% CI) of rucaparib vs physician’s choice for ECOG 0 was 54% (37%–69%) vs 16% (3%–40%); the ORR for ECOG 1 was 37% (22%–53%) vs 18% (5%–40%), respectively. Median OS was similar between arms for rucaparib or physician’s choice; median OS was 23.7 vs 21.7 months (HR, 0.91 [95% CI, 0.61–1.37]) for ECOG 0 and 21.8 vs 20.4 months (HR, 0.85 [95% CI, 0.58–1.24]) for ECOG 1. Conclusions: Rucaparib improved rPFS and ORR in pts with BRCA-mutated prostate cancer with an ECOG PS of 0 or 1. OS was similar for these groups in both arms. These data support rucaparib as a treatment option for pts with BRCA-mutated mCRPC, whether ECOG 0 or 1. Clinical trial information: NCT02975934 . Median rPFS in patients in the ECOG 0 and ECOG 1 groups. Rucaparib, n Physician’s choice, n rPFS Rucaparib, median months rPFS Physician’s choice, median months HR (95% CI) rPFS, ECOG 0 97 50 11.4 8.2 0.48 (0.30–0.76) rPFS, ECOG 1 104 51 10.9 6.1 0.48 (0.31–0.74) rPFS, physician’s choice ARPI, ECOG 0 51 24 11.2 5.6 0.42 (0.22–0.78) rPFS, physician’s choice docetaxel, ECOG 0 46 26 11.5 8.8 0.49 (0.24–0.98) rPFS, physician’s choice ARPI, ECOG 1 52 17 11.2 4.5 0.33 (0.16–0.68) rPFS, physician’s choice docetaxel, ECOG 1 52 34 10.7 7.1 0.59 (0.34–1.01)

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.

BACKGROUND Predictive biomarkers to guide chemotherapy decisions for metastatic castration–resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) are lacking. Preclinical studies indicate that circulating tumor cell (CTC) studies of chromosomal instability (CTC-CIN) can predict taxane resistance. METHODS The CARD trial randomized individuals with mCRPC progressing within a year of treatment with an androgen receptor pathway inhibitor (ARPI; enzalutamide or abiraterone acetate plus prednisolone/prednisone) to cabazitaxel or the alternative ARPI. As a preplanned biomarker analysis, CTCs were isolated from blood samples obtained at baseline, cycle 2, and the end of treatment. Associations between baseline CTC and CTC-CIN counts with imaging-based progression-free survival (ibPFS), overall survival (OS), time to prostate-specific antigen (PSA) progression, RECIST 1.1 objective response rate (ORR), and PSA 50 response rate were assessed. RESULTS High baseline CTC-CIN counts significantly associated with worse OS after adjustment for confounding variables (median OS, 15.3 vs. 8.9 months; univariate HR, 2.16; 95% CI, 1.52–3.06; P < 0.001; multivariate HR, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.01–2.43; P = 0.047). Detectable CTC-CIN counts at baseline may predict a lack of ibPFS and OS benefit when comparing cabazitaxel with ARPI. CONCLUSION This preplanned analysis of biomarker data from the CARD trial confirms that CTC-CIN counts are a clinically useful prognostic and predictive biomarker of taxane resistance in mCRPC. Detectable CTC-CIN at baseline defines a patient subpopulation with unmet clinical needs in which alternative therapeutics should be tested. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov number NCT02485691. FUNDING Funded by Sanofi and Epic Sciences.

TPS5118 Background: The median overall survival of patients with mCRPC remains under 2 years even with newer therapies. Xaluritamig, an XmAb 2+1 T-cell engager that targets the six-transmembrane epithelial antigen of prostate 1 (STEAP1), facilitates lysis of STEAP1-expressing cancer cells, such as those in advanced prostate cancer. In a first-in-human study, xaluritamig demonstrated encouraging efficacy and a manageable safety profile for patients with mCRPC refractory to standard of care therapies (Kelly WK, et al. Cancer Discov. 2024;14(1):76-89). Methods: XALute is a randomized, multicenter, open-label, phase 3 study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of xaluritamig vs cabazitaxel or second ARDT in men with mCRPC previously treated with taxane chemotherapy. Enrollment in the control arm treatments will be split evenly between cabazitaxel and second ARDT. Stratification factors include LDH ≤ or > 260 IU/L, liver metastases (Y/N), prior prostate-specific membrane antigen radioligand therapy (PSMA-RLT) (Y/N) and the intention to treat with cabazitaxel or ARDT switch. Approximately 675 patients will be enrolled. Participants will be randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to xaluritamig monotherapy or standard care. Participants will receive treatment until radiographic disease progression per Prostate Cancer Clinical Trials Working Group 3 (PCWG3), unacceptable toxicity, initiation of other anticancer therapy, withdrawal of consent, death, or end of study as determined by the sponsor. The primary efficacy endpoint is overall survival. The key secondary efficacy endpoint is radiographic progression-free survival per PCWG3 by blinded independent central review. Key inclusion criteria are pathological/cytological confirmation of prostate adenocarcinoma; mCRPC with at least one metastatic lesion; evidence of progressive disease; prior treatment with at least one ARDT; one taxane therapy in the mCRPC setting, and ongoing androgen deprivation with serum testosterone levels (<50 ng/dL or <1.7 nmol/L). Prior treatment with PSMA-RLT, poly ADP-ribosylation inhibitors, and immune checkpoint inhibitors are permitted. Exclusion criteria include prior STEAP1-targeted therapy, any anticancer therapy within 4 weeks prior to first dose of study treatment (not including androgen deprivation therapy), prior PSMA-RLT within 2 months of first dose of study treatment unless less than 2 cycles received, and prior radionuclide therapy (radium-223) within 2 months of first dose of study treatment To mitigate risk of cytokine release syndrome, xaluritamig will be administered with step dosing. Cabazitaxel or second ARDT will be administered according to regional prescribing information. Funded by Amgen Inc. Clinical trial information: NCT06691984 .

5060 Background: Rucaparib significantly improved radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) in men with BRCA-mutated chemotherapy-naïve metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) vs a control arm of physician’s choice of therapy (docetaxel or androgen-receptor pathway inhibitor [ARPI] therapy: abiraterone acetate or enzalutamide) in the randomized, multicenter, open-label, phase 3 TRITON3 (NCT02975934) study. Herein, we conducted an analysis to determine the impact of germline vs somatic mutation status on the efficacy of rucaparib. Methods: Patients were randomized 2:1 to receive rucaparib 600 mg BID or physician’s choice of docetaxel or ARPI following progression while on 1 prior second-generation ARPI in any setting. The primary endpoint was rPFS. Color Health did genetic testing. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were reported for the BRCA subgroup. Results: In the rucaparib arm, 201/270 patients had BRCA mutations, and in the physician’s choice arm, 101/135 patients had BRCA mutations. Of patients with BRCA mutations: in the rucaparib arm, 80/201 (40%) were germline and 116/201 (58%) were somatic with 5/201 (2%) BRCA mutation status unknown, while in the physician’s choice arm, 39/101 (39%) were germline and 48/101 (48%) were somatic with 14/101 (14%) BRCA mutation status unknown. rPFS was significantly improved with rucaparib treatment vs physician’s choice in both the germline and somatic mutation groups (germline: HR, 0.52 [95% CI, 0.32–0.84]; somatic: HR, 0.38 [95% CI, 0.25–0.59]). Incidence rates of TEAEs were similar overall between patients with germline and somatic BRCA mutations in both arms. Conclusions: Rucaparib improves progression-free survival for patients with mCRPC with either germline or somatic BRCA mutations with a manageable safety profile. These data support the use of rucaparib as a beneficial treatment option for patients with BRCA-mutated mCRPC with germline or somatic mutations. Clinical trial information: NCT02975934 .

5013 Background: There is no established role for the use of docetaxel with ADT and RT for HRLPC, with mixed results seen in prior RCTs. Prior work from ICECaP (Ravi et al, Eur Urol 2024) has shown that patients (pts) with very high-risk disease (i.e. 2 or 3 risk factors [RFs]: Gleason ≥8, PSA >20, ≥cT3 and/or cN1) have the poorest outcomes with RT+ADT for HRLPC, with 5-year metastasis-free survival (MFS) of ≤80%. We aimed to perform an IPD meta-analysis of the role of docetaxel with ADT+RT for HRLPC and specifically evaluate whether patients with very high-risk disease benefit from the addition of docetaxel. Methods: IPD from RCTs involving pts with HRLPC treated with RT+ADT +/- docetaxel collated by ICECaP were analyzed. “High-risk” disease was defined as presence of 1 RF and “very high-risk” disease as 2-3 RFs and/or cN1 disease. The primary outcomes of interest were MFS and overall survival (OS). Hazard ratios (HR) for MFS and OS were estimated using Cox regression, stratified by year of randomization and adjusted for age at randomization and ECOG performance status. 5-year MFS and OS rates were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Subgroup analyses were performed according to the severity of disease (high- and very high-risk), and p-values for interaction were tested using the likelihood ratio test. Results: 1690 pts treated on 4 RCTs (GETUG-12, DFCI 05-043, STAMPEDE, RTOG-0521) between 2002-2015 were eligible. Median age was 65, median PSA was 23 (IQR 10-48); 154 (9%) pts had cN1 disease and 1444 (85%) received long-term ADT with RT. Median follow-up was 10 years (range: <1-15). Overall, the addition of docetaxel to RT+ADT was not associated with a significant benefit in MFS (HR=0.89 [0.76-1.05], p=0.160) or OS (HR=0.88 [0.74-1.05], p=0.167). Though there was some evidence for favoring docetaxel in pts with very high-risk disease (n=1054; MFS HR=0.86 [0.71-1.05]; OS HR=0.85 [0.68-1.07]) compared to high-risk disease (n=636; MFS HR=0.97 [0.74-1.27]; OS HR=0.95 [0.71-1.28]), there was no evidence of a significant difference in treatment effect by risk group (p-interaction >0.1). 5- and 10-yr MFS and OS in pts with high- and very high-risk disease, stratified by receipt of docetaxel, are shown in the Table. Conclusions: Some HRLPC pts with very high-risk disease may benefit from the addition of docetaxel to RT+ADT. Biomarker evaluation within this group may identify those who are candidates for treatment intensification with docetaxel with RT+ADT (+/- androgen receptor pathway inhibitors) in HRLPC. % (95% CI) High risk Very high-risk RT+ADT RT+ADT+docetaxel RT+ADT RT+ADT+docetaxel 5yr MFS 87 (82-90) 90 (86-93) 74 (71-78) 80 (76-83) 5yr OS 90 (86-93) 93 (90-96) 84 (80-86) 89 (86-92) 10yr MFS 67 (61-72) 71 (65-76) 51 (46-55) 55 (49-60) 10yr OS 74 (69-79) 77 (72-82) 62 (57-67) 67 (62-72)

Abstract Background: Chromosomal instability (CIN) is frequent in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) and determines taxane resistance. A circulating tumor cell (CTC) assay which morphologically identifies CTCs with CIN (CTC-CIN) from a single tube of whole blood could predict clinical outcomes in this population. We tested this hypothesis as a pre-planned, secondary outcome of the CARD trial, where patients with mCRPC progressing within a year of treatment with an androgen receptor pathway inhibitor (ARPI; enzalutamide or abiraterone acetate + prednisolone/prednisone) were randomized to treatment with cabazitaxel or the alternative ARPI. Methods: CTCs were isolated from blood samples obtained at baseline; cycle two, and end of treatment. The associations of baseline CTC and counts with imaging-based progression free survival (ibPFS), overall survival (OS), time to prostate-specific antigen (PSA) progression, RECIST 1.1 objective response rate (ORR), and PSA50 response rate (PRR) were assessed. Results: Of 255 patients randomized, CTC counts were acquired from 237 patients at screening, 213 patients at C2D1, and 166 patients at EOT. High baseline CTC counts were significantly associated with worse OS (median OS, 14.9 vs 9.8 months; univariate HR, 1.81; 95% CI, 1.30 - 2.51; p &lt; 0.001). High baseline CTC-CIN counts were significantly associated with worse OS after adjustment for confounding variables (median OS, 15.3 vs 8.9 months; univariate HR, 2.16; 95% CI, 1.52 - 3.06; p &lt; 0.001; multivariate HR, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.01 - 2.43; p = 0.047). Low CTC-CIN at baseline predicted ibPFS, ORR, and PRR benefit with cabazitaxel; conversely, high at baseline predicted no different ibPFS or OS outcomes with cabazitaxel or a second ARPI. Conclusions: This preplanned biomarker analysis of CARD confirmed that CTC-CIN counts are prognostic for OS and may be predictive of cabazitaxel benefit. (Funded by Sanofi and Epic Sciences; CARD ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02485691.) Citation Format: Ossian Longoria, Jan Rekowski, Santosh Gupta, Nick Beije, Klaus Pantel, Eleni Efstathiou, Cora Sternberg, Daniel Castellano, Karim Fizazi, Bertrand Tombal, Adam Sharp, Oliver Sartor, Sandrine Mace, Christine Geffriaud-Ricouard, Richard Wenstrup, Ronald de Wit, Johann de Bono. Morphological evaluation of chromosomal instability in circulating tumor cells and prediction of taxane resistance in metastatic prostate cancer: a prespecified sub-analysis of the CARD trial [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2025; Part 1 (Regular Abstracts); 2025 Apr 25-30; Chicago, IL. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2025;85(8_Suppl_1):Abstract nr 1145