Citations

10610 Background: The role for genetic testing (GT) for prostate cancer (PCa) patients (pts) has expanded to find pts with germline pathogenic variants (PV) for therapeutic opportunities given FDA-approvals for PARP inhibitors in metastatic PCa as well as understanding familial cancer risk and opportunities for tailored screening and risk reduction. The PROMISE Registry (NCT04995198) was set up as a genetic registry to partner with PCa pts for rapid access to a new standard of care given insurance coverage and clinical implementation were initially major barriers. A second goal is to characterize disease features and treatment outcomes to inform management and provide updates about novel therapeutic clinical trials, both of which remain important to rare genetic variant carriers. Methods: PROMISE is a US decentralized prospective PCa genetic registry initiated in 2021 with initial phase to enroll and provide clinical-grade germline genetic testing (30 gene cancer-specific panel) to 5,000 PCa pts to identify ~500 PCa pts with variants of interest (pathogenic variants, PV, and variants of uncertain significance, VUS) in DNA repair genes for long-term clinical follow-up of 15 years (LTFU). Here, we report the initial phase testing results and identification of the LTFU cohort. Study design and enrollment strategy have been reported separately. Results: Between 2021-2026, 7,275 pts with any stage PCa across 50 US states self-consented to PROMISE, of which 5,674 (78%) of pts completed genetic testing, indicating feasibility of patient-directed, decentralized enrollment. We have identified 495 (8.7%) pts for LTFU. Baseline data is reported for n=367 (Table 1, will be updated at time of presentation). The most frequently observed PV/LPV variants being in CHEK2 (25%) , BRCA2 (23%) , ATM (12%) , and BRCA1 (4.6%). At the time of PCa diagnosis, the majority of LTFU pts had non-metastatic disease, with 47% of pts with Gleason>7, median PSA of 5 ng/mL, and median time from diagnosis to PROMISE GT of 25 months. Conclusions: PROMISE is a nationwide decentralized PCa genetic registry that has completed initial goal to recruit 5,000 PCa pts to offer germline genetic testing and recruit a cohort of 500 for LTFU. Data about diagnosis characteristics are reported, and analysis of ongoing disease course, treatment response/outcomes and overall survival is being collected. Clinical trial information: NCT04995198 . Long-term follow-up participant demographics. Characteristic Overall, N = 367 Age at Diagnosis (yrs) 63 (57, 69) Race N = 361 (6, nr) Asian, American Indian or Alaska Native, Multiracial, Other 22 (6.0%) Black or African American 22 (6.0%) White 317 (86%) Disease State at Diagnosis N = 348 (19, nr) Metastatic 46 (13%) Non-metastatic 302 (87%) Time from Diagnosis to PROMISE GT (months) 25 (4, 82) Gleason Score N = 280 (87, nr) </= 7 148 (53%) >7 132 (47%) PSA At Diagnosis (ng/mL) 5 (0, 10) (88, nr) Subjects with baseline data entered. nr=not reported. Median (Q1, Q3); n (%).

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.

PURPOSE Previous studies suggest that SPOP mutations result in increased sensitivity to androgen receptor pathway inhibitors (ARPIs) but are limited by lack of granular data. We hypothesize that SPOP mutations are associated with improved outcomes across the spectrum of advanced prostate cancer (PC). METHODS Using the real-world clinicogenomic Prostate Cancer Precision Medicine Multi-Institutional Collaborative Effort database, we analyzed outcomes based on SPOP mutation status. The primary end point was overall survival (OS) from the diagnosis of metastatic disease. Secondary end points included real-world progression-free survival (PFS) and PSA90 response. RESULTS Among 2,097 patients with metastatic PC, 5.5% (N = 115) had SPOP -mutated tumors. Compared with SPOP wild-type, patients with SPOP mutations were older at diagnosis (median 65 v 63 years; P = .001) and had higher (≥8) Gleason sum (68% v 54%; P = .02), higher incidence of lung metastasis (17% v 6%; P = .001), and increased frequency of intraductal features (13% v 5%; P < .001). SPOP mutations were associated with improved PSA90 response with first ARPI exposure in the castrate-resistant setting (60% v 40.6%; OR, 2.20 [95% CI, 1.15 to 4.19]; P = .02) but not in the castrate-sensitive setting (78.9% v 71.5%; OR, 1.49 [95% CI, 0.66 to 3.37]; P = .43). Median PFS with first ARPI did not differ in SPOP- mutated versus wild-type group in both the castrate-sensitive (24.2 v 19.2 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.80 [95% CI, 0.49 to 1.32]; P = .39) and castrate-resistant settings (15.0 v 12.4 months; HR, 0.81 [95% CI, 0.58 to 1.12]; P = .20). In multivariable analysis, SPOP mutations were associated with improved OS (HR, 0.65, P = .02). CONCLUSION SPOP mutations were associated with longer OS despite the presence of aggressive clinical features. The distinct clinical and molecular features of SPOP -mutated PC support its consideration as a unique molecular subtype with prognostic implications.

This report aims to shed light on the intricate challenges encountered during the diagnosis and treatment of an uncommon variant of prostate cancer—mixed adenosquamous cell carcinoma of the prostate. Prostate cancers of this nature pose distinctive diagnostic and therapeutic dilemmas due to their rarity and complex histological composition. We present a case of a 63-year-old man with metastatic prostate cancer, featuring adenocarcinoma with squamous cell differentiation, who underwent a multimodal treatment approach. The patient responded to first-line carboplatin, docetaxel, and androgen deprivation therapy, followed by androgen receptor pathway inhibitor (ARPI) maintenance. However, disease progression led to radiation therapy and a subsequent switch to Lutetium (177Lu) vipivotide tetraxetan after chemotherapy challenges. Comprehensive genetic profiling revealed shared mutations in the prostate and liver lesions, emphasizing the role of targeted therapies. Prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA)-targeted therapy resulted in a notable PSA decline. This case highlights the evolving treatment landscape for rare prostate cancers, integrating genetic insights for tailored interventions. In conclusion, squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) of the prostate is rare, emphasizing the imperative for enhanced comprehension in diagnosis and management. Our case suggests the potential efficacy of ARPI and PSMA-targeted therapies. Our findings advocate for a more nuanced approach to the management of this rare prostate cancer variant, leveraging genomic insights for personalized treatment strategies. This exploration serves as a foundation for further research and clinical considerations in addressing the challenges posed by mixed adenosquamous cell carcinoma of the prostate.

AbstractBackgroundPARP (poly(ADP‐ribose) polymerase) inhibitors (PARPi) are now standard of care in metastatic castrate‐resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) patients with select mutations in DNA damage repair (DDR) pathways, but patients with ATM‐ and BRCA2 mutations may respond differently to PARPi. We hypothesized that differences may also exist in response to taxanes, which may inform treatment sequencing decisions.MethodsmCRPC patients (N = 158) with deleterious ATM or BRCA2 mutations who received taxanes, PARPi, or both were retrospectively identified from 11 US academic centers. Demographic, treatment, and survival data were collected. Kaplan−Meier analyses were performed and Cox hazard ratios (HR) were calculated for progression‐free survival (PFS) as well as overall survival (OS), from time of first taxane or PARPi therapy.ResultsFifty‐eight patients with ATM mutations and 100 with BRCA2 mutations were identified. Fourty‐four (76%) patients with ATM mutations received taxane only or taxane before PARPi, while 14 (24%) received PARPi only or PARPi before taxane. Patients with ATM mutations had longer PFS when taxane was given first versus PARPi given first (HR: 0.74 [95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.37−1.50]; p = 0.40). Similarly, OS was longer in patients with ATM mutations who received taxane first (HR: 0.56 [CI: 0.20−1.54]; p = 0.26). Among patients with BRCA2 mutations, 51 (51%) received taxane first and 49 (49%) received PARPi first. In contrast, patients with BRCA2 mutations had longer PFS when PARPi was given first versus taxane given first (HR: 0.85 [CI: 0.54−1.35]; p = 0.49). Similarly, OS was longer in patients with BRCA2 mutations who received PARPi first (HR: 0.75 [CI: 0.41−1.37]; p = 0.35).ConclusionsOur retrospective data suggest differential response between ATM and BRCA2 mutated prostate cancers in terms of response to PARPi and to taxane chemotherapy. When considering the sequence of PARPi versus taxane chemotherapy for mCRPC with DDR mutations, ATM, and BRCA2 mutation status may be helpful in guiding choice of initial therapy.

PURPOSE Two poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors (olaparib and rucaparib) are US Food and Drug Administration–approved for patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) harboring BRCA1/ 2 mutations, but the relative efficacy of PARP inhibition in BRCA1- versus BRCA2-altered mCRPC is understudied. METHODS We conducted a multicenter retrospective analysis involving 12 sites. We collected genomic and clinical data from 123 patients with BRCA1/ 2-altered mCRPC who were treated with PARP inhibitors. The primary efficacy end point was the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) response (≥ 50% PSA decline) rate. Secondary end points were PSA progression-free survival (PSA-PFS), clinical or radiographic PFS, and overall survival. We compared clinical outcomes, and other genomic characteristics, among BRCA1- versus BRCA2-altered mCRPC. RESULTS A total of 123 patients (13 BRCA1 and 110 BRCA2) were included. PARP inhibitors used were olaparib (n = 116), rucaparib (n = 3), talazoparib (n = 2), and veliparib (n = 2). At diagnosis, 72% of patients had Gleason 8-10 disease. BRCA1 patients were more likely to have metastatic disease at presentation (69% v 37%; P = .04). Age, baseline PSA, metastatic distribution, and types of previous systemic therapies were similar between groups. There were equal proportions of germline mutations (51% v 46%; P = .78) in both groups. BRCA1 patients had more monoallelic (56% v 41%; P = .49) and concurrent TP53 (55% v 36%; P = .32) mutations. PSA 50 responses in BRCA1- versus BRCA2-altered patients were 23% versus 63%, respectively ( P = .01). BRCA2 patients achieved longer PSA-PFS (HR, 1.94; 95% CI, 0.92 to 4.09; P = .08), PFS (HR, 2.08; 95% CI, 0.99 to 4.40; P = .05), and overall survival (HR, 3.01; 95% CI, 1.32 to 6.83; P = .008). Biallelic (compared with monoallelic) mutations, truncating (compared with missense) mutations, and absence of a concurrent TP53 mutation were associated with PARP inhibitor sensitivity. CONCLUSION PARP inhibitor efficacy is diminished in BRCA1- versus BRCA2-altered mCRPC. This is not due to an imbalance in germline mutations but might be related to more monoallelic mutations and/or concurrent TP53 alterations in the BRCA1 group.

5040 Background: PARPi have shown promise in mCRPC pts with mutations in DNA repair, but ATM- and BRCA2-altered pts may respond differently to PARPi. We hypothesized that differences may also exist for taxane therapy, aiding in treatment sequencing decisions. Methods: mCRPC pts (N = 137) with deleterious ATM or BRCA2 mutations who received taxanes, PARPi, or both were identified from 8 US academic centers. Demographic, treatment, and survival data were collected. Kaplan-Meier analyses were performed for time-to-treatment-discontinuation (TTD), as well as overall survival (OS), from time of first taxane or PARPi therapy. Cox hazard ratio (HR) regression analyses were performed, adjusting for Gleason sum (≤7 vs. 8-10). For OS, receipt of subsequent therapies following first taxane or PARPi was also included as a covariate. Results: 50 ATM- and 87 BRCA2-mutated pts were identified. 40/50 (80%) of ATM-mutated pts received taxane only or taxane prior to PARPi, while 10/50 (20%) received PARPi only or PARPi prior to taxane. ATM-mutated pts showed a trend towards longer TTD when taxane was given first vs PARPi given first (P = 0.08, adjusted HR for taxane treatment 0.50 [95% CI: 0.24–1.08]). Considering all pts who received taxane first, ATM-mutated pts had longer TTD than BRCA2-mutated pts who received taxane first ( P= 0.04, adjusted HR for ATM 0.61 [CI: 0.37–0.99]). Among ATM-mutated pts, OS was longer in those receiving taxane first ( P= 0.06, adjusted HR for taxane treatment 0.33 [CI: 0.10–1.05]). Among BRCA2-mutated pts, 43/87 (49%) received taxane first and 44/87 (51%) received PARPi first. BRCA2-mutated pts had longer TTD when PARPi was given first vs taxane given first ( P< 0.0001, adjusted HR for PARPi treatment 0.32 [CI: 0.19–0.56]). Considering all pts who received PARPi first, BRCA2-mutated pts also had longer TTD than ATM-mutated pts who received PARPi first ( P= 0.0031, adjusted HR for BRCA2 0.29 [CI: 0.12–0.66]). There was no significant OS difference in BRCA2-mutated pts regarding which treatment was given first ( P= 0.63, adjusted HR for PARPi treatment 1.18 [CI: 0.59–2.35]). Conclusions: Our data in ATM- and BRCA2-mutated mCRPC pts suggests a trend towards improved clinical outcomes when taxanes are used prior to PARPi in ATM-mutated pts, while the reverse sequence appears to be better for BRCA2-mutated pts.[Table: see text]

AbstractBackgroundThe goal of this study is to evaluate germline genetic variants in African American men with metastatic prostate cancer as compared to those in Caucasian men with metastatic prostate cancer in an effort to understand the role of genetic factors in these populations.MethodsAfrican American and Caucasian men with metastatic prostate cancer who had germline testing using multigene panels were used to generate comparisons. Germline genetic results, clinical parameters, and family histories between the two populations were analyzed.ResultsA total of 867 patients were included in this retrospective study, including 188 African American and 669 Caucasian patients. There was no significant difference in the likelihood of a pathogenic or likely‐pathogenic variants (PV/LPVs) between African American and Caucasian patients (p = .09). African American patients were more likely to have a variant of unknown significance than Caucasians (odds ratio [OR] = 1.95; p < .0001). BRCA1 PV/LPVs were higher in African Americans (OR = 4.86; p = .04). African American patients were less likely to have a PV/LPV in non‐BRCA DNA repair genes (OR = 0.30; p = .008). Family history of breast (OR = 2.09; p = .002) or ovarian cancer (OR = 2.33; p = .04) predicted PV/LPVs in Caucasians but not African‐Americans. This underscores the limitations of family history in AA men and the importance of personal history to guide germline testing in AA men.ConclusionsIn metastatic prostate cancer patients, PV/LPVs of tested genes did not vary by race, BRCA1 PV/LPVs were more common in the African American subset. However, PV/LPVs in non‐BRCA DNA repair genes were less likely to be encountered in African Americans. Family history associated with genetic testing results in Caucasians only.

100 Background: Two PARP inhibitors (olaparib, rucaparib) are now FDA approved for mCRPC patients with mutations in BRCA1/2, but the relative efficacy of PARP inhibition in BRCA1- vs BRCA2-altered mCRPC is understudied. Methods: We conducted a multi-center retrospective analysis involving 11 academic sites. We collected genomic and clinical data from 123 BRCA1/2-altered mCRPC patients receiving PARP inhibitor treatment. The primary efficacy endpoint was PSA50 response rate (≥50% decline in PSA level). Secondary endpoints were PFS (clinical, radiographic or PSA progression, whichever occurred first) and overall survival (OS). We also captured information on other concurrent genomic alterations. We compared genomic characteristics and clinical outcomes among BRCA1- vs BRCA2-altered mCRPC. Results: A total of 123 patients (13 BRCA1, 110 BRCA2) were included. PARP inhibitors used were olaparib (n = 116), rucaparib (n = 3), talazoparib (n = 2) and veliparib (n = 2). All BRCA1 and 71% of BRCA2 patients had Gleason 8-10 disease. Compared to BRCA2 patients, BRCA1 patients were more likely to have received prior taxane chemotherapy (77% vs 62%). Age, baseline PSA, and prior enzalutamide/abiraterone treatment were similar between groups. PSA50 responses in BRCA1- vs BRCA2-altered patients were 38% vs 65% respectively ( P= 0.06). Median PFS in BRCA1 vs BRCA2 patients was 3.0 mo (95%CI, 0.9–5.1) vs 8.0 mo (95%CI, 5.3–10.6) respectively (HR 0.42, P= 0.01). Similarly, median OS in BRCA1 vs BRCA2 patients was 11.0 mo (95%CI, 9.9–12.1) vs 24.0 mo (95%CI, 18.2–29.8) respectively (HR 0.33, P= 0.005). There were roughly equal proportions of germline mutations (50% vs 45%) and biallelic mutations (31% vs 25%) in the BRCA2 and BRCA1 groups, respectively. There were numerically more TP53 mutations in the BRCA1 vs BRCA2 group (40% vs 29%, P= 0.45), but an equal number of mutations in other key genes ( PTEN, RB1 and AR). Conclusions: PARP inhibitor activity is diminished in BRCA1- vs BRCA2-altered mCRPC. In our cohort, this differential activity was not explained by mutation origin (germline vs somatic) or allelic status (mono- vs biallelic). These findings warrant validation.