Advances in prostate cancer treatment: Radionuclide therapy for prostate cancer.

The optimal treatment of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) continues to be challenging, given the multitude of life prolonging treatment options. Radionuclide therapy delivers concentrated doses of radiation via ionizing particles chelated to ligands or antibody-based molecules with specific tumor targets and is approved for patients with treatment resistant mCRPC. Variations of radionuclide therapies within the continuum of prostate cancer treatment are being investigated. Landmark phase III clinical trials of beta-emitting 177Lu-PSMA radionuclide therapy have demonstrated the utility of 177Lu-PSMA in the treatment of mCRPC. Further research into alpha-emitting radionuclide therapy and vectors may provide alternative treatments for patients with treatment resistant mCRPC. As radionuclide therapy treatment options evolve, assessing appropriate patient selection for radionuclide therapy is important and may be facilitated by advances in imaging and blood-based biomarkers. Exploration of other approved life prolonging therapies in combination with radionuclide therapy has shown increasing interest as a potential method of combatting radionuclide therapy resistance. In this chapter, we review various types of radionuclide therapies for mCRPC, patient selection for radionuclide therapy from outcome predictions, ongoing clinical trials of radiopharmaceuticals for treatment of prostate cancer, and the resistance mechanisms and challenges to radionuclide therapy.

Darolutamide in Combination With Androgen-Deprivation Therapy in Patients With Metastatic Hormone-Sensitive Prostate Cancer From the Phase III ARANOTE Trial.

PURPOSE: For patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC), delaying progression to castration-resistant disease is important not only for overall survival (OS) but also for patients' quality of life. Darolutamide plus androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) with docetaxel improved OS versus ADT and docetaxel in patients with mHSPC. The ARANOTE trial evaluated darolutamide and ADT without chemotherapy in patients with mHSPC. METHODS: In this global phase III trial, patients were randomly assigned 2:1 to receive darolutamide 600 mg twice daily or placebo, with concomitant ADT. The primary end point was radiological progression-free survival (rPFS). RESULTS: From March 2021 to August 2022, 669 patients were randomly assigned (darolutamide n = 446; placebo n = 223). At the primary cutoff date (June 7, 2024), darolutamide plus ADT significantly improved rPFS, reducing the risk of radiological progression or death by 46% versus placebo plus ADT (hazard ratio [HR], 0.54 [95% CI, 0.41 to 0.71]; P < .0001), with consistent benefits across subgroups, including high- and low-volume disease. OS results were suggestive of benefit with darolutamide versus placebo (HR, 0.81 [95% CI, 0.59 to 1.12]), and clinical benefits were seen across all other secondary end points, including delayed time to metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (HR, 0.40 [95% CI, 0.32 to 0.51]) and time to pain progression (HR, 0.72 [95% CI, 0.54 to 0.96]). Adverse events were similar in the two groups. Notably, the incidence of fatigue was lower in patients receiving darolutamide (5.6%) versus those receiving placebo (8.1%), and fewer patients receiving darolutamide (6.1%) versus placebo (9.0%) discontinued treatment because of adverse events. CONCLUSION: These results confirm the efficacy and tolerability of darolutamide plus ADT in patients with mHSPC, demonstrating clinically and statistically significant improvement in rPFS and a favorable safety profile consistent with prior phase III darolutamide trials.

177Lu-PSMA-617 versus a change of androgen receptor pathway inhibitor therapy for taxane-naive patients with progressive metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (PSMAfore): a phase 3, randomised, controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 (177Lu-PSMA-617) prolongs radiographic progression-free survival and overall survival in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer previously treated with androgen receptor pathway inhibitor (ARPI) and taxane therapy. We aimed to investigate the efficacy of 177Lu-PSMA-617 in patients with taxane-naive metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. METHODS: In this phase 3, randomised, controlled trial conducted at 74 sites across Europe and North America, taxane-naive patients with prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA)-positive metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer who had progressed once on a previous ARPI were randomly allocated (1:1) to open-label, intravenous 177Lu-PSMA-617 at a dosage of 7·4 GBq (200 mCi) ± 10% once every 6 weeks for six cycles, or a change of ARPI (to abiraterone or enzalutamide, administered orally on a continuous basis per product labelling). Crossover from ARPI change to 177Lu-PSMA-617 was allowed after centrally confirmed radiographic progression. The primary endpoint was radiographic progression-free survival, defined as the time from randomisation until radiographic progression or death, assessed in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was a secondary endpoint. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04689828) and is ongoing. In this primary report of the study, we present primary (first data cutoff) and updated (third data cutoff) analyses of radiographic progression-free survival; all other data are based on the third data cutoff. FINDINGS: Overall, of the 585 patients screened, 468 met all eligibility criteria and were randomly allocated between June 15, 2021 and Oct 7, 2022 to receive 177Lu-PSMA-617 (234 [50%] patients) or ARPI change (234 [50%]). Baseline characteristics were mostly similar between groups; median number of 177Lu-PSMA-617 cycles was 6·0 (IQR 4·0-6·0). Of patients assigned to ARPI change, 134 (57%) crossed over to receive 177Lu-PSMA-617. In the primary analysis (median time from randomisation to first data cutoff 7·26 months [IQR 3·38-10·55]), the median radiographic progression-free survival was 9·30 months (95% CI 6·77-not estimable) in the 177Lu-PSMA-617 group versus 5·55 months (4·04-5·95) in the ARPI change group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·41 [95% CI 0·29-0·56]; p<0·0001). In the updated analysis at time of the third data cutoff (median time from randomisation to third data cutoff 24·11 months [IQR 20·24-27·40]), median radiographic progression-free survival was 11·60 months (95% CI 9·30-14·19) in the 177Lu-PSMA-617 group versus 5·59 months (4·21-5·95) in the ARPI change group (HR 0·49 [95% CI 0·39-0·61]). The incidence of grade 3-5 adverse events was lower in the 177Lu-PSMA-617 group (at least one event in 81 [36%] of 227 patients; four [2%] grade 5 [none treatment related]) than the ARPI change group (112 [48%] of 232; five [2%] grade 5 [one treatment related]). INTERPRETATION: 177Lu-PSMA-617 prolonged radiographic progression-free survival relative to ARPI change, with a favourable safety profile. For patients with PSMA-positive metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer who are being considered for a change of ARPI after progression on a previous ARPI, 177Lu-PSMA-617 may be an effective treatment alternative. FUNDING: Novartis.

Clinical use of nadofaragene firadenovec-vncg.

Non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC), which is restricted to the mucosa (stage Ta, carcinoma in situ (CIS)) or submucosa (stage T1), comprises 75% of bladder cancer diagnoses. Intravesical bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) therapy is the standard-of-care initial treatment for high-risk NMIBC; however, a significant proportion of patients have BCG-unresponsive disease. While radical cystectomy is a definitive treatment in this setting, not all patients are willing or able to undergo this complex procedure associated with morbidity, mortality, and decreased quality of life. Bladder-preserving options for patients with BCG-unresponsive NMIBC represent an unmet need in this patient population. Nadofaragene firadenovec-vncg (Adstiladrin) is a nonreplicating adenoviral vector-based gene therapy indicated for the treatment of adult patients with high-risk BCG-unresponsive NMIBC with CIS with or without papillary tumors. The antitumor efficacy of nadofaragene firadenovec is driven by its local delivery of copies of the gene encoding for interferon alpha-2b (IFNα-2b) to urothelial cells. In the phase III CS-003 study, over half of participants with CIS exhibited a complete response by month 3 after instillation, with minimal serious adverse events. The favorable efficacy and safety profile, clinical utility, novel mechanism of action, and every 3-month dosing schedule give nadofaragene firadenovec a unique role in the treatment of high-risk BCG-unresponsive NMIBC. This review provides a practical approach to the effective clinical use of nadofaragene firadenovec regarding pre-instillation visit arrangements, storage, handling, instillation procedures, and post-instillation procedures. Implementation of these recommendations will ensure efficient real-world use of nadofaragene firadenovec and the development of useful training materials and relevant standard operating procedures to help support a clinic's treatment for patients with BCG-unresponsive NMIBC with CIS. Video Abstract https://vimeo.com/user17898099/review/953723559/e18af7ec43.

Apalutamide for High-Risk Localized Prostate Cancer Following Radical Prostatectomy (Apa-RP).

PURPOSE: Approximately 25% to 50% of patients with high-risk localized prostate cancer experience biochemical recurrence (BCR) within 2 years of radical prostatectomy. The Apa-RP study (NCT04523207) investigated whether adjuvant apalutamide plus androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) in high-risk patients who have undergone radical prostatectomy improved BCR-free survival. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Apa-RP was a multicenter, open-label, single-arm, phase 2 study conducted in community urology practices in the US. High-risk patients who had radical prostatectomy received 12 cycles of apalutamide (240 mg daily; 28-day cycles) plus ADT. The primary end point was BCR-free survival. Secondary end points included testosterone recovery (≥150 ng/dL) and safety. RESULTS: One hundred eight patients were enrolled; median age was 66.0 years (range 46.0-77.0 years). Median preoperative PSA and baseline testosterone were 7.6 ng/mL (range 2.2-62.7 ng/mL) and 340.0 ng/dL (range 43.0-939.0 ng/dL), respectively. The BCR-free rate at 24 months (12 months after completion of planned therapy) was 100% (90% CI 93-100). Serum testosterone recovery rate (≥50 and ≥150 ng/dL) 12 months after treatment completion was 96% (95% CI 88-98) and 77% (95% CI 66-85), respectively. Overall, 107 (99%) patients experienced treatment-emergent adverse events, with 24 (22%) experiencing grade 3 to 4 events. CONCLUSIONS: In Apa-RP, BCR-free survival was 100% with 77% of patients having testosterone recovery (≥150 ng/dL) within 12 months of actual treatment completion and a manageable safety profile. These results provide proof of concept that treatment intensification with 12 cycles of apalutamide plus ADT could become an option for patients with high-risk localized prostate cancer who have undergone radical prostatectomy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04523207.

Androgen Receptor Inhibitors in Patients With Nonmetastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer.

Importance: Novel androgen receptor inhibitors (ARIs; darolutamide, enzalutamide, and apalutamide) are standard-of-care treatments for nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC). However, there are sparse data comparing their clinical use and tolerability. Objective: To compare clinical use and outcomes for darolutamide, enzalutamide, and apalutamide in patients with nmCRPC. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study reviewed electronic medical records from the Precision Point Specialty network of US urology practices. Eligible patients had nmCRPC and no prior novel hormonal therapy and initiated novel ARI treatment between August 1, 2019, and March 31, 2022. Data were analyzed from February 1, 2019, to December 31, 2022. Exposures: Patients were prescribed darolutamide, enzalutamide, or apalutamide as their first novel ARI for nmCRPC. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcome was a composite of 2 end points, treatment discontinuation and progression to metastatic CRPC (mCRPC), whichever occurred first. Both end points were also assessed separately. Results: All 870 patients meeting eligibility criteria were included (362 receiving darolutamide [41.6%]; 382, enzalutamide [43.9%]; 126, apalutamide [14.5%]); mean (SD) age was 78.8 (8.7) years. Self-reported race was Black or African American in 187 patients (21.5%), White in 585 (67.2%), and other or unknown in 98 (11.3%). The darolutamide cohort had lower proportions of patients with a composite end point event (134 [37.0%] vs 201 [52.6%] for enzalutamide and 66 [52.4%] for apalutamide), discontinuation (110 [30.4%] for darolutamide vs 156 [40.8%] for enzalutamide and 58 [46.0%] for apalutamide), and progression to mCRPC (64 [17.7%] for darolutamide vs 108 [28.3%] for enzalutamide and 35 [27.8%] for apalutamide) during the study period. After adjusting for baseline covariates, patients receiving darolutamide had a lower risk of a composite end point event compared with enzalutamide (risk reduction, 33.8%; hazard ratio [HR], 0.66 [95% CI, 0.53-0.84]) and apalutamide (risk reduction, 35.1%; HR, 0.65 [95% CI, 0.48-0.88]). Similarly, patients receiving darolutamide had a lower risk of discontinuation compared with enzalutamide (risk reduction, 27.4%; HR, 0.73 [95% CI, 0.56-0.94]) and apalutamide (risk reduction, 39.1%; HR, 0.61 [95% CI, 0.44-0.85]) and a lower risk of progression to mCRPC compared with enzalutamide (risk reduction, 40.6%; HR, 0.59 [95% CI, 0.43-0.82]) and apalutamide (risk reduction, 35.3%; HR, 0.65 [95% CI, 0.42-0.99]). There was no difference between enzalutamide and apalutamide treatment across outcomes. Conclusions and Relevance: In this large cohort study of patients with nmCRPC treated with novel ARIs, results suggest better tolerability for darolutamide compared with enzalutamide and apalutamide, which may be associated with a clinical effectiveness advantage. Comparative clinical studies are needed to guide treatment decisions in the absence of head-to-head clinical trials.

Clinician-Reported Management Recommendations in Response to Universal Germline Genetic Testing in Patients With Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSE: Identification of pathogenic germline variants in patients with prostate cancer can help inform treatment selection, screening for secondary malignancies, and cascade testing. Limited real-world data are available on clinician recommendations following germline genetic testing in patients with prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patient data and clinician recommendations were collected from unselected patients with prostate cancer who underwent germline testing through the PROCLAIM trial. Differences among groups of patients were determined by 2-tailed Fisher's exact test with significance set at P < .05. Logistic regression was performed to assess the influence of test results in clinical decision-making while controlling for time of diagnosis (newly vs previously diagnosed). RESULTS: Among 982 patients, 100 (10%) were positive (>1 pathogenic germline variant), 482 (49%) had uncertain results (>1 variant of uncertain significance), and 400 (41%) were negative. Patients with positive results were significantly more likely than those with negative or uncertain results to receive recommendations for treatment changes (18% vs 1.4%, P < .001), follow-up changes (64% vs 11%, P < .001), and cascade testing (71% vs 5.4%, P < .001). Logistic regression demonstrated that positive and uncertain results were significantly associated with both changes to treatment and follow-up (P < .001) when controlling for new or previous diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: Germline genetic testing results informed clinical recommendations for patients with prostate cancer, especially in patients with positive results. Higher than anticipated rates of clinical management changes in patients with uncertain results highlight the need for increased genetic education of clinicians treating patients with prostate cancer.

Phase II Clinical Chemoprevention Trial of Weekly Erlotinib before Bladder Cancer Surgery.

We performed a clinical trial in non-muscle invasive urothelial cancer (NMIUC) patients randomized (2:1) to the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitor erlotinib or placebo (either orally once weekly x 3 doses prior to scheduled surgery) to assess for a difference in EGFR phosphorylation in tumor adjacent normal urothelium <24 hours post-study dose and tolerance of weekly erlotinib. Thirty-seven volunteers (6 female/31 male, mean age 70, 35 white/2 non-white) with confirmed or suspected NMIUC were enrolled into either erlotinib (n=24; 900 mg-13, 600 mg-11) or placebo (n=13). Immunohistochemical assessment of phosphorylated and total EGFR in adjacent normal urothelium (20 erlotinib; 9 placebo) or tumor (21 erlotinib and 11 placebo subjects) at study end observed no significant difference between those receiving erlotinib or placebo. This was also true for other assessed tissue biomarkers (phosphorylated ERK, ERK, e-cadherin, p53 and Ki67). Adverse events were more common, in a dose-related fashion, in participants receiving erlotinib, e.g. 38% experienced Grade 1 with rare grade 2 diarrhea and skin toxicity vs 8% in placebo. Clinically insignificant, but statistically significant (p=0.001) elevations in serum total bilirubin and creatinine were observed in erlotinib participants. Serum erlotinib and metabolite concentrations (OSI-420) confirmed compliance in all erlotinib subjects and did not significantly differ between the 600 and 900 mg doses. Despite compelling pre-clinical and clinical data for targeted EGFR inhibition in bladder cancer prevention, these data do not support the use of weekly erlotinib to prevent progression of NMI bladder cancer.

Impact of a rash management guide in patients receiving apalutamide for high-risk localized prostate cancer in the Apa-RP study.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: Based on the SPARTAN and TITAN studies, apalutamide is approved for patients with nonmetastatic castration-resistant and metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer. Skin rash was a common adverse reaction across indications. We hypothesized that earlier identification and intervention could improve rash outcomes. SUBJECTS/METHODS: A prespecified rash management guide outlining recommended skin care practices was provided to all patients enrolled in Apa-RP (NCT04523207). Rash-related safety data from Apa-RP were compared descriptively with data from SPARTAN and TITAN. RESULTS: Patients in Apa-RP experienced improved rash-related outcomes vs those in SPARTAN and TITAN. CONCLUSIONS: Increased vigilance and proactive management may reduce the incidence, severity, and duration of rash during apalutamide treatment.

The TALAPRO-3 study design: a plain language summary.

WHAT IS THIS SUMMARY ABOUT?: This summary is about the ongoing research study called TALAPRO-3. This study is testing the use of two medicines called talazoparib and enzalutamide. The two medicines are being used together as a treatment for patients with a type of cancer called metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer and changes in specific DNA repair genes within their tumors. The study began in May 2021, and includes 599 patients from 27 countries. WHAT IS METASTATIC CASTRATION-SENSITIVE PROSTATE CANCER?: Metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer is known as mCSPC for short. It is cancer that has started in the prostate and spread to other body parts. The prostate is a gland below the bladder and helps make semen (the liquid that contains sperm). Castration-sensitive means that the cancer responds to treatments that lower testosterone in the blood. WHICH MEDICINES ARE BEING TESTED?: In this study, some patients will take talazoparib plus enzalutamide while others will take a placebo plus enzalutamide. Talazoparib and enzalutamide are two different cancer medicines. Talazoparib is not currently used to treat patients with mCSPC. Enzalutamide is used to treat patients with prostate cancer. Talazoparib plus enzalutamide is being compared with a placebo plus enzalutamide to see if patients live longer without their cancer getting worse, or them dying, when taking talazoparib plus enzalutamide or when taking a placebo plus enzalutamide. WHAT ARE THE AIMS OF THE TALAPRO-3 STUDY?: This study aims to find out if treatment with talazoparib plus enzalutamide increases the length of time the patients in the study live without their cancer getting worse, or them dying, compared with treatment with a placebo plus enzalutamide. The study will also measure how long the patients in the study live, the number and types of side effects they have, their general health and quality of life, and whether there are changes in how patients report their pain.Clinical Trial Registration: NCT03395197 (TALAPRO-2) (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Plain language summary of the results from the TALAPRO-2 study: Talazoparib plus enzalutamide versus placebo plus enzalutamide for patients with advanced prostate cancer.

WHAT IS THIS SUMMARY ABOUT?: This summary describes the results from the TALAPRO-2 research study (also known as a clinical trial). The TALAPRO-2 study tested the combination of two medicines called talazoparib plus enzalutamide. This combination of medicines was used as the first treatment for adult patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. The combination of talazoparib plus enzalutamide was compared with a placebo plus enzalutamide. WHAT IS METASTATIC CASTRATION-RESISTANT PROSTATE CANCER?: Metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer is a type of cancer that starts in the prostate and has spread to other parts of the body. Castration-resistant means that the cancer continues to grow even when testosterone levels in the blood are reduced to very low levels. Taking medicines to lower testosterone levels in the blood is a standard treatment for men with advanced prostate cancer. WHAT ARE THE AIMS OF THE TALAPRO-2 TRIAL?: TALAPRO-2 looked at if combining talazoparib plus enzalutamide would increase the length of time patients lived before their cancer got worse or they died compared with a placebo plus enzalutamide. Researchers looked at how treatment affected the size and number of tumors and the length of time before patients needed to change to a new cancer medicine. Researchers also looked at any side effects patients had during the study. WHAT ARE THE KEY TAKEAWAYS?: A total of 805 patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer took part in the study. Compared with patients who took a placebo plus enzalutamide, the group of patients who took talazoparib plus enzalutamide had a 37% reduced risk of their cancer getting worse or dying. Some patients had tumors that at the start of the study could be measured with scans. Sixty-two percent of patients who took talazoparib plus enzalutamide had their tumors decrease or shrink to the point that they could no longer be seen on scans versus 44% of patients who took a placebo plus enzalutamide. Patients who took talazoparib plus enzalutamide were more likely to have a longer time before they needed to change to a new cancer medicine. The most common side effects of talazoparib plus enzalutamide were low levels of red blood cells (66% of patients) and neutrophils (36% of patients), and excessive tiredness or exhaustion (34% of patients).Clinical Trial Registration: NCT03395197 (TALAPRO-2) (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Establishing an Intravesical Doublet Chemotherapy Clinic for Nonmuscle-Invasive Bladder Cancer Patients.

INTRODUCTION: Intravesical sequential doublet chemotherapy (SDC) is being used increasingly as a rescue treatment for nonmuscle-invasive bladder cancer failing bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG), as single-agent chemotherapies are less effective, especially for carcinoma in situ. Considering the current BCG shortage, intravesical SDC also provides an efficacious alternative to BCG. Our aim is to detail the implementation to assist with establishing an efficient and practical intravesical SDC clinic for urologic practice. METHODS: We searched PubMed for published studies with the Medical Subject Heading of "intravesical chemotherapy" and "non-muscle invasive bladder cancer." The search was limited to English-language journals and full papers only. The initial search resulted in 260 articles, of which 20 relevant studies were selected. RESULTS: Five important processes were identified in the successful and efficient administration of intravesical SDC: (1) patient preparation, (2) medication procurement, (3) medication administration, (4) medication immediate aftermath, and (5) patient instruction and education. Safety precautions should be taken when handling each chemotherapy drug. A clinical pharmacist may be required for drug preparation. An important step in providing intravesical SDC is to use a closed system for the instillation of the chemo-solution. A special protocol should be adopted for every drug with its proper dwell time. The induction course consists of weekly instillation for 6 weeks. If an initial response is noted, maintenance therapy is recommended, typically monthly for 24 months. CONCLUSIONS: Successful intravesical SDC clinics necessitate appropriate patient selection, standardized workflow procedures, patient education, and good communication between the urologist, clinical pharmacists, and oncology nurses.

Expert Consensus Recommendations on the Management of Treatment-emergent Adverse Events Among Men with Prostate Cancer Taking Poly-ADP Ribose Polymerase Inhibitor + Novel Hormonal Therapy Combination Therapy.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Recent clinical trials have shown improvement in progression-free survival in men with metastatic prostate cancer (mPC) treated with combination poly-ADP ribose polymerase (PARP) inhibitors (PARPi) and novel hormonal therapy (NHT). Regulatory bodies in the USA, Canada, Europe, and Japan have recently approved this combination therapy for mPC. Common adverse events (AEs) include fatigue, nausea and vomiting, and anemia. Nuanced AE management guidance for these combinations is lacking. The panel objective was to develop expert consensus on AE management in patients with mPC treated with the combination PARPi + NHT. METHODS: The RAND/University of California Los Angeles modified Delphi Panel method was used. AEs were defined using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events. Twelve experts (seven medical oncologists, one advanced practice registered nurse, three urologists, and one patient advocate) reviewed the relevant literature; independently rated initial AE management options for the agent suspected of causing the AE for 419 patient scenarios on a 1-9 scale; discussed areas of agreement (AoAs) and disagreement (AoDs) at a March 2023 meeting; and repeated these ratings following the meeting. Second-round ratings formed the basis of guidelines. KEY FINDINGS AND LIMITATIONS: AoDs decreased from 41% to 21% between the first and second round ratings, with agreement on at least one management strategy for every AE. AoAs included the following: (1) continue therapy with symptomatic treatment for patients with mild AEs; (2) for moderate fatigue, recommend nonpharmacologic treatment, hold treatment temporarily, and restart at a reduced dose when symptoms resolve; (3) for severe nausea or any degree of vomiting where symptomatic treatment fails, hold treatment temporarily and restart at a reduced dose when symptoms resolve; and (4) for hemoglobin 7.1-8.0 g/dl and symptoms of anemia, hold treatment temporarily and restart at a reduced dose after red blood cell transfusion. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: This expert guidance can support management of AEs in patients with mPC receiving combination PARPi + NHT therapy. PATIENT SUMMARY: A panel of experts developed guidelines for adverse event (AE) management in patients with metastatic prostate cancer treated with a combination of poly-ADP ribose polymerase inhibitors and novel hormonal therapy. For mild AEs, continuation of cancer therapy along with symptomatic treatment is recommended. For moderate or severe AEs, cancer therapy should be stopped temporarily and restarted at the same or a reduced dose when AE resolves.

Within-trial hospitalization resource utilization and budget impact analysis for darolutamide in metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer using ARASENS.

BACKGROUND: ARASENS was a randomized, double-blind, phase 3 trial comparing darolutamide + docetaxel + androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) with placebo + docetaxel + ADT in patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC). OBJECTIVE: To use clinical trial data from ARASENS to understand whether the addition of darolutamide to docetaxel + ADT leads to increased hospitalizations and to estimate the budget impact on the US health care system. METHODS: We used mixed-effects negative binomial regression to estimate hospitalization and intensive care unit (ICU) admission rates and length of hospital stay (LoHS) counts. Hospitalization rates were estimated per treatment arm for the period during and after administration of docetaxel. Based on these estimates, a budget impact analysis evaluated the hospitalization costs (including ICU admissions) and standalone ICU hospitalization costs for the totality of the US population over a 5-year time horizon. The analysis compared a scenario without darolutamide vs one with darolutamide included in the US payer formulary. Hospitalization estimates were varied in a one-way sensitivity analysis. RESULTS: The first 4 months of treatment (when patients were receiving docetaxel) were associated with increased hospitalizations across both arms. The addition of darolutamide was associated with a numerical reduction in the rate of hospitalization (per year) due to any reason both during docetaxel treatment (1.01 visits per year [95% CI = 0.82-1.20] vs 1.18 visits per year [95% CI = 0.96-1.41]) and after docetaxel treatment (0.28 visits per year [95% CI = 0.23-0.34] vs 0.33 visits per year [95% CI = 0.27-0.40]). Darolutamide was associated with a marginally longer LoHS per hospitalization compared with placebo (+1.90 days per year) both during and after docetaxel treatment. ICU admissions were low in the ARASENS data; admission rates were assumed to be the same during and after docetaxel treatment. ICU admission rate estimates were equivalent across arms (0.02 visits per year [95% CI = 0.01-0.03]). The budget impact per treated member per month represents a cost-neutral option after Year 5 with a cumulative budget impact of -$9.71. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of darolutamide to docetaxel + ADT was associated with a numerically lower rate of hospitalization but marginally longer LoHS compared with docetaxel + ADT alone. Darolutamide represents a cost-neutral alternative per treated member per month compared with docetaxel + ADT with regard to hospitalizations at the end of a 5-year time horizon.

Efficacy of Intravesical Nadofaragene Firadenovec for Patients With Bacillus Calmette-Guérin-Unresponsive Nonmuscle-Invasive Bladder Cancer: 5-Year Follow-Up From a Phase 3 Trial.

PURPOSE: Nadofaragene firadenovec-vncg is a nonreplicating adenoviral vector-based gene therapy for bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG)-unresponsive carcinoma in situ (CIS) with/without high-grade Ta/T1. We report outcomes following 5 years of planned follow-up. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This open-label phase 3 trial (NCT02773849) enrolled patients with BCG-unresponsive nonmuscle-invasive bladder cancer in 2 cohorts: CIS ± Ta/T1 (CIS; n = 107) and Ta/T1 without CIS (Ta/T1 cohort; n = 50). Patients received 75 mL (3 × 1011 vp/mL) nadofaragene firadenovec intravesically once every 3 months with cystoscopy and cytology assessments, with continued treatment offered to those remaining high grade recurrence-free (HGRF). RESULTS: One hundred fifty-seven patients were enrolled from 33 US sites (n = 151 included in efficacy analyses). Median follow-up was 50.8 months (interquartile range 39.1-60.0), with 27% receiving ≥ 5 instillations and 7.6% receiving treatment for ≥ 57 months. Of patients with CIS 5.8% (95% CI 2.2-12.2) were HGRF at month 57, and 15% (95% CI 6.1-27.8) of patients with high-grade Ta/T1 were HGRF at month 57. Kaplan-Meier-estimated HGRF survival at 57 months was 13% (95% CI 6.9-21.5) and 33% (95% CI 19.5-46.6) in the CIS and Ta/T1 cohorts, respectively. Cystectomy-free survival at month 60 was 49% (95% CI 40.0-57.1): 43% (95% CI 32.2-53.7) in the CIS cohort and 59% (95% CI 43.1-71.4) in the Ta/T1 cohort. Overall survival at 60 months was 80% (71.0, 86.0): 76% (64.6-84.5) and 86% (70.9-93.5) in the CIS and Ta/T1 cohorts, respectively. Only 5 patients (4 with CIS and 1 with Ta/T1) experienced clinical progression to muscle-invasive disease. CONCLUSIONS: At 60 months, nadofaragene firadenovec-vncg allowed bladder preservation in nearly half of the patients and proved to be a safe option for BCG-unresponsive nonmuscle-invasive bladder cancer.

Risk Stratification of Patients with Recurrence After Primary Treatment for Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Biochemical recurrence (BCR) after primary definitive treatment for prostate cancer (PCa) is a heterogeneous disease state. While BCR is associated with worse oncologic outcomes, risk factors that impact outcomes can vary significantly, necessitating avenues for risk stratification. We sought to identify prognostic risk factors at the time of recurrence after primary radical prostatectomy or radiotherapy, and prior to salvage treatment(s), associated with adverse oncologic outcomes. METHODS: We performed a systematic review of prospective studies in EMBASE, MEDLINE, and ClinicalTrials.gov (from January 1, 2000 to October 16, 2023) according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines (CRD42023466330). We reviewed the factors associated with oncologic outcomes among patients with BCR after primary definitive treatment. KEY FINDINGS AND LIMITATIONS: A total of 37 studies were included (total n = 10 632), 25 after prostatectomy (total n = 9010) and 12 after radiotherapy (total n = 1622). Following recurrence after prostatectomy, factors associated with adverse outcomes include higher pathologic T stage and grade group, negative surgical margins, shorter prostate-specific antigen doubling time (PSADT), higher prostate-specific antigen (PSA) prior to salvage treatment, shorter time to recurrence, the 22-gene tumor RNA signature, and recurrence location on molecular imaging. After recurrence following radiotherapy, factors associated with adverse outcomes include a shorter time to recurrence, and shorter PSADT or higher PSA velocity. Grade group, T stage, and prior short-term hormone therapy (4-6 mo) were not clearly associated with adverse outcomes, although sample size and follow-up were generally limited compared with postprostatectomy data. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: This work highlights the recommendations and level of evidence for risk stratifying patients with PCa recurrence, and can be used as a benchmark for personalizing salvage treatment based on prognostics.

Expert Perspectives on Controversies in Castration-Sensitive Prostate Cancer Management: Narrative Review and Report of the First US Prostate Cancer Conference Part 1.

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.