Perioperative dose-dense methotrexate, vinblastine, doxorubicin, and cisplatin in muscle-invasive bladder cancer (VESPER): survival endpoints at 5 years in an open-label, randomised, phase 3 study.

BACKGROUND: The optimal perioperative chemotherapy for patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer is not defined. The VESPER (French Genito-Urinary Tumor Group and French Association of Urology V05) trial reported improved 3-year progression-free survival with dose-dense methotrexate, vinblastine, doxorubicin and cisplatin (dd-MVAC) versus gemcitabine and cisplatin (GC) in patients who received neoadjuvant therapy, but not in the overall perioperative setting. In this Article, we report on the secondary endpoints of overall survival and time to death due to bladder cancer at 5-year follow-up. METHODS: VESPER was an open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial done at 28 university hospitals or comprehensive cancer centres in France, in which adults (age ≤18 years and ≤80 years) with primary bladder cancer and histologically confirmed muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma were randomly allocated (1:1; block size four) to treatment with dd-MVAC (every 2 weeks for a total of six cycles) or GC (every 3 weeks for a total of four cycles). Overall survival and time to death due to bladder cancer (presented as 5-year cumulative incidence of death due to bladder cancer) was analysed by intention to treat (ITT) in all randomly assigned patients. Overall survival was assessed by the Kaplan-Meier method with the treatment groups compared with log-rank test stratified for mode of administration of chemotherapy (neoadjuvant or adjuvant) and lymph node involvement. Time to death due to bladder cancer was analysed with an Aalen model for competing risks and a Fine and Gray regression model stratified for the same two covariates. Results were presented for the total perioperative population and for the neoadjuvant and adjuvant subgroups. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01812369, and is complete. FINDINGS: From Feb 25, 2013, to March 1, 2018, 500 patients were randomly assigned, of whom 493 were included in the final ITT population (245 [50%] in the GC group and 248 [50%] in the dd-MVAC group; 408 [83%] male and 85 [17%] female). 437 (89%) patients received neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Median follow-up was 5·3 years (IQR 5·1-5·4); 190 deaths at the 5-year cutoff were reported. In the perioperative setting (total ITT population), we found no evidence of association of overall survival at 5 years with dd-MVAC treatment versus GC treatment (64% [95% CI 58-70] vs 56% [50-63], stratified hazard ratio [HRstrat] 0·79 [95% CI 0·59-1·05]). Time to death due to bladder cancer was increased in the dd-MVAC group compared with in the GC group (5-year cumulative incidence of death: 27% [95% CI 21-32] vs 40% [34-46], HRstrat 0·61 [95% CI 0·45-0·84]). In the neoadjuvant subgroup, overall survival at 5 years was improved in the dd-MVAC group versus the GC group (66% [95% CI 60-73] vs 57% [50-64], HR 0·71 [95% CI 0·52-0·97]), as was time to death due to bladder cancer (5-year cumulative incidence: 24% [18-30] vs 38% [32-45], HR 0·55 [0·39-0·78]). In the adjuvant subgroup, the results were not conclusive due to the small sample size. Bladder cancer progression was the cause of death for 157 (83%) of the 190 deaths; other causes of death included cardiovascular events (eight [4%] deaths), deaths related to chemotherapy toxicity (four [2%]), and secondary cancers (four [2%]). INTERPRETATION: Our results on overall survival at 5 years were in accordance with the primary endpoint analysis (3-year progression-free survival). We found no evidence of improved overall survival with dd-MVAC over GC in the perioperative setting, but the data support the use of six cycles of dd-MVAC over four cycles of GC in the neoadjuvant setting. These results should impact practice and future trials of immunotherapy in bladder cancer. FUNDING: French National Cancer Institute.

Efficacy and tolerance of hyperthermic intravesical chemotherapy (HIVEC) according to the number of instillations administered.

PURPOSE: To report the oncological outcomes and the tolerance between 6 instillations and more than 6 cycles of hyperthermic intravesical chemotherapy(HIVEC) in patients with non-muscle invasive bladder cancer(NMIBC). METHODS: This is a multicenter retrospective study from a national database including 9 expert centers. All patients treated with HIVEC between 2016 and 2023 for NMIBC were included. Patients were classified into two groups according to the total number of HIVEC instillations, including induction plus maintenance. Kaplan-Meier curves were computed to present survival outcomes. RESULTS: 261 patients with a median follow-up of 25.5 months were included. 199(76.2%) and 62(23.8%) were treated by 6 and more than 6 cycles of HIVEC, respectively. The 2-years RFS(40.2% vs. 34.4%,p = 0.3) and the 2-years PFS(86% vs. 87%,p = 0.85) were similar between group treated with 6 and more than 6 instillations. 2-years CSS and OS were also similar between both groups. Univariate Cox regression showed no association between the number of bladder instillation and RFS (HR = 1.2 95%CI[0.8-1.84], p = 0.3) or PFS (HR = 0.8 95%CI[0.29-2.02], p = 0.2). In the group treated with more than 6 cycles, 2-years RFS and 2-years PFS were similar between patients who received induction plus maintenance compared to those treated with induction only. Finally, hematuria and urinary burning were significantly higher in the group treated by more than 6 cycles (21% vs. 8.5%(p < 0.01),and 29% vs. 17% (p = 0.03), respectively). Serious side effects(grade ≥ 3) are rare(3.1%) and similar in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: Results show no significant difference in two years RFS, PFS, CSS and OS according to number of instillations received, while toxicity profile seems better in the group receiving six instillations only.

Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging in the follow-up of non-muscle-invasive bladder tumors after intravesical instillations: a promising tool.

PURPOSE: The standard follow-up for non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer is based on cystoscopy. Unfortunately, post-instillation inflammatory changes can make the interpretation of this exam difficult, with lower specificity. This study aimed to evaluate the interest of bladder MRI in the follow-up of patients following intravesical instillation. METHODS: Data from patients who underwent cystoscopy and bladder MRI in a post-intravesical instillation setting between February 2020 and March 2023 were retrospectively collected. Primary endpoint was to evaluate and compare the diagnostic performance of cystoscopy and bladder MRI in the overall cohort (n = 67) using the pathologic results of TURB as a reference. The secondary endpoint was to analyze the diagnostic accuracy of cystoscopy and bladder MRI according to the appearance of the lesion on cystoscopy [flat (n = 40) or papillary (n = 27)]. RESULTS: The diagnostic performance of bladder MRI was better than that of cystoscopy, with a specificity of 47% (vs. 6%, p < 0.001), a negative predictive value of 88% (vs. 40%, p = 0.03), and a positive predictive value of 66% (vs. 51%, p < 0.001), whereas the sensitivity did not significantly differ between the two exams. In patients with doubtful cystoscopy and negative MRI findings, inflammatory changes were found on TURB in most cases (17/19). The superiority in MRI bladder performance prevailed for "flat lesions", while no significant difference was found for "papillary lesions". CONCLUSIONS: In cases of doubtful cystoscopy after intravesical instillations, MRI appears to be relevant with good performance in differentiating post-therapeutic inflammatory changes from recurrent tumor lesions and could potentially allow avoiding unnecessary TURB.

Long-Term Pharmacokinetic Follow-Up of Abiraterone Acetate in Patients with Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer.

This ABIGENE pharmacokinetic (PK) study sought mainly to characterize the unchanged drug PK during long-term abiraterone acetate (AA) administration in advanced prostate cancer patients (81 patients). It was observed that individual AA concentrations remained constant over treatment time, with no noticeable changes during repeated long-term drug administration for up to 120 days. There was no correlation between AA concentrations and survival outcomes. However, a significant association between higher AA concentrations and better clinical benefit was observed (p = 0.041). The safety data did not correlate with the AA PK data. A significant positive correlation (r = 0.40, p < 0.001) was observed between mean AA concentration and patient age: the older the patient, the higher the AA concentration. Patient age was found to impact steady-state AA concentration: the older the patient, the higher the mean AA concentration. Altogether, these data may help to guide future research and clinical trials in order to maximize the benefits of AA metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer patients.

Which patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer benefit from docetaxel: a systematic review and meta-analysis of individual participant data from randomised trials.

BACKGROUND: Adding docetaxel to androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) improves survival in patients with metastatic, hormone-sensitive prostate cancer, but uncertainty remains about who benefits most. We therefore aimed to obtain up-to-date estimates of the overall effects of docetaxel and to assess whether these effects varied according to prespecified characteristics of the patients or their tumours. METHODS: The STOPCAP M1 collaboration conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of individual participant data. We searched MEDLINE (from database inception to March 31, 2022), Embase (from database inception to March 31, 2022), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (from database inception to March 31, 2022), proceedings of relevant conferences (from Jan 1, 1990, to Dec 31, 2022), and ClinicalTrials.gov (from database inception to March 28, 2023) to identify eligible randomised trials that assessed docetaxel plus ADT compared with ADT alone in patients with metastatic, hormone-sensitive prostate cancer. Detailed and updated individual participant data were requested directly from study investigators or through relevant repositories. The primary outcome was overall survival. Secondary outcomes were progression-free survival and failure-free survival. Overall pooled effects were estimated using an adjusted, intention-to-treat, two-stage, fixed-effect meta-analysis, with one-stage and random-effects sensitivity analyses. Missing covariate values were imputed. Differences in effect by participant characteristics were estimated using adjusted two-stage, fixed-effect meta-analysis of within-trial interactions on the basis of progression-free survival to maximise power. Identified effect modifiers were also assessed on the basis of overall survival. To explore multiple subgroup interactions and derive subgroup-specific absolute treatment effects we used one-stage flexible parametric modelling and regression standardisation. We assessed the risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42019140591. FINDINGS: We obtained individual participant data from 2261 patients (98% of those randomised) from three eligible trials (GETUG-AFU15, CHAARTED, and STAMPEDE trials), with a median follow-up of 72 months (IQR 55-85). Individual participant data were not obtained from two additional small trials. Based on all included trials and patients, there were clear benefits of docetaxel on overall survival (hazard ratio [HR] 0·79, 95% CI 0·70 to 0·88; p<0·0001), progression-free survival (0·70, 0·63 to 0·77; p<0·0001), and failure-free survival (0·64, 0·58 to 0·71; p<0·0001), representing 5-year absolute improvements of around 9-11%. The overall risk of bias was assessed to be low, and there was no strong evidence of differences in effect between trials for all three main outcomes. The relative effect of docetaxel on progression-free survival appeared to be greater with increasing clinical T stage (pinteraction=0·0019), higher volume of metastases (pinteraction=0·020), and, to a lesser extent, synchronous diagnosis of metastatic disease (pinteraction=0·077). Taking into account the other interactions, the effect of docetaxel was independently modified by volume and clinical T stage, but not timing. There was no strong evidence that docetaxel improved absolute effects at 5 years for patients with low-volume, metachronous disease (-1%, 95% CI -15 to 12, for progression-free survival; 0%, -10 to 12, for overall survival). The largest absolute improvement at 5 years was observed for those with high-volume, clinical T stage 4 disease (27%, 95% CI 17 to 37, for progression-free survival; 35%, 24 to 47, for overall survival). INTERPRETATION: The addition of docetaxel to hormone therapy is best suited to patients with poorer prognosis for metastatic, hormone-sensitive prostate cancer based on a high volume of disease and potentially the bulkiness of the primary tumour. There is no evidence of meaningful benefit for patients with metachronous, low-volume disease who should therefore be managed differently. These results will better characterise patients most and, importantly, least likely to gain benefit from docetaxel, potentially changing international practice, guiding clinical decision making, better informing treatment policy, and improving patient outcomes. FUNDING: UK Medical Research Council and Prostate Cancer UK.

Abiraterone plus prednisone added to androgen deprivation therapy and docetaxel in de novo metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (PEACE-1): a multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 3 study with a 2 × 2 factorial design.

BACKGROUND: Current standard of care for metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer supplements androgen deprivation therapy with either docetaxel, second-generation hormonal therapy, or radiotherapy. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of abiraterone plus prednisone, with or without radiotherapy, in addition to standard of care. METHODS: We conducted an open-label, randomised, phase 3 study with a 2 × 2 factorial design (PEACE-1) at 77 hospitals across Belgium, France, Ireland, Italy, Romania, Spain, and Switzerland. Eligible patients were male, aged 18 years or older, with histologically confirmed or cytologically confirmed de novo metastatic prostate adenocarcinoma, and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-1 (or 2 due to bone pain). Participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1) to standard of care (androgen deprivation therapy alone or with intravenous docetaxel 75 mg/m2 once every 3 weeks), standard of care plus radiotherapy, standard of care plus abiraterone (oral 1000 mg abiraterone once daily plus oral 5 mg prednisone twice daily), or standard of care plus radiotherapy plus abiraterone. Neither the investigators nor the patients were masked to treatment allocation. The coprimary endpoints were radiographic progression-free survival and overall survival. Abiraterone efficacy was first assessed in the overall population and then in the population who received androgen deprivation therapy with docetaxel as standard of care (population of interest). This study is ongoing and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01957436. FINDINGS: Between Nov 27, 2013, and Dec 20, 2018, 1173 patients were enrolled (one patient subsequently withdrew consent for analysis of his data) and assigned to receive standard of care (n=296), standard of care plus radiotherapy (n=293), standard of care plus abiraterone (n=292), or standard of care plus radiotherapy plus abiraterone (n=291). Median follow-up was 3·5 years (IQR 2·8-4·6) for radiographic progression-free survival and 4·4 years (3·5-5·4) for overall survival. Adjusted Cox regression modelling revealed no interaction between abiraterone and radiotherapy, enabling the pooled analysis of abiraterone efficacy. In the overall population, patients assigned to receive abiraterone (n=583) had longer radiographic progression-free survival (hazard ratio [HR] 0·54, 99·9% CI 0·41-0·71; p<0·0001) and overall survival (0·82, 95·1% CI 0·69-0·98; p=0·030) than patients who did not receive abiraterone (n=589). In the androgen deprivation therapy with docetaxel population (n=355 in both with abiraterone and without abiraterone groups), the HRs were consistent (radiographic progression-free survival 0·50, 99·9% CI 0·34-0·71; p<0·0001; overall survival 0·75, 95·1% CI 0·59-0·95; p=0·017). In the androgen deprivation therapy with docetaxel population, grade 3 or worse adverse events occurred in 217 (63%) of 347 patients who received abiraterone and 181 (52%) of 350 who did not; hypertension had the largest difference in occurrence (76 [22%] patients and 45 [13%], respectively). Addition of abiraterone to androgen deprivation therapy plus docetaxel did not increase the rates of neutropenia, febrile neutropenia, fatigue, or neuropathy compared with androgen deprivation therapy plus docetaxel alone. INTERPRETATION: Combining androgen deprivation therapy, docetaxel, and abiraterone in de novo metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer improved overall survival and radiographic progression-free survival with a modest increase in toxicity, mostly hypertension. This triplet therapy could become a standard of care for these patients. FUNDING: Janssen-Cilag, Ipsen, Sanofi, and the French Government.

A non-inferiority randomized phase III trial of standard immunotherapy by checkpoint inhibitors vs. reduced dose intensity in responding patients with metastatic cancer: the MOIO protocol study.

BACKGROUND: Immunotherapy (IO) has become a standard of care for treating various types of metastatic cancers and has significantly improved clinical outcome. With the exception of metastatic melanoma in complete response for which treatment can be stopped at 6 months, these treatments are currently administered until either disease progression for some IO, 2 years for others, or unacceptable toxicity. However, a growing number of studies are reporting maintenance of response despite discontinuation of therapy. There is currently no evidence of a dose effect of IO in pharmacokinetic studies. Maintaining efficacy despite a reduction in treatment intensity by decreasing the frequency of administration in patients with highly selected metastatic cancer, is the hypothesis evaluated in the MOIO study. METHOD/DESIGN: This non-inferiority, randomized phase III study aims to compare the standard regimen to a 3 monthly regimen of variousIO drugs in adult patients with metastatic cancer in partial (PR) or complete response (CR) after 6 months of standard IO dosing (except melanoma in CR). This is a French national study conducted in 36 centers. The main objective is to demonstrate that the efficacy of a three-monthly administration is not unacceptably less efficacious than a standard administration. Secondary objectives are cost-effectiveness, quality of life (QOL), anxiety, fear of relapse, response rate, overall survival and toxicity. After 6 months of standard IO, patients with partial or complete response will be randomized 1:1 between standard IO or a reduced intensity dose of IO, administered every 3 months. The randomization will be stratified on therapy line,, tumor type, IO type and response status. The primary endpoint is the hazard ratio of progression-free survival. With a planned study duration of 6 years, including 36 months enrolment time, 646 patients are planned to demonstrate with a statistical level of evidence of 5% that the reduced IO regimen is non-inferior to the standard IO regimen, with a relative non-inferiority margin set at 1.3. DISCUSSION: Should the hypothesis of non-inferiority with an IO reduced dose intensity be validated, alternate scheduling could preserve efficacy while being cost-effective and allowing a reduction of the toxicity, with an increase in patient's QOL. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT05078047.

External validation of the computerized analysis of TRUS of the prostate with the ANNA/C-TRUS system: a potential role of artificial intelligence for improving prostate cancer detection.

PURPOSE: Prostate cancer (PCa) imaging has been revolutionized by the introduction of multi-parametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging (mpMRI). Transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) has always been considered a low-performance modality. To overcome this, a computerized artificial neural network analysis (ANNA/C-TRUS) of the TRUS based on an artificial intelligence (AI) analysis has been proposed. Our aim was to evaluate the diagnostic performance of the ANNA/C-TRUS system and its ability to improve conventional TRUS in PCa diagnosis. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed data from 64 patients with PCa and scheduled for radical prostatectomy who underwent TRUS followed by ANNA/C-TRUS analysis before the procedure. The results of ANNA/C-TRUS analysis with whole mount sections from final pathology. RESULTS: On a per-sectors analysis, sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value (NPV), positive predictive value (PPV) and accuracy were 62%, 81%, 80%, 64% and 78% respectively. The values for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer were 69%, 77%, 88%, 50% and 75%. The diagnostic values for high grade tumours were 70%, 74%, 91%, 41% and 74%, respectively. Cancer volume (≤ 0.5 or greater) did not influence the diagnostic performance of the ANNA/C-TRUS system. CONCLUSIONS: ANNA/C-TRUS represents a promising diagnostic tool and application of AI for PCa diagnosis. It improves the ability of conventional TRUS to diagnose prostate cancer, preserving its simplicity and availability. Since it is an AI system, it does not hold the inter-observer variability nor a learning curve. Multicenter biopsy-based studies with the inclusion of an adequate number of patients are needed to confirm these results.

Efficacy of hyperthermic intravesical chemotherapy (HIVEC) in patients with non-muscle invasive bladder cancer after BCG failure.

PURPOSE: To evaluate hyperthermic intravesical chemotherapy (HIVEC) efficacy regarding 1-year disease-free survival (RFS) rate and bladder preservation rate in patients with non-muscle invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) who fail bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) therapy. METHODS: This is a multicenter retrospective series from a national database (7 expert centers). Between January 2016 and October 2021, patients treated with HIVEC for NMIBC who failed BCG have been included in our study. These patients had a theoretical indication for cystectomy but were ineligible for surgery or refused it. RESULTS: A total of 116 patients treated with HIVEC and with a follow-up > 6 months were included in this study and retrospectively analyzed. The median follow-up was 20.6 months. The 12 month-RFS (recurrence-free survival) rate was 62.9%. The bladder preservation rate was 87.1%. Fifteen patients (12.9%) progressed to muscle infiltration, three of them having a metastatic disease at the time of progression. Predictive factors of progression were T1 stage, high grade and very high-risk tumors according to the EORTC classification. CONCLUSION: Chemohyperthermia using HIVEC achieved an RFS rate of 62.9% at 1 year and enabled a bladder preservation rate of 87.1%. However, the risk of progression to muscle-invasive disease is not negligible, particularly for patients with very high-risk tumors. In these patients who fail BCG, cystectomy should remain the standard of care and HIVEC may be discussed cautiously for patients who are not eligible for surgery and well informed of the risk of progression.

Pain and health-related quality of life with olaparib versus physician's choice of next-generation hormonal drug in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer with homologous recombination repair gene alterations (PROfound): an open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: The PROfound study showed significantly improved radiographical progression-free survival and overall survival in men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer with alterations in homologous recombination repair genes and disease progression on a previous next-generation hormonal drug who received olaparib then those who received control. We aimed to assess pain and patient-centric health-related quality of life (HRQOL) measures in patients in the trial. METHODS: In this open-label, randomised, phase 3 study, patients (aged ≥18 years) with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer and gene alterations to one of 15 genes (BRCA1, BRCA2, or ATM [cohort A] and BRIP1, BARD1, CDK12, CHEK1, CHEK2, FANCL, PALB2, PPP2R2A, RAD51B, RAD51C, RAD51D, and RAD54L [cohort B]) and disease progression after a previous next-generation hormonal drug were randomly assigned (2:1) to receive olaparib tablets (300 mg orally twice daily) or a control drug (enzalutamide tablets [160 mg orally once daily] or abiraterone tablets [1000 mg orally once daily] plus prednisone tablets [5 mg orally twice daily]), stratified by previous taxane use and measurable disease. The primary endpoint (radiographical progression-free survival in cohort A) has been previously reported. The prespecified secondary endpoints reported here are on pain, HRQOL, symptomatic skeletal-related events, and time to first opiate use for cancer-related pain in cohort A. Pain was assessed with the Brief Pain Inventory-Short Form, and HRQOL was assessed with the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Prostate (FACT-P). All endpoints were analysed in patients in cohort A by modified intention-to-treat. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02987543. FINDINGS: Between Feb 6, 2017, and June 4, 2019, 245 patients were enrolled in cohort A and received study treatment (162 [66%] in the olaparib group and 83 [34%] in the control group). Median duration of follow-up at data cutoff in all patients was 6·2 months (IQR 2·2-10·4) for the olaparib group and 3·5 months (1·7-4·9) for the control group. In cohort A, median time to pain progression was significantly longer with olaparib than with control (median not reached [95% CI not reached-not reached] with olaparib vs 9·92 months [5·39-not reached] with control; HR 0·44 [95% CI 0·22-0·91]; p=0·019). Pain interference scores were also better in the olaparib group (difference in overall adjusted mean change from baseline score -0·85 [95% CI -1·31 to -0·39]; pnominal=0·0004). Median time to progression of pain severity was not reached in either group (95% CI not reached-not reached for both groups; HR 0·56 [95% CI 0·25-1·34]; pnominal=0·17). In patients who had not used opiates at baseline (113 in the olaparib group, 58 in the control group), median time to first opiate use for cancer-related pain was 18·0 months (95% CI 12·8-not reached) in the olaparib group versus 7·5 months (3·2-not reached) in the control group (HR 0·61; 95% CI 0·38-0·99; pnominal=0·044). The proportion of patients with clinically meaningful improvement in FACT-P total score during treatment was higher for the olaparib group than the control group: 15 (10%) of 152 evaluable patients had a response in the olaparib group compared with one (1%) of evaluable 77 patients in the control group (odds ratio 8·32 [95% CI 1·64-151·84]; pnominal=0·0065). Median time to first symptomatic skeletal-related event was not reached for either treatment group (olaparib group 95% CI not reached-not reached; control group 7·8-not reached; HR 0·37 [95% CI 0·20-0·70]; pnominal=0·0013). INTERPRETATION: Olaparib was associated with reduced pain burden and better-preserved HRQOL compared with the two control drugs in men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer and homologous recombination repair gene alterations who had disease progression after a previous next-generation hormonal drug. Our findings support the clinical benefit of improved radiographical progression-free survival and overall survival identified in PROfound. FUNDING: AstraZeneca and Merck Sharp & Dohme.