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.

Expert Perspectives on Controversies in Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer Management: Narrative Review and Report of the First US Prostate Cancer Conference Part 2.

Background: Management strategies for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) have rapidly shifted in recent years. As novel imaging and therapeutic approaches have made their way to the clinic, providers are encountering increasingly challenging clinical scenarios, with limited guidance from the current literature. Materials and Methods: The US Prostate Cancer Conference (USPCC) is a multidisciplinary meeting of prostate cancer experts intended to address the many challenges of prostate cancer management. At the first annual USPCC meeting, areas of controversy and consensus were identified during a 2-day meeting that included expert presentations, full-panel discussions, and postdiscussion responses to questions developed by the USPCC cochairs and session moderators. Results: This narrative review covers the USPCC expert discussion and perspectives relevant to mCRPC, including neuroendocrine/aggressive-variant prostate cancer (NEPC/AVPC). Areas of broad agreement identified among USPCC experts include the benefits of poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors for patients with BRCA1/2 mutations, the use of radioligand therapy in patients with prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA)-positive mCRPC, and the need for clinical trials that address real-world clinical questions, including the performance of novel therapies when compared with modern standard-of-care treatment. Ongoing areas of controversy and uncertainty included the appropriateness of PARP inhibitors in patients with non-BRCA1/2 mutations, the optimal definition of PSMA positivity, and systemic therapies for patients with NEPC/AVPC after progression on platinum-based therapies. Conclusions: The first annual USPCC meeting identified several areas of controversy in the management of mCRPC, highlighting the urgent need for clinical trials designed to facilitate treatment selection and sequencing in this heterogeneous disease state.

Deep and Durable Prostate-specific Antigen Response to Darolutamide with Androgen Deprivation Therapy and Docetaxel, and Association with Clinical Outcomes for Patients with High- or Low-volume Metastatic Hormone-sensitive Prostate Cancer: Analyses of the Randomized Phase 3 ARASENS Study.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Addition of darolutamide to androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) and docetaxel significantly improved overall survival (OS) in ARASENS (NCT02799602). Here we report on prostate-specific antigen (PSA) responses and their association with outcomes. METHODS: ARASENS is an international, double-blind, phase 3 study in patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC) randomized to darolutamide 600 mg orally twice daily (n = 651) or placebo (n = 654), both with ADT + docetaxel. The proportion of patients with undetectable PSA (<0.2 ng/ml) and time to PSA progression (≥25% relative and ≥2 ng/ml absolute increase from nadir) were compared between groups in prespecified exploratory analyses. PSA outcomes by disease volume and the association of undetectable PSA with OS and times to castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) and PSA progression were assessed in post hoc analyses. KEY FINDINGS AND LIMITATIONS: The proportion of patients with undetectable PSA at any time was more than doubled with darolutamide versus placebo, at 67% versus 29% in the overall population, 62% versus 26% in the high-volume subgroup, and 84% versus 38% in the low-volume subgroup. Darolutamide delayed time to PSA progression versus placebo, with hazard ratios of 0.26 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.21-0.31) in the overall population, 0.30 (95% CI 0.24-0.37) in the high-volume subgroup, and 0.093 (95% CI 0.047-0.18) in the low-volume subgroup. Undetectable PSA at 24 wk was associated with longer OS, with a hazard ratio of 0.49 (95% CI 0.37-0.65) in the darolutamide group, as well as longer times to CRPC and PSA progression, with similar findings in the disease volume subgroups. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Darolutamide + ADT + docetaxel led to deep and durable PSA responses in patients with high- or low-volume mHSPC. Achievement of undetectable PSA (<0.2 ng/ml) was correlated with better clinical outcomes.

A Proposal for the Comprehensive Care of Men on Androgen Deprivation Therapy: Recommendations From the Multidisciplinary Prostate Cancer 360 Working Group.

INTRODUCTION: To promote comprehensive care of patients throughout the androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) prescribing process, the Prostate Cancer 360 (PC360) Working Group developed monitoring and management recommendations intended to mitigate or prevent ADT-associated adverse events. METHODS: The PC360 Working Group included 14 interdisciplinary experts with a dedicated clinical interest in prostate cancer and ADT management. The working group defined challenges associated with ADT adverse event management and then collaboratively developed comprehensive care recommendations intended to be practical for ADT prescribers. RESULTS: The PC360 Working Group developed both overarching recommendations for ADT adverse event management and specific recommendations across 5 domains (cardiometabolic, bone, sexual, psychological, and lifestyle). The working group recommends an interdisciplinary, team-based approach wherein the ADT prescriber retains an oversight role for ADT management while empowering patients and their primary and specialty care providers to manage risk factors. The PC360 recommendations also emphasize the importance of proactive patient education that involves partners or other support providers. Recommended monitoring and assessment tools, risk factor management, and patient counseling points are also included for the 5 identified domains, with an emphasis on lifestyle and behavioral interventions that can improve quality of life and reduce the risk for ADT-associated complications. CONCLUSIONS: Comprehensive care of patients receiving ADT requires early and ongoing coordinated management of a variety of health domains, including cardiometabolic, bone, sexual, psychological health. Patient education and primary care provider involvement should begin prior to ADT initiation and continue throughout treatment to improve patient and partner quality of life.

Cardiovascular Risk in Prostate Cancer Patients Using Luteinizing Hormone-Releasing Hormone Agonists or a Gonadotropin-Releasing Hormone Antagonist.

PURPOSE: Luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH) agonists are believed to have higher cardiovascular risk relative to gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonists. However, previous studies have not consistently demonstrated this. We used real-world clinical practice data to evaluate differences in major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) risk between LHRH agonists compared to a GnRH antagonist following androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) initiation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of data in the Decision Resources Group (now Clarivate) Real World Evidence repository, which represents >300 million US patients from 1991 to 2020 across all US regions. Patients with prostate cancer who received at least 1 injection of ADT were included. The risks of MACE and all-cause mortality as independent endpoints were evaluated, Kaplan-Meier curves were constructed, and associations between MACE and all available confounding risk factors were evaluated by Cox regression analysis using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences. RESULTS: A total of 45,059 men with prostate cancer treated with ADT were analyzed. Overall, the risks of MACE and all-cause mortality were slightly lower in the first year after ADT initiation compared to subsequent years. MACE risk was higher for the GnRH antagonist compared to LHRH agonists (HR=1.62; 95% CI 1.21-2.18, P = .001). The risk of all-cause mortality was also higher for the GnRH antagonist vs LHRH agonists (HR=1.87; 95% CI 1.39-2.51, P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: The adjusted incidence of MACE was higher for men treated with the GnRH antagonist compared to the LHRH agonists. The demographic and risk factors with the greatest impact on MACE risk were higher age, baseline metastasis, oncology (vs urology) setting, personal MACE history, antagonist (vs agonist), tobacco history, White (vs Black) race, and lower BMI.

Primary Whole-gland Ablation for the Treatment of Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer: A Focal Therapy Society Best Practice Statement.

CONTEXT: Whole-gland ablation is a feasible and effective minimally invasive treatment for localized prostate cancer (PCa). Previous systematic reviews supported evidence for favorable functional outcomes, but oncological outcomes were inconclusive owing to limited follow-up. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the real-world data on the mid- to long-term oncological and functional outcomes of whole-gland cryoablation and high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) in patients with clinically localized PCa, and to provide expert recommendations and commentary on these findings. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: We performed a systematic review of PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library publications through February 2022 according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement. As endpoints, baseline clinical characteristics, and oncological and functional outcomes were assessed. To estimate the pooled prevalence of oncological, functional, and toxicity outcomes, and to quantify and explain the heterogeneity, random-effect meta-analyses and meta-regression analyses were performed. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Twenty-nine studies were identified, including 14 on cryoablation and 15 on HIFU with a median follow-up of 72 mo. Most of the studies were retrospective (n = 23), with IDEAL (idea, development, exploration, assessment, and long-term study) stage 2b (n = 20) being most common. Biochemical recurrence-free survival, cancer-specific survival, overall survival, recurrence-free survival, and metastasis-free survival rates at 10 yr were 58%, 96%, 63%, 71-79%, and 84%, respectively. Erectile function was preserved in 37% of cases, and overall pad-free continence was achieved in 96% of cases, with a 1-yr rate of 97.4-98.8%. The rates of stricture, urinary retention, urinary tract infection, rectourethral fistula, and sepsis were observed to be 11%, 9.5%, 8%, 0.7%, and 0.8%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The mid- to long-term real-world data, and the safety profiles of cryoablation and HIFU are sound to support and be offered as primary treatment for appropriate patients with localized PCa. When compared with other existing treatment modalities for PCa, these ablative therapies provide nearly equivalent intermediate- to long-term oncological and toxicity outcomes, as well as excellent pad-free continence rates in the primary setting. This real-world clinical evidence provides long-term oncological and functional outcomes that enhance shared decision-making when balancing risks and expected outcomes that reflect patient preferences and values. PATIENT SUMMARY: Cryoablation and high-intensity focused ultrasound are minimally invasive treatments available to selectively treat localized prostate cancer, considering their nearly comparable intermediate- to long term cancer control and preservation of urinary continence to other radical treatments in the primary setting. However, a well-informed decision should be made based on one's values and preferences.

Darolutamide Plus Androgen-Deprivation Therapy and Docetaxel in Metastatic Hormone-Sensitive Prostate Cancer by Disease Volume and Risk Subgroups in the Phase III ARASENS Trial.

PURPOSE: For patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer, metastatic burden affects outcome. We examined efficacy and safety from the ARASENS trial for subgroups by disease volume and risk. METHODS: Patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer were randomly assigned to darolutamide or placebo plus androgen-deprivation therapy and docetaxel. High-volume disease was defined as visceral metastases and/or ≥ 4 bone metastases with ≥ 1 beyond the vertebral column/pelvis. High-risk disease was defined as ≥ 2 risk factors: Gleason score ≥ 8, ≥ 3 bone lesions, and presence of measurable visceral metastases. RESULTS: Of 1,305 patients, 1,005 (77%) had high-volume disease and 912 (70%) had high-risk disease. Darolutamide increased overall survival (OS) versus placebo in patients with high-volume (hazard ratio [HR], 0.69; 95% CI, 0.57 to 0.82), high-risk (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.58 to 0.86), and low-risk disease (HR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.42 to 0.90), and in the smaller low-volume subgroup, the results were also suggestive of survival benefit (HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.41 to 1.13). Darolutamide improved clinically relevant secondary end points of time to castration-resistant prostate cancer and subsequent systemic antineoplastic therapy versus placebo in all disease volume and risk subgroups. Adverse events (AEs) were similar between treatment groups across subgroups. Grade 3 or 4 AEs occurred in 64.9% of darolutamide patients versus 64.2% of placebo patients in the high-volume subgroup and 70.1% versus 61.1% in the low-volume subgroup. Among the most common AEs, many were known toxicities related to docetaxel. CONCLUSION: In patients with high-volume and high-risk/low-risk metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer, treatment intensification with darolutamide, androgen-deprivation therapy, and docetaxel increased OS with a similar AE profile in the subgroups, consistent with the overall population.[Media: see text].

Darolutamide and Survival in Metastatic, Hormone-Sensitive Prostate Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Darolutamide is a potent androgen-receptor inhibitor that has been associated with increased overall survival among patients with nonmetastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer. Whether a combination of darolutamide, androgen-deprivation therapy, and docetaxel would increase survival among patients with metastatic, hormone-sensitive prostate cancer is unknown. METHODS: In this international, phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned patients with metastatic, hormone-sensitive prostate cancer in a 1:1 ratio to receive darolutamide (at a dose of 600 mg [two 300-mg tablets] twice daily) or matching placebo, both in combination with androgen-deprivation therapy and docetaxel. The primary end point was overall survival. RESULTS: The primary analysis involved 1306 patients (651 in the darolutamide group and 655 in the placebo group); 86.1% of the patients had disease that was metastatic at the time of the initial diagnosis. At the data cutoff date for the primary analysis (October 25, 2021), the risk of death was significantly lower, by 32.5%, in the darolutamide group than in the placebo group (hazard ratio 0.68; 95% confidence interval, 0.57 to 0.80; P<0.001). Darolutamide was also associated with consistent benefits with respect to the secondary end points and prespecified subgroups. Adverse events were similar in the two groups, and the incidences of the most common adverse events (occurring in ≥10% of the patients) were highest during the overlapping docetaxel treatment period in both groups. The frequency of grade 3 or 4 adverse events was 66.1% in the darolutamide group and 63.5% in the placebo group; neutropenia was the most common grade 3 or 4 adverse event (in 33.7% and 34.2%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: In this trial involving patients with metastatic, hormone-sensitive prostate cancer, overall survival was significantly longer with the combination of darolutamide, androgen-deprivation therapy, and docetaxel than with placebo plus androgen-deprivation therapy and docetaxel, and the addition of darolutamide led to improvement in key secondary end points. The frequency of adverse events was similar in the two groups. (Funded by Bayer and Orion Pharma; ARASENS ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02799602.).

Optimization of prostate biopsy - Micro-Ultrasound versus MRI (OPTIMUM): A 3-arm randomized controlled trial evaluating the role of 29 MHz micro-ultrasound in guiding prostate biopsy in men with clinical suspicion of prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: Micro-ultrasound (microUS) is a novel ultrasound-based imaging modality which has demonstrated the ability to visualize prostate cancer. Multiparametric MRI/ultrasound (mpMRI/US) fusion has recognized advantages for the performance of prostate biopsy, however, it encompasses additional cost, time and technical expertise to performing prostate biopsy in comparison to conventional trans-rectal ultrasound biopsy. MicroUS may simplify and optimize this pathway. METHODS: OPTIMUM is a 3-arm randomized controlled trial comparing microUS guided biopsy with MRI/US fusion and MRI/MicroUS "contour-less" fusion. This trial will investigate whether microUS alone, or in combination with mpMRI, provides effective guidance during prostate biopsy for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) for biopsy naïve subjects. 1200 subjects will be randomized. The economic impact will be evaluated. RESULTS: The rate of csPCa (defined as Grade Group 2 and above) in each arm will be compared. The primary hypothesis is non-inferiority of csPCa rate between the MRI/US fusion arm and the microUS-only arm (including the blinded microUS-only portion of the MRI/MicroUS arm). As a secondary objective, the csPCa rate between MRI/MicroUS fusion and MRI/US fusion arms will also be compared. Other secondary objectives include the increase in rate of patients diagnosed with csPCa due to each type of sample (mpMRI targeted, microUS targeted, systematic), the negative predictive value of each imaging modality, and a health economic analysis of the procedures in each arm. CONCLUSIONS: OPTIMUM will determine whether microUS can be used as an alternative to MRI/US fusion biopsy. The trial will also evaluate the efficacy of the simplified "contour-less" MRI/MicroUS fusion procedure. The adoption of the microUS technique will increase the proportion of men who can benefit from modern imaging-centric diagnostic strategies, and may help reduce variability, complexity, waiting time and cost within the diagnostic pathway.

Estetrol Cotreatment of Androgen Deprivation Therapy in Infiltrating or Metastatic, Castration-sensitive Prostate Cancer: A Randomized, Double-blind, Phase II Trial (PCombi).

BACKGROUND: Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) for prostate cancer with luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH) agonists can be improved. OBJECTIVE: To assess safety, the frequency and severity of hot flushes (HFs), bone health, and antitumor effects of high-dose estetrol (HDE4) when combined with ADT. DESIGN SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: A phase II, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study was conducted in advanced prostate cancer patients requiring ADT (the PCombi study). INTERVENTION: Patients receiving LHRH agonist treatment were randomized 2:1 to 40 mg HDE4 (n = 41) or placebo (n = 21) cotreatment for 24 wk. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Coprimary endpoints were frequency/severity of HFs and levels of total and free testosterone (T). Secondary endpoints included assessments of bone metabolism (osteocalcin and type I collagen telopeptide [CTX1]), prostate-specific antigen (PSA), and follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH). Efficacy analysis was based on the selected per-protocol (PP) population. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Of 62 patients included in the study, 57 were suitable for a PP analysis (37 HDE4; 20 placebo). No E4-related serious cardiovascular adverse events occurred at 24 wk. Weekly HFs were reported by 13.5% of patients with HDE4 and 60.0% with placebo (p < 0.001). Daily HFs occurred in 5.9% versus 55%. Bone turnover parameters decreased significantly with HDE4 (p < 0.0001). Total and free T decreased earlier (p < 0.05), and free T was suppressed further (p < 0.05). PSA suppression was more profound and earlier (p < 0.005). FSH levels were suppressed by 98% versus 57% (p < 0.0001). Estrogenic side effects were nipple sensitivity (34%) and gynecomastia (17%). CONCLUSIONS: HDE4 cotreatment of ADT patients with advanced prostate cancer was well tolerated, and no treatment-related cardiovascular adverse events were observed at 24 wk. HFs and bone turnover were substantially reduced. Suppression of free T, PSA, and FSH was more rapid and profound, suggesting enhanced disease control by HDE4 cotreatment. Larger and longer-lasting studies are needed to confirm the results of the study reported here. PATIENT SUMMARY: Cotreatment of androgen deprivation therapy with high-dose estetrol in advanced prostate cancer patients results in fewer occurrences of hot flushes, bone protection, and other antitumor benefits. Nipple sensitivity and gynecomastia may occur as side effects.

Clinical use of the SelectMDx urinary-biomarker test with or without mpMRI in prostate cancer diagnosis: a prospective, multicenter study in biopsy-naïve men.

BACKGROUND: Risk stratification in men with suspicion of prostate cancer (PCa) requires reliable diagnostic tests, not only to identify high-grade PCa, also to minimize the overdetection of low-grade PCa, and reduction of "unnecessary" prostate MRIs and biopsies. This study aimed to evaluate the SelectMDx test to detect high-grade PCa in biopsy-naïve men. Subsequently, to assess combinations of SelectMDx test and multi-parametric (mp) MRI and its potential impact on patient selection for prostate biopsy. METHODS: This prospective multicenter diagnostic study included 599 biopsy-naïve patients with prostate-specific antigen level ≥3 ng/ml. All patients underwent a SelectMDx test and mpMRI before systematic transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy (TRUSGB). Patients with a suspicious mpMRI also had an in-bore MR-guided biopsy (MRGB). Histopathologic outcome of TRUSGB and MRGB was used as reference standard. High-grade PCa was defined as ISUP Grade Group (GG) ≥ 2. The primary outcome was the detection rates of low- and high-grade PCa and number of biopsies avoided in four strategies, i.e., (1) SelectMDx test-only, (2) mpMRI-only, (3) SelectMDx test followed by mpMRI when SelectMDx test was positive (conditional strategy), and (4) SelectMDx test and mpMRI in all (joint strategy). A positive SelectMDx test outcome was a risk score of ≥-2.8. Decision curve analysis (DCA) was performed to assess clinical utility. RESULTS: Prevalence of high-grade PCa was 31% (183/599). Thirty-eight percent (227/599) of patients had negative SelectMDx test in whom biopsy could be avoided. Low-grade PCa was not detected in 35% (48/138) with missing 10% (18/183) high-grade PCa. Yet, mpMRI-only could avoid 49% of biopsies, not detecting 4.9% (9/183) of high-grade PCa. The conditional strategy reduces the number of mpMRIs by 38% (227/599), avoiding biopsy in 60% (357/599) and missing 13% (24/183) high-grade PCa. Low-grade PCa was not detected in 58% (80/138). DCA showed the highest net benefit for the mpMRI-only strategy, followed by the conditional strategy at-risk thresholds >10%. CONCLUSIONS: SelectMDx test as a risk stratification tool for biopsy-naïve men avoids unnecessary biopsies in 38%, minimizes low-grade PCa detection, and misses only 10% high-grade PCa. Yet, using mpMRI in all patients had the highest net benefit, avoiding biopsy in 49% and missing 4.9% of high-risk PCa. However, if mpMRI availability is limited or expensive, using mpMRI-only in SelectMDx test positive patients is a good alternative strategy.

Boosting immune response with GM-CSF optimizes primary cryotherapy outcomes in the treatment of prostate cancer: a prospective randomized clinical trial.

OBJECTIVE: We explored the association of prostate cryotherapy and immunomodulation with granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GMCSF) in the generation of detectable tumor-specific T- and B-cell responses in men with prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A randomized pilot study of patients assigned to either cryotherapy alone (Control group) or in combination with GMCSF (Treatment group). The impact of therapy on the development of T- and B-cell responses against tumor-related antigens was studied using enzyme-linked immune absorbent spot (ELISpot) and protein microarray panels (Sematrix) assays, respectively. Fold changes in response to treatment were calculated by normalization of post-treatment ELISpot values against the mean pre-cryoablation response. Student t tests between treatment and control groups at 4 weeks and 12 weeks across all the antigens were performed. RESULTS: A total of 20 patients were randomized to either control or treatment arm. At 4 weeks after cryotherapy, the treatment group demonstrated an average fold change in cancer antigen-related antibodies of 2.8% above their mean baseline values, whereas controls averaged an 18% change below mean baseline (p < 0.05). At 12 weeks, antibody response in treatment group increased to 25% above baseline, while the average of control group patients remained 9% below baseline (p < 0.05). Patients in treatment group displayed, on average, higher ELISPOT readings for the 4- and 12-week times points (527 vs 481 for PSA and 748 vs 562 for PAP). CONCLUSIONS: GMCSF appeared to broadly elevate antibodies against prostate-specific and nonspecific antigens. Prostate antigen-specific T-cell responses were more enhanced over non-prostate-specific responses, preferentially in the treatment group. Our findings suggest a possible therapeutic effect of adjuvant immunotherapy in association with cryotherapy for the treatment of prostate cancer.

Impact of Late Dosing on Testosterone Suppression with 2 Different Leuprolide Acetate Formulations: In Situ Gel and Microsphere. An Analysis of United States Clinical Data.

PURPOSE: Nonadherence to dosing schedules for androgen deprivation therapy increases the risk of testosterone escape for patients with prostate cancer. Two approved formulations of leuprolide acetate, the most commonly prescribed androgen deprivation therapy in the United States, use different extended release delivery technologies: an in situ gel and microspheres. We evaluated the prevalence and impact of late dosing on testosterone suppression for gel and microsphere formulations of leuprolide acetate. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed records of patients with prostate cancer treated with gel or microsphere delivery of leuprolide acetate. Analyses used 2 definitions of "month," "28-day" (late dosing after day 28, 84, 112 or 168) and "extended" (late dosing after day 32, 97, 128 and 194). Frequencies of late dosing and associated testosterone values were calculated. RESULTS: A total of 2,038 patients received gel and 8,360 received microsphere formulations of leuprolide acetate. More than 80% and 27% of injections were late for 28-day and extended month, respectively. For 28-day month late injections 10% (gel delivery) and 14% (microsphere delivery) of testosterone values were above 50 ng/dl, and 25% (gel) vs 33% (microsphere) were above 20 ng/dl. For extended month 18% (gel) vs 25% (microsphere) were above 50 ng/dl, and 34% (gel) vs 44% (microsphere) were above 20 ng/dl. Microsphere leuprolide acetate was 1.5 times more likely to have testosterone above 50/20 ng/dl vs gel. Least square mean testosterone was 34 ng/dl (gel) vs 46 ng/dl (microsphere) for 28-day month, and 48 ng/dl (gel) vs 76 ng/dl (microsphere) for extended month. CONCLUSIONS: Leuprolide acetate therapies were frequently administered late. Gel formulation demonstrated higher rates of testosterone 50 ng/dl or less and 20 ng/dl or less than microsphere formulation. Optimal testosterone suppression can impact prostate cancer progression and patient survival, and differences in extended release technology for androgen deprivation therapy appear relevant.

Evolving understanding and categorization of prostate cancer: preventing progression to metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: RADAR IV.

INTRODUCTION To interpret data and update the traditional categorization of prostate cancer in order to help treating clinicians make more informed decisions. These updates include guidance regarding how to best use next generation imaging (NGI) with the caveat that the new imaging technologies are still a work in progress. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Literature review. RESULTS: Critical goals in prostate cancer management include preventing or delaying emergence of distant metastases and progression to castration-resistant disease. Pathways for progression to metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) involve transitional states: nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC), metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC), and oligometastatic disease. Determination of clinical state depends in part on available imaging modalities. Currently, fluciclovine and gallium-68 (68Ga) prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) positron emission tomography (PET)/computed tomography (CT) are the NGI approaches with the most favorable combination of availability, specificity, and sensitivity. PET imaging can be used to help guide treatment selection in most patients. NGI can help determine patients who are candidates for new treatments, most notably (next-generation androgen antagonists, eg, apalutamide, enzalutamide, darolutamide), that can delay progression to advanced disease. CONCLUSIONS: It is important to achieve a consensus on new and more easily understood terminology to clearly and effectively describe prostate cancer and its progression to health care professionals and patients. It is also important that description of disease states make clear the need to initiate appropriate treatment. This may be particularly important for disease in transition to mCRPC.

Darolutamide: An Evidenced-Based Review of Its Efficacy and Safety in the Treatment of Prostate Cancer.

Men treated with androgen deprivation therapy for rising PSA after failed local therapy will often develop castrate resistance, and the appearance of metastases predicts a poor prognosis. Thus, researchers have long sought to prolong the onset of metastasis in patients with nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC). Until 2018, patients in this group had no FDA-approved treatment options. They were typically managed with androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) to maintain castrate systemic testosterone levels and given approved therapies for metastatic CRPC once metastases appeared. However, third-generation androgen receptor inhibitors (ARIs) have dramatically changed the treatment paradigm, having shown the ability to extend metastasis-free survival (MFS) significantly over ADT alone in Phase 3 trials. The newest of these, darolutamide, prolonged MFS 22 months over placebo while also improving a host of secondary and exploratory endpoints such as overall survival (OS), prostate-specific antigen (PSA) progression and time to pain progression, chemotherapy initiation, and symptomatic skeletal events. Among third-generation ARIs, darolutamide is unique in that it incorporates two pharmacologically active diastereomers and has demonstrated resistance to all known androgen receptor (AR) mutations. Additionally, patients taking darolutamide appear to experience comparatively few central nervous system-related adverse events (AEs) such as fatigue and falls, and no increases in seizures have been reported in the drug's clinical or preclinical development. Various authors attribute the low incidence of CNS-related AEs to darolutamide's minimal penetration of the blood-brain barrier (BBB). Other side effects ranging from hot flashes to hypothyroidism also occurred at rates similar to those of the placebo arm in Phase 3. As ADT in itself raises cardiovascular risk, the cardiovascular safety of third-generation antiandrogens as a category warrants continued scrutiny. In total, however, published data suggest that darolutamide provides a reasonable option for patients with nonmetastatic CRPC. Ongoing research will determine darolutamide's potential role in additional disease states such as localized and castration-sensitive PCa.

69-Year-Old Man With Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer Progressing After Docetaxel and Androgen Receptor-Targeting Agent.

KEY POINTS • The prognosis for patients with mCRPC has improved over the last few years due to the introduction of novel agents. • The optimal sequence of administering these therapeutic agents remains as a moving target and is not well established. Decisions are usually made according to patients' clinical conditions and disease characteristics, and the safety profile and availability of new drugs. • Recently, cabazitaxel improved outcomes in the third-line setting after docetaxel and an ARTA. Olaparib is an additional option for second- and third-line treatment in those with alterations in BRCA1, BRCA2, and ATM. • Understanding the mechanisms of resistance may provide a rationale for suggesting specific strategies. • A subset of patients may benefit from molecularly targeted therapies, which highlights the importance of genomic testing in the castration-resistant setting. • Immunotherapy may provide benefit to some subsets of patients, such as those with MSI-high tumors. Studies regarding combination therapy with immune checkpoint inhibitors are ongoing.