Smoking prevalence and association with sociodemographic variables in cancer clinical trial participants.

BACKGROUND: Tobacco use (smoking) causes adverse clinical outcomes among patients with cancer, including increased cancer-related mortality. In participants in cancer clinical trials, the prevalence of tobacco use and the factors associated with tobacco use are not well described. METHODS: Data were examined from participants enrolled in SWOG cancer clinical treatment trials between 2016 and 2022 who reported their smoking status at trial enrollment. Baseline variables (smoking status, insurance type, zip code, and demographic factors) were obtained from patient registration forms. Bivariate and multivariable associations were examined via logistic regression. RESULTS: Among 4326 patients enrolled in 29 trials, 48.1% reported currently/previously smoking, including 12.4% currently, 4.9% recently, and 30.7% formerly. Ever smoking was more commonly reported in males, patients aged ≥65 years, patients with Medicaid or no insurance, patients from areas of high socioeconomic deprivation, and rural patients. Patients of Hispanic ethnicity and Asian and Pacific Islander patients were less likely to have ever smoked. In multivariable regression, patients with lung cancer were most likely to report ever smoking compared to patients with breast cancer (odds ratio, 4.98; p < .001). CONCLUSIONS: In the first comprehensive evaluation of smoking status among trial participants enrolled in National Cancer Institute network group treatment trials, nearly half reported ever smoking and one in six reported current or recent smoking. Smoking was more common among vulnerable population patients defined by demographic and socioeconomic factors. Tobacco use should be routinely assessed and reported in clinical trials to help reduce the negative cancer and overall health effects of persistent tobacco use and to address disparities among patients with cancer.

Assessment of eligibility criteria in renal cell carcinoma trials evaluating systemic therapy.

OBJECTIVES: To characterise the restrictiveness of eligibility criteria in contemporary renal cell carcinoma (RCC) trials, using recommendations from the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO)-Friends of Cancer Research (FCR) initiative. METHODS: vPhase I-III trials assessing systemic therapies in patients with RCC starting between 30 June 2012 and 30 June 2022 were identified. Eligibility criteria regarding brain metastases, prior or concurrent malignancies, hepatitis B virus (HBV) or hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection, and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection were identified and stratified into three groups: exclusion, conditional inclusion, and not reported. Descriptive statistics were used to determine the frequency of eligibility criteria. Fisher's exact test or chi-square test were used to calculate their associations with certain trial characteristics. RESULTS: A total of 423 RCC trials were initially identified of which 112 (26.5%) had sufficient accessible information. Exclusion of patients with HIV infection, HBV/HCV infection, brain metastases, and prior or concurrent malignancies were reported in 74.1%, 53.6%, 33.0%, and 8.0% of trials, respectively. In the context of HIV and HBV/HCV infection, patients were largely excluded from trials evaluating immunotherapy (94.4% and 77.8%, respectively). In addition, brain metastases were excluded in trials assessing targeted therapy (36.4%), combined therapy (33.3%), and immunotherapy (22.2%). Exclusion of patients with prior or concurrent malignancies was less frequently reported, accounting for 9.1%, 8.3%, and 5.6% targeted therapy, combined therapy and immunotherapy trials, respectively. CONCLUSION: A substantial proportion of RCC trials utilise restrictive eligibility criteria, excluding patients with fairly prevalent comorbidities. Implementing the ASCO-FCR recommendations will ensure resulting data are more inclusive and aligned with patient populations in the real-world.

NCCN Guidelines® Insights: Prostate Cancer, Version 3.2024.

The NCCN Guidelines for Prostate Cancer include recommendations for staging and risk assessment after a prostate cancer diagnosis and for the care of patients with localized, regional, recurrent, and metastatic disease. These NCCN Guidelines Insights summarize the panel's discussions for the 2024 update to the guidelines with regard to initial risk stratification, initial management of very-low-risk disease, and the treatment of nonmetastatic recurrence.

Evaluating relugolix for the treatment of prostate cancer in real-world settings of care: the OPTYX study protocol.

OPTYX is a multi-center, prospective, observational study designed to further understand the actual experience of patients with advanced prostate cancer treated with relugolix (ORGOVYX®), an oral androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), by collecting clinical and patient-reported outcomes from routine care settings. The study aims to enroll 1000 consented patients with advanced prostate cancer from community, academic and government operated clinical practices across the USA. At planned timepoints, real-world data analysis on treatment patterns, adherence and safety as well as health outcomes and health-related quality-of-life (HRQOL) after treatment discontinuation will be published in scientific peer-reviewed journals and presented at relevant conferences. This study will provide real-world data for practitioners and researchers in their understanding of the safety and effectiveness of relugolix. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT05467176 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

What is this summary about? This is a protocol summary for a research study named OPTYX. Who can participate in this research? Men 18 or older with advanced prostate cancer initiating treatment with relugolix, an oral androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), at the time of enrollment or within the 1 month before enrollment (remaining on treatment at enrollment) and are willing and able to complete patient assessments during the study. What institutions are performing this research? Community practices, academic institutions and Veterans Health Administration facilities across the USA. What are the research assessments to obtain the results? Data will be collected from the routine medical visits twice yearly including patient demographics, medical history (co-morbidities and cardiac risk factors), prostate cancer history and treatments and test results (routine lab testosterone, PSA levels and imaging). Relugolix response and all serious adverse events (SAEs) and any nonserious adverse events (AE) leading to relugolix treatment discontinuation will be assessed. Patients will be asked to respond to evaluations about their health-related quality of life and adherence to relugolix treatment. How long would the study last? Up to 5 years from enrollment date and/or up to 2 years after relugolix discontinuation. Follow-up will end with consent withdrawal, loss to follow-up, death, or study termination, whichever comes first. What do the results of the study mean? Real-world understanding of the experience and clinical outcomes in patients with advanced prostate cancer in routine clinical care and their clinical trajectory following cessation of relugolix therapy.

A Practical Guide to Relugolix: Early Experience With Oral Androgen Deprivation Therapy.

BACKGROUND: Relugolix is the newest form of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) approved for prostate cancer. However, as an oral drug, several real-world concerns exist, particularly medication compliance, safety with other androgen receptor-targeted agents, and financial burden to patients. METHODS: A single institution retrospective chart review was conducted evaluating all patients who were prescribed relugolix for any prostate cancer indication from January 1, 2021 to January 31, 2022. Demographic data, cardiac risk factors, concomitant therapy usage, and PSA/testosterone levels, were abstracted from the chart review. Adverse effects were obtained by examining progress notes. Compliance was assessed by clinic notes as well as prescription fills by specialty pharmacy records. The reasons patients did not fill or discontinued the medication were noted. RESULTS: Hundred and one patients were prescribed relugolix, and 91 patients consented to research. Seventy-one (78%) patients filled the prescription to relugolix, with a median follow-up of 5 months. Prescription fill data were available for 45 (63%) patients, with 94% of days covered. The most commonly reported reason not to fill was cost at 50%. Sixty-six (93%) patients reported never missing a dose. PSA levels were available in 71 (100%) patients with 69 (97%) showing stable or improved PSA. Testosterone levels were available in 61 (86%) of patients, which showed 61 (100%) stable or successful castration. Twenty-four (34%) patients used relugolix in combination. No new major safety signals were seen in combination therapy. Nineteen (27%) patients had switched to another form of ADT. Fifteen of these (79%) felt similar or better on relugolix therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Compliance with relugolix seemed acceptable. No major new safety signals were seen, even in combination. Among patients who switched therapy, most tolerated relugolix similarly or better than the previous form of ADT. The cost was a major reason for patients not initiating and for discontinuing therapy.

Twelve-Month Follow-up of the Immune Response After COVID-19 Vaccination in Patients with Genitourinary Cancers: A Prospective Cohort Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Vaccinations against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) have had a transformative impact on morbidity and mortality. However, the long-term impact of vaccination on patients with genitourinary cancers is currently unknown. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study aimed to assess seroconversion rates in patients with genitourinary cancers receiving COVID-19 vaccination. Patients with prostate cancer, renal cell carcinoma, or urothelial cancer who had not been vaccinated for COVID-19 were included. Blood samples were obtained at baseline and after 2, 6, and 12 months of one dose of an FDA-approved COVID-19 vaccine. Antibody titer analysis was performed using the SCoV-2 Detect IgG ELISA assay, and the results were reported as immune status ratio (ISR). A paired t-test was used for comparison of ISR values between timepoints. In addition, T-cell receptor (TCR) sequencing was performed to assess for differences in TCR repertoire 2 months after vaccination. RESULTS: Out of 133 patients enrolled, 98 baseline blood samples were collected. At 2-, 6-, and 12-month time points 98, 70, and 50 samples were collected, respectively. Median age was 67 (IQR, 62-75), with the majority of patients diagnosed with prostate (55.1%) or renal cell carcinoma (41.8%). Compared to baseline (0.24 [95% CI, 0.19-0.31]) a significant increase in the geometric mean ISR values was observed at the 2-month timepoint (5.59 [4.76-6.55]) (P < .001). However, at the 6-month timepoint, a significant decrease in the ISR values was observed (4.66 [95% CI, 4.04-5.38]; P < .0001). Notably, at the 12-month timepoint, the addition of a booster dose resulted in an absolute increase in the ISR values compared to those who did not receive a booster dose (P = .04). CONCLUSIONS: Only a minority of patients with genitourinary cancers did not ultimately achieve satisfactory seroconversion after receiving commercial COVID-19 vaccination. Cancer type or treatment rendered did not appear to affect the immune response mounted after vaccination.

Perceptions of COVID-19 Vaccination in Patients with Genitourinary Cancers: A Survey Study.

Since the approval of the COVID-19 vaccines, their safety and efficacy has been widely demonstrated in patients with cancer. However, there remain patients with reservations regarding vaccination. We aimed to assess genitourinary cancer patients' perceptions of the vaccines as well as barriers and influencers of decision-making through the completion of a questionnaire. While vaccine-associated concerns were observed, most patients with genitourinary cancers were willing to receive the vaccine. Moving forward, differing strategies could be considered to enhance patient education on the utility of vaccination in the setting of cancer and beyond.

Prostate Cancer, Version 4.2023, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology.

The NCCN Guidelines for Prostate Cancer provide a framework on which to base decisions regarding the workup of patients with prostate cancer, risk stratification and management of localized disease, post-treatment monitoring, and treatment of recurrence and advanced disease. The Guidelines sections included in this article focus on the management of metastatic castration-sensitive disease, nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC), and metastatic CRPC (mCRPC). Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) with treatment intensification is strongly recommended for patients with metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer. For patients with nonmetastatic CRPC, ADT is continued with or without the addition of certain secondary hormone therapies depending on prostate-specific antigen doubling time. In the mCRPC setting, ADT is continued with the sequential addition of certain secondary hormone therapies, chemotherapies, immunotherapies, radiopharmaceuticals, and/or targeted therapies. The NCCN Prostate Cancer Panel emphasizes a shared decision-making approach in all disease settings based on patient preferences, prior treatment exposures, the presence or absence of visceral disease, symptoms, and potential side effects.

Racial and ethnic differences in perceptions of germline or somatic DNA sequencing among patients with advanced prostate, urothelial, or kidney cancer.

We sought to determine racial and ethnic differences in perceptions (quality of communication, expectations, and concerns) of germline or somatic DNA sequencing (genomic profiling). Patients with prostate, urothelial, or kidney cancer were surveyed using a questionnaire that assessed previous experience, beliefs, expectations, and concerns regarding genomic profiling. Descriptive statistics and chi-square tests were used to identify factors associated with patients' perceptions of genomic profiling. A total of 150 consecutive patients were enrolled. The majority were male (74%) with a mean age of 68 years old. Most patients underwent somatic testing (54%), 24% undertook germline testing, and 21% undertook both tests. Significant differences were found across racial and/or ethnicity concerning factors that could have influenced patients' decision to pursue genomic profiling, including ability to guide the type of treatment (White: 54.1% vs. other ethnic groups: 43.9%, p = 0.04) and potential to improve treatment response (White: 10.1% vs. other ethnic groups: 22.0%, p = 0.04). Other ethnic group of patients were more concerned about learning that the cancer was less treatable or aggressive (43.8% vs. 27.7%, p = 0.01) and anxious about what would be learnt from genomic profiling (34.4% vs. 21.3, p = 0.01) as compared to White patients. Our findings reinforce the importance of developing culturally tailored education to help patients participate actively in decisions about genomic profiling.

Cabozantinib in combination with atezolizumab in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: results from an expansion cohort of a multicentre, open-label, phase 1b trial (COSMIC-021).

BACKGROUND: Patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer have few treatment options after novel hormonal therapy (eg, abiraterone or enzalutamide). We aimed to evaluate cabozantinib, a tyrosine kinase inhibitor with immunomodulatory properties, in combination with the PD-L1 inhibitor atezolizumab in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. METHODS: COSMIC-021 is an ongoing, multicentre, open-label, phase 1b study with a dose-escalation stage followed by tumour-specific expansion stages. Expansion cohort 6 in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer was enrolled at 42 cancer research centres in France, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain, and the USA. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older and had metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer with radiographic soft tissue progression following treatment with either enzalutamide or abiraterone, or both; measurable soft tissue disease per Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumours (RECIST) version 1.1; and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1. Patients received oral cabozantinib 40 mg per day and intravenous atezolizumab 1200 mg once every 3 weeks. Study treatment continued until progressive disease or unacceptable toxicity. All enrolled patients were assessed for efficacy and safety. The primary endpoint was objective response rate per RECIST version 1.1 as assessed by the investigator. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03170960. FINDINGS: Between April 24, 2018, and Aug 31, 2020, 132 patients were enrolled and received at least one dose of study treatment. At data cutoff (Feb 19, 2021), median duration of follow-up was 15·2 months (IQR 9·6-21·7). Objective response rate was 23% (95% CI 17-32; 31 of 132 patients), with three (2%) confirmed complete responses and 28 (21%) confirmed partial responses. 72 (55%) of 132 patients had grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events, with the most common being pulmonary embolism (11 [8%] patients), diarrhoea (nine [7%]), fatigue (nine [7%]), and hypertension (nine [7%]). There was one grade 5 treatment-related adverse event (dehydration). 74 (56%) of 132 patients had serious adverse events of any causality. 28 (21%) of 132 patients had treatment-related adverse events leading to discontinuation of either study drug. INTERPRETATION: Cabozantinib plus atezolizumab showed promising antitumour activity in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer after novel hormonal therapy with an acceptable safety profile, supporting further evaluation of this combination. FUNDING: Exelixis.

Talazoparib, a Poly(ADP-ribose) Polymerase Inhibitor, for Metastatic Castration-resistant Prostate Cancer and DNA Damage Response Alterations: TALAPRO-1 Safety Analyses.

BACKGROUND: The phase II TALAPRO-1 study (NCT03148795) demonstrated durable antitumor activity in men with heavily pretreated metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). Here, we detail the safety profile of talazoparib. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Men received talazoparib 1 mg/day (moderate renal impairment 0.75 mg/day) orally until radiographic progression, unacceptable toxicity, investigator decision, consent withdrawal, or death. Adverse events (AEs) were evaluated: incidence, severity, timing, duration, potential overlap of selected AEs, dose modifications/discontinuations due to AEs, and new clinically significant changes in laboratory values and vital signs. RESULTS: In the safety population (N = 127; median age 69.0 years), 95.3% (121/127) experienced all-cause treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs). Most common were anemia (48.8% [62/127]), nausea (33.1% [42/127]), decreased appetite (28.3% [36/127]), and asthenia (23.6% [30/127]). Nonhematologic TEAEs were generally grades 1 and 2. No grade 5 TEAEs or deaths were treatment-related. Hematologic TEAEs typically occurred during the first 4-5 months of treatment. The median duration of grade 3-4 anemia, neutropenia, and thrombocytopenia was limited to 7-12 days. No grade 4 events of anemia or neutropenia occurred. Neither BRCA status nor alteration origin significantly impacted the safety profile. The median (range) treatment duration was 6.1 (0.4-24.9) months; treatment duration did not impact the incidence of anemia. Only 3 of the 15 (11.8% [15/127]) permanent treatment discontinuations were due to hematologic TEAEs (thrombocytopenia 1.6% [2/127]; leukopenia 0.8% [1/127]). CONCLUSION: Common TEAEs associated with talazoparib could be managed through dose modifications/supportive care. Demonstrated efficacy and a manageable safety profile support continued evaluation of talazoparib in mCRPC. CLINICALTRIALS.GOV IDENTIFIER: NCT03148795.

NCCN Guidelines® Insights: Prostate Cancer, Version 1.2023.

The NCCN Guidelines for Prostate Cancer address staging and risk assessment after a prostate cancer diagnosis and include management options for localized, regional, recurrent, and metastatic disease. The NCCN Prostate Cancer Panel meets annually to reevaluate and update their recommendations based on new clinical data and input from within NCCN Member Institutions and from external entities. These NCCN Guidelines Insights summarizes much of the panel's discussions for the 4.2022 and 1.2023 updates to the guidelines regarding systemic therapy for metastatic prostate cancer.

Pre-conditioning modifies the TME to enhance solid tumor CAR T cell efficacy and endogenous protective immunity.

Chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cell therapy has led to impressive clinical responses in patients with hematological malignancies; however, its effectiveness in patients with solid tumors has been limited. While CAR T cells for the treatment of advanced prostate and pancreas cancer, including those targeting prostate stem cell antigen (PSCA), are being clinically evaluated and are anticipated to show bioactivity, their safety and the impact of the immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment (TME) have not been faithfully explored preclinically. Using a novel human PSCA knockin (hPSCA-KI) immunocompetent mouse model, we evaluated the safety and therapeutic efficacy of PSCA-CAR T cells. We demonstrated that cyclophosphamide (Cy) pre-conditioning significantly modified the immunosuppressive TME and was required to uncover the efficacy of PSCA-CAR T cells in metastatic prostate and pancreas cancer models, with no observed toxicities in normal tissues with endogenous expression of PSCA. This combination dampened the immunosuppressive TME, generated pro-inflammatory myeloid and T cell signatures in tumors, and enhanced the recruitment of antigen-presenting cells, as well as endogenous and adoptively transferred T cells, resulting in long-term anti-tumor immunity.

Talazoparib monotherapy in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer with DNA repair alterations (TALAPRO-1): an open-label, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors have antitumour activity against metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancers with DNA damage response (DDR) alterations in genes involved directly or indirectly in homologous recombination repair (HRR). In this study, we assessed the PARP inhibitor talazoparib in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancers with DDR-HRR alterations. METHODS: In this open-label, phase 2 trial (TALAPRO-1), participants were recruited from 43 hospitals, cancer centres, and medical centres in Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Spain, South Korea, the UK, and the USA. Patients were eligible if they were men aged 18 years or older with progressive, metastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancers of adenocarcinoma histology, measurable soft-tissue disease (per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1 [RECIST 1.1]), an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2, DDR-HRR gene alterations reported to sensitise to PARP inhibitors (ie, ATM, ATR, BRCA1, BRCA2, CHEK2, FANCA, MLH1, MRE11A, NBN, PALB2, RAD51C), had received one or two taxane-based chemotherapy regimens for metastatic disease, and progressed on enzalutamide or abiraterone, or both, for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancers. Eligible patients were given oral talazoparib (1 mg per day; or 0·75 mg per day in patients with moderate renal impairment) until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, investigator decision, withdrawal of consent, or death. The primary endpoint was confirmed objective response rate, defined as best overall soft-tissue response of complete or partial response per RECIST 1.1, by blinded independent central review. The primary endpoint was assessed in patients who received study drug, had measurable soft-tissue disease, and had a gene alteration in one of the predefined DDR-HRR genes. Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of the study drug. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03148795, and is ongoing. FINDINGS: Between Oct 18, 2017, and March 20, 2020, 128 patients were enrolled, of whom 127 received at least one dose of talazoparib (safety population) and 104 had measurable soft-tissue disease (antitumour activity population). Data cutoff for this analysis was Sept 4, 2020. After a median follow-up of 16·4 months (IQR 11·1-22·1), the objective response rate was 29·8% (31 of 104 patients; 95% CI 21·2-39·6). The most common grade 3-4 treatment-emergent adverse events were anaemia (39 [31%] of 127 patients), thrombocytopenia (11 [9%]), and neutropenia (ten [8%]). Serious treatment-emergent adverse events were reported in 43 (34%) patients. There were no treatment-related deaths. INTERPRETATION: Talazoparib showed durable antitumour activity in men with advanced metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancers with DDR-HRR gene alterations who had been heavily pretreated. The favourable benefit-risk profile supports the study of talazoparib in larger, randomised clinical trials, including in patients with non-BRCA alterations. FUNDING: Pfizer/Medivation.

Efficacy of Platinum Rechallenge in Metastatic Urothelial Carcinoma After Previous Platinum-Based Chemotherapy for Metastatic Disease.

BACKGROUND: Fit patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC) receive first-line platinum-based combination chemotherapy (fPBC) as standard of care and may receive additional later-line chemotherapy after progression. Our study compares outcomes with subsequent platinum-based chemotherapy (sPBC) versus subsequent non-platinum-based chemotherapy (sNPBC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients from 27 international centers in the Retrospective International Study of Cancers of the Urothelium (RISC) who received fPBC for mUC and at least two cycles of subsequent chemotherapy were included in this study. A multivariable Cox proportional hazards model compared overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). RESULTS: One hundred thirty-five patients received sPBC and 161 received sNPBC. Baseline characteristics were similar between groups, except patients who received sPBC had higher baseline hemoglobin, higher disease control rate with fPBC, and longer time since fPBC. OS was superior in the sPBC group (median 7.9 vs 5.5 months) in a model adjusting for comorbidity burden, performance status, liver metastases, number of fPBC cycles received, best response to fPBC, and time since fPBC (hazard ratio, 0.72; 95% confidence interval, 0.53-0.98; p = .035). There was no difference in PFS. More patients in the sPBC group achieved disease control than in the sNPBC group (57.4% vs 44.8%; p = .041). Factors associated with achieving disease control in the sPBC group but not the sNPBC group included longer time since fPBC, achieving disease control with fPBC, and absence of liver metastases. CONCLUSION: After receiving fPBC for mUC, patients who received sPBC had better OS and disease control. This may help inform the choice of subsequent chemotherapy in patients with mUC. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Patients with progressive metastatic urothelial carcinoma after first-line platinum-based combination chemotherapy may now receive immuno-oncology agents, erdafitinib, enfortumab vedotin, or sacituzumab govitecan-hziy; however, those ineligible for these later-line therapies or who progress after receiving them may be considered for subsequent chemotherapy. In this retrospective study of 296 patients, survival outcomes and disease control rates were better in those receiving subsequent platinum-based rechallenge compared with non-platinum-based chemotherapy, suggesting that patients should receive platinum rechallenge if clinically able. Disease control with platinum rechallenge was more likely with prior first-line platinum having achieved disease control, longer time since first-line platinum, and absence of liver metastases.

NCCN Guidelines Insights: Prostate Cancer, Version 1.2021.

The NCCN Guidelines for Prostate Cancer address staging and risk assessment after a prostate cancer diagnosis and include management options for localized, regional, and metastatic disease. Recommendations for disease monitoring and treatment of recurrent disease are also included. The NCCN Prostate Cancer Panel meets annually to reevaluate and update their recommendations based on new clinical data and input from within NCCN Member Institutions and from external entities. This article summarizes the panel's discussions for the 2021 update of the guidelines with regard to systemic therapy for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer.

Cancer transcriptomic profiling from rapidly enriched circulating tumor cells.

Transcriptomic profiling of metastatic cancer can illuminate mechanisms of progression and lead to new therapies, but standard biopsy is invasive and reflects only a single metastatic site. In contrast, circulating tumor cell (CTC) profiling is noninvasive and repeatable, reflecting the dynamic and systemic nature of advanced disease. To date, transcriptomic profiling of CTCs has not delivered on its full potential, because white blood cells (WBCs) vastly outnumber CTCs. Current profiling strategies either lack cancer sensitivity and specificity or require specialized CTC capture protocols that are not readily scalable to large patient cohorts. Here, we describe a new strategy for rapid CTC enrichment and transcriptomic profiling using commercially available WBC depletion, microfluidic enrichment and RNA sequencing. When applied to blood samples from patients with advanced prostate cancer (PC), transcriptomes from enriched samples cluster with cancer positive controls and previously undetectable prostate-specific transcripts become readily measurable. Gene set enrichment analysis reveals multiple significantly enriched signaling pathways associated with PC, as well as novel pathways that merit further study. This accessible and scalable approach yields cancer-specific transcriptomic data and can be applied repeatedly and noninvasively in large cancer patient cohorts to discover new therapeutic targets in advanced disease.

Integrative Epigenetic Analysis Reveals Therapeutic Targets to the DNA Methyltransferase Inhibitor Guadecitabine (SGI-110) in Hepatocellular Carcinoma.

There is an urgent need to develop more effective therapies for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) because of its aggressiveness. Guadecitabine (SGI-110) is a second-generation DNA methyltransferase inhibitor (DNMTi), which is currently in clinical trials for HCC and shows greater stability and performance over first-generation DNMTis. In order to identify potential therapeutic targets of SGI-110 for clinical trials, HCC cell lines (SNU398, HepG2, and SNU475) were used to evaluate the effects of transient SGI-110 treatment by an integrative analysis of DNA methylation, nucleosome accessibility, gene expression profiles, and its clinical relevance by comparison to The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) HCC clinical data. Each HCC cell line represents a different DNA methylation subtype of primary HCC tumors based on TCGA data. After SGI-110 treatment, all cell lines were sensitive to SGI-110 with prolonged antiproliferation effects. Expression of up-regulated genes, including tumor suppressors, was positively correlated with nucleosome accessibility and negatively correlated with gene promoter DNA methylation. Alternatively, expression of down-regulated genes, such as oncogenes, was negatively correlated with nucleosome accessibility and positively correlated with gene body DNA methylation. SGI-110 can also act as a dual inhibitor to down-regulate polycomb repressive complex 2 (PRC2) genes by demethylating their gene bodies, resulting in reactivation of PRC2 repressed genes without involvement of DNA methylation. Furthermore, it can up-regulate endogenous retroviruses to reactivate immune pathways. Finally, about 48% of frequently altered genes in primary HCC tumors can be reversed by SGI-110 treatment. CONCLUSION: Our integrative analysis has successfully linked the antitumor effects of SGI-110 to detailed epigenetic alterations in HCC cells, identified potential therapeutic targets, and provided a rationale for combination treatments of SGI-110 with immune checkpoint therapies.

Prostate Cancer, Version 2.2019, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology.

The NCCN Guidelines for Prostate Cancer include recommendations regarding diagnosis, risk stratification and workup, treatment options for localized disease, and management of recurrent and advanced disease for clinicians who treat patients with prostate cancer. The portions of the guidelines included herein focus on the roles of germline and somatic genetic testing, risk stratification with nomograms and tumor multigene molecular testing, androgen deprivation therapy, secondary hormonal therapy, chemotherapy, and immunotherapy in patients with prostate cancer.