Outcomes following a false positive multi-cancer early detection (MCED) test: Results from DETECT-A, the first large, prospective, interventional MCED study.

Guideline recommended standard of care (SoC) screening is available for four cancer types; most cancer-related deaths are caused by cancers without SoC screening. DETECT-A is the first prospective interventional trial evaluating an MCED blood test (CancerSEEK) in women without a history of cancer, providing the first opportunity to assess the long-term outcomes of individuals with false positive (FP) MCED results. This prospective analysis of DETECT-A participants with FP results evaluates the performance of an imaging-based diagnostic workflow and examines cancer risk following a FP result. This analysis included all DETECT-A participants with a positive CancerSEEK test and subsequent flourine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography-IV contrast enhanced computed tomography (18-F-FDG PET-CT) imaging and clinical workup indicating no evidence of cancer within one year of enrollment (n=98). Medical records, study interactions, and study surveys were used to assess cancer incidence, treatments, and clinical outcomes through August 2023. Ninety-five of 98 participants with a FP result remained cancer-free with a median follow-up of 3.6 years (IQR: 2.5-4.1) from determination of FP status. Three incident cancers were observed over the follow-up period. One bilateral stage IIIC ovarian cancer was diagnosed 1.9 years after determination of FP status; two stage I breast cancers were diagnosed 0.1 and 1.6 years from determination of FP status. The annual incidence rate of cancer during follow-up from FP determination was 1.0% (95% CI: 0.2%-2.8%). Participants with a positive CancerSEEK test who underwent 18-F-FDG PET-CT and clinical workup without cancer findings had low risk for cancer over the following several years.

Blood-based tests for multicancer early detection (PATHFINDER): a prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Multicancer early detection (MCED) blood tests can detect a cancer signal from circulating cell-free DNA (cfDNA). PATHFINDER was a prospective cohort study investigating the feasibility of MCED testing for cancer screening. METHODS: In this prospective cohort study done in oncology and primary care outpatient clinics at seven US health networks, a convenience sample of adults aged 50 years or older without signs or symptoms of cancer consented to MCED testing. We collected blood, analysed cfDNA, and returned results to participants' doctors. If a methylation signature indicative of cancer was detected, predicted cancer signal origin(s) informed diagnostic assessment. The primary outcome was time to, and extent of, diagnostic testing required to confirm the presence or absence of cancer. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04241796, and is completed. FINDINGS: Between Dec 12, 2019, and Dec 4, 2020, we recruited 6662 participants. 4204 (63·5%) of 6621 participants with analysable results were women, 2417 (36·5%) were men, and 6071 (91·7%) were White. A cancer signal was detected in 92 (1·4%) of 6621 participants with analysable results. 35 (38%) participants were diagnosed with cancer (true positives) and 57 (62%) had no cancer diagnosis (false positives). Excluding two participants whose diagnostic assessments began before MCED test results were reported, median time to diagnostic resolution was 79 days (IQR 37-219): 57 days (33-143) in true-positive and 162 days (44-248) in false-positive participants. Most participants had both laboratory tests (26 [79%] of 33 with true-positive results and 50 [88%] of 57 with false-positive results) and imaging (30 [91%] of 33 with true-positive results and 53 [93%] of 57 with false-positive results). Fewer procedures were done in participants with false-positive results (17 [30%] of 57) than true-positive results (27 [82%] of 33) and few had surgery (one with a false-positive result and three with a true-positive result). INTERPRETATION: This study supports the feasibility of MCED screening for cancer and underscores the need for further research investigating the test's clinical utility. FUNDING: GRAIL.

The Genomic and Epigenomic Landscape of Double-Negative Metastatic Prostate Cancer.

Systemic targeted therapy in prostate cancer is primarily focused on ablating androgen signaling. Androgen deprivation therapy and second-generation androgen receptor (AR)-targeted therapy selectively favor the development of treatment-resistant subtypes of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC), defined by AR and neuroendocrine (NE) markers. Molecular drivers of double-negative (AR-/NE-) mCRPC are poorly defined. In this study, we comprehensively characterized treatment-emergent mCRPC by integrating matched RNA sequencing, whole-genome sequencing, and whole-genome bisulfite sequencing from 210 tumors. AR-/NE- tumors were clinically and molecularly distinct from other mCRPC subtypes, with the shortest survival, amplification of the chromatin remodeler CHD7, and PTEN loss. Methylation changes in CHD7 candidate enhancers were linked to elevated CHD7 expression in AR-/NE+ tumors. Genome-wide methylation analysis nominated Krüppel-like factor 5 (KLF5) as a driver of the AR-/NE- phenotype, and KLF5 activity was linked to RB1 loss. These observations reveal the aggressiveness of AR-/NE- mCRPC and could facilitate the identification of therapeutic targets in this highly aggressive disease. SIGNIFICANCE: Comprehensive characterization of the five subtypes of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer identified transcription factors that drive each subtype and showed that the double-negative subtype has the worst prognosis.

Dying To Find Out: The Cost of Time at the Dawn of the Multicancer Early Detection Era.

Cancer is a significant burden worldwide that adversely impacts life expectancy, quality of life, health care costs, and workforce productivity. Although currently recommended screening tests for individual cancers reduce mortality, they detect only a minority of all cancers and sacrifice specificity for high sensitivity, resulting in a high cumulative rate of false positives. Blood-based multicancer early detection tests (MCED) based on next-generation sequencing (NGS) and other technologies hold promise for broadening the number of cancer types detected in screened populations and hope for reducing cancer mortality. The promise of this new technology to improve cancer detection rates and make screening more efficient at the population level demands the development of novel trial designs that accelerate clinical adoption. Carefully designed clinical trials are needed to address these issues.

Management of patients with advanced prostate cancer-metastatic and/or castration-resistant prostate cancer: Report of the Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) 2022.

BACKGROUND: Innovations in imaging and molecular characterisation together with novel treatment options have improved outcomes in advanced prostate cancer. However, we still lack high-level evidence in many areas relevant to making management decisions in daily clinical practise. The 2022 Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC 2022) addressed some questions in these areas to supplement guidelines that mostly are based on level 1 evidence. OBJECTIVE: To present the voting results of the APCCC 2022. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: The experts voted on controversial questions where high-level evidence is mostly lacking: locally advanced prostate cancer; biochemical recurrence after local treatment; metastatic hormone-sensitive, non-metastatic, and metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer; oligometastatic prostate cancer; and managing side effects of hormonal therapy. A panel of 105 international prostate cancer experts voted on the consensus questions. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The panel voted on 198 pre-defined questions, which were developed by 117 voting and non-voting panel members prior to the conference following a modified Delphi process. A total of 116 questions on metastatic and/or castration-resistant prostate cancer are discussed in this manuscript. In 2022, the voting was done by a web-based survey because of COVID-19 restrictions. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: The voting reflects the expert opinion of these panellists and did not incorporate a standard literature review or formal meta-analysis. The answer options for the consensus questions received varying degrees of support from panellists, as reflected in this article and the detailed voting results are reported in the supplementary material. We report here on topics in metastatic, hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC), non-metastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC), metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC), and oligometastatic and oligoprogressive prostate cancer. CONCLUSIONS: These voting results in four specific areas from a panel of experts in advanced prostate cancer can help clinicians and patients navigate controversial areas of management for which high-level evidence is scant or conflicting and can help research funders and policy makers identify information gaps and consider what areas to explore further. However, diagnostic and treatment decisions always have to be individualised based on patient characteristics, including the extent and location of disease, prior treatment(s), co-morbidities, patient preferences, and treatment recommendations and should also incorporate current and emerging clinical evidence and logistic and economic factors. Enrolment in clinical trials is strongly encouraged. Importantly, APCCC 2022 once again identified important gaps where there is non-consensus and that merit evaluation in specifically designed trials. PATIENT SUMMARY: The Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) provides a forum to discuss and debate current diagnostic and treatment options for patients with advanced prostate cancer. The conference aims to share the knowledge of international experts in prostate cancer with healthcare providers worldwide. At each APCCC, an expert panel votes on pre-defined questions that target the most clinically relevant areas of advanced prostate cancer treatment for which there are gaps in knowledge. The results of the voting provide a practical guide to help clinicians discuss therapeutic options with patients and their relatives as part of shared and multidisciplinary decision-making. This report focuses on the advanced setting, covering metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer and both non-metastatic and metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. TWITTER SUMMARY: Report of the results of APCCC 2022 for the following topics: mHSPC, nmCRPC, mCRPC, and oligometastatic prostate cancer. TAKE-HOME MESSAGE: At APCCC 2022, clinically important questions in the management of advanced prostate cancer management were identified and discussed, and experts voted on pre-defined consensus questions. The report of the results for metastatic and/or castration-resistant prostate cancer is summarised here.

Phase II Randomized Study of Salvage Radiation Therapy Plus Enzalutamide or Placebo for High-Risk Prostate-Specific Antigen Recurrent Prostate Cancer After Radical Prostatectomy: The SALV-ENZA Trial.

PURPOSE: We sought to investigate whether enzalutamide (ENZA), without concurrent androgen deprivation therapy, increases freedom from prostate-specific antigen (PSA) progression (FFPP) when combined with salvage radiation therapy (SRT) in men with recurrent prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy (RP). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Men with biochemically recurrent prostate cancer after RP were enrolled into a randomized, double-blind, phase II, placebo-controlled, multicenter study of SRT plus ENZA or placebo (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02203695). Random assignment (1:1) was stratified by center, surgical margin status (R0 v R1), PSA before salvage treatment (PSA ≥ 0.5 v < 0.5 ng/mL), and pathologic Gleason sum (7 v 8-10). Patients were assigned to receive either ENZA 160 mg once daily or matching placebo for 6 months. After 2 months of study drug therapy, external-beam radiation (66.6-70.2 Gy) was administered to the prostate bed (no pelvic nodes). The primary end point was FFPP in the intention-to-treat population. Secondary end points were time to local recurrence within the radiation field, metastasis-free survival, and safety as determined by frequency and severity of adverse events. RESULTS: Eighty-six (86) patients were randomly assigned, with a median follow-up of 34 (range, 0-52) months. Trial arms were well balanced. The median pre-SRT PSA was 0.3 (range, 0.06-4.6) ng/mL, 56 of 86 patients (65%) had extraprostatic disease (pT3), 39 of 86 (45%) had a Gleason sum of 8-10, and 43 of 86 (50%) had positive surgical margins (R1). FFPP was significantly improved with ENZA versus placebo (hazard ratio [HR], 0.42; 95% CI, 0.19 to 0.92; P = .031), and 2-year FFPP was 84% versus 66%, respectively. Subgroup analyses demonstrated differential benefit of ENZA in men with pT3 (HR, 0.22; 95% CI, 0.07 to 0.69) versus pT2 disease (HR, 1.54; 95% CI, 0.43 to 5.47; Pinteraction = .019) and R1 (HR, 0.14; 95% CI, 0.03 to 0.64) versus R0 disease (HR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.36 to 2.76; Pinteraction = .023). There were insufficient secondary end point events for analysis. The most common adverse events were grade 1-2 fatigue (65% ENZA v 53% placebo) and urinary frequency (40% ENZA v 49% placebo). CONCLUSION: SRT plus ENZA monotherapy for 6 months in men with PSA-recurrent high-risk prostate cancer after RP is safe and delays PSA progression relative to SRT alone. The impact of ENZA on distant metastasis or survival is unknown at this time.

Management of Patients with Advanced Prostate Cancer. Part I: Intermediate-/High-risk and Locally Advanced Disease, Biochemical Relapse, and Side Effects of Hormonal Treatment: Report of the Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference 2022.

BACKGROUND: Innovations in imaging and molecular characterisation and the evolution of new therapies have improved outcomes in advanced prostate cancer. Nonetheless, we continue to lack high-level evidence on a variety of clinical topics that greatly impact daily practice. To supplement evidence-based guidelines, the 2022 Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC 2022) surveyed experts about key dilemmas in clinical management. OBJECTIVE: To present consensus voting results for select questions from APCCC 2022. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Before the conference, a panel of 117 international prostate cancer experts used a modified Delphi process to develop 198 multiple-choice consensus questions on (1) intermediate- and high-risk and locally advanced prostate cancer, (2) biochemical recurrence after local treatment, (3) side effects from hormonal therapies, (4) metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer, (5) nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, (6) metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, and (7) oligometastatic and oligoprogressive prostate cancer. Before the conference, these questions were administered via a web-based survey to the 105 physician panel members ("panellists") who directly engage in prostate cancer treatment decision-making. Herein, we present results for the 82 questions on topics 1-3. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Consensus was defined as ≥75% agreement, with strong consensus defined as ≥90% agreement. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: The voting results reveal varying degrees of consensus, as is discussed in this article and shown in the detailed results in the Supplementary material. The findings reflect the opinions of an international panel of experts and did not incorporate a formal literature review and meta-analysis. CONCLUSIONS: These voting results by a panel of international experts in advanced prostate cancer can help physicians and patients navigate controversial areas of clinical management for which high-level evidence is scant or conflicting. The findings can also help funders and policymakers prioritise areas for future research. Diagnostic and treatment decisions should always be individualised based on patient and cancer characteristics (disease extent and location, treatment history, comorbidities, and patient preferences) and should incorporate current and emerging clinical evidence, therapeutic guidelines, and logistic and economic factors. Enrolment in clinical trials is always strongly encouraged. Importantly, APCCC 2022 once again identified important gaps (areas of nonconsensus) that merit evaluation in specifically designed trials. PATIENT SUMMARY: The Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) provides a forum to discuss and debate current diagnostic and treatment options for patients with advanced prostate cancer. The conference aims to share the knowledge of international experts in prostate cancer with health care providers and patients worldwide. At each APCCC, a panel of physician experts vote in response to multiple-choice questions about their clinical opinions and approaches to managing advanced prostate cancer. This report presents voting results for the subset of questions pertaining to intermediate- and high-risk and locally advanced prostate cancer, biochemical relapse after definitive treatment, advanced (next-generation) imaging, and management of side effects caused by hormonal therapies. The results provide a practical guide to help clinicians and patients discuss treatment options as part of shared multidisciplinary decision-making. The findings may be especially useful when there is little or no high-level evidence to guide treatment decisions.

Functional impact of androgen-targeted therapy on patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer.

Context: Second-generation androgen receptor inhibitors (ARIs) extend metastasis-free survival, prolong overall survival, and delay symptoms when added to androgen deprivation therapy for the treatment of castration-sensitive or castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC). However, ARIs may adversely impact physical and cognitive function, thereby decreasing quality of life and prognosis. Objective: To evaluate the evidence regarding the potential effects of ARIs on physical and cognitive function and to contextualize how drug-related adverse effects may influence treatment decisions in CRPC. Evidence acquisition: We performed a literature search using MEDLINE from January 1998 to June 2020 using terms relating to prostate cancer, androgen deprivation, and physical and cognitive function. We selected 61 publications for analysis. Evidence synthesis: Treatment-induced deterioration in physical and cognitive function may impair the independence and well-being of patients with CRPC. Patient-reported outcomes from clinical trials of ARIs provide quantitative evidence of their impact on these domains, which appears to vary between ARIs, reflecting the different adverse event profiles of these agents. Thus, the risk of physical or cognitive dysfunction may be managed or mitigated by appropriate selection of treatment options. Studies in patients with CRPC have assessed the cognitive effects of ARIs with validated instruments, whereas quantitative analysis of the impact on physical function has been limited. Conclusion: Several validated instruments utilized for the assessment of physical and cognitive function in clinical studies have been adapted for clinical practice; however, consensus on the standardization of these assessments is required. Future clinical studies employing validated tools may generate data on the impact of ARIs and guide treatment decisions for patients with CRPC. Patient summary: We review the hormonal therapies used to treat men with prostate cancer and the effects they have on physical and cognitive function. We discuss how to measure these effects and how this may assist when choosing treatment.

The 5-Hydroxymethylcytosine Landscape of Prostate Cancer.

Analysis of DNA methylation is a valuable tool to understand disease progression and is increasingly being used to create diagnostic and prognostic clinical biomarkers. While conversion of cytosine to 5-methylcytosine (5mC) commonly results in transcriptional repression, further conversion to 5-hydroxymethylcytosine (5hmC) is associated with transcriptional activation. Here we perform the first study integrating whole-genome 5hmC with DNA, 5mC, and transcriptome sequencing in clinical samples of benign, localized, and advanced prostate cancer. 5hmC is shown to mark activation of cancer drivers and downstream targets. Furthermore, 5hmC sequencing revealed profoundly altered cell states throughout the disease course, characterized by increased proliferation, oncogenic signaling, dedifferentiation, and lineage plasticity to neuroendocrine and gastrointestinal lineages. Finally, 5hmC sequencing of cell-free DNA from patients with metastatic disease proved useful as a prognostic biomarker able to identify an aggressive subtype of prostate cancer using the genes TOP2A and EZH2, previously only detectable by transcriptomic analysis of solid tumor biopsies. Overall, these findings reveal that 5hmC marks epigenomic activation in prostate cancer and identify hallmarks of prostate cancer progression with potential as biomarkers of aggressive disease. SIGNIFICANCE: In prostate cancer, 5-hydroxymethylcytosine delineates oncogene activation and stage-specific cell states and can be analyzed in liquid biopsies to detect cancer phenotypes. See related article by Wu and Attard, p. 3880.

Transcriptional profiling of matched patient biopsies clarifies molecular determinants of enzalutamide-induced lineage plasticity.

The androgen receptor (AR) signaling inhibitor enzalutamide (enza) is one of the principal treatments for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC). Several emergent enza clinical resistance mechanisms have been described, including lineage plasticity in which the tumors manifest reduced dependency on the AR. To improve our understanding of enza resistance, herein we analyze the transcriptomes of matched biopsies from men with metastatic CRPC obtained prior to treatment and at progression (n = 21). RNA-sequencing analysis demonstrates that enza does not induce marked, sustained changes in the tumor transcriptome in most patients. However, three patients' progression biopsies show evidence of lineage plasticity. The transcription factor E2F1 and pathways linked to tumor stemness are highly activated in baseline biopsies from patients whose tumors undergo lineage plasticity. We find a gene signature enriched in these baseline biopsies that is strongly associated with poor survival in independent patient cohorts and with risk of castration-induced lineage plasticity in patient-derived xenograft models, suggesting that tumors harboring this gene expression program may be at particular risk for resistance mediated by lineage plasticity and poor outcomes.

Statin and metformin use and outcomes in patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer treated with enzalutamide: A meta-analysis of AFFIRM, PREVAIL and PROSPER.

BACKGROUND: Statins and metformin are commonly prescribed for patients, including those with prostate cancer. Preclinical and epidemiologic studies of each agent have suggested anti-cancer properties. METHODS: Patient data from three randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase III studies evaluating enzalutamide (AFFIRM, PREVAIL and PROSPER) in patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer were included in this analysis. This post hoc, retrospective study examined the association of statin and metformin on radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS), metastasis-free survival (MFS), toxicity and overall survival (OS). After adjusting for available clinical prognostic variables, multivariate analyses were performed on pooled data from AFFIRM and PREVAIL, all three trials pooled, and each trial individually, to assess differential efficacy in these end-points associated with the baseline use of these medications. RESULTS: In the multivariate analysis of the individual trials, OS and rPFS/MFS were not significantly influenced by statin or metformin use in AFFIRM or PROSPER. However, in PREVAIL, OS was significantly influenced by statin (hazard ratio [HR] 0.72; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.59-0.89) and rPFS was significantly influenced by metformin (HR, 0.48; 95% CI 0.34-0.70). In pooled analyses, improved OS was significantly associated with statin use but not metformin use for AFFIRM+PREVAIL trials (HR 0.83; 95% CI 0.72-0.96) and AFFIRM+PREVAIL+PROSPER (HR 0.75; 95% CI 0.66-0.85). CONCLUSIONS: The association between statin or metformin use and rPFS, MFS and OS was inconsistent across three trials. Analyses of all three trials pooled and AFFIRM+PREVAIL pooled revealed that statin but not metformin use was significantly associated with a reduced risk of death in enzalutamide-treated patients. Additional prospective, controlled studies are warranted. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: AFFIRM (NCT00974311), PREVAIL (NCT01212991) and PROSPER (NCT02003924).

A Phase II, Single-arm Trial of Sunitinib and Erlotinib in Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Overexpression of the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) and its ligands occur frequently in renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Combined vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGF-R) and EGFR inhibition may overcome resistance to VEGF-R inhibitor monotherapy. We performed a dose-escalation phase II study of sunitinib plus erlotinib in advanced renal cell carcinoma. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with metastatic clear cell or papillary RCC were eligible. Prior therapy was allowed except sunitinib or erlotinib. Three dose levels of erlotinib (50, 100, 150 mg daily) were evaluated in combination with sunitinib 50 mg. Thirty-seven patients were treated at maximum tolerated dose to determine efficacy. The primary endpoint was 8-month progression-free survival (PFS) rate. The trial was powered to assess for a difference between a median PFS of less than 50% with a targeted 70% PFS for the combination. RESULTS: The 8-month PFS rate was 40% (95% CI: 23-56). Median PFS was 5.8 months (95% CI: 4.1-9.7) and median overall survival (OS) was 26.3 months (95% CI: 16.1-34.0). The objective response rate was 22% and an additional 59% of patients had stable disease for at least 6 weeks. The most common adverse events for all grades were diarrhea, rash, fatigue, and dysgeusia. Dose reduction in 1 or both of the drugs was undertaken in 17 (46%) patients, while 5 (14%) discontinued study therapy due to toxicity. CONCLUSION: While sunitinib and erlotinib are combinable,the 8-month PFS rate did not suggest efficacy improvement over sunitinib monotherapy (NCT00425386).

The Promise of Multicancer Early Detection. Comment on Pons-Belda et al. Can Circulating Tumor DNA Support a Successful Screening Test for Early Cancer Detection? The Grail Paradigm. Diagnostics 2021, 11, 2171.

Multicancer Early Detection (MCED) represents a new and exciting paradigm for the early detection of cancer, which is the leading cause of death worldwide. Current screening tests, recommended for only five cancer types (breast, lung, colon, cervical, and prostate), are limited by a lack of complete adherence to guideline-based use and by the fact that they have cumulative high false positive rates. MCED tests agnostically detect cancer signals in the blood with good sensitivity and low false positive rates, can predict the cancer site of origin with high accuracy, can detect highly lethal cancers that have no current screening tests, and promise to improve cancer screening by improving efficiency and reducing the overall number needed to screen. Herein we outline this promise and clarify several published misconceptions about this field.

Management of Patients with Advanced Prostate Cancer: Report from the Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference 2021.

BACKGROUND: Innovations in treatments, imaging, and molecular characterisation in advanced prostate cancer have improved outcomes, but various areas of management still lack high-level evidence to inform clinical practice. The 2021 Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) addressed some of these questions to supplement guidelines that are based on level 1 evidence. OBJECTIVE: To present the voting results from APCCC 2021. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: The experts identified three major areas of controversy related to management of advanced prostate cancer: newly diagnosed metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC), the use of prostate-specific membrane antigen ligands in diagnostics and therapy, and molecular characterisation of tissue and blood. A panel of 86 international prostate cancer experts developed the programme and the consensus questions. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The panel voted publicly but anonymously on 107 pre-defined questions, which were developed by both voting and non-voting panel members prior to the conference following a modified Delphi process. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: The voting reflected the opinions of panellists and did not incorporate a standard literature review or formal meta-analysis. The answer options for the consensus questions received varying degrees of support from panellists, as reflected in this article and the detailed voting results reported in the Supplementary material. CONCLUSIONS: These voting results from a panel of experts in advanced prostate cancer can help clinicians and patients to navigate controversial areas of management for which high-level evidence is scant. However, diagnostic and treatment decisions should always be individualised according to patient characteristics, such as the extent and location of disease, prior treatment(s), comorbidities, patient preferences, and treatment recommendations, and should also incorporate current and emerging clinical evidence and logistic and economic constraints. Enrolment in clinical trials should be strongly encouraged. Importantly, APCCC 2021 once again identified salient questions that merit evaluation in specifically designed trials. PATIENT SUMMARY: The Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference is a forum for discussing current diagnosis and treatment options for patients with advanced prostate cancer. An expert panel votes on predefined questions focused on the most clinically relevant areas for treatment of advanced prostate cancer for which there are gaps in knowledge. The voting results provide a practical guide to help clinicians in discussing treatment options with patients as part of shared decision-making.

What Experts Think About Prostate Cancer Management During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Report from the Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference 2021.

Patients with advanced prostate cancer (APC) may be at greater risk for severe illness, hospitalisation, or death from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) due to male gender, older age, potential immunosuppressive treatments, or comorbidities. Thus, the optimal management of APC patients during the COVID-19 pandemic is complex. In October 2021, during the Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) 2021, the 73 voting members of the panel members discussed and voted on 13 questions on this topic that could help clinicians make treatment choices during the pandemic. There was a consensus for full COVID-19 vaccination and booster injection in APC patients. Furthermore, the voting results indicate that the expert's treatment recommendations are influenced by the vaccination status: the COVID-19 pandemic altered management of APC patients for 70% of the panellists before the vaccination was available but only for 25% of panellists for fully vaccinated patients. Most experts (71%) were less likely to use docetaxel and abiraterone in unvaccinated patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer. For fully vaccinated patients with high-risk localised prostate cancer, there was a consensus (77%) to follow the usual treatment schedule, whereas in unvaccinated patients, 55% of the panel members voted for deferring radiation therapy. Finally, there was a strong consensus for the use of telemedicine for monitoring APC patients. PATIENT SUMMARY: In the Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference 2021, the panellists reached a consensus regarding the recommendation of the COVID-19 vaccine in prostate cancer patients and use of telemedicine for monitoring these patients.

Quality of Life of Prostate Cancer Survivors Participating in a Remotely Delivered Web-Based Behavioral Intervention Pilot Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: Following a prostate cancer (PC) diagnosis, treatment-related symptoms may result in diminished quality of life (QoL). Improved diet and increased exercise may improve QoL in men with PC. METHODS: We conducted a 4-arm pilot randomized trial to assess feasibility and acceptability of a 3-month web-based diet and exercise intervention, among men (>18 years of age) with PC (reported elsewhere). The purpose of this study is to describe the change in QoL measured by surveys (eg, QLQ-C30, PROMIS Fatigue) at enrollment and following the intervention. Men were randomized 1:1:1:1 to increasing levels of web-based behavioral support: Level 1: website; Level 2: Level 1 plus personalized diet and exercise prescription; Level 3: Levels 1-2 plus Fitbit and text messages; Level 4: Levels 1-3 plus 2 30-minute coaching calls. T-tests were used to compare pre-post change in mean QoL scores between each Level and Level 1. RESULTS: Two hundred and two men consented and were randomized (n = 49, 51, 50, 52 for Levels 1-4, respectively). Men were predominantly white (93%), with a median age of 70 years (Intra-quartile Range [IQR]: 65,75) and 3 years (IQR: 1,9) post primary treatment for mostly localized disease (74% with T1-2). There were no meaningful changes in QoL, but there were notable trends. Level 3 participants had small improvements in QLQ-C30 Global Health (5.46; 95% CI: -0.02, 10.95) compared to Level 1. In contrast, Level 2 participants trended toward decreasing Global QoL (-2.31, 95% CI: -8.05, 3.42), which may reflect declines in function (eg, Cognitive: -6.94, 95% CI: -13.76, -0.13) and higher symptom burden (eg, Diarrhea: 4.63, 95% CI: -1.48, 10.74). CONCLUSIONS: This short, web-based intervention did not appear to have an impact on PC survivors' QoL. Most men were several years past treatment for localized disease; the potential for this approach to reduce symptoms and improve QoL in men who have worse health may still be warranted.

Short-term ADT and Dose-escalated IMRT in Patients With Intermediate-risk Prostate Cancer: Benefit or Caution?

OBJECTIVES: In the era of dose-escalated prostate radiation therapy (RT), the use of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) is undefined for intermediate-risk (IR) prostate cancer. There is growing concern of the risk of ADT to be detrimental to quality of life. This single-institution retrospective analysis aimed to evaluate outcomes of IR patients treated with dose-escalated intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) with or without concurrent/adjuvant short-term ADT. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data was collected from 260 consecutive patients treated with dose-escalated IMRT with daily image-guided RT for newly diagnosed IR prostate cancer. Biochemical recurrence-free survival (BCRFS), distant metastasis-free survival, prostate cancer-specific survival, and overall survival (OS) were calculated using Kaplan-Meier methodology. RESULTS: Median follow-up was 93 months. A total of 181 patients had unfavorable IR disease, and 36.2% (N=94) received ADT, with median ADT duration of 6 months. Seven-year BCRFS was 94.1% vs. 86.2% (P=0.067), for ADT and no ADT, respectively, and no difference in distant metastasis-free survival or prostate cancer-specific survival was observed. ADT was associated with significantly worse 7-year OS (80.0% vs. 91.3%, P=0.010). Analysis of the unfavorable IR cohort alone, showed similar results; 7-year BCRFS and 7-year OS in patients who received ADT versus no ADT were 93.7% vs. 85.9% (P=0.093), and 79.0% vs. 90.6% (P=0.019), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In our 15-year experience treating IR prostate cancer with dose-escalated IMRT with daily image-guided RT, short-term concurrent ADT was associated with a statistically significant worse OS. Additional studies are needed to determine if ADT is beneficial or detrimental for patients with IR prostate cancer treated with dose-escalated radiation.