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.

Clinical validation of circulating GDF15/MIC-1 as a marker of response to docetaxel and survival in men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: Elevated circulating growth differentiation factor (GDF15/MIC-1), interleukin 4 (IL4), and IL6 levels were associated with resistance to docetaxel in an exploratory cohort of men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). This study aimed to establish level 2 evidence of cytokine biomarker utility in mCRPC. METHODS: IntVal: Plasma samples at baseline (BL) and Day 21 docetaxel (n = 120). ExtVal: Serum samples at BL and Day 42 of docetaxel (n = 430). IL4, IL6, and GDF15 levels were measured by ELISA. Monocytes and dendritic cells were treated with 10% plasma from men with high or low GDF15 or recombinant GDF15. RESULTS: IntVal: Higher GDF15 levels at BL and Day 21 were associated with shorter overall survival (OS) (BL; p = 0.03 and Day 21; p = 0.004). IL4 and IL6 were not associated with outcomes. ExtVal: Higher GDF15 levels at BL and Day 42 predicted shorter OS (BL; p < 0.0001 and Day 42; p < 0.0001). Plasma from men with high GDF15 caused an increase in CD86 expression on monocytes (p = 0.03), but was not replicated by recombinant GDF15. CONCLUSIONS: Elevated circulating GDF15 is associated with poor prognosis in men with mCRPC receiving docetaxel and may be a marker of changes in the innate immune system in response to docetaxel resistance. These findings provide a strong rationale to consider GDF15 as a biomarker to guide a therapeutic trial of drugs targeting the innate immune system in combination with docetaxel in mCRPC.

Safety and effectiveness of the radium-223-taxane treatment sequence in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer in a global observational study (REASSURE).

BACKGROUND: Radium-223 and taxane chemotherapy each improve survival of patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). Whether the radium-223-taxane sequence could extend survival without cumulative toxicity was explored. METHODS: The global, prospective, observational REASSURE study (NCT02141438) assessed real-world safety and effectiveness of radium-223 in patients with mCRPC. Using data from the prespecified second interim analysis (data cutoff, March 20, 2019), hematologic events and overall survival (OS) were evaluated in patients who were chemotherapy-naive at radium-223 initiation and subsequently received taxane chemotherapy starting ≤90 days ("immediate") or >90 days ("delayed") after the last radium-223 dose. RESULTS: Following radium-223 therapy, 182 patients received docetaxel (172 [95%]) and/or cabazitaxel (44 [24%]); 34 patients (19%) received both. Seventy-three patients (40%) received immediate chemotherapy and 109 patients (60%) received delayed chemotherapy. Median time from last radium-223 dose to first taxane cycle was 3.6 months (range, 0.3-28.4). Median duration of first taxane was 3.7 months (range, 0-22.0). Fourteen patients (10 in the immediate and four in the delayed subgroup) had grade 3/4 hematologic events during taxane chemotherapy, including neutropenia in two patients in the delayed subgroup and thrombocytopenia in one patient in each subgroup. Median OS was 24.3 months from radium-223 initiation and 11.8 months from start of taxane therapy. CONCLUSIONS: In real-world clinical practice settings, a heterogeneous population of patients who received sequential radium-223-taxane therapy had a low incidence of hematologic events, with a median survival of 1 year from taxane initiation. Thus, taxane chemotherapy is a feasible option for those who progress after radium-223. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT02141438. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: Radium-223 and chemotherapy are treatment options for metastatic prostate cancer, which increase survival but may affect production of blood cells as a side effect. We wanted to know what would happen if patients received chemotherapy after radium-223. Among the 182 men treated with radium-223 who went on to receive chemotherapy, only two men had severe side effects affecting white blood cell production (neutropenia) during chemotherapy. On average, the 182 men lived for 2 years after starting radium-223 and 1 year after starting chemotherapy. In conclusion, patients may benefit from chemotherapy after radium-223 treatment without increasing the risk of side effects.

Cardiovascular Effects of GnRH Antagonists Compared With Agonists in Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review.

Background: Androgen deprivation therapy is the cornerstone of treatment for patients with advanced prostate cancer. Meta-analysis of small, oncology-focused trials suggest gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonists may be associated with fewer adverse cardiovascular outcomes compared with GnRH agonists. Objectives: This study sought to determine whether GnRH antagonists were associated with fewer major adverse cardiovascular events compared with GnRH agonists. Methods: Electronic databases were searched for all prospective, randomized trials comparing GnRH antagonists with agonists. The primary outcome was a major adverse cardiovascular event as defined by the following standardized Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities terms: "myocardial infarction," "central nervous system hemorrhages and cerebrovascular conditions," and all-cause mortality. Bayesian meta-analysis models with random effects were fitted. Results: A total of 11 eligible studies of a maximum duration of 3 to 36 months (median = 12 months) enrolling 4,248 participants were included. Only 1 trial used a blinded, adjudicated event process, whereas potential bias persisted in all trials given their open-label design. A total of 152 patients with primary outcome events were observed, 76 of 2,655 (2.9%) in GnRH antagonist-treated participants and 76 of 1,593 (4.8%) in agonist-treated individuals. Compared with GnRH agonists, the pooled OR of GnRH antagonists for the primary endpoint was 0.57 (95% credible interval: 0.37-0.86) and 0.58 (95% credible interval: 0.32-1.08) for all-cause death. Conclusions: Despite the addition of the largest, dedicated cardiovascular outcome trial, the volume and quality of available data to definitively answer this question remain suboptimal. Notwithstanding these limitations, the available data suggest that GnRH antagonists are associated with fewer cardiovascular events, and possibly mortality, compared with GnRH agonists.

Poly-ADP ribose polymerase inhibitor and androgen receptor signaling inhibitor for all comers for first-line treatment of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: is gene sequencing out?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The landscape for first-line therapy (1L) of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) is rapidly shifting. In the past 2 years, three phase 3 trials have examined the addition of a poly-ADP ribose polymerase inhibitor (PARPi) to an androgen receptor-signaling inhibitor (ARSI) in 1L. The FDA and the EMA recently considered whether one of these combinations should be approved for "all comers." Here, we review the trial designs, assays for homologous recombination repair mutations (HRRm) and BRCA mutations ( BRCA m), and predictive capacity of mutational status on treatment efficacy to understand the basis for the FDA decision. RECENT FINDINGS: The phase 3 trials, PROpel, MAGNITUDE, and TALAPRO-2, each compared PARPi and ARSI to placebo (PBO) plus ARSI. PROpel and TALAPRO-2 (cohort 1) included all comers (i.e., no prospective biomarker selection), while MAGNITUDE prospectively assigned patients to HRRm and HRR nonmutated cohorts and TALAPRO-2 (cohort 2) included only those with HRRm. Radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) was the primary endpoint, and overall survival (OS) was a key secondary endpoint in all trials. Although rPFS with a PARPi and ARSI was improved versus PBO with ARSI, major conclusions differed. SUMMARY: The nuances and interpretation of these trials provide an understanding of the rationale for the FDA's decision to restrict the approval of olaparib and abiraterone and prednisone (AAP) as 1L therapy to those with biomarker evidence of BRCA m.

Living with prostate cancer: a mixed-method evaluation of group therapy intervention to alleviate psychological distress in a Canadian setting.

PURPOSE: To assess the effects of group therapy focused on the experience of living with prostate cancer (PC) on depression and mental well-being among men with the disease and to explore participant experiences of a guided opportunity to 'speak the unspeakable' as it pertains to living with PC. METHODS: We used a mixed-method convergent design. Participants completed four validated self-report questionnaires at baseline, immediately after the final session, and at three, six, and 12 months follow-up. A repeated measures mixed-effect model examined the effects of the program on depression, mental well-being, and masculinity. Seven focus groups (n = 37) and 39 semi-structured individual interviews explored participant reactions at follow-up. RESULTS: Thirty-nine (93%) participants completed the questionnaires at all follow-ups. Responses indicated improved mental well-being up to three months (p < 0.01) and a decrease in depressive symptoms to 12 months (p < 0.05). Qualitative analysis revealed how the cohesive group environment alleviated psychological stress, enabled participants to identify significant issues and concerns in their lives, and improved communication and relationship skills that were of value in the group as well as with family and friends. The facilitation was essential to guiding participants to 'speak the unspeakable.' CONCLUSION: Men with PC who speak of their experience in a group setting with a guided process incorporating features of a life review appear to gain insight into the impact of PC in their lives, experience diminished features of depression and isolation, and enhance their communication skills within the groups as well as with family members and friends.

Clinical outcomes and treatment patterns in REASSURE: planned interim analysis of a real-world observational study of radium-223 in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer.

Background: Radium-223, a targeted alpha therapy, is approved to treat bone-dominant metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC), based on significantly prolonged overall survival versus placebo and a favourable safety profile in the phase 3 ALSYMPCA study. ALSYMPCA was conducted when few other treatment options were available, and prospectively collected data are limited on the use of radium-223 in the current mCRPC treatment landscape. We sought to understand long-term safety and treatment patterns in men who received radium-223 in real-world clinical practice. Methods: REASSURE (NCT02141438) is a global, prospective, observational study of radium-223 in men with mCRPC. Primary outcomes are adverse events (AEs), including treatment-emergent serious AEs (SAEs) and drug-related AEs during and ≤30 days after radium-223 completion, grade 3/4 haematological toxicities ≤6 months after last radium-223 dose, drug-related SAEs after radium-223 therapy completion, and second primary malignancies. Findings: Data collection commenced on Aug 20, 2014, and the data cutoff date for this prespecified interim analysis was Mar 20, 2019 (median follow-up 11.5 months [interquartile range 6.0-18.6]), 1465 patients were evaluable. For second primary malignancies, 1470 patients were evaluable, 21 (1%) of whom had a total of 23 events. During radium-223 therapy, 311 (21%) of 1465 patients had treatment-emergent SAEs, and 510 (35%) had drug-related AEs. In the 6 months after completion of radium-223 therapy, 214 (15%) patients had grade 3/4 haematological toxicities. Eighty patients (5%) had post-treatment drug-related SAEs. Median overall survival was 15.6 months (95% confidence interval 14.6-16.5) from radium-223 initiation. Patient-reported pain scores declined or stabilised. Seventy (5%) patients had fractures. Interpretation: REASSURE offers insight into radium-223 use in global real-world clinical practice with currently available therapies. At this interim analysis, with a median follow-up of almost 1 year, 1% of patients had second primary malignancies, and safety and overall survival findings were consistent with clinical trial experience. Final analysis of REASSURE is due in 2024. Funding: Bayer HealthCare.

External Validation of a Prognostic Model of Overall Survival in Men With Chemotherapy-Naïve Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSE: We have previously developed and externally validated a prognostic model of overall survival (OS) in men with metastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) treated with docetaxel. We sought to externally validate this model in a broader group of men with docetaxel-naïve mCRPC and in specific subgroups (White, Black, Asian patients, different age groups, and specific treatments) and to classify patients into validated two and three prognostic risk groupings on the basis of the model. METHODS: Data from 8,083 docetaxel-naïve mCRPC men randomly assigned on seven phase III trials were used to validate the prognostic model of OS. We assessed the predictive performance of the model by computing the time-dependent area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (tAUC) and validated the two-risk (low and high) and three-risk prognostic groups (low, intermediate, and high). RESULTS: The tAUC was 0.74 (95% CI, 0.73 to 0.75), and when adjusting for the first-line androgen receptor (AR) inhibitor trial status, the tAUC was 0.75 (95% CI, 0.74 to 0.76). Similar results were observed by the different racial, age, and treatment subgroups. In patients enrolled on first-line AR inhibitor trials, the median OS (months) in the low-, intermediate-, and high-prognostic risk groups were 43.3 (95% CI, 40.7 to 45.8), 27.7 (95% CI, 25.8 to 31.3), and 15.4 (95% CI, 14.0 to 17.9), respectively. Compared with the low-risk prognostic group, the hazard ratios for the high- and intermediate-risk groups were 4.3 (95% CI, 3.6 to 5.1; P < .0001) and 1.9 (95% CI, 1.7 to 2.1; P < .0001). CONCLUSION: This prognostic model for OS in docetaxel-naïve men with mCRPC has been validated using data from seven trials and yields similar results overall and across race, age, and different treatment classes. The prognostic risk groups are robust and can be used to identify groups of patients for enrichment designs and for stratification in randomized clinical trials.

First-in-human, phase 1 study of PF-06753512, a vaccine-based immunotherapy regimen (VBIR), in non-metastatic hormone-sensitive biochemical recurrence and metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC).

BACKGROUND: This phase 1 study evaluated PF-06753512, a vaccine-based immunotherapy regimen (PrCa VBIR), in two clinical states of prostate cancer (PC), metastatic castration-resistant PC (mCRPC) and biochemical recurrence (BCR). METHODS: For dose escalation, patients with mCRPC received intramuscular PrCa VBIR (adenovirus vector and plasmid DNA expressing prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA), prostate-specific antigen (PSA), and prostate stem cell antigen (PSCA)) with or without immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs, tremelimumab 40 or 80 mg with or without sasanlimab 130 or 300 mg, both subcutaneous). For dose expansion, patients with mCRPC received recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) of PrCa VBIR plus tremelimumab 80 mg and sasanlimab 300 mg; patients with BCR received PrCa VBIR plus tremelimumab 80 mg (Cohort 1B-BCR) or tremelimumab 80 mg plus sasanlimab 130 mg (Cohort 5B-BCR) without androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). The primary endpoint was safety. RESULTS: Ninety-one patients were treated in dose escalation (mCRPC=38) and expansion (BCR=35, mCRPC=18). Overall, treatment-related and immune-related adverse events occurred in 64 (70.3%) and 39 (42.9%) patients, with fatigue (40.7%), influenza-like illness (30.8%), diarrhea (23.1%), and immune-related thyroid dysfunction (19.8%) and rash (15.4%), as the most common. In patients with mCRPC, the objective response rate (ORR, 95% CI) was 5.6% (1.2% to 15.4%) and the median radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) was 5.6 (3.5 to not estimable) months for all; the ORR was 16.7% (3.6% to 41.4%) and 6-month rPFS rate was 45.5% (24.9% to 64.1%) for those who received RP2D with measurable disease (n=18). 7.4% of patients with mCRPC achieved a ≥50% decline in baseline PSA (PSA-50), with a median duration of 4.6 (1.2-45.2) months. In patients with BCR, 9 (25.7%) achieved PSA-50; the median duration of PSA response was 3.9 (1.9-4.2) and 10.1 (6.9-28.8) months for Cohorts 5B-BCR and 1B-BCR. Overall, antigen specific T-cell response was 88.0% to PSMA, 84.0% to PSA, and 80.0% to PSCA. CONCLUSIONS: PrCa VBIR overall demonstrated safety signals similar to other ICI combination trials; significant side effects were seen in some patients with BCR. It stimulated antigen-specific immunity across all cohorts and resulted in modest antitumor activity in patients with BCR without using ADT. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02616185.

A randomized comparison of group mindfulness and group cognitive behavioral therapy vs control for couples after prostate cancer with sexual dysfunction.

BACKGROUND: Sexual dysfunction is the most common and most distressing consequence of prostate cancer (PCa) treatment and has been shown to directly affect the sexual function and quality of life of survivors' partners. There are currently no established therapies to treat the emotional and psychological burden that sexual issues impose on the couple after PCa. AIM: Our study examined the impact of 2 therapies-cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) and mindfulness therapy-on sexual, relational, and psychological outcomes of PCa survivor and partner couples. METHODS: PCa survivors (n = 68) who self-reported current sexual problems after PCa treatments and their partners were randomized to 4 consecutive weeks of couples' mindfulness therapy, couples' CBT, or no treatment (control). OUTCOMES: Couples' sexual distress, survivors' sexual satisfaction, and couples' relationship satisfaction, quality of life, psychological symptoms (anxiety and depression), and trait mindfulness were measured at baseline, 6 weeks after treatment, and 6 months after treatment. RESULTS: Sexual distress and sexual satisfaction were significantly improved 6 weeks after the CBT and mindfulness interventions as compared with the control group, but only sexual distress remained significantly improved at 6 months. Relationship satisfaction decreased and more so for partners than survivors. There were increases in domains of quality of life for survivors vs their partners 6 months after treatments and an overall increase in general quality of life for couples 6 weeks after mindfulness. There were no significant changes in psychological symptoms and trait mindfulness. Qualitative analysis showed that the mindfulness intervention led to greater personal impact on couple intimacy after the study had ended. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: CBT and mindfulness can be effective treatments for helping couples adapt to and cope with changes to their sexual function after PCa treatments and could help improve the most common concern for PCa survivors-that is, couples' sexual intimacy-after cancer, if added to routine clinical care. STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS: We used established standardized treatment manuals and highly sensitive statistical methodology and accounted for covariable factors and moderators of primary outcomes. Due to difficulty in recruitment, we had a smaller control group than treatment, reducing our power to detect between-group differences. Our sample was mostly White, heterosexual, and affluent, thereby limiting the generalizability. CONCLUSION: This is the first randomized clinical trial to test and demonstrate benefits among PCa survivors and partners' sexual outcomes after CBT and mindfulness as compared with a nontreatment control group.

Adherence With Oral Anticancer Therapies: Clinical Trial vs Real-world Experiences With a Focus on Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSE: In this review, we address adherence rates in clinical settings, barriers to compliance with dosing schedules, and potential strategies to overcome challenges in maintaining high levels of adherence. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Four studies reporting real-world adherence to prostate cancer medications, 52 studies describing barriers to adherence, and 16 studies on methods to minimize poor adherence were reviewed. RESULTS: Mean nonadherence rates of 25% to 51% have been identified in prostate cancer patients prescribed oral therapies, with higher rates in older patients. An extensive review of prostate cancer patients receiving gonadotropin hormone-releasing hormone agonist injections found an overall nonadherence rate of over 27%. Patients may encounter barriers to complying with dosing instructions related to the medication (eg, complex dosing schedules, the total burden of medication management, fasting or dietary requirements, high medication costs, adverse effects, and drug-drug interactions). Barriers may also be related to patient-specific factors (eg, suboptimal education regarding the importance of adherence, physical limitations and cognitive decline associated with advancing age, living alone without a care partner, high symptom burden, needle phobia, and comorbid mental disorders). Interventions to improve dosing adherence may include automated reminders, treatment diaries, educational materials, and the involvement of patients, family members, care partners, and health care teams. CONCLUSIONS: Many oral anticancer medications improve survival in men with prostate cancer, and therefore it is vital to establish good adherence by understanding the pitfalls that patients may encounter. In situations where both oral and injectable drugs are interchangeable, injections of long-acting drugs lead to fewer opportunities for dosing nonadherence than oral therapies. In contrast, oral medicines do not require scheduling for injections and travel for injection appointments. Therefore, maximizing adherence to all treatment regimens will reduce the chance of efficacy failures and likely lead to improved clinical outcomes.

Patient-reported Outcomes in Men with Metastatic Castration-resistant Prostate Cancer Harboring DNA Damage Response Alterations Treated with Talazoparib: Results from TALAPRO-1.

BACKGROUND: Talazoparib has shown antitumor activity with a manageable safety profile in men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) and DNA damage response (DDR)/homologous recombination repair (HRR) alterations. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate patient-reported health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and pain in patients who received talazoparib in the TALAPRO-1 study, with a special interest in patients harboring breast cancer susceptibility gene 1 or 2 (BRCA1/2) mutations. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: TALAPRO-1 is a single-arm, phase 2 study in men with mCRPC DDR alterations either directly or indirectly involved in HRR, who previously received one to two taxane-based chemotherapy regimens for advanced prostate cancer and whose mCRPC progressed on one or more novel hormonal agents. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Men completed the European Quality-of-life Five-dimension Five-level scale (EQ-5D-5L), EQ-5D visual analog scale (VAS), and Brief Pain Inventory-Short Form at predefined time points during the study. The patient-reported outcome (PRO) population included men who completed a baseline and one or more postbaseline assessments before study end. Longitudinal mixed-effect models assuming an unstructured covariance matrix were used to estimate the mean (95% confidence interval [CI]) change from baseline for pain and general health status measurements among all patients and patients with BRCA1/2 mutations. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: In the 97 men in the PRO population treated with talazoparib (BRCA1/2, n = 56), the mean (95% CI) EQ-5D-5L Index improved (all patients, 0.05 [0.01, 0.08]; BRCA1/2 subset, 0.07 [0.03, 0.10]), as did the EQ-5D VAS scores (all patients, 5.42 [2.65, 8.18]; BRCA1/2 subset, 4.74 [1.07, 8.41]). Improvements in the estimated overall change from baseline (95% CI) in the mean worst pain were observed in all patients (-1.08 [-1.52, -0.65]) and the BRCA1/2 subset (-1.15 [-1.67, -0.62]). The probability of not having had experienced deterioration of worst pain by month 12 was 84% for all patients and 83% for the BRCA1/2 subset. CONCLUSIONS: In heavily pretreated men with mCRPC and DDR/HRR alterations, talazoparib was associated with improved HRQoL in all patients and the BRCA1/2 subset. In both patient groups, worst pain improved from baseline and the probability of not experiencing a deterioration in worst pain with talazoparib was high. PATIENT SUMMARY: We show that talazoparib was associated at least with no change or improvements in health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and pain burden in men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer and DNA damage response/homologous recombination repair gene alterations in the TALAPRO-1 study. These findings in patient-reported HRQoL and pain complement the antitumor activity and tolerability profile of talazoparib.

Guidelines for Sexual Health Care for Prostate Cancer Patients: Recommendations of an International Panel.

BACKGROUND: Patients with prostate cancer suffer significant sexual dysfunction after treatment which negatively affects them and their partners psychologically, and strain their relationships. AIM: We convened an international panel with the aim of developing guidelines that will inform clinicians, patients and partners about the impact of prostate cancer therapies (PCT) on patients' and partners' sexual health, their relationships, and about biopsychosocial rehabilitation in prostate cancer (PC) survivorship. METHODS: The guidelines panel included international expert researchers and clinicians, and a guideline methodologist. A systematic review of the literature, using the Ovid MEDLINE, Scopus, CINAHL, PsychINFO, LGBT Life, and Embase databases was conducted (1995-2022) according to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Study selection was based on Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Each statement was assigned an evidence strength (A-C) and a recommendation level (strong, moderate, conditional) based on benefit/risk assessment, according to the nomenclature of the American Urological Association (AUA). Data synthesis included meta-analyses of studies deemed of sufficient quality (3), using A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR). OUTCOMES: Guidelines for sexual health care for patients with prostate cancer were developed, based on available evidence and the expertise of the international panel. RESULTS: The guidelines account for patients' cultural, ethnic, and racial diversity. They attend to the unique needs of individuals with diverse sexual orientations and gender identities. The guidelines are based on literature review, a theoretical model of sexual recovery after PCT, and 6 principles that promote clinician-initiated discussion of realistic expectations of sexual outcomes and mitigation of sexual side-effects through biopsychosocial rehabilitation. Forty-seven statements address the psychosexual, relationship, and functional domains in addition to statements on lifestyle modification, assessment, provider education, and systemic challenges to providing sexual health care in PC survivorship. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: The guidelines provide clinicians with a comprehensive approach to sexual health care for patients with prostate cancer. STRENGTHS & LIMITATIONS: The strength of the study is the comprehensive evaluation of existing evidence on sexual dysfunction and rehabilitation in prostate cancer that can, along with available expert knowledge, best undergird clinical practice. Limitation is the variation in the evidence supporting interventions and the lack of research on issues facing patients with prostate cancer in low and middle-income countries. CONCLUSION: The guidelines document the distressing sexual sequelae of PCT, provide evidence-based recommendations for sexual rehabilitation and outline areas for future research. Wittmann D, Mehta A, McCaughan E, et al. Guidelines for Sexual Health Care for Prostate Cancer Patients: Recommendations of an International Panel. J Sex Med 2022;19:1655-1669.

Randomized, Open-Label Phase 2 Study of Apalutamide plus Androgen Deprivation Therapy versus Apalutamide Monotherapy versus Androgen Deprivation Monotherapy in Patients with Biochemically Recurrent Prostate Cancer.

Purpose: This randomized phase 2 study sought to assess the treatment effect of a finite duration of apalutamide with and without androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) in biochemically recurrent prostate cancer (BCR PC). Materials and Methods. Patients with BCR PC after primary definitive therapy and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) doubling time ≤12 months were randomized to open-label apalutamide (240 mg/d) alone, apalutamide plus ADT, or ADT alone (1 : 1:1 ratio) for 12 months followed by a 12-month observation period (NCT01790126). Mean changes from baseline in Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Prostate (FACT-P) at 12 months (primary endpoint) and other prespecified assessments of health-related quality of life (HRQoL), PSA nadir, time to PSA progression, time to testosterone recovery, recovered testosterone >150 ng/dL without PSA progression at 24 months, and molecular markers were evaluated. Results: In 90 enrolled patients (apalutamide plus ADT (n = 31), apalutamide (n = 29), ADT (n = 30)), FACT-P at 12 months was not significantly different between apalutamide, ADT and apalutamide, and ADT groups. Addition of apalutamide to ADT prolonged time to PSA progression but this change did not reach statistical significance (hazard ratio (HR): 0.56, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.23-1.36, P=0.196); time to testosterone recovery was similar in the ADT-containing groups. In apalutamide plus ADT, apalutamide, and ADT groups, 37.9%, 37.0%, and 19.2% of patients, respectively, had testosterone >150 ng/dL at 24 months without confirmed PSA progression. Of the few biomarkers expressed in blood, EPHA3 was significantly associated with shorter time to PSA progression (P=0.02) in the overall population. Conclusions: HRQoL was similar in patients treated with apalutamide alone, ADT alone, or their combination, although apalutamide plus ADT did not demonstrate statistically significant noninferiority in change from baseline in overall HRQoL. The aggregated efficacy and safety outcomes support further evaluation of apalutamide plus ADT in BCR PC.

Clinical Validation of a Circulating Tumor Cell Assay Using Density Centrifugation and Automated Immunofluorescence Microscopy.

OBJECTIVES: The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved CELLSEARCH assay (Menarini Silicon Biosystems) for circulating tumor cells (CTCs) relies on expression of an epithelial cell adhesion molecule to enrich for CTCs. We sought to validate a CTC assay (RareCyte) for clinical use that instead collects a buffy coat preparation enriched for CTCs. METHODS: Normal peripheral blood specimens spiked with cultured breast and prostate cancer cells and 47 clinical samples were used to validate assay performance. Specimens were enriched for buffy coat cells and applied onto 8 glass slides. The slides were immunofluorescently stained and imaged by automated microscopy and computer-aided image analysis. RESULTS: The assay was 100% specific for detecting spiked tumor cells. For samples spiked with 25, 50, and 125 cells, the percentage coefficients of variation were 42%, 21%, and 3.7%, respectively. Linearity studies demonstrated a slope of 0.99, an intercept of 1.6, and R2 of 0.96. Recoveries at the 25-, 50-, and 125-cell levels were 92%, 111%, and 100%, respectively. Clinical samples run on both CELLSEARCH and RareCyte correlated with an R2 of 0.8 after log-transformation and demonstrated 87.5% concordance using the CELLSEARCH criteria for predicting adverse outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: The RareCyte CTC assay has comparable performance to the FDA-cleared method and is ready for further clinical validation studies.

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.

Risk factors associated with skeletal-related events following discontinuation of denosumab treatment among patients with bone metastases from solid tumors: A real-world machine learning approach.

Background: Clinical practice guidelines recommend the use of bone-targeting agents for preventing skeletal-related events (SREs) among patients with bone metastases from solid tumors. The anti-RANKL monoclonal antibody denosumab is approved for the prevention of SREs in patients with bone metastases from solid tumors. However, real-world data are lacking on the impact of individual risk factors for SREs, specifically in the context of denosumab discontinuation. Purpose: We aim to identify risk factors associated with SRE incidence following denosumab discontinuation using a machine learning approach to help profile patients at a higher risk of developing SREs following discontinuation of denosumab treatment. Methods: Using the Optum PanTher Electronic Health Record repository, patients diagnosed with incident bone metastases from primary solid tumors between January 1, 2007, and September 1, 2019, were evaluated for inclusion in the study. Eligible patients received ≥ 2 consecutive 120 mg denosumab doses on a 4-week (± 14 days) schedule with a minimum follow-up of ≥ 1 year after the last denosumab dose, or an SRE occurring between days 84 and 365 after denosumab discontinuation. Extreme gradient boosting was used to develop an SRE risk prediction model evaluated on a test dataset. Multiple variables associated with patient demographics, comorbidities, laboratory values, treatments, and denosumab exposures were examined as potential factors for SRE risk using Shapley Additive Explanations (SHAP). Univariate analyses on risk factors with the highest importance from pooled and tumor-specific models were also conducted. Results: A total of 1,414 adult cancer patients (breast: 40%, prostate: 30%, lung: 13%, other: 17%) were eligible, of whom 1,133 (80%) were assigned to model training and 281 (20%) to model evaluation. The median age at inclusion was 67 (range, 19-89) years with a median duration of denosumab treatment of 253 (range, 88-2,726) days; 490 (35%) patients experienced ≥ 1 SRE 83 days after denosumab discontinuation. Meaningful model performance was evaluated by an area under the receiver operating curve score of 77% and an F1 score of 62%; model precision was 60%, with 63% sensitivity and 78% specificity. SHAP identified several significant factors for the tumor-agnostic and tumor-specific models that predicted an increased SRE risk following denosumab discontinuation, including prior SREs, shorter denosumab treatment duration, ≥ 4 clinic visits per month with at least one hospitalization (all-cause) event from the baseline period up to discontinuation of denosumab, younger age at bone metastasis, shorter time to denosumab initiation from bone metastasis, and prostate cancer. Conclusion: This analysis showed a higher cumulative number of SREs, prior SREs relative to denosumab initiation, a higher number of hospital visits, and a shorter denosumab treatment duration as significant factors that are associated with an increased SRE risk after discontinuation of denosumab, in both the tumor-agnostic and tumor-specific models. Our machine learning approach to SRE risk factor identification reinforces treatment guidance on the persistent use of denosumab and has the potential to help clinicians better assess a patient's need to continue denosumab treatment and improve patient outcomes.