Challenges and Opportunities in Establishing Appropriate Intermediate Endpoints Reflecting Patient Benefit: A Roadmap for Research and Clinical Application in Nonmetastatic Prostate Cancer.

Defining meaningful endpoints for research of early-stage high-risk prostate cancer is challenging, with established measures such as overall survival and metastasis-free survival facing limitations related to feasibility and adequate reflection of patient relevance. Developing endpoints must cater to diverse perspectives across scientific, clinical, regulatory, and patient viewpoints. Endpoints such as pathological complete response, no evidence of disease, and prevention of prostate-specific antigen relapse may reflect patient benefit by accounting for diagnostic and treatment burdens.

Precision medicine for prostate cancer: An international perspective.

Greater personalization of cancer medicine continues to shape therapy development and patient selection accordingly. The treatment of prostate cancer has evolved considerably since the discovery of androgen deprivation therapy. The comprehensive profiling of the prostate cancer genome has mapped the targetable molecular landscape of the disease and identified opportunities for the implementation of novel and combination therapies. In this review, we provide an overview of the molecular biology of prostate cancer and tools developed to aid prognostication and prediction of therapy benefit. Modern treatment of advanced prostate cancer is reviewed as a paradigm of increasing precision-informed approach to patient care, and must be considered on a global scale with respect to the state of science and care delivery.

Patient-reported Quality of Life and Survival Outcomes in Prostate Cancer: Analysis of the ECOG-ACRIN E3805 Chemohormonal Androgen Ablation Randomized Trial (CHAARTED).

BACKGROUND: Chemohormonal therapy with androgen deprivation therapy and docetaxel (ADT + D) improves overall survival (OS) and quality of life (QOL) at 12 mo versus androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) alone in men with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC). However, the prognostic role of QOL is unknown in this population. OBJECTIVE: To study the relationship between QOL, disease characteristics, and OS in men with mHSPC. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: In this exploratory post hoc analysis, 790 patients with mHSPC completed the QOL instruments Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Prostate (FACT-P), Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue (FACIT-F), and Brief Pain Inventory (BPI). OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Log-rank test and Cox proportional hazard models tested the association between QOL and OS by clinical and disease characteristics. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Baseline higher FACT-P trended toward improved survival after accounting for clinical variables (hazard ratio [HR] 0.80 [0.62, 1.04], p = 0.09), while higher 3-mo FACT-P was independently associated with better survival (HR 0.76 [0.58, 1.0], p = 0.05). Patients with the poorest QOL (bottom quartile) at baseline and 3 mo had longer survival if they received ADT + D rather than ADT alone (median OS 45.2 vs 34.4 mo, HR 0.75 [0.53, 1.05], p = 0.09, and 48.3 vs 29.3 mo, HR 0.69 [0.48, 0.99], p = 0.05 respectively). In contrast, patients with the best QOL (top quartile) at baseline and 3 mo had comparable survival irrespective of whether or not docetaxel was added (median OS 72.1 vs 51.7 mo, HR 0.92 [0.63, 1.36], p = 0.69, and 69.9 vs 68.9 mo, HR 1.11 [0.73, 1.67], p = 0.63, respectively). Survival was linked with baseline FACIT-F (HR 0.76 [0.57, 1.0], p = 0.05), but not BPI (HR 0.98 [0.75, 1.28], p = 0.90). CONCLUSIONS: Three-month QOL had a stronger independent association with survival. The most symptomatic patients had longer survival with the addition of docetaxel; conversely, the least symptomatic patients did not appear to benefit. Consideration of QOL may enhance decision-making and patient selection when choosing chemohormonal treatment in mHSPC. PATIENT SUMMARY: Quality of life independently forecasted the survival of men with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer in the CHAARTED study. Close tracking of quality of life could help patients and clinicians make decisions about the appropriate treatment in this setting.

Impact of teratoma on survival probabilities of patients with metastatic non-seminomatous germ cell cancer: Results from the IGCCCG Update Consortium.

AIMS: To resolve the ongoing controversy surrounding the impact of teratoma (TER) in the primary among patients with metastatic testicular non-seminomatous germ-cell tumours (NSGCT). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Using the International Germ Cell Cancer Collaborative Group (IGCCCG) Update Consortium database, we compared the survival probabilities of patients with metastatic testicular GCT with TER (TER) or without TER (NTER) in their primaries corrected for known prognostic factors. Progression-free survival (5y-PFS) and overall survival at 5 years (5y-OS) were estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: Among 6792 patients with metastatic testicular NSGCT, 3224 (47%) had TER in their primary, and 3568 (53%) did not. In the IGCCCG good prognosis group, the 5y-PFS was 87.8% in TER versus 92.0% in NTER patients (p = 0.0001), the respective 5y-OS were 94.5% versus 96.5% (p = 0.0032). The corresponding figures in the intermediate prognosis group were 5y-PFS 76.9% versus 81.6% (p = 0.0432) in TER and NTER and 5y-OS 90.4% versus 90.9% (p = 0.8514), respectively. In the poor prognosis group, there was no difference, neither in 5y-PFS [54.3% in TER patients versus 55.4% (p = 0.7472) in NTER], nor in 5y-OS [69.4% versus 67.7% (p = 0.3841)]. NSGCT patients with TER had more residual masses (65.3% versus 51.7%, p < 0.0001), and therefore received post-chemotherapy surgery more frequently than NTER patients (46.8% versus 32.0%, p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Teratoma in the primary tumour of patients with metastatic NSGCT negatively impacts on survival in the good and intermediate, but not in the poor IGCCCG prognostic groups.

Randomized Phase II Study Evaluating the Addition of Pembrolizumab to Radium-223 in Metastatic Castration-resistant Prostate Cancer.

The checkpoint immunotherapeutic pembrolizumab induces responses in a small minority of patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). Radium-223 (R223) may increase immunogenicity of bone metastases and increase pembrolizumab (P) activity. In a randomized phase II study, we assessed the effect of R223+P compared with R223 on tumor immune infiltration, safety, and clinical outcomes in patients with mCRPC. The primary endpoint was differences in CD4+ and CD8+ T-cell infiltrate in 8-week versus baseline bone metastasis biopsies; secondary endpoints were safety, radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS), and overall survival (OS). Of the 42 treated patients (29 R223+P, 13 R223), 18 R223+P and 8 R223 patients had evaluable paired tumor biopsies. Median fold-change of CD4+ T cells was -0.7 (range: -9.3 to 4.7) with R223+P and 0.1 (-11.1 to 3.7) with R223 (P = 0.66); for CD8+ T cells, median fold-change was -0.6 (-7.4 to 5.3) with R223+P and -1.3 (-3.1 to 4.8) with R223 (P = 0.66). Median rPFS and OS was 6.1 (95% confidence interval: 2.7-11.0) and 16.9 months [12.7-not reached (NR)], respectively, with R223+P and 5.7 (2.6-NR) and 16.0 (9.0-NR), respectively, with R223. Although R223+P was well tolerated with no unexpected toxicity, the combination did not improve efficacy. High-dimensional flow cytometry demonstrated minimal immune modulation with R223, whereas R223+P induced CTLA-4 expression on circulating CD4+ T cells. Clinical responders possessed lower circulating frequencies of Ki67+ T and myeloid cells at baseline and higher circulating frequencies of TIM-3+ T and myeloid cells by week 9. Although R223+P did not induce T-cell infiltration into the tumor microenvironment, exhaustion of induced peripheral T-cell immune responses may dampen the combination's clinical activity.

Soil-specific outcomes in the OECD 216 Nitrogen Transformation Test.

The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) 216 test guideline investigates the impact of agrochemicals on soil nitrogen transformation. After an evaluation of 465 OECD 216 studies, we describe two distinct yet contrasting outcomes in control nontreated samples that are possible in this testing framework, which we term the "rise" (consistent increases in nitrate concentrations throughout the test period) and "dip" (initial decline in nitrate concentration between Days 0-7, followed by a net-generation of nitrate across Days 7-28) responses. We raise significant concerns that control data from standardized, internationally recognized test guidelines can demonstrate such dissimilar patterns. We propose that, when present, the dip response undermines the intended functioning of the test system and removes the ability to draw appropriate ecotoxicological inferences from the data. In this work, we hypothesize the dip response is a product of conducting the study in low nitrogen content soils. Our results indicate that the dip response can be alleviated by using ammonium sulfate as an immediately available inorganic nitrogen source in place of the guideline-mandated complex, organic lucerne meal, demonstrating the influence of nitrogen availability and accessibility. However, not all low nitrogen soils exhibited the dip response, indicating the involvement of additional unidentified factors. Using our data and real-world regulatory examples, we advocate that datasets displaying the dip response should not be considered valid OECD 216 studies due to the influence of soil properties precluding an assessment of whether any impacts observed are driven solely by the test compound in question or are instead a product of the soil used. We propose methods to account for these soil-specific responses that could be integrated into the conduct and interpretation of OECD 216 studies. Such amendments will improve the reliability and robustness of the study system and enhance confidence in ecotoxicological conclusions derived from OECD 216 datasets. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2024;00:1-14. © 2024 SETAC.

Prognostic Impact of Prostate-Specific Antigen at 6 Months After Radiotherapy in Localized Prostate Cancer: An Individual Patient Data Analysis of Randomized Trials.

PURPOSE: We sought to evaluate the prognostic impact of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) at 6 months after completion of radiotherapy (RT) in patients treated with RT alone, RT plus short-term (st; 3-6 months), and RT plus long-term (lt; 24-36 months) androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Individual patient data were obtained from 16 randomized trials evaluating RT ± ADT for localized prostate cancer (PCa) between 1987 and 2011. The lowest PSA recorded within 6 months after RT completion was identified and categorized as < or ≥0.1 ng/mL. The primary outcomes were metastasis-free survival (MFS), PCa-specific mortality (PCSM), and overall survival (OS), from 12 months after random assignment. RESULTS: Ninety-eight percent (n = 2,339/2,376) of patients allocated to RT alone, 84% (n = 4,756/5,658) allocated to RT + stADT, and 77% (n = 1,258/1,626) allocated to RT + ltADT had PSA ≥0.1 ng/mL within 6 months after completing RT. PSA ≥0.1 ng/mL was associated with lower MFS and OS and higher PCSM among patients allocated to RT ± ADT (RT - MFS: hazard ratio [HR], 2.24 [95% CI, 1.21 to 4.16]; PCSM: subdistribution hazard ratio [sHR], 1.82 [0.51 to 6.49]; OS: HR, 1.72 [0.97 to 3.05]; RT + stADT - MFS: HR, 1.27 [1.12 to 1.44]; PCSM: sHR, 2.10 [1.52 to 2.92]; OS: HR, 1.26 [1.11 to 1.44]; RT + ltADT - MFS: HR, 1.58 [1.27 to 1.96]; PCSM: sHR, 1.97 [1.11 to 3.49]; OS: HR, 1.59 [1.27 to 1.99]). Five-year MFS rates among patients allocated to RT, RT + stADT, and RT + ltADT were 91% versus 79%, 83% versus 76%, and 87% versus 74%, respectively, based on PSA < or ≥0.1 ng/mL. CONCLUSION: PSA ≥0.1 ng/mL within 6 months after RT completion was prognostic for lt outcomes in patients treated with RT ± ADT for localized PCa. This can be used to counsel patients treated with RT ± ADT and in guiding clinical trial design evaluating novel systemic therapies with RT + ADT as well as (de)intensification strategies.

The influence of soil organic matter content and substance lipophilicity on the toxicity of pesticides to the earthworm Eisenia andrei.

To account for potential differences in bioavailability (and toxicity) due to different soil organic matter (OM) contents in natural and artificial soil (AS), in the current European environmental risk assessment (ERA) a correction factor (CF) of 2 is applied to toxicity endpoints for so called lipophilic pesticides (i.e. log Kow > 2) generated from laboratory tests with soil invertebrates. However, the appropriateness of a single CF is questioned. To improve the accuracy of ERA, this study investigated the influence of soil OM content on the toxicity to the earthworm Eisenia andrei of five active substances used in pesticides covering a wide range of lipophilicity. Laboratory toxicity tests were performed in AS containing 10 %, 5 % and 2.5 % peat, and a natural LUFA 2.2 soil (4.5 % OM), assessing effects on survival, biomass change and reproduction. Pesticide toxicity differed significantly between soils. For all pesticides, toxicity values (LC50, EC50) strongly correlated with soil OM content in AS (r2 > 0.82), with toxicity decreasing with increasing OM content. Obtained regression equations were used to calculate the toxicity at OM contents of 10.0 % and 5.0 %. Model-estimated toxicity between these soils differed by factors of 1.9-3.6, and 2.1-3.2 for LC50 and EC50 values, respectively. No clear relationships between pesticide lipophilicity and toxicity-OM relationships were observed: the toxicity of non-lipophilic and lipophilic pesticides was influenced by OM content in a similar manner. The results suggest that the CF of 2 may not be appropriate as it is based on incorrect assumptions regarding the relationships between lipophilicity, OM content and toxicity. Further research should be conducted to understand the mechanistic link between toxicity and soil OM content to better define more chemically and ecologically appropriate CFs for ERA.

Considerations for the inclusion of metabarcoding data in the plant protection product risk assessment of the soil microbiome.

There is increasing interest in further developing the plant protection product (PPP) environmental risk assessment, particularly within the European Union, to include the assessment of soil microbial community composition, as measured by metabarcoding approaches. However, to date, there has been little discussion as to how this could be implemented in a standardized, reliable, and robust manner suitable for regulatory decision-making. Introduction of metabarcoding-based assessments of the soil microbiome into the PPP risk assessment would represent a significant increase in the degree of complexity of the data that needs to be processed and analyzed in comparison to the existing risk assessment on in-soil organisms. The bioinformatics procedures to process DNA sequences into community compositional data sets currently lack standardization, while little information exists on how these data should be used to generate regulatory endpoints and the ways in which these endpoints should be interpreted. Through a thorough and critical review, we explore these challenges. We conclude that currently, we do not have a sufficient degree of standardization or understanding of the required bioinformatics and data analysis procedures to consider their use in an environmental risk assessment context. However, we highlight critical knowledge gaps and the further research required to understand whether metabarcoding-based assessments of the soil microbiome can be utilized in a statistically and ecologically relevant manner within a PPP risk assessment. Only once these challenges are addressed can we consider if and how we should use metabarcoding as a tool for regulatory decision-making to assess and monitor ecotoxicological effects on soil microorganisms within an environmental risk assessment of PPPs. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2024;20:337-358. © 2023 SETAC.

MyPathway Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2 Basket Study: Pertuzumab + Trastuzumab Treatment of a Tissue-Agnostic Cohort of Patients With Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2-Altered Advanced Solid Tumors.

Clinical trials frequently include multiple end points that mature at different times. The initial report, typically based on the primary end point, may be published when key planned co-primary or secondary analyses are not yet available. Clinical Trial Updates provide an opportunity to disseminate additional results from studies, published in JCO or elsewhere, for which the primary end point has already been reported.The MyPathway multiple-basket study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02091141) is evaluating targeted therapies in nonindicated tumors with relevant molecular alterations. We assessed pertuzumab + trastuzumab in a tissue-agnostic cohort of adult patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-amplified and/or -overexpressed and/or -mutated solid tumors. The primary end point was objective response rate (ORR); secondary end points included survival and safety. At data cutoff (March 2022), 346 patients with HER2 amplification and/or overexpression with/without HER2 mutations (n = 263), or HER2 mutations alone (n = 83) had been treated. Patients with HER2 amplification and/or overexpression had an ORR of 25.9% (68/263, 95% CI, 20.7 to 31.6), including five complete responses (urothelial [n = 2], salivary gland [n = 2], and colon [n = 1] cancers). Activity was higher in those with wild-type (ORR, 28.1%) versus mutated KRAS (ORR, 7.1%). Among patients with HER2 amplification, ORR was numerically higher in patients with immunohistochemistry (IHC) 3+ (41.0%; 32/78) or 2+ (21.9%; 7/32), versus 1+ (8.3%; 1/12) or no expression (0%; 0/20). In patients with HER2 mutations alone, ORR was 6.0% (5/83, 95% CI, 2.0 to 13.5). Pertuzumab + trastuzumab showed activity in various HER2-amplified and/or -overexpressed tumors with wild-type KRAS, with the range of activity dependent on tumor type, but had limited activity in the context of KRAS mutations, HER2 mutations alone, or 0-1+ HER2 expression.

Pretest Video Education Versus Genetic Counseling for Patients With Prostate Cancer: ProGen, A Multisite Randomized Controlled Trial.

PURPOSE: Germline genetic testing (GT) is recommended for men with prostate cancer (PC), but testing through traditional models is limited. The ProGen study examined a novel model aimed at providing access to GT while promoting education and informed consent. METHODS: Men with potentially lethal PC (metastatic, localized with a Gleason score of ≥8, persistent prostate-specific antigen after local therapy), diagnosis age ≤55 years, previous malignancy, and family history suggestive of a pathogenic variant (PV) and/or at oncologist's discretion were randomly assigned 3:1 to video education (VE) or in-person genetic counseling (GC). Participants had 67 genes analyzed (Ambry), with results disclosed via telephone by a genetic counselor. Outcomes included GT consent, GT completion, PV prevalence, and survey measures of satisfaction, psychological impact, genetics knowledge, and family communication. Two-sided Fisher's exact tests were used for between-arm comparisons. RESULTS: Over a 2-year period, 662 participants at three sites were randomly assigned and pretest VE (n = 498) or GC (n = 164) was completed by 604 participants (VE, 93.1%; GC, 88.8%), of whom 596 participants (VE, 98.9%; GC, 97.9%) consented to GT and 591 participants completed GT (VE, 99.3%; GC, 98.6%). These differences were not statistically significant although subtle differences in satisfaction and psychological impact were. Notably, 84 PVs were identified in 78 participants (13.2%), with BRCA1/2 PV comprising 32% of participants with a positive result (BRCA2 n = 21, BRCA1 n = 4). CONCLUSION: Both VE and traditional GC yielded high GT uptake without significant differences in outcome measures of completion, GT uptake, genetics knowledge, and family communication. The increased demand for GT with limited genetics resources supports consideration of pretest VE for patients with PC.

IGF-1 axis changes with ADT and docetaxel in metastatic prostate cancer.

Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) forms the cornerstone of treatment in locally advanced and metastatic prostate cancer (PCa). Since the growth hormone-insulin-like growth factor (GH-IGF-1) axis has been implicated in prostate tumorigenesis, we aimed to evaluate the association between IGF-1 and its binding proteins on outcomes in men with metastatic PCa treated with ADT, with or without docetaxel (D). We analyzed serum samples for IGF-1 and its family proteins from baseline, 6 months post-randomization, and at the time of progression in men enrolled to receive ADT +/- D in the phase 3 CHAARTED trial. The key outcomes were time to the development of castrate-resistant prostate cancer and overall survival (OS). About 560 patients had samples available for analysis. At 6 months, significant increases in IGF-BP1 (mean Δ+27.4%, P = 0.033), IGF-BP3 (mean Δ+10.3%, P < 0.001), and IGF-BP4 (mean Δ+31.1%, P < 0.001) were seen in the ADT + D group, while the ADT group showed an increase in IGF-BP3 (mean Δ+5.5%, P = 0.015). A higher IGF-1:IGF-BP1 ratio at baseline and after 6 months was associated with improved OS in both the ADT (baseline: hazard ratio (HR) = 0.77, P = 0.026; 6 months: HR = 0.83, P = 0.036) and ADT + D groups (baseline: HR = 0.78, P = 0.04; 6 months: HR = 0.81, P = 0.018). Patients with a log10IGF-1:IGF-BP1 ratio >1.3 at baseline had improved OS when meta-analyzed with data from a prior cohort (HR = 0.71). A higher baseline and 6-month IGF-1:IGF-BP1 ratio was associated with better OS. Further exploration of the IGF-1 axis will be important to assess its role as a predictive biomarker and to target this axis in therapeutic trials.

Pharmacological NF-κB inhibition decreases cisplatin chemoresistance in muscle-invasive bladder cancer and reduces cisplatin-induced toxicities.

Most patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) are not cured with platinum chemotherapy. Up-regulation of nuclear factor kappa light-chain enhancer of activated B cells (NF-κB) is a major mechanism underlying chemoresistance, suggesting that its pharmacological inhibition may increase platinum efficacy. NF-κB signaling was investigated in two patient cohorts. The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) was used to correlate NF-κB signaling and patient survival. The efficacy of cisplatin plus the NF-κB inhibitor dimethylaminoparthenolide (DMAPT) versus cisplatin or DMAPT alone was tested in vitro. Xenografted and immunocompetent MIBC mouse models were studied in vivo. Platinum-naive claudin-low MIBC showed constitutive NF-κB signaling and this was associated with reduced disease-specific survival in TCGA patients. Chemotherapy up-regulated NF-κB signaling and chemoresistance-associated genes, including SPHK1, PLAUR, and SERPINE1. In mice, DMAPT significantly improved the efficacy of cisplatin in both models. The combination preserved body weight, renal function, and morphology, reduced muscle fatigue and IL-6 serum levels, and did not aggravate immuno-hematological toxicity compared with cisplatin alone. These data provide a rationale for combining NF-κB inhibition with platinum-based chemotherapy and conducting a clinical trial in MIBC patients.

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

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

Metastatic Hormone-Sensitive Prostate Cancer: Toward an Era of Adaptive and Personalized Treatment.

The advent of more effective treatment combinations for metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC) has been built on successes in therapy development for metastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). Both disease phases hold similar challenges and questions. Is there an optimal therapy sequence to maximize disease control and balance treatment burden? Are there clinical and biologically based subgroups that inform personalized and/or adaptive strategies? How can clinicians interpret data from clinical trials in the context of rapidly evolving technologies? Herein, we review the contemporary landscape of treatment for mHSPC, including disease subgroups informing both intensification and potential deintensification strategies. Furthermore, we provide current insights into the complex biology of mHSPC and discuss the potential clinical application of biomarkers to guide therapy selection and the development of novel personalized approaches.

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.

A novel prostate cancer subtyping classifier based on luminal and basal phenotypes.

BACKGROUND: Prostate cancer (PCa) is a clinically heterogeneous disease. The creation of an expression-based subtyping model based on prostate-specific biological processes was sought. METHODS: Unsupervised machine learning of gene expression profiles from prospectively collected primary prostate tumors (training, n = 32,000; evaluation, n = 68,547) was used to create a prostate subtyping classifier (PSC) based on basal versus luminal cell expression patterns and other gene signatures relevant to PCa biology. Subtype molecular pathways and clinical characteristics were explored in five other clinical cohorts. RESULTS: Clustering derived four subtypes: luminal differentiated (LD), luminal proliferating (LP), basal immune (BI), and basal neuroendocrine (BN). LP and LD tumors both had higher androgen receptor activity. LP tumors also had a higher expression of cell proliferation genes, MYC activity, and characteristics of homologous recombination deficiency. BI tumors possessed significant interferon γactivity and immune infiltration on immunohistochemistry. BN tumors were characterized by lower androgen receptor activity expression, lower immune infiltration, and enrichment with neuroendocrine expression patterns. Patients with LD tumors had less aggressive tumor characteristics and the longest time to metastasis after surgery. Only patients with BI tumors derived benefit from radiotherapy after surgery in terms of time to metastasis (hazard ratio [HR], 0.09; 95% CI, 0.01-0.71; n = 855). In a phase 3 trial that randomized patients with metastatic PCa to androgen deprivation with or without docetaxel (n = 108), only patients with LP tumors derived survival benefit from docetaxel (HR, 0.21; 95% CI, 0.09-0.51). CONCLUSIONS: With the use of expression profiles from over 100,000 tumors, a PSC was developed that identified four subtypes with distinct biological and clinical features. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: Prostate cancer can behave in an indolent or aggressive manner and vary in how it responds to certain treatments. To differentiate prostate cancer on the basis of biological features, we developed a novel RNA signature by using data from over 100,000 prostate tumors-the largest data set of its kind. This signature can inform patients and physicians on tumor aggressiveness and susceptibilities to treatments to help personalize cancer management.

PARP Inhibitors for Prostate Cancer: Tangled up in PROfound and PROpel (and TALAPRO-2) Blues.

The combination of PARP and androgen receptor signalling inhibitors is best reserved for cases for which we expect an overall survival benefit on the basis of disease biology. The data to date should encourage us to perform more, not less, testing for DNA repair defects.

Testosterone suppression plus enzalutamide versus testosterone suppression plus standard antiandrogen therapy for metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (ENZAMET): an international, open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: The interim analysis of the ENZAMET trial of testosterone suppression plus either enzalutamide or standard nonsteroidal antiandrogen therapy showed an early overall survival benefit with enzalutamide. Here, we report the planned primary overall survival analysis, with the aim of defining the benefit of enzalutamide treatment in different prognostic subgroups (synchronous and metachronous high-volume or low-volume disease) and in those who received concurrent docetaxel. METHODS: ENZAMET is an international, open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial conducted at 83 sites (including clinics, hospitals, and university centres) in Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, the UK, and the USA. Eligible participants were males aged 18 years or older with metastatic, hormone-sensitive prostate adenocarcinoma evident on CT or bone scanning with 99mTc and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score of 0-2. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1), using a centralised web-based system and stratified by volume of disease, planned use of concurrent docetaxel and bone antiresorptive therapy, comorbidities, and study site, to receive testosterone suppression plus oral enzalutamide (160 mg once per day) or a weaker standard oral non-steroidal antiandrogen (bicalutamide, nilutamide, or flutamide; control group) until clinical disease progression or prohibitive toxicity. Testosterone suppression was allowed up to 12 weeks before randomisation and for up to 24 months as adjuvant therapy. Concurrent docetaxel (75 mg/m2 intravenously) was allowed for up to six cycles once every 3 weeks, at the discretion of participants and physicians. The primary endpoint was overall survival in the intention-to-treat population. This planned analysis was triggered by reaching 470 deaths. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02446405, ANZCTR, ACTRN12614000110684, and EudraCT, 2014-003190-42. FINDINGS: Between March 31, 2014, and March 24, 2017, 1125 participants were randomly assigned to receive non-steroidal antiandrogen (n=562; control group) or enzalutamide (n=563). The median age was 69 years (IQR 63-74). This analysis was triggered on Jan 19, 2022, and an updated survival status identified a total of 476 (42%) deaths. After a median follow-up of 68 months (IQR 67-69), the median overall survival was not reached (hazard ratio 0·70 [95% CI 0·58-0·84]; p<0·0001), with 5-year overall survival of 57% (0·53-0·61) in the control group and 67% (0·63-0·70) in the enzalutamide group. Overall survival benefits with enzalutamide were consistent across predefined prognostic subgroups and planned use of concurrent docetaxel. The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were febrile neutropenia associated with docetaxel use (33 [6%] of 558 in the control group vs 37 [6%] of 563 in the enzalutamide group), fatigue (four [1%] vs 33 [6%]), and hypertension (31 [6%] vs 59 [10%]). The incidence of grade 1-3 memory impairment was 25 (4%) versus 75 (13%). No deaths were attributed to study treatment. INTERPRETATION: The addition of enzalutamide to standard of care showed sustained improvement in overall survival for patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer and should be considered as a treatment option for eligible patients. FUNDING: Astellas Pharma.