The Use of Lurbinectedin for the Treatment of Small Cell and Neuroendocrine Carcinoma of the Prostate.

INTRODUCTION: Lurbinectedin is FDA approved for treatment of metastatic small cell lung cancer (SCLC) following progression on or after platinum-based chemotherapy. Prostatic small cell or neuroendocrine carcinoma (SC/NEPC) behaves like SCLC; however, no safety or efficacy data for lurbinectedin in SC/NEPC exists. PATIENTS AND METHODS: All SC/NEPC patients treated with lurbinectedin across 4 academic oncology centers were identified. Baseline patient data and lurbinectedin outcomes including radiographic responses (complete response [CR], partial response [PR], stable disease [SD], progressive disease [PD]), progression free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and treatment-related adverse events (trAEs) were described. Clinical benefit rate (CBR) included CR, PR, or SD on imaging. Descriptive statistics were performed. RESULTS: At first lurbinectedin dose, all 18 patients had metastatic disease. Median age was 63.5 (Range: 53-84), number of prior systemic therapies was 4 (Range: 2-7), and lurbinectedin cycles completed was 5 (Range: 1-10). ADT was administered during lurbinectedin treatment in 9/18 patients. CBR was 9/16 (56%). The most common trAEs were fatigue and anemia. Median OS and PFS were 6.01 (0.23-16.69) and 3.35 (0.16-7.79) months. CONCLUSIONS: Lurbinectedin showed modest but significant clinical benefit in some patients with SC/NEPC and demonstrated an acceptable toxicity profile with no hospitalizations from trAEs. SC/NEPC is an aggressive disease with a poor prognosis for which more treatment options are needed. Evidence for subsequent treatments after platinum-based chemotherapy is lacking. Lurbinectedin is an active treatment option for SC/NEPC; however, larger confirmatory studies are needed.

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.