Abiraterone for Prostate Cancer Not Previously Treated with Hormone Therapy

Real-World Treatment Trends Among Patients with Metastatic Castration-Sensitive Prostate Cancer: Results from an International Study

BACKGROUND

Continuous androgen deprivation therapy ± first-generation non-steroidal antiandrogen was previously the standard-of-care for patients with metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC). Treatment intensification with novel hormonal therapy (NHT) or taxane chemotherapy is now approved and guideline-recommended for these patients.

METHODS

Physician-reported data on adult patients with mCSPC from the Adelphi Prostate Cancer Disease Specific Programme were analyzed descriptively. We evaluated real-world treatment trends for patients with mCSPC in 5 European countries (United Kingdom, France, Germany, Spain, and Italy) and the United States (US), looking at differences between patients initiating treatment in 2016-2018 and in 2019-2020. We also investigated treatment trends by ethnicity and insurance status in the US.

RESULTS

This study found that most patients with mCSPC do not receive treatment intensification. However, greater use of treatment intensification with NHT and taxane chemotherapy was observed in 2019-2020 than in 2016-2018 across 5 European countries. In the US, greater use of treatment intensification with NHT in 2019-2020 than in 2016-2018 was observed for all ethnicity groups and those with Medicare and commercial insurance status.

CONCLUSIONS

As the number of patients with mCSPC who receive treatment intensification increases, more patients who progress to metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) will have been exposed to intensified treatments. Treatment options for patients with mCSPC and mCRPC overlap, suggesting that an unmet need will emerge for new therapies. Further studies are needed to understand optimal treatment sequencing in mCSPC and mCRPC.

Real-World Treatment Patterns Among Patients With Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer: Results From an International Study

BACKGROUND

There is limited real-world evidence on how increasing use of treatment intensification in metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC) has influenced treatment decisions in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). The study objective was to evaluate the impact of novel hormonal therapy (NHT) and docetaxel use in mCSPC on first-line treatment patterns among patients with mCRPC in 5 European countries and the United States (US).

METHODS

Physician-reported data on patients with mCRPC from the Adelphi Prostate Cancer Disease Specific Program were descriptively analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 215 physicians provided data on 722 patients with mCRPC. Across 5 European countries and the US, 65% and 75% of patients, respectively, received NHT, and 28% and 9% of patients, respectively, received taxane chemotherapy as first-line mCRPC treatment. In Europe, patients who had received NHT in mCSPC (n = 76) mostly received taxane chemotherapy in mCRPC (55%). Patients who had received taxane chemotherapy, or who did not receive taxane chemotherapy or NHT in mCSPC (n = 98 and 434, respectively) mostly received NHT in mCRPC (62% and 73%, respectively). In the US, patients who had received NHT, taxane chemotherapy, or neither in mCSPC (n = 32, 12, and 72, respectively) mostly received NHT in mCRPC (53%, 83%, and 83%, respectively). Two patients in Europe were rechallenged with the same NHT.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings suggest that physicians consider mCSPC treatment history when making first-line treatment decisions in mCRPC. Further studies are needed to better understand optimal treatment sequencing, especially as new treatments emerge.

Targeted Therapy for Cancers: From Ongoing Clinical Trials to FDA-Approved Drugs

The development of targeted therapies has revolutionized cancer treatment, offering improved efficacy with reduced side effects compared with traditional chemotherapy. This review highlights the current landscape of targeted therapy in lung cancer, colorectal cancer, and prostate cancer, focusing on key molecular targets. Moreover, it aligns with US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved drugs and drug candidates. In lung cancer, mutations in the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) and anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) gene rearrangements have emerged as significant targets. FDA-approved drugs like osimertinib and crizotinib specifically inhibit these aberrant pathways, providing remarkable benefits in patients with EGFR-mutated or ALK-positive lung cancer. Colorectal cancer treatment has been shaped by targeting the vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and EGFR. Bevacizumab and cetuximab are prominent FDA-approved agents that hinder VEGF and EGFR signaling, significantly enhancing outcomes in metastatic colorectal cancer patients. In prostate cancer, androgen receptor (AR) targeting is pivotal. Drugs like enzalutamide, apalutamide, and darolutamide effectively inhibit AR signaling, demonstrating efficacy in castration-resistant prostate cancer. This review further highlights promising targets like mesenchymal-epithelial transition (MET), ROS1, BRAF, and poly(ADP-ribose) polymeras (PARP) in specific cancer subsets, along with ongoing clinical trials that continue to shape the future of targeted therapy.

Prostate cancer and bone: clinical presentation and molecular mechanisms

Prostate cancer (PCa) is an increasingly prevalent health problem in the developed world. Effective treatment options exist for localized PCa, but metastatic PCa has fewer treatment options and shorter patient survival. PCa and bone health are strongly entwined, as PCa commonly metastasizes to the skeleton. Since androgen receptor signaling drives PCa growth, androgen-deprivation therapy whose sequelae reduce bone strength constitutes the foundation of advanced PCa treatment. The homeostatic process of bone remodeling - produced by concerted actions of bone-building osteoblasts, bone-resorbing osteoclasts, and regulatory osteocytes - may also be subverted by PCa to promote metastatic growth. Mechanisms driving skeletal development and homeostasis, such as regional hypoxia or matrix-embedded growth factors, may be subjugated by bone metastatic PCa. In this way, the biology that sustains bone is integrated into adaptive mechanisms for the growth and survival of PCa in bone. Skeletally metastatic PCa is difficult to investigate due to the entwined nature of bone biology and cancer biology. Herein, we survey PCa from origin, presentation, and clinical treatment to bone composition and structure and molecular mediators of PCa metastasis to bone. Our intent is to quickly yet effectively reduce barriers to team science across multiple disciplines that focuses on PCa and metastatic bone disease. We also introduce concepts of tissue engineering as a novel perspective to model, capture, and study complex cancer-microenvironment interactions.

Preclinical Imaging of Prostate Cancer

Prostate cancer remains a major cause of mortality and morbidity, affecting millions of men, with a large percentage expected to develop the disease as they reach advanced ages. Treatment and management advances have been dramatic over the past 50 years or so, and one aspect of these improvements is reflected in the multiple advances in diagnostic imaging techniques. Much attention has been focused on molecular imaging techniques that offer high sensitivity and specificity and can now more accurately assess disease status and detect recurrence earlier. During development of molecular imaging probes, single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) and positron emission tomography (PET) must be evaluated in preclinical models of the disease. If such agents are to be translated to the clinic, where patients undergoing these imaging modalities are injected with a molecular imaging probe, these agents must first be approved by the FDA and other regulatory agencies prior to their adoption in clinical practice. Scientists have worked assiduously to develop preclinical models of prostate cancer that are relevant to the human disease to enable testing of these probes and related targeted drugs. Challenges in developing reproducible and robust models of human disease in animals are beset with practical issues such as the lack of natural occurrence of prostate cancer in mature male animals, the difficulty of initiating disease in immune-competent animals and the sheer size differences between humans and conveniently smaller animals such as rodents. Thus, compromises in what is ideal and what can be achieved have had to be made. The workhorse of preclinical animal models has been, and remains, the investigation of human xenograft tumor models in athymic immunocompromised mice. Later models have used other immunocompromised models as they have been found and developed, including the use of directly derived patient tumor tissues, completely immunocompromised mice, orthotopic methods for inducing prostate cancer within the mouse prostate itself and metastatic models of advanced disease. These models have been developed in close parallel with advances in imaging agent chemistries, radionuclide developments, computer electronics advances, radiometric dosimetry, biotechnologies, organoid technologies, advances in in vitro diagnostics, and overall deeper understandings of disease initiation, development, immunology, and genetics. The combination of molecular models of prostatic disease with radiometric-based studies in small animals will always remain spatially limited due to the inherent resolution sensitivity limits of PET and SPECT decay processes, fundamentally set at around a 0.5 cm resolution limit. Nevertheless, it is central to researcher's efforts and to successful clinical translation that the best animal models are adopted, accepted, and scientifically verified as part of this truly interdisciplinary approach to addressing this important disease.

PSMA PET-based stereotactic body radiotherapy for locally recurrent prostate cancer after definitive first-line therapy

BACKGROUND

Advances in prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) PET-computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) allow the detection and localization of exclusively local prostate-cancer-recurrences after definitive first-line therapy. PSMA-based early detection of circumscribed local recurrences followed by hypofractionated high-precision stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) might yield long-term disease control at moderate rates of adverse effects.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis of 35 patients treated for locally recurrent prostate cancer between November 2012 and December 2021 with PSMA PET- and MRI-based robotic SBRT.

RESULTS

Thirty-five patients treated with local prostate cancer recurrence post surgery, post surgery, and adjuvant/salvage radiotherapy (RT) and after definitive RT. All but one patients had fractionated SBRT in 3-5 fractions. Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 52.2 months for all patients and 52.2 months in the radical prostatectomy (RPE) group, 31.2 months in the RPE + RT group and not reached in the RT group. The most common event was increased urinary frequency grade 1-2. 54.3% of all patients had no acute and 79.4% no late toxicity during follow-up.

DISCUSSION

Our PFS of 52.2 months (RPE), 31.2 months (RPE + RT) and not reached (RT) compares favorably with published data. This method constitutes a valid alternative to morbidity-prone invasive approaches or palliative systemic therapy.

Clinical outcomes in patients with metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer treated with abiraterone with or without ongoing androgen deprivation therapy: A retrospective case-control study

INTRODUCTION

Abiraterone and concurrent androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) are used in the treatment of patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. Recently, it has been suggested that the use of abiraterone alone (without ADT) may have comparable efficacy to abiraterone with ongoing ADT. Here, we sought to assess the impact of ADT cessation in patients beginning abiraterone for castration-resistant prostate cancer.

METHODS

We identified 39 patients at our institution who received abiraterone alone (with discontinuation of ADT) between 2011 and 2022. We then procured a comparable group of 39 patients (matched by age, Gleason score, and prostate-specific antigen [PSA] level) who received abiraterone with ongoing ADT during the same period. We assessed and compared clinical outcomes in the two groups (abiraterone-alone vs. abiraterone-ADT) with respect to PSA response rates, PSA progression-free survival, and overall survival. Results were adjusted using Cox proportional-hazards multivariable models.

RESULTS

The median PSA before treatment initiation was 12.7 (range: 0.2-199) ng/mL in the abiraterone-alone group and 15.5 (range: 0.6-212) ng/mL in the abiraterone-ADT group. Use of abiraterone alone adequately suppressed testosterone levels in 35/37 (94.6%) patients. Patients receiving abiraterone alone had a median PSA reduction of 80.2% versus 79.5% in patients receiving abiraterone plus ADT. The median PSA progression-free survival in patients receiving abiraterone alone was 27.4 versus 25.8 months in patients receiving abiraterone plus ADT (hazard ratio [HR] 1.10; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.65-1.71; p = 0.82). In addition, abiraterone alone was associated with an overall survival of 3.6 versus 3.1 years in patients receiving abiraterone plus ADT (HR 0.90; 95% CI 0.50-1.62; p = 0.72). There were no differences in PFS or OS between groups after performing Cox multivariable regression analyses.

CONCLUSION

Use of abiraterone alone was associated with comparable clinical outcomes to patients who received abiraterone together with ADT. Further prospective studies are warranted to evaluate the impact of abiraterone alone on treatment outcomes and cost savings.

A prospective, multicenter study on the clinical effectiveness of abiraterone in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer in Korea: Pre- vs. post-chemotherapy

PURPOSE

The proper treatment sequence for administering abiraterone acetate plus prednisolone (AAP) and chemotherapeutic agents has not yet been elucidated for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). Hence, this study evaluated the effectiveness and safety of AAP in pre- and post-chemotherapy settings using real-world data.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This prospective, multicenter, open-label, observational study included 506 patients with mCRPC. Patients were classified according to the timing of chemotherapy into pre- and post-chemotherapy groups. The effectiveness and safety of AAP were compared between the groups; the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) response, PSA progression-free survival, and radiologic progression-free survival were assessed; and adverse drug reactions were recorded.

RESULTS

Among the included patients, 319 and 187 belonged to the pre- and post-chemotherapy groups, respectively. Risk classification was similar between the two groups. The PSA response was 61.8% in the pre-chemotherapy group and 39.0% in the post-chemotherapy group (p<0.001). The median time to PSA progression (5.00 vs. 2.93 mo, p=0.001) and radiologic progression-free survival (11.84 vs. 9.17 mo, p=0.002) were significantly longer in the pre-chemotherapy group. Chemotherapy status was associated with PSA (hazard ratio [HR] 1.39, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.09-1.77) and radiologic progression (HR 1.66, 95% CI 1.18-2.33) during AAP treatment. Adverse drug reactions were reported at similar frequencies in both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

In this postmarketing surveillance, AAP benefited patients with mCRPC, especially in settings before chemotherapy was administered, resulting in a high PSA response and longer PSA and radiologic progression-free survival with tolerable adverse drug reactions.

[Systemic therapy for mHSPC: doublet or triplet therapy - who, when and how?]

At present, androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) as monotherapy for metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC) should be an exception. The new standard of care is a doublet combination consisting of ADT + a new hormonal agent (NHA) or ADT + chemotherapy. Contemporary investigations even recommend a triplet therapy consisting of ADT + NHA + chemotherapy for selected mHSPC patients. The current evolution of mHSPC therapy demands a pretherapeutic classification of mHSPC: "low" vs. "high risk", "low" vs. "high volume" and synchronous vs. metachronous mHSPC. Additionally, attention should be paid to the drug specific side effects and especially whether the patient is fit for chemotherapy. This article gives a concise overview of the key clinical trials, current guideline recommendations and drug approvals for Germany.

Copy number architectures define treatment-mediated selection of lethal prostate cancer clones

Despite initial responses to hormone treatment, metastatic prostate cancer invariably evolves to a lethal state. To characterize the intra-patient evolutionary relationships of metastases that evade treatment, we perform genome-wide copy number profiling and bespoke approaches targeting the androgen receptor (AR) on 167 metastatic regions from 11 organs harvested post-mortem from 10 men who died from prostate cancer. We identify diverse and patient-unique alterations clustering around the AR in metastases from every patient with evidence of independent acquisition of related genomic changes within an individual and, in some patients, the co-existence of AR-neutral clones. Using the genomic boundaries of pan-autosome copy number changes, we confirm a common clone of origin across metastases and diagnostic biopsies, and identified in individual patients, clusters of metastases occupied by dominant clones with diverged autosomal copy number alterations. These autosome-defined clusters are characterized by cluster-specific AR gene architectures, and in two index cases are topologically more congruent than by chance (p-values 3.07 × 10-8 and 6.4 × 10-4). Integration with anatomical sites suggests patterns of spread and points of genomic divergence. Here, we show that copy number boundaries identify treatment-selected clones with putatively distinct lethal trajectories.

Personalizing approaches to the management of metastatic hormone sensitive prostate cancer: role of advanced imaging, genetics and therapeutics

PURPOSE

To summarize contemporary and emerging strategies for the diagnosis and management of metastatic hormone sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC), focusing on diagnostic testing and therapeutics.

METHODS

Literature review using PUBMED-Medline databases as well as clinicaltrials.gov to include reported or ongoing clinical trials on treatment for mHSPC. We prioritized the findings from phase III randomized clinical trials, systematic reviews, meta-analyses and clinical practice guidelines.

RESULTS

There have been significant changes to the diagnosis and staging evaluation of mHSPC with the integration of increasingly accurate positron emission tomography (PET) imaging tracers that exceed the performance of conventional computerized tomography (CT) and bone scan. Germline multigene testing is recommended for the evaluation of patients newly diagnosed with mHSPC given the prevalence of actionable alterations that may create candidacy for specific therapies. Although androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) remains the backbone of treatment for mHSPC, approaches to first-line treatment include the integration of multiple agents including androgen receptor synthesis inhibitors (ARSI; abiraterone) Androgen Receptor antagonists (enzalutamide, darolutamide, apalautamide), and docetaxel chemotherapy. The combination of ADT, ARSI, and docetaxel chemotherapy has recently been evaluated in a randomized trial and was associated with significantly improved overall survival including in patients with a high burden of disease. The role of local treatment to the prostate with radiation has been evaluated in randomized trials with additional studies underway evaluating the role of cytoreductive radical prostatectomy.

CONCLUSION

The staging and initial management of patients with mHSPC has undergone significant advances in the last decade with advancements in the diagnosis, treatment and sequencing of therapies.

Current status and future perspectives of the managements of metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer

PURPOSE

The therapeutic landscape for metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC) has changed dramatically. Here, we provide the current status and future prospective of the management of mHSPC.

METHODS

We reviewed recent literature of landmark studies on the managements of mHSPC.

RESULTS

Upfront docetaxel or androgen receptor signaling inhibitor (ARSi) in addition to ADT has improved survival in mHSPC patients and has become the new standard of care. Triplet therapy with docetaxel, ARSi and ADT also improved survival. In the future, triplet therapy may become the standard of care. Oligometastatic mHSPC patients could benefit from local therapy. The inclusion of risk factors or the genetic biomarkers will provide the best treatment for individual mHSPC patients.

CONCLUSION

Strong systemic therapy in the first-line treatment of mHSPC has been shown to improve survival and quality of life. Currently, several clinical trials are evaluating novel compounds such as PARP inhibitor, AKT inhibitor, and immune checkpoint inhibitor. The therapeutic landscape of mHSPC management will change dramatically.

Transcriptomic Signatures Associated With Outcomes in Recurrent Prostate Cancer Treated With Salvage Radiation, Androgen-Deprivation Therapy, and Enzalutamide: Correlative Analysis of the STREAM Trial

PURPOSE

Men with rising prostate-specific antigen (PSA) after radical prostatectomy (RP) may progress despite radiation and androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT). Tissue-based transcriptomic signatures can identify who may benefit from a more aggressive systemic approach.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective analysis of a prospective phase II multicenter trial of enzalutamide, ADT, and salvage radiotherapy in men with rising PSA after RP. Tumor tissue was analyzed using the Decipher platform for gene expression, including a novel prostate subtyping classifier, PTEN loss, homologous recombination deficiency (HRD), and ADT response. Cox models were used to associate signature scores with progression-free survival (PFS).

RESULTS

Of the 38 men enrolled, 31 had tissue with sufficient-quality RNA for genomic analysis. Luminal differentiated (LD) subtype tumors had the longest 3-year PFS at 89% compared with 19% in the luminal proliferating subtype. Men with signatures of PTEN loss (hazard ratio [HR], 1.32; 95% CI, 1.07 to 1.64; P = .01) or HRD (HR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.05 to 1.39; P = .009) had worse PFS, while those with higher ADT response signature scores (HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.61 to 0.94; P = .01) were associated with improved PFS. Analysis of these signatures in a large cohort (n = 5,330) of RP samples from patients with biochemical recurrence found that these signatures provide complementary information related to outcomes with salvage radiation.

CONCLUSION

Despite aggressive systemic therapy with salvage radiation, nearly 50% of high-risk men relapse within 3 years. We show that LD and higher ADT sensitivity tumors had favorable outcomes. Those with a luminal proliferating subtype, PTEN loss, and/or HRD signatures had poor outcomes despite ADT/radiation and enzalutamide and may benefit from alternative approaches.

The Efficacy of Enzalutamide plus Androgen Deprivation Therapy in Oligometastatic Hormone-sensitive Prostate Cancer: A Post Hoc Analysis of ARCHES

BACKGROUND

Few phase 3 studies have evaluated optimal systemic treatment strategies for patients with oligometastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (HSPC), who may be at risk of undertreatment.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate outcomes for patients with oligometastatic and polymetastatic HSPC treated with enzalutamide plus androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) versus placebo plus ADT.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This was a post hoc analysis of data for 927 patients with nonvisceral metastatic HSPC in the ARCHES trial (NCT02677896).

INTERVENTION

Patients were randomized 1:1 to enzalutamide (160 mg/d orally) plus ADT or placebo plus ADT with HSPC categorized as oligometastatic (1-5 metastases) or polymetastatic (≥6 metastases).

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

The treatment effect on radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS), overall survival (OS), and secondary efficacy endpoints was evaluated in terms of the number of metastases. Safety was assessed. Cox proportional hazards models were used to generate hazard ratios (HRs). The Brookmeyer and Crowley method was used to generate 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for Kaplan-Meier median values.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

Enzalutamide plus ADT improved rPFS (HR 0.27, 95% CI 0.16-0.46; p < 0.001), OS (HR 0.59, 95% CI 0.40-0.87; p < 0.005), and secondary endpoints in patients with oligometastatic or polymetastatic disease (rPFS: HR 0.33, 95% CI 0.23-0.46; p < 0.001; OS: HR 0.55, 95% CI 0.41-0.74; p < 0.001). Safety profiles were generally similar across subgroups. Limitations include the small numbers of patients with fewer than three metastases.

CONCLUSIONS

This post hoc analysis demonstrated the utility of enzalutamide, irrespective of metastatic burden or type of oligometastatic disease, and suggests that earlier treatment intensification with systemic potent androgen receptor inhibition is advantageous.

PATIENT SUMMARY

This study considered two treatment options for metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer in patients with one to five metastases or six or more metastases. Treatment with enzalutamide plus ADT improved survival and other outcomes over ADT alone, whether patients had few or many metastases.

Based on ARASENS trial: efficacy and safety of darolutamide as an emerging option of endocrinotherapy for metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer-an updated systematic review and network meta-analysis

PURPOSE

The newly published ARASENS trial has demonstrated the clinical efficacy of darolutamide for metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC). However, the use of darolutamide as the latest first-line androgen receptor pathway inhibitor for mHSPC has not been compared with other androgen receptor targeted agents (ARTAs). Given the lack of head-to-head randomized trials, we performed this updated meta-analysis to conduct indirect comparison for the efficacy and safety of darolutamide with other new-generation ARTAs.

METHODS

By searching the databases of PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and Embase, 9 large randomized controlled trials evaluating ARTAs for mHSPC patients were eventually screened according to PRISMA. We extracted data from overall survival, castration-resistant progression, and adverse events for network meta-analysis using the Bayesian and standard frequentist models.

RESULTS

Darolutamide combination emerged with superiority (HR = 0.68, 95%CrI = 0.57-0.81) among four androgen receptor inhibitors for patients with high Gleason score (HR = 0.71, 95%CrI = 0.59-0.86). Darolutamide was best tolerated in several androgen suppression-related adverse events (AEs).

CONCLUSION

Darolutamide appears to be an optional androgen receptor inhibitor for mHSPC patients, especially for patients with Gleason score ≥ 8. Its well-tolerated characteristic may provide a preferred drug option for patients with poor cardiovascular function and bone health.

Mental health care utilization among men with castration-resistant prostate cancer receiving abiraterone or enzalutamide

BACKGROUND

Abiraterone and enzalutamide are castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) therapies with potentially distinct associations with mental health symptoms given their differing antiandrogen targets.

METHODS

We used national Veterans Health Administration data to identify patients with CRPC who received first-line abiraterone or enzalutamide from 2010 to 2017. Using Poisson regression, we compared outpatient mental health encounters per 100 patient-months on drug between the abiraterone and enzalutamide cohorts adjusting for patient factors (e.g., age). We compared mental health encounters in the year before versus after starting therapy using the McNemar test.

RESULTS

We identified 2902 CRPC patients who received abiraterone (n = 1992) or enzalutamide (n = 910). We found no difference in outpatient mental health encounters between the two groups (adjusted incident rate ratio [aIRR] 1.04, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.95-1.15). However, men with preexisting mental health diagnoses received 81.3% of the outpatient mental health encounters and had higher rates of these encounters with enzalutamide (aIRR 1.21, 95% CI 1.09-1.34). Among patients with ≥1 year of enrollment before and after starting abiraterone (n = 1139) or enzalutamide (n = 446), there was no difference in mental health care utilization before versus after starting treatment (17.0% of patients vs. 17.6%, p = 0.60, abiraterone; 16.4% vs. 18.4%, p = 0.26, enzalutamide).

CONCLUSION

We found no overall differences in mental health care utilization between CRPC patients who received first-line abiraterone versus enzalutamide. However, men with preexisting mental health diagnoses received the majority of mental health care and had more mental health visits with enzalutamide.

Disparities in Diagnosis, Treatment Access, and Time to Treatment Among Hispanic Men With Metastatic Prostate Cancer

PURPOSE

Reporting racial/ethnic disparities in aggregate obscures within-group heterogeneity. We sought to identify disparities in diagnosis and treatment in Hispanic subpopulations with metastatic prostate cancer (mPCa).

METHODS

We disaggregated men with prostate adenocarcinoma from the National Cancer Database from 2004 to 2017 by racial subgroup and Hispanic background. We assessed (1) presenting with mPCa, (2) receiving any treatment, and (3) receiving delayed treatment beyond 90 days. Logistic regression and adjusted odds ratios (aOR) were reported.

RESULTS

Hispanic men had greater odds of presenting with mPCa (aOR, 1.54; 95% CI, 1.50 to 1.58; P < .001) compared with non-Hispanic White (NHW) men. All Hispanic racial subgroups were more likely to present with mPCa, with the highest risk in Hispanic Black (HB) men (aOR, 1.68; 95% CI, 1.46 to 1.93; P < .01). Men from all Hispanic backgrounds had higher odds of presenting with mPCa, especially Mexican men (aOR, 1.99; 95% CI, 1.86 to 2.12; P < .01). Hispanic men were less likely to receive any treatment (aOR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.53 to 0.67; P < .001), and this effect was particularly strong for Hispanic White patients (aOR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.52 to 0.66; P < .001) and Dominican men (aOR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.28 to 0.98; P = .044). Hispanic men were more likely to experience treatment delays compared with NHW men (aOR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.26 to 1.52; P < .001) and in particular HB (aOR, 1.83; 95% CI, 1.22 to 2.75; P = .002) and South/Central American men (aOR, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.07 to 2.04; P = .018).

CONCLUSION

Differences exist in stage at presentation, treatment receipt, and delays in treatment on disaggregation by racial subgroup and Hispanic heritage. We need to study the potential mechanisms of the observed variations to help develop targeted interventions.

Bipolar Androgen Therapy: When Excess Fuel Extinguishes the Fire

Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) remains the cornerstone of advanced prostate cancer treatment. However, the progression towards castration-resistant prostate cancer is inevitable, as the cancer cells reactivate androgen receptor signaling and adapt to the castrate state through autoregulation of the androgen receptor. Additionally, the upfront use of novel hormonal agents such as enzalutamide and abiraterone acetate may result in long-term toxicities and may trigger the selection of AR-independent cells through "Darwinian" treatment-induced pressure. Therefore, it is crucial to develop new strategies to overcome these challenges. Bipolar androgen therapy (BAT) is one such approach that has been devised based on studies demonstrating the paradoxical inhibitory effects of supraphysiologic testosterone on prostate cancer growth, achieved through a variety of mechanisms acting in concert. BAT involves rapidly alternating testosterone levels between supraphysiological and near-castrate levels over a period of a month, achieved through monthly intramuscular injections of testosterone plus concurrent ADT. BAT is effective and well-tolerated, improving quality of life and potentially re-sensitizing patients to previous hormonal therapies after progression. By exploring the mechanisms and clinical evidence for BAT, this review seeks to shed light on its potential as a promising new approach to prostate cancer treatment.

Association of Second-generation Antiandrogens With Cognitive and Functional Toxic Effects in Randomized Clinical Trials: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Importance

The use of second-generation antiandrogens (AAs) in the treatment of prostate cancer is increasing. Retrospective evidence suggests an association between second-generation AAs and adverse cognitive and functional outcomes, but further data from prospective trials are needed.

Objective

To examine whether evidence from randomized clinical trials (RCTs) in prostate cancer supports an association between second-generation AAs and cognitive or functional toxic effects.

Data Sources

PubMed, EMBASE, and Scopus (inception to September 12, 2022).

Study Selection

Randomized clinical trials of second-generation AAs (abiraterone, apalutamide, darolutamide, or enzalutamide) among individuals with prostate cancer that reported cognitive toxic effects, asthenic toxic effects (eg, fatigue, weakness), or falls were evaluated.

Data Extraction and Synthesis

Study screening, data abstraction, and bias assessment were completed independently by 2 reviewers following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses and Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research reporting guidelines. Tabular counts for all-grade toxic effects were determined to test the hypothesis formulated before data collection.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Risk ratios (RRs) and SEs were calculated for cognitive toxic effects, asthenic toxic effects, and falls. Because fatigue was the asthenic toxic effect extracted from all studies, data on fatigue are specified in the results. Meta-analysis and meta-regression were used to generate summary statistics.

Results

The systematic review included 12 studies comprising 13 524 participants. Included studies had a low risk of bias. An increased risk of cognitive toxic effects (RR, 2.10; 95% CI, 1.30-3.38; P = .002) and fatigue (RR, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.16-1.54; P < .001) was noted among individuals treated with second-generation AAs vs those in the control arms. The findings were consistent in studies that included traditional hormone therapy in both treatment arms for cognitive toxic effects (RR, 1.77; 95% CI, 1.12-2.79; P = .01) and fatigue (RR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.10-1.58; P = .003). Meta-regression supported that, across studies, increased age was associated with a greater risk of fatigue with second-generation AAs (coefficient, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.04-0.12; P < .001). In addition, the use of second-generation AAs was associated with an increased risk of falls (RR, 1.87; 95% CI, 1.27-2.75; P = .001).

Conclusions and Relevance

The findings of this systematic review and meta-analysis suggest that second-generation AAs carry an increased risk of cognitive and functional toxic effects, including when added to traditional forms of hormone therapy.

The Intersection of Prostate Cancer and Hypertension: a Call to Action

OPINION STATEMENT

With improvements in treatment and survival from prostate cancer, comorbid cardiac conditions will significantly impact overall morbidity and mortality from prostate cancer. Hypertension is a well-established cardiovascular risk factor that increases the risk of heart failure, myocardial infarction, and stroke. Therapies used in the treatment of prostate cancer, including GnRH agonists, GnRH antagonists, enzalutamide, abiraterone, and others, can directly or indirectly increase the risk of hypertension. In this paper, we review the evidence available on the incidence and mechanism of hypertension in prostate cancer patients. In addition, we provide recommendations on the assessment, treatment, and future directions for hypertension management in the prostate cancer population. We propose an individualized goal for blood pressure in prostate cancer patients, balancing the target goal of 130/80 mmHg with common comorbidities of frailty, orthostatic symptoms, and imbalance in this population. The presence of additional comorbidities (myocardial infarction, heart failure, renal disease, diabetes) can assist in preference of anti-hypertensive drugs.

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.

Oligometastatic carcinoma prostate - An overview of the last decade

Introduction

Oligometastatic prostate cancer (OMPC) has gained profound interest lately due to its different tumor biology and our ability to use multimodality therapy for cure or prolonged survival. Selecting the appropriate patient for treatment has become the aim of treating urologists, medical oncologists, and radiation oncologists. Through this review, we try to highlight the management of OMPC in light of recent literature.

Methods

Literature search was performed on Pubmed, Scopus and Embase using keywords "Oligometastatic", " Prostate Cancer" using operators such as "And" & "Or". Relevant articles were screened and all the latest articles on this emerging entity were included in this review.

Results

All trials relevant to oligometastatic prostate cancer defining the role of surgery, radiotherapy and systemic therapy were included and appropriate inferences were drawn. Relevant studies were compiled in tabular form for this article.

Conclusion

The current standard of care of management for OMPC remains systemic therapy on the lines of hormone-sensitive metastatic prostate cancer. The evolving role of surgery, and radiotherapy along with systemic therapy is highlighted in this article.

Online error rate control for platform trials

Platform trials evaluate multiple experimental treatments under a single master protocol, where new treatment arms are added to the trial over time. Given the multiple treatment comparisons, there is the potential for inflation of the overall type I error rate, which is complicated by the fact that the hypotheses are tested at different times and are not necessarily pre-specified. Online error rate control methodology provides a possible solution to the problem of multiplicity for platform trials where a relatively large number of hypotheses are expected to be tested over time. In the online multiple hypothesis testing framework, hypotheses are tested one-by-one over time, where at each time-step an analyst decides whether to reject the current null hypothesis without knowledge of future tests but based solely on past decisions. Methodology has recently been developed for online control of the false discovery rate as well as the familywise error rate (FWER). In this article, we describe how to apply online error rate control to the platform trial setting, present extensive simulation results, and give some recommendations for the use of this new methodology in practice. We show that the algorithms for online error rate control can have a substantially lower FWER than uncorrected testing, while still achieving noticeable gains in power when compared with the use of a Bonferroni correction. We also illustrate how online error rate control would have impacted a currently ongoing platform trial.

Androgen deprivation therapy plus abiraterone or docetaxel as neoadjuvant therapy for very-high-risk prostate cancer: a pooled analysis of two phase II trials

Objective: The study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) with abiraterone or docetaxel versus ADT alone as neoadjuvant therapy in patients with very-high-risk localized prostate cancer. Methods: This was a pooled analysis of two single-center, randomized, controlled, phase II clinical trials (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04356430 and NCT04869371) conducted from December 2018 to March 2021. Eligible participants were randomly assigned to the intervention (ADT plus abiraterone or docetaxel) and control (ADT alone) groups at a 2:1 ratio. Efficacy was evaluated by pathological complete response (pCR), minimal residual disease (MRD), and 3-year biochemical progression-free survival (bPFS). Safety was also analyzed. Results: The study included 42 participants in the ADT group, 47 in the ADT plus docetaxel group, and 48 in the ADT plus abiraterone group. A total of 132 (96.4%) participants had very-high-risk prostate cancer, and 108 (78.8%) had locally advanced disease. The ADT plus docetaxel group (28%) and ADT plus abiraterone group (31%) had higher rates of pCR or MRD (p = 0.001 and p < 0.001) compared with the ADT group (2%). The 3-year bPFS was 41.9% (95% CI: 26.6-57.2), 51.1% (95% CI: 36.8-65.4), and 61.2% (95% CI: 45.5-76.9), respectively. Significant difference was found among groups in terms of bPFS (p = 0.037). Conclusion: Compared with ADT alone, neoadjuvant therapy with ADT plus docetaxel or abiraterone could achieve better pathological outcomes (pCR or MRD) for very-high-risk localized prostate cancer. The ADT plus abiraterone group showed longer bPFS than ADT alone. The combination regimens were tolerable.

Factors Associated with Long-Term Prostate Cancer Survival after Palliative Radiotherapy to a Bone Metastasis and Contemporary Palliative Systemic Therapy: A Retrospective, Population-Based Study

BACKGROUND

Radiation therapy (RT) is an established palliative treatment for bone metastases; however, little is known about post-radiation survival and factors which impact it. The aim of this study was to assess a population-based sample of metastatic prostate cancer patients receiving palliative radiation therapy to bone metastases and contemporary palliative systemic therapy and identify factors that impact long-term survival.

MATERIALS/METHODS

This retrospective, population-based, cohort study assessed all prostate cancer patients receiving palliative RT for bone metastases at a Canadian provincial Cancer program during a contemporary time period. Baseline patient, disease, and treatment characteristics were extracted from the provincial medical physics databases and the electronic medical record. Post-RT Survival intervals were defined as the time interval from the first fraction of palliative RT to death from any cause or date of the last known follow-up. The median survival of the cohort was used to dichotomize the cohort into short- and long-term survivors following RT. Univariable and multivariable hazard regression analyses were performed to identify variables associated with post-RT survival.

RESULTS

From 1 January 2018 until 31 December 2019, 545 palliative RT courses for bone metastases were delivered to n = 274 metastatic prostate cancer patients with a median age of 76 yrs (Interquartile range (IQR) 39-83) and a median follow-up of 10.6 months (range 0.2 to 47.9). The median survival of the cohort was 10.6 months (IQR 3.5-25 months). The ECOG performance status of the whole cohort was ≤2 in n = 200 (73%) and 3-4 in n = 67 (24.5%). The most commonly treated sites of bone metastasis were the pelvis and lower extremities n = 130 (47.4%), skull and spine n = 114 (41.6%), and chest and upper extremities n = 30 (10.9%). Most patients had CHAARTED high volume disease n = 239 (87.2%). On multivariable hazard regression analysis, an ECOG performance status of 3-4 (p = 0.02), CHAARTED high volume disease burden (p = 0.023), and non-receipt of systemic therapy (p = 0.006) were significantly associated with worse post-RT survival.

CONCLUSION

Amongst metastatic prostate cancer patients treated with palliative radiotherapy to bone metastases and modern palliative systemic therapies, ECOG performance status, CHAARTED metastatic disease burden, and type of first-line palliative systemic therapy were significantly associated with post-RT survival durations.

Chemotherapy for the initial treatment of metastatic prostate adenocarcinoma and neuroendocrine carcinoma at diagnosis: real world application and impact in the SEER database (2004 -2018)

Background

Randomized controlled phase III trials have reported significant improvements in disease response and survival with the addition of chemotherapy to androgen deprivation therapy for men presenting with metastatic prostate cancer. We examined the implementation of such knowledge and its impact within the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database.

Method

The administration of chemotherapy for men with an initial presentation of metastatic prostate cancer from 2004 to 2018 in the SEER database and its association with survival outcomes was examined. Kaplan-Meier estimates were applied to compare survival curves. Cox proportion hazard survival models were used to analyze the association of chemotherapy and other variables with both cancer- specific and overall survival.

Result

A total of 727,804 patients were identified with 99.9% presenting with adenocarcinoma and 0.1% with neuroendocrine histopathology. Chemotherapy as initial treatment for men with de novo distant metastatic adenocarcinoma increased from 5.8% during 2004-2013 to 21.4% during 2014-2018. Chemotherapy was associated with a poorer prognosis during 2004-2013 but was associated with improved cancer-specific (hazard ratio (HR) = 0.85, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.78-0.93, p=0.0004) and overall survival (HR= 0.78, 95% CI: 0.71-0.85, p < 0.0001) during 2014-2018. The improved prognosis during 2014-2018 was observed in patients with visceral or bone metastasis and most impactful for patients aged 71-80 years. These findings were confirmed by subsequent propensity score matching analyses. Furthermore, chemotherapy was consistently provided to 54% of patients with neuroendocrine carcinoma at diagnosis from 2004 to 2018. Treatment was associated with improved cancer-specific survival (HR= 0.62, 95% CI: 0.45-0.87, p=0.0055) and overall survival (HR= 0.69, 95% CI: 0.51-0. 94, p=0.0176) during 2014-2018 but not significant in earlier years.

Conclusion

Chemotherapy at initial diagnosis was increasingly employed in men with metastatic adenocarcinoma after 2014 and consistent with the evolution of National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines. Benefits for chemotherapy are suggested after 2014 in the treatment of men with metastatic adenocarcinoma. The use of chemotherapy for neuroendocrine carcinoma at diagnosis has remained stable, and outcomes have improved in more recent years. Further development and optimization of chemotherapy continues to evolve for men with de novo diagnosis of metastatic prostate cancer.

Impact of Concomitant Prostate Cancer Medications on Efficacy and Safety of Relugolix Versus Leuprolide in Men With Advanced Prostate Cancer

BACKGROUND

To characterize the impact of concomitant prostate cancer treatments with the use of relugolix, the oral GnRH receptor antagonist, in advanced prostate cancer, a subgroup and pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic analyses of the HERO study was undertaken.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Overall, 934 patients were randomized 2:1 to receive relugolix 120 mg orally once daily or leuprolide injections every 12 weeks for 48 weeks. In the setting of rising PSA, patients could receive enzalutamide or docetaxel 2 months after study initiation. Assessments included sustained testosterone suppression to castrate levels (<50 ng/dL) through 48 weeks and safety parameters. Subgroups analyzed included patients with or without concomitant enzalutamide or docetaxel. A sensitivity analysis of the primary endpoint was performed excluding patients who received concomitant therapies that may affect testosterone. Pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic analyses of 20 participants in the relugolix treatment group assessed the net effect of enzalutamide on exposure to relugolix.

RESULTS

Overall, 125 patients (13.4%) took concomitant therapies that could impact testosterone levels. Enzalutamide (n = 23) was the most frequently used therapy in the relugolix (2.7%) and leuprolide groups (1.9%). Docetaxel (n = 13) was used by 1.3% and 1.6% of patients in the relugolix and leuprolide groups, respectively. All other relevant concomitant therapy were used in <1% of population. Sensitivity analysis showed concomitant therapy did not impact the testosterone levels. Castration rates were similar with and without concomitant use of enzalutamide or docetaxel. No clinically relevant differences in adverse events were observed between subgroups in either treatment group. No differences in relugolix Ctrough or testosterone concentrations were observed, suggesting that any induction or inhibition properties of enzalutamide on relugolix metabolism result in a neutral net effect on relugolix exposure and testosterone suppression.

CONCLUSION

Treatment with relugolix was associated with similar efficacy and safety profiles with and without concomitant enzalutamide or docetaxel. Standard-of-care use of relugolix in combination with these agents is supported by these data.

Emerging treatment options for prostate cancer

INTRODUCTION

Prostate cancer treatment has rapidly evolved in the past few years. Androgen deprivation therapy has been the backbone of treatment for locally advanced and metastatic prostate cancer, but incremental benefits in survival have been shown by adding androgen-receptor pathway inhibitors (ARPI) across various spectrums of disease state. In addition, docetaxel chemotherapy remains the first-line chemotherapy regimen available with survival benefits shown with triplet therapy in those who are chemotherapy eligible. However, disease progression remains inevitable and novel agents such as radioligand therapy with lutetium have shown improvement in survival.

AREAS COVERED

This review discusses the pivotal trials that led to the U.S. FDA approval of agents utilized in metastatic prostate cancer and explores the use of novel agents including prostate-specific membrane antigen-targeting agents, radioligands, cell-based therapy, chimeric antigen receptor T-cell, BiTE, and antibody drug conjugates.

EXPERT OPINION

Treatment landscape for metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) has evolved beyond additional agents with ARPI and/or docetaxel, including other treatments with sipuleucel-T, radium, cabazitaxel, PARP inhibitors, and lutetium, which have specific indications and roles in sequencing. Novel therapies remain critically needed after progression from lutetium.

225Ac-PSMA-617 radioligand therapy of de novo metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate carcinoma (mHSPC): preliminary clinical findings

PURPOSE

225Ac-PSMA-617 has demonstrated good anti-tumor effect as a treatment option for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) patients. No study has previously assessed treatment outcome and survival following 225Ac-PSMA-617 treatment of de novo metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate carcinoma (mHSPC) patients. Based on the potential side effects that are known and explained to the patients by the oncologist, some of the patients refused the standard treatment and are seeking alternative therapies. Thus, we report our preliminary findings in a retrospective series of 21 mHSPC patients that refused standard treatment options and were treated with 225Ac-PSMA-617.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed patients with histologically confirmed de novo treatment-naïve bone ± visceral mHSPC that were treated with 225Ac-PSMA-617 radioligand therapy (RLT). Inclusion criteria included an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0 to 2, treatment-naive bone ± visceral mHSPC, and patients refusal for ADT ± docetaxel, abiraterone acetate, or enzalutamide. We evaluated the response to treatment using prostate-specific antigen (PSA) response and the progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) as well as the toxicities.

RESULTS

Twenty-one mHSPC patients were included in this preliminary work. Following treatment, twenty patients (95%) had any decline in PSA and eighteen patients (86%) presented with a PSA decline of ≥ 50% including 4 patients in whom PSA became undetectable. A lower percentage decrease in PSA following treatment was associated with increased mortality and shorter progression-free survival. Overall, administration of 225Ac-PSMA-617 was well tolerated. The commonest toxicity seen was grade I/II dry mouth observed in 94% of patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Given these favorable results, randomized prospective multicenter trials assessing the clinical value of 225Ac-PSMA-617 as a therapeutic agent for mHSPC administered either as monotherapy or administered concomitant with ADT are of interest.

A synthetic lethal screen for Snail-induced enzalutamide resistance identifies JAK/STAT signaling as a therapeutic vulnerability in prostate cancer

Despite substantial improvements in the treatment landscape of prostate cancer, the evolution of hormone therapy-resistant and metastatic prostate cancer remains a major cause of cancer-related death globally. The mainstay of treatment for advanced prostate cancer is targeting of androgen receptor signaling, including androgen deprivation therapy plus second-generation androgen receptor blockade (e.g., enzalutamide, apalutamide, darolutamide), and/or androgen synthesis inhibition (abiraterone). While these agents have significantly prolonged the lives of patients with advanced prostate cancer, is nearly universal. This therapy resistance is mediated by diverse mechanisms, including both androgen receptor-dependent mechanisms, such as androgen receptor mutations, amplifications, alternative splicing, and amplification, as well as non-androgen receptor-mediated mechanisms, such as lineage plasticity toward neuroendocrine-like or epithelial-mesenchymal transition (EMT)-like lineages. Our prior work identified the EMT transcriptional regulator Snail as critical to hormonal therapy resistance and is commonly detected in human metastatic prostate cancer. In the current study, we sought to interrogate the actionable landscape of EMT-mediated hormone therapy resistant prostate cancer to identify synthetic lethality and collateral sensitivity approaches to treating this aggressive, therapy-resistant disease state. Using a combination of high-throughput drug screens and multi-parameter phenotyping by confluence imaging, ATP production, and phenotypic plasticity reporters of EMT, we identified candidate synthetic lethalities to Snail-mediated EMT in prostate cancer. These analyses identified multiple actionable targets, such as XPO1, PI3K/mTOR, aurora kinases, c-MET, polo-like kinases, and JAK/STAT as synthetic lethalities in Snail+ prostate cancer. We validated these targets in a subsequent validation screen in an LNCaP-derived model of resistance to sequential androgen deprivation and enzalutamide. This follow-up screen provided validation of inhibitors of JAK/STAT and PI3K/mTOR as therapeutic vulnerabilities for both Snail+ and enzalutamide-resistant prostate cancer.

Trends in the Use of Second-Generation Androgen Receptor Axis Inhibitors for Metastatic Hormone-Sensitive Prostate Cancer and Clinical Factors Predicting Biological Recurrence

The advent of second-generation androgen receptor axis-targeted agents (ARATs) has revolutionized the treatment of metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC). Biochemical recurrence-free survival (BRFS) was used to compare the efficacy of each ARAT. This multicenter retrospective study included 581 patients with newly diagnosed mHSPC who received first-line hormone therapy. The characteristics of patients treated with different ARATs were compared as well as changes in the usage of each drug over time. For BRFS, the apalutamide (Apa) and enzalutamide (Enza) groups, as well as the abiraterone acetate (Abi) and Apa/Enza groups, were compared. In addition, multivariate analysis was performed to determine predictive factors for biochemical recurrence (BCR). The use of second-generation ARATs tended to increase after May 2020. No significant difference in BRFS was found between patients receiving Apa and Enza (p = 0.490) and those receiving Abi or Apa/Enza (p = 0.906). Multivariate analysis revealed that the neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) ≥ 2.76 and PSA ≥ 0.550 ng/mL were independent predictors of BCR. There were no significant differences in patient characteristics or BRFS in patients with mHSPC receiving different ARATs as first-line treatment. NLR and PSA may be prognostic factors following the first-line treatment of patients with mHSPC.

Abiraterone acetate plus prednisolone with or without enzalutamide for patients with metastatic prostate cancer starting androgen deprivation therapy: final results from two randomised phase 3 trials of the STAMPEDE platform protocol

BACKGROUND

Abiraterone acetate plus prednisolone (herein referred to as abiraterone) or enzalutamide added at the start of androgen deprivation therapy improves outcomes for patients with metastatic prostate cancer. Here, we aimed to evaluate long-term outcomes and test whether combining enzalutamide with abiraterone and androgen deprivation therapy improves survival.

METHODS

We analysed two open-label, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trials of the STAMPEDE platform protocol, with no overlapping controls, conducted at 117 sites in the UK and Switzerland. Eligible patients (no age restriction) had metastatic, histologically-confirmed prostate adenocarcinoma; a WHO performance status of 0-2; and adequate haematological, renal, and liver function. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) using a computerised algorithm and a minimisation technique to either standard of care (androgen deprivation therapy; docetaxel 75 mg/m² intravenously for six cycles with prednisolone 10 mg orally once per day allowed from Dec 17, 2015) or standard of care plus abiraterone acetate 1000 mg and prednisolone 5 mg (in the abiraterone trial) orally or abiraterone acetate and prednisolone plus enzalutamide 160 mg orally once a day (in the abiraterone and enzalutamide trial). Patients were stratified by centre, age, WHO performance status, type of androgen deprivation therapy, use of aspirin or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, pelvic nodal status, planned radiotherapy, and planned docetaxel use. The primary outcome was overall survival assessed in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was assessed in all patients who started treatment. A fixed-effects meta-analysis of individual patient data was used to compare differences in survival between the two trials. STAMPEDE is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT00268476) and ISRCTN (ISRCTN78818544).

FINDINGS

Between Nov 15, 2011, and Jan 17, 2014, 1003 patients were randomly assigned to standard of care (n=502) or standard of care plus abiraterone (n=501) in the abiraterone trial. Between July 29, 2014, and March 31, 2016, 916 patients were randomly assigned to standard of care (n=454) or standard of care plus abiraterone and enzalutamide (n=462) in the abiraterone and enzalutamide trial. Median follow-up was 96 months (IQR 86-107) in the abiraterone trial and 72 months (61-74) in the abiraterone and enzalutamide trial. In the abiraterone trial, median overall survival was 76·6 months (95% CI 67·8-86·9) in the abiraterone group versus 45·7 months (41·6-52·0) in the standard of care group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·62 [95% CI 0·53-0·73]; p<0·0001). In the abiraterone and enzalutamide trial, median overall survival was 73·1 months (61·9-81·3) in the abiraterone and enzalutamide group versus 51·8 months (45·3-59·0) in the standard of care group (HR 0·65 [0·55-0·77]; p<0·0001). We found no difference in the treatment effect between these two trials (interaction HR 1·05 [0·83-1·32]; p_interaction=0·71) or between-trial heterogeneity (I² p=0·70). In the first 5 years of treatment, grade 3-5 toxic effects were higher when abiraterone was added to standard of care (271 [54%] of 498 vs 192 [38%] of 502 with standard of care) and the highest toxic effects were seen when abiraterone and enzalutamide were added to standard of care (302 [68%] of 445 vs 204 [45%] of 454 with standard of care). Cardiac causes were the most common cause of death due to adverse events (five [1%] with standard of care plus abiraterone and enzalutamide [two attributed to treatment] and one (<1%) with standard of care in the abiraterone trial).

INTERPRETATION

Enzalutamide and abiraterone should not be combined for patients with prostate cancer starting long-term androgen deprivation therapy. Clinically important improvements in survival from addition of abiraterone to androgen deprivation therapy are maintained for longer than 7 years.

FUNDING

Cancer Research UK, UK Medical Research Council, Swiss Group for Clinical Cancer Research, Janssen, and Astellas.

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.

Methodology and design of platform trials: a meta-epidemiological study

OBJECTIVES

Adaptive platforms allow for the evaluation of multiple interventions at a lower cost and have been growing in popularity, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic. The objective of this review is to summarize published platform trials, examine specific methodological design features among these studies, and hopefully aid readers in the evaluation and interpretation of platform trial results.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review of EMBASE, MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and clinicaltrials.gov from January 2015 to January 2022 for protocols or results of platform trials. Pairs of reviewers, working independently and in duplicate, collected data on trial characteristics of trial registrations, protocols, and publications of platform trials. We reported our results using total numbers and percentages, as well as medians with interquartile range (IQR) when appropriate.

RESULTS

We identified 15,277 unique search records and screened 14,403 titles and abstracts after duplicates were removed. We identified 98 unique randomized platform trials. Sixteen platform trials were sourced from a systematic review completed in 2019, which included platform trials reported prior to 2015. Most platform trials (n = 67, 68.3%) were registered between 2020 and 2022, coinciding with the COVID-19 pandemic. The included platform trials primarily recruited or plan to recruit patients from North America or Europe, with most subjects being recruited from the United States (n = 39, 39.7%) and the United Kingdom (n = 31, 31.6%). Bayesian methods were used in 28.6% (n = 28) of platform RCTs and frequentist methods in 66.3% (n = 65) of trials, including 1 (1%) that used methods from both paradigms. Out of the twenty-five trials with peer-reviewed publication of results, seven trials used Bayesian methods (28%), and of those, two (8%) used a predefined sample size calculation while the remainder used pre-specified probabilities of futility, harm, or benefit calculated at (pre-specified) intervals to inform decisions about stopping interventions or the entire trial. Seventeen (68%) peer-reviewed publications used frequentist methods. Out of the seven published Bayesian trials, seven (100%) reported thresholds for benefit. The threshold for benefit ranged from 80% to >99%.

CONCLUSION

We identified and summarized key components of platform trials, including the basics of the methodological and statistical considerations. Ultimately, improving standardization and reporting in platform trials require an understanding of the current landscape. We provide the most updated and rigorous review of platform trials to date.

Management of Prostate Cancer in Older Adults

The majority of men with prostate cancer are diagnosed when they are older than 65 years; however, clinical trial participants are disproportionately younger and more fit than the real-world population treated in typical clinical practices. It is, therefore, unknown whether the optimal approach to prostate cancer treatment is the same for older men as it is for younger and/or more fit men. Short screening tools can be used to efficiently assess frailty, functional status, life expectancy, and treatment toxicity risk. These risk assessment tools allow for targeted interventions to increase a patient's reserve and improve treatment tolerance, potentially allowing more men to experience the benefit of the significant recent treatment advances in prostate cancer. Treatment plans should also take into consideration each patient's individual goals and values considered within their overall health and social context to reduce barriers to care. In this review, we will discuss evidence-based risk assessment and decision tools for older men with prostate cancer, highlight intervention strategies to improve treatment tolerance, and contextualize these tools within the current treatment landscape for prostate cancer.

Effects of In-office Dispensing by Single-specialty Urology Practices on Management of Advanced Prostate Cancer

INTRODUCTION

We examine changes in the volume of patients with advanced prostate cancer and prescriptions for abiraterone and enzalutamide among urology practices with and without in-office dispensing.

METHODS

Using data from the National Council for Prescription Drug Programs, we identified in-office dispensing by single-specialty urology practices from 2011 to 2018. As the greatest growth in implementing dispensing occurred among large groups in 2015, outcomes were measured at the practice level in 2014 (before) and 2016 (after) for dispensing and non-dispensing practices. Outcomes included the volume of men with advanced prostate cancer managed by a practice and prescriptions for abiraterone and/or enzalutamide. Using national Medicare data, generalized linear mixed models were fit to compare the practice-level ratio of each outcome (2016 relative to 2014) adjusting for regional contextual factors.

RESULTS

In-office dispensing increased from 1% to 30% of single-specialty urology practices from 2011 to 2018, with 28 practices implementing dispensing in 2015. In 2016 compared to 2014, adjusted changes in the volume of patients with advanced prostate cancer managed by a practice were similar between non-dispensing (0.88, 95% CI 0.81-0.94) and dispensing (0.93, 95% CI 0.76-1.09) practices (P = .60). Prescriptions for abiraterone and/or enzalutamide increased in both non-dispensing (2.00, 95% CI 1.58-2.41) and dispensing (8.99, 95% CI 4.51-13.47) practices (P < .01).

CONCLUSIONS

In-office dispensing is increasingly common in urology practices. This emerging model is not associated with changes in patient volume but is associated with increased prescriptions for abiraterone and enzalutamide.

First-line Systemic Treatment Options for Metastatic Castration-Sensitive Prostate Cancer: A Living Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis

Importance

The effectiveness of triplet therapy compared with androgen pathway inhibitor (API) doublets in a heterogeneous patient population with metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC) is unknown.

Objective

To assess the comparative effectiveness of contemporary systemic treatment options for patients with mCSPC across clinically relevant subgroups.

Data Sources

For this systematic review and meta-analysis, Ovid MEDLINE and Embase were searched from each database's inception (MEDLINE, 1946; Embase, 1974) through June 16, 2021. Subsequently, a "living" auto search was created with weekly updates to identify new evidence as it became available.

Study Selection

Phase 3 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) assessing first-line treatment options for mCSPC.

Data Extraction and Synthesis

Two independent reviewers extracted data from eligible RCTs. The comparative effectiveness of different treatment options was assessed with a fixed-effect network meta-analysis. Data were analyzed on July 10, 2022.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Outcomes of interest included overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), grade 3 or higher adverse events, and health-related quality of life.

Results

This report included 10 RCTs with 11 043 patients and 9 unique treatment groups. Median ages of the included population ranged from 63 to 70 years. Current evidence for the overall population suggests that the darolutamide (DARO) triplet (DARO + docetaxel [D] + androgen deprivation therapy [ADT]; hazard ratio [HR], 0.68; 95% CI, 0.57-0.81), as well as the abiraterone (AAP) triplet (AAP + D + ADT; HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.59-0.95), are associated with improved OS compared with D doublet (D + ADT) but not compared with API doublets. Among patients with high-volume disease, AAP + D + ADT may improve OS compared with D + ADT (HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.55-0.95) but not compared with AAP + ADT, enzalutamide (E) + ADT, and apalutamide (APA) + ADT. For patients with low-volume disease, AAP + D + ADT may not improve OS compared with APA + ADT, AAP + ADT, E + ADT, and D + ADT.

Conclusions and Relevance

The potential benefit observed with triplet therapy must be interpreted with careful accounting for the volume of disease and the choice of doublet comparisons used in the clinical trials. These findings suggest an equipoise to how triplet regimens compare with API doublet combinations and provide direction for future clinical trials.

Treatments and challenges in advanced prostate cancer

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review is designed to highlight recent research examining treatment progress in advanced prostate cancer while identifying ongoing challenges to clinical outcomes.

RECENT FINDINGS

Recent randomized trials suggest an overall survival advantage to treating some men with newly identified metastatic prostate cancer with a "triplet" of androgen deprivation therapy, docetaxel, and an androgen receptor axis-targeted agent. Questions remain about which men are best served by these combinations. Additional treatment success is being identified with prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography (PSMA)-radiopharmaceuticals, combinations involving targeted therapies, and novel manipulations of the androgen receptor axis. Challenges remain in selecting between available therapies, harnessing immune therapies, and treating tumors with emergent neuroendocrine differentiation.

SUMMARY

An expanding number of therapeutics are becoming available for men with advanced prostate cancer improving outcomes but at the same time making treatment selection more demanding. Ongoing research will be required to continue to hone treatment paradigms.

Docetaxel versus abiraterone for metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer with focus on efficacy of sequential therapy

PURPOSE

We aimed to assess the oncologic efficacy of combining docetaxel (DOC) versus abiraterone (ABI) with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) in patients with high-risk metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC), with a focus on the efficacy of sequential therapy, in a real-world clinical practice setting.

METHODS

The records of 336 patients who harbored de novo high-risk mHSPC, based on the LATITUDE criteria, and had received ADT with either DOC (n = 109) or ABI (n = 227) were retrospectively analyzed. Overall survival (OS), cancer-specific survival (CSS), progression-free survival (PFS), including time to castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC), time to 2nd-line progression (PFS2), and 2nd- and 3rd-line PFS, were compared. We used one-to-two propensity score matching to minimize the confounders. The differential efficacy of 2nd-line therapy based on agents in each arm was evaluated using the unmatched cohort as an additional interest.

RESULTS

After propensity score matching, 86 patients treated with DOC + ADT and 172 with ABI + ADT were available for analyses. The 3-year OS and CSS for DOC versus ABI were 76.2% versus 75.1% (p = 0.8) and 78.2% versus 78.6% (p = 1), respectively. There was no difference in the median PFS2 (49 vs. 43 months, p = 0.39), while the median time to CRPC in patients treated with ABI was significantly longer compared to those treated with DOC (42 vs. 22 months; p = 0.006). The median 2nd-line PFS (14 vs. 4 months, p < 0.001) and 3rd-line PFS (4 vs. 2 months, p = 0.012) were significantly better in the DOC group than in the ABI group. Among the unmatched cohort, after ABI for mHSPC, the median 2nd-line PFS did not differ between the patients treated with DOC and those treated with enzalutamide as 2nd-line therapy (both 3 months, p = 0.8).

CONCLUSIONS

ADT with DOC or ABI has comparable oncologic outcomes in terms of OS, CSS, and PFS2 in patients with de novo high-risk mHSPC. Compared to DOC, ABI resulted in longer time to CRPC but worse 2nd and 3rd-line PFS. Further studies are needed to clarify the optimal sequence of therapy in the upfront intensive treatment era.

[Novel hormone treatment for advanced prostate cancer]

The systemic treatment of advanced prostate cancer (PCa) has undergone an absolute revolution in the past decade. Numerous new substances have been approved for all stages of advanced disease and treatment has been increasingly intensified. The focus continues to be on substances with an effect on the androgen receptor axis. In this review, approved treatment options for metastatic hormone-sensitive PCa (mHSPC), non-metastatic castration-refractory PCa (nmCRPC) and metastatic castration-refractory PCa (mCRPC) are summarized. A special focus is on novel hormone therapeutic agents. Based on recent trial data, potential triple combinations for mHSPC as well as treatment sequence options and novel targeted agents for mCRPC are also highlighted.

Visceral Metastasis Predicts Response to New Hormonal Agents in Metastatic Castration-Sensitive Prostate Cancer

Visceral metastasis (VM) and a higher number of bone metastasis generally define high volume/risk in patients with metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC). Subgroup analysis of pivotal trials did not show a clear benefit of second-generation non-steroidal anti-androgens (NSAAs) in patients with VM. However, subgroup analysis of the trial assessing abiraterone acetate, a CYP 17 inhibitor, plus prednisone (AAP) showed an improved overall survival (OS) in patients with mCSPC with VM. We searched MEDLINE, Web of Science, and congress abstracts for the phase III randomized controlled trials of second-generation NSAAs and AAP in patients with mCSPC. In this pooled analysis, we included 6485 patients from the 6 phase III trials. The rate of patients with VM was 15.2%. Interestingly, in contrast to NSAAs, AAP seems to be effective in improving OS among patients with VM (hazard ratio, HR: 0.89, 95% CI, 0.72-1.11, P = .30 for second-generation NSAAs; HR: 0.58, 95% CI, 0.40-0.84, P = .004 for AAP). In contrast, both second-generation NSAAs (HR: 0.63, 95% CI, 0.57-0.70, P < .001) and AAP (HR: 0.68, 95% CI, 0.57-0.81, P < .001) improved OS in patients without VM. In this pooled analysis, we demonstrate that while AAP provided an OS improvement in patients with VM, second-generation NSAAs did not demonstrate a similar OS benefit in this population.

Triplet Therapy in Metastatic Castrate Sensitive Prostate Cancer (mCSPC)-A Potential New Standard of Care

The treatment paradigm for metastatic castrate-sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC) has evolved rapidly in the past decade with the approval of several life-prolonging therapies including docetaxel chemotherapy and multiple androgen receptor pathway inhibitors (ARPI) in combination with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). Recently reported phase-three trials have demonstrated a survival benefit of upfront triplet therapy with ADT, docetaxel plus either abiraterone acetate or darolutamide when compared to ADT plus docetaxel alone. However, multiple questions including the incremental benefit of docetaxel to a combination of ADT and ARPI, the timing of ARPI, optimal patient selection for triplet therapy and clinical and genomic biomarkers still remain to be answered. Moreover, real-world data suggest suboptimal treatment intensification with many patients treated with ADT alone highlighting challenges in implementation. In this article, we review the phase-three data associated with triplet therapy in mCSPC. We also discuss the knowledge gaps that exist despite the completion of these studies and how ongoing studies are likely to change the paradigm in the near future. Finally, we provide a simple algorithm based on current data that clinicians can use in daily practice to select patients for appropriate treatment strategies.

Zn2+-interference and H2S-mediated gas therapy based on ZnS-tannic acid nanoparticles synergistic enhancement of cell apoptosis for specific treatment of prostate cancer

Zn²⁺ and H₂S are essential to maintain normal prostate function, and sometimes can evolve into weapons to attack and destroy prostate cancer (PCa) cells. Nevertheless, how to achieve the targeted and effective release of Zn²⁺ and H₂S, and reverse the concentration distribution within PCa tumor cells still highly challenging. Herein, combined with these pathological characteristics of prostate, we proposed a tumor microenvironment (TME) responsive Zn²⁺-interference and H₂S-mediated gas synergistic therapy strategy based on a nanoplatform of tannic acid (TA) modified zinc sulfide nanoparticles (ZnS@TA) for the specific treatment of PCa. Once the constructed pH-responsive ZnS@TA internalized by cancer cells, it would instantaneously decomposed in acidic TME, and explosively release excess Zn²⁺ and H₂S exceeding the cell self-regulation threshold. Meanwhile, the in situ produced Zn²⁺ and H₂S synergistic enhancement of cell apoptosis, which is evidenced to increase levels of Bax and Bax/Bcl-2 ratio, release of Cytochrome c in cancer cells, contributing to inhibit the growth of tumor. Moreover, the TA in cooperation with Zn²⁺ specifically limits the migration and invasion of PCa cells. Both in vitro and in vivo results demonstrate that the Zn²⁺-interference in combination with H₂S-mediated gas therapy achieves an excellent anti-tumor performance. Overall, this nanotheranostic synergistic therapy provides a promising direction for exploring new strategies for cancer treatment based on specific tumor pathological characteristics, and provides a new vision for promoting practical cancer therapy.

Cancer-associated fibroblast-secreted glucosamine alters the androgen biosynthesis program in prostate cancer via HSD3B1 upregulation

After androgen deprivation, prostate cancer frequently becomes castration resistant (CRPC), with intratumoral androgen production from extragonadal precursors that activate the androgen receptor pathway. 3β-Hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase-1 (3βHSD1) is the rate-limiting enzyme for extragonadal androgen synthesis, which together lead to CRPC. Here, we show that cancer-associated fibroblasts (CAFs) increased epithelial 3βHSD1 expression, induced androgen synthesis, activated the androgen receptor, and induced CRPC. Unbiased metabolomics revealed that CAF-secreted glucosamine specifically induced 3βHSD1. CAFs induced higher GlcNAcylation in cancer cells and elevated expression of the transcription factor Elk1, which induced higher 3βHSD1 expression and activity. Elk1 genetic ablation in cancer epithelial cells suppressed CAF-induced androgen biosynthesis in vivo. In patient samples, multiplex fluorescent imaging showed that tumor cells expressed more 3βHSD1 and Elk1 in CAF-enriched areas compared with CAF-deficient areas. Our findings suggest that CAF-secreted glucosamine increases GlcNAcylation in prostate cancer cells, promoting Elk1-induced HSD3B1 transcription, which upregulates de novo intratumoral androgen synthesis to overcome castration.

Unravelling oligometastatic disease from the perspective of radiation and medical oncology. Part II: prostate cancer and colorectal cancer

Oligometastatic disease (OMD) defines a status of cancer that is intermediate between localized and widely spread metastatic disease, and can be treated with curative intent. While imaging diagnostic tools have considerably improved in recent years, unidentified micrometastases can still escape from current detection techniques allowing disease to progress. The variety of OMD scenarios are mainly defined by the number of metastases, the biological and molecular tumour profiles, and the timing of the development of metastases. Increasing knowledge has contributed to the earlier and improved detection of OMD, underlining the importance of an early disease control. Based on increasing detection rates of OMD in the current real clinical practice and the lack of standardized evidence-based guidelines to treat this cancer status, a board of experts from the Spanish Societies of Radiation Oncology (SEOR) and Medical Oncology (SEOM) organized a series of sessions to update the current state-of-the-art on OMD from a multidisciplinary perspective, and to discuss how results from clinical studies may translate into promising treatment options. This experts' review series summarizes what is known and what it is pending clarification in the context of OMD in the scenarios of Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer and Breast Cancer (Part I), and Prostate Cancer and Colorectal Cancer (Part II), aiming to offer specialists a pragmatic framework that might contribute to the improved management of patients.

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.

Revitalising cancer trials post-pandemic: time for reform

The COVID-19 pandemic posed significant risk to the health of cancer patients, compromised standard cancer care and interrupted clinical cancer trials, prompting dramatic streamlining of services. From this health crisis has emerged the opportunity to carry forward an unexpected legacy of positive reforms to clinical cancer research, where conventionally convoluted approvals processes, inefficient trial design, procedures and data gathering could benefit from the lessons in rationalisation learned during the pandemic.