Single-dose 177Lu-PSMA-617 followed by maintenance pembrolizumab in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: an open-label, dose-expansion, phase 1 trial

BACKGROUND

Checkpoint inhibitors have been shown to have limited activity in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. We aimed to determine whether a single dose of lutetium-177 [177Lu]-prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA)-617 (177Lu-PSMA-617) followed by maintenance pembrolizumab was safe and could induce durable clinical benefit.

METHODS

We did an open-label, dose-expansion, phase 1 study at the University of California, San Francisco (San Fransisco, CA, USA). Eligible patients were men aged 18 years or older with progressive metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer who had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, had progression on one or more androgen signalling inhibitors, and at least three PSMA-avid lesions on 68Ga-PSMA-11 positron emission tomography. In part A, patients were enrolled sequentially to one of three schedules in which a single dose of 177Lu-PSMA-617 (7·4 GBq) was given intravenously 28 days before (schedule 1), concomitant with (schedule 2), or 21 days after (schedule 3) the start of maintenance intravenous pembrolizumab (200 mg every 3 weeks). In part B, 25 patients were enrolled using the recommended phase 2 schedule. The primary endpoint in part A was determination of the recommended phase 2 schedule, and in part B, the objective response rate. The analysis set included all patients who received at least one dose of pembrolizumab or 177Lu-PSMA-617. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03805594.

FINDINGS

Between Aug 8, 2019 and May 7, 2022, 43 male patients were enrolled (n=18 part A [six patients per schedule]; n=25 part B), with a median follow-up of 16·5 months (IQR 12·2-21·9). Schedule 1 was selected as the recommended phase 2 schedule for part B, on the basis of safety and feasibility of administration observed in part A. In part B, 14 (56%; 95% CI 35-76) of 25 patients had a confirmed objective response. Two (5%) of 43 patients had a treatment-related adverse event of grade 3 or worse (grade 3 arthritis in schedule 2, grade 3 pneumonitis in schedule 3). One serious adverse event (one death due to aspiration pneumonia) and no treatment-related deaths were observed.

INTERPRETATION

A single priming dose of 177Lu-PSMA-617 followed by pembrolizumab maintenance was safe and had encouraging preliminary activity in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer.

FUNDING

Prostate Cancer Foundation, National Cancer Institute, Novartis Pharmaceuticals, and Merck.

Utility of PSMA PET Guided Metastasis-Directed Radiotherapy

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE(S)

Metastasis-directed radiotherapy (MDT) is becoming a mainstay in the management of oligometastatic prostate cancer (PCa), and PSMA-PET is currently the most sensitive imaging modality for PCa metastasis screening. The efficacy of MDT guided by PSMA-PET imaging has not yet been well characterized. Moreover, the optimal role of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) in the context of MDT is not known. We sought to assess the efficacy of PSMA PET-guided MDT in patients with metastatic PCa treated with and without ADT.

MATERIALS/METHODS

This is a single institutional retrospective study of patients diagnosed with metastatic prostate cancer by PSMA-PET imaging who were treated with MDT. Biochemical progression was defined as a PSA increase of ≥ 25% and ≥ 2 ng/mL if PSA was ≥ 2 ng/mL at time of initiating salvage treatment, or a PSA increase of ≥ 25% if PSA was < 2 ng/mL at time of salvage treatment. Survival analyses were performed using the Kaplan-Meier method with log-rank testing for significance. Cumulative incidence analyses were performed with Gray's testing for significance. Adverse event data were assessed per CTCAE v5 guidelines.

RESULTS

A total of 196 PSMA PET-avid lesions from 101 patients were irradiated with stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT). Median time from prior definitive locoregional therapy to MDT was 6.2 years. 79 patients had hormone-sensitive PCa (HSPC) and 22 patients had castration-resistant PCa (CRPC) at time of MDT. 47 of 79 (59%) patients with HSPC received ADT along with MDT, and 20 of the 47 patients received augmented ADT. 25 of the 32 (78%) HSPC patients receiving MDT without ADT had undergone at least one prior course of ADT, and none had castrate levels of testosterone at time of MDT with a median testosterone level of 341 ng/dl. With a median follow-up of 22.4 months, 5 of 196 lesions (2.6%) demonstrated radiographic progression. 2-year cumulative incidence of progression from HSPC to CRPC was 11% in patients who received ADT at time of MDT and 35% in those who did not (P = 0.027). Median biochemical progression free survival of patients with CRPC, HSPC treated without ADT, and HSPC treated with ADT following MDT was 5.4, 7.6, and 43.9 months respectively (P<0.0001). 2-year overall survival of the abovementioned groups was 72.2%, 100%, and 97.5% respectively (P<0.001). No Grade 3-5 adverse effects were observed.

CONCLUSION

MDT guided by PSMA-PET imaging is well-tolerated and delays biochemical progression in patients with CRPC and HSPC, with a greater effect observed in patients also receiving ADT.

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

BACKGROUND

Innovations in imaging and molecular characterisation together with novel treatment options have improved outcomes in advanced prostate cancer. However, we still lack high-level evidence in many areas relevant to making management decisions in daily clinical practise. The 2022 Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC 2022) addressed some questions in these areas to supplement guidelines that mostly are based on level 1 evidence.

OBJECTIVE

To present the voting results of the APCCC 2022.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

The experts voted on controversial questions where high-level evidence is mostly lacking: locally advanced prostate cancer; biochemical recurrence after local treatment; metastatic hormone-sensitive, non-metastatic, and metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer; oligometastatic prostate cancer; and managing side effects of hormonal therapy. A panel of 105 international prostate cancer experts voted on the consensus questions.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

The panel voted on 198 pre-defined questions, which were developed by 117 voting and non-voting panel members prior to the conference following a modified Delphi process. A total of 116 questions on metastatic and/or castration-resistant prostate cancer are discussed in this manuscript. In 2022, the voting was done by a web-based survey because of COVID-19 restrictions.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

The voting reflects the expert opinion of these panellists and did not incorporate a standard literature review or formal meta-analysis. The answer options for the consensus questions received varying degrees of support from panellists, as reflected in this article and the detailed voting results are reported in the supplementary material. We report here on topics in metastatic, hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC), non-metastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC), metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC), and oligometastatic and oligoprogressive prostate cancer.

CONCLUSIONS

These voting results in four specific areas from a panel of experts in advanced prostate cancer can help clinicians and patients navigate controversial areas of management for which high-level evidence is scant or conflicting and can help research funders and policy makers identify information gaps and consider what areas to explore further. However, diagnostic and treatment decisions always have to be individualised based on patient characteristics, including the extent and location of disease, prior treatment(s), co-morbidities, patient preferences, and treatment recommendations and should also incorporate current and emerging clinical evidence and logistic and economic factors. Enrolment in clinical trials is strongly encouraged. Importantly, APCCC 2022 once again identified important gaps where there is non-consensus and that merit evaluation in specifically designed trials.

PATIENT SUMMARY

The Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) provides a forum to discuss and debate current diagnostic and treatment options for patients with advanced prostate cancer. The conference aims to share the knowledge of international experts in prostate cancer with healthcare providers worldwide. At each APCCC, an expert panel votes on pre-defined questions that target the most clinically relevant areas of advanced prostate cancer treatment for which there are gaps in knowledge. The results of the voting provide a practical guide to help clinicians discuss therapeutic options with patients and their relatives as part of shared and multidisciplinary decision-making. This report focuses on the advanced setting, covering metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer and both non-metastatic and metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer.

TWITTER SUMMARY

Report of the results of APCCC 2022 for the following topics: mHSPC, nmCRPC, mCRPC, and oligometastatic prostate cancer.

TAKE-HOME MESSAGE

At APCCC 2022, clinically important questions in the management of advanced prostate cancer management were identified and discussed, and experts voted on pre-defined consensus questions. The report of the results for metastatic and/or castration-resistant prostate cancer is summarised here.

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

BACKGROUND

Innovations in imaging and molecular characterisation and the evolution of new therapies have improved outcomes in advanced prostate cancer. Nonetheless, we continue to lack high-level evidence on a variety of clinical topics that greatly impact daily practice. To supplement evidence-based guidelines, the 2022 Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC 2022) surveyed experts about key dilemmas in clinical management.

OBJECTIVE

To present consensus voting results for select questions from APCCC 2022.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Before the conference, a panel of 117 international prostate cancer experts used a modified Delphi process to develop 198 multiple-choice consensus questions on (1) intermediate- and high-risk and locally advanced prostate cancer, (2) biochemical recurrence after local treatment, (3) side effects from hormonal therapies, (4) metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer, (5) nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, (6) metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, and (7) oligometastatic and oligoprogressive prostate cancer. Before the conference, these questions were administered via a web-based survey to the 105 physician panel members ("panellists") who directly engage in prostate cancer treatment decision-making. Herein, we present results for the 82 questions on topics 1-3.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

Consensus was defined as ≥75% agreement, with strong consensus defined as ≥90% agreement.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

The voting results reveal varying degrees of consensus, as is discussed in this article and shown in the detailed results in the Supplementary material. The findings reflect the opinions of an international panel of experts and did not incorporate a formal literature review and meta-analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

These voting results by a panel of international experts in advanced prostate cancer can help physicians and patients navigate controversial areas of clinical management for which high-level evidence is scant or conflicting. The findings can also help funders and policymakers prioritise areas for future research. Diagnostic and treatment decisions should always be individualised based on patient and cancer characteristics (disease extent and location, treatment history, comorbidities, and patient preferences) and should incorporate current and emerging clinical evidence, therapeutic guidelines, and logistic and economic factors. Enrolment in clinical trials is always strongly encouraged. Importantly, APCCC 2022 once again identified important gaps (areas of nonconsensus) that merit evaluation in specifically designed trials.

PATIENT SUMMARY

The Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) provides a forum to discuss and debate current diagnostic and treatment options for patients with advanced prostate cancer. The conference aims to share the knowledge of international experts in prostate cancer with health care providers and patients worldwide. At each APCCC, a panel of physician experts vote in response to multiple-choice questions about their clinical opinions and approaches to managing advanced prostate cancer. This report presents voting results for the subset of questions pertaining to intermediate- and high-risk and locally advanced prostate cancer, biochemical relapse after definitive treatment, advanced (next-generation) imaging, and management of side effects caused by hormonal therapies. The results provide a practical guide to help clinicians and patients discuss treatment options as part of shared multidisciplinary decision-making. The findings may be especially useful when there is little or no high-level evidence to guide treatment decisions.

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

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

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

BACKGROUND

Innovations in treatments, imaging, and molecular characterisation in advanced prostate cancer have improved outcomes, but various areas of management still lack high-level evidence to inform clinical practice. The 2021 Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) addressed some of these questions to supplement guidelines that are based on level 1 evidence.

OBJECTIVE

To present the voting results from APCCC 2021.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

The experts identified three major areas of controversy related to management of advanced prostate cancer: newly diagnosed metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC), the use of prostate-specific membrane antigen ligands in diagnostics and therapy, and molecular characterisation of tissue and blood. A panel of 86 international prostate cancer experts developed the programme and the consensus questions.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

The panel voted publicly but anonymously on 107 pre-defined questions, which were developed by both voting and non-voting panel members prior to the conference following a modified Delphi process.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

The voting reflected the opinions of panellists and did not incorporate a standard literature review or formal meta-analysis. The answer options for the consensus questions received varying degrees of support from panellists, as reflected in this article and the detailed voting results reported in the Supplementary material.

CONCLUSIONS

These voting results from a panel of experts in advanced prostate cancer can help clinicians and patients to navigate controversial areas of management for which high-level evidence is scant. However, diagnostic and treatment decisions should always be individualised according to patient characteristics, such as the extent and location of disease, prior treatment(s), comorbidities, patient preferences, and treatment recommendations, and should also incorporate current and emerging clinical evidence and logistic and economic constraints. Enrolment in clinical trials should be strongly encouraged. Importantly, APCCC 2021 once again identified salient questions that merit evaluation in specifically designed trials.

PATIENT SUMMARY

The Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference is a forum for discussing current diagnosis and treatment options for patients with advanced prostate cancer. An expert panel votes on predefined questions focused on the most clinically relevant areas for treatment of advanced prostate cancer for which there are gaps in knowledge. The voting results provide a practical guide to help clinicians in discussing treatment options with patients as part of shared decision-making.

Implementation of a Multisite Financial Reimbursement Program in Cancer Clinical Trials Integrated With Patient Navigation: A Pilot Randomized Clinical Trial

PURPOSE:

Cancer clinical trial participants face considerable indirect costs associated with participation, such as travel and lodging, which may contribute to poor enrollment. Here, we report the findings in IMproving Patient Access to Cancer clinical Trials, a pilot feasibility study investigating the efficacy of offering a financial reimbursement program (FRP) during a therapeutic clinical trial discussion with or without additional outreach in improving patient enrollment.

METHODS:

Study participants for this study were recruited at two National Cancer Institute–designated comprehensive cancer centers (CCCs) from April 8, 2019, to September 19, 2019. Eligible participants were adults with a cancer diagnosis being approached to consider enrollment in a clinical trial. Participants were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive no follow-up (usual care) or a follow-up telephone call to facilitate FRP utilization stratified by study site. The target enrollment was 132 patients, with 66 patients in each study arm. The primary outcome was the consent rate to the multisite interventional study on the FRP among participants enrolling in clinical trials.

RESULTS:

The study had a 78% consent rate and enrolled a total of 132 participants, of whom 51% were non-White compared with 28% of CCC treatment clinical trial participants in 2019. No difference in enrollment in clinical trials between the two study arms was observed as the proportion of enrollment was 70% for both study arms. The most common reason for not enrolling in a clinical trial was due to ineligibility determined through screening procedures (75%).

CONCLUSION:

The current study observed that implementation of FRP at CCCs is feasible and serves a diverse patient population. Future studies will measure the impact of programs on overall clinical trial accrual and among racial/ethnic minorities.

Lack of consensus identifies important areas for future clinical research: Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) 2019 findings

BACKGROUND

Innovations in treatments, imaging and molecular characterisation have improved outcomes for people with advanced prostate cancer; however, many aspects of clinical management are devoid of high-level evidence. At the Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) 2019, many of these topics were addressed, and consensus was not always reached. The results from clinical trials will most reliably plus the gaps.

METHODS

An invited panel of 57 experts voted on 123 multiple-choice questions on clinical management at APCCC 2019. No consensus was reached on 88 (71.5%) questions defined as <75% of panellists voting for the same answer option. We reviewed clinicaltrials.gov to identify relevant ongoing phase III trials in these areas of non-consensus.

RESULTS

A number of ongoing phase III trials were identified that are relevant to these non-consensus issues. However, many non-consensus issues appear not to be addressed by current clinical trials. Of note, no phase III but only phase II trials were identified, investigating side effects of hormonal treatments and their management.

CONCLUSIONS

Lack of consensus almost invariably indicates gaps in existing evidence. The high percentage of questions lacking consensus at APCCC 2019 highlights the complexity of advanced prostate cancer care and the need for robust, clinically relevant trials that can fill current gaps with high-level evidence. Our review of these areas of non-consensus and ongoing trials provides a useful summary, indicating areas in which future consensus may soon be reached. This review may facilitate academic investigators to identify and prioritise topics for future research.

Feasibility, safety, and acceptability of a remotely monitored exercise pilot CHAMP: A Clinical trial of High-intensity Aerobic and resistance exercise for Metastatic castrate-resistant Prostate cancer

Background

Exercise may improve clinical and quality of life outcomes for men with prostate cancer. No randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have examined the feasibility, safety, and acceptability of remote exercise training in men with metastatic castrate‐resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC).

Methods

We conducted a pilot RCT (1:1:1 aerobic or resistance exercise 3x/week or usual care) to determine the feasibility, safety, and acceptability of remotely monitored exercise over 12 weeks in 25 men with mCRPC. A prescribed exercise program was based on baseline testing including high‐ and moderate‐intensity aerobic exercise or resistance exercise completed at a local exercise facility. Feasibility was based on attendance, adherence, and tolerance; safety on adverse events; and acceptability on participant interviews.

Results

Between March 2016 and March 2020, 25 patients were randomized (8 aerobic, 7 resistance, and 10 control). Twenty‐three men (82%) completed the 12‐week study. Men who completed the remote intervention attempted 90% and 96% of prescribed aerobic and resistance training sessions, respectively, and 86% and 88% of attempted sessions were completed as or more than prescribed. We observed changes in performance tests that corresponded with the exercise prescription. No safety concerns were identified. Ninety percent of participants interviewed were satisfied with the program and would recommend it to others.

Conclusions

Remotely monitored exercise training is feasible, safe, and acceptable in men with mCRPC; there was no difference in these outcomes by mode of exercise. Through this research, we provide direction and rationale for future studies of exercise and clinical outcomes in patients with metastatic prostate cancer.

Prostate-specific Membrane Antigen and Fluciclovine Transporter Genes are Associated with Variable Clinical Features and Molecular Subtypes of Primary Prostate Cancer

¹⁸F-Fluciclovine-based positron emission tomography (PET) imaging is recommended in the USA for biochemical recurrence (BCR) after prostate cancer treatment. However, prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA)-based PET imaging is more common worldwide, supported by international guidelines, and is now approved by the Food and Drug Administration in the USA for initial staging of primary prostate cancer. Little is known about the molecular profiles of lesions detected by PSMA-targeted PET/computed tomography (CT) versus ¹⁸F-fluciclovine PET/CT. We examined the expression of PSMA (FOLH1) and the fluciclovine transporter genes LAT1-4 and ASCT1/2 in a combined cohort of more than 18 000 radical prostatectomy specimens and their associations with clinical outcomes. Expression of PSMA and all but one fluciclovine transporter gene was higher in prostate cancer than in benign tissue. PSMA expression was associated with Gleason score (GS) ≥8 and lymph node involvement (LNI), and had a positive linear correlation with Decipher risk score. By contrast, expression of the fluciclovine transporters LAT2, LAT3, and ASCT2 was negatively associated with GS ≥ 8, LNI, and high Decipher score. The top decile of PSMA expression was associated with poorest metastasis-free survival (MFS), while the bottom deciles of LAT3 and ASCT2 expression were associated with poorest MFS. PATIENT SUMMARY: We measured the expression of genes that encode the targets for two different radiotracers in PET (positron emission tomography) scans of the prostate. We found that PSMA gene expression (PSMA-based tracer) is associated with worse clinical outcomes, while expression of ASCT2, LAT2, and LAT3 genes (fluciclovine tracer) is associated with better outcomes.

MicroRNA-574 regulates FAM210A expression and influences pathological cardiac remodeling

Aberrant expression of mitochondrial proteins impairs cardiac function and causes heart disease. The mechanism of regulation of mitochondria encoded protein expression during cardiac disease, however, remains underexplored. Here, we show that multiple pathogenic cardiac stressors induce the expression of miR-574 guide and passenger strands (miR-574-5p/3p) in both humans and mice. miR-574 knockout mice exhibit severe cardiac disorder under different pathogenic cardiac stresses while miR-574-5p/3p mimics that are delivered systematically using nanoparticles reduce cardiac pathogenesis under disease insults. Transcriptomic analysis of miR-574-null hearts uncovers family with sequence similarity 210 member A (FAM210A) as a common target mRNA of miR-574-5p and miR-574-3p. The interactome capture analysis suggests that FAM210A interacts with mitochondrial translation elongation factor EF-Tu. Manipulating miR-574-5p/3p or FAM210A expression changes the protein expression of mitochondrial-encoded electron transport chain (ETC) genes but not nuclear-encoded mitochondrial ETC genes in both human AC16 cardiomyocyte cells and miR-574-null murine hearts. Together, we discovered that miR-574 regulates FAM210A expression and modulates mitochondrial-encoded protein expression, which may influence cardiac remodeling in heart failure.

Accelerating precision medicine in metastatic prostate cancer

Despite advances in prostate cancer screening and treatment, available therapy options, particularly in later stages of the disease, remain limited and the treatment-resistant setting represents a serious unmet medical need. Moreover, disease heterogeneity and disparities in patient access to medical advances result in significant variability in outcomes across patients. Disease classification based on genomic sequencing is a promising approach to identify patients whose tumors exhibit actionable targets and make more informed treatment decisions. Here we discuss how we can accelerate precision oncology to inform broader genomically-driven clinical decisions for men with advanced prostate cancer, drug development and ultimately contribute to new treatment paradigms.

Abstract A081: Trial Library: A pilot study to examine feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary estimates of efficacy for an online clinical trial matching website on patient-prompted conversations for prostate cancer clinical trials

Background: The ability of clinical trials to effectively translate into therapeutic interventions for the general population can be limited by a lack of representative participants in these trials. There is an acute need to develop informational resources regarding cancer clinical trials that meet the linguistic and literary needs of under-represented and vulnerable populations. Current practices utilize a one-size-fits-all approach that may be inaccessible to a diverse audience. Given the increased utilization of online resources for health information among a diverse patient population and across age groups, we developed a website, called Trial Library, which may serve as a prostate cancer clinical trial matching tool. We hypothesize that use of the Internet-based clinical trial matching tool in clinic will increase the number of patient-initiated conversations with physicians about clinical trial options, and by extension, improve enrollment to therapeutic cancer clinical trials among a diverse participant pool.

Procedures/Design/Aims: This is a nonrandomized, nontherapeutic interventional pilot study. The study will be performed in genitourinary medical oncology clinic at UCSF Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center. We will measure the feasibility and acceptability of a clinical trial matching tool that includes two unique features: user-validated clinical trial content and navigation schema. We will measure preliminary estimates of efficacy of the online clinical trial matching tool in triggering patient-promoted conversations regarding clinical trials and ultimately clinical trial enrollment.

Discussion: Trial Library is designed to be an accessible informational resource for patients from diverse levels of health literacy and English proficiency. This pilot study will provide important preliminary results to inform the design of the website and subsequent testing outside of clinic. Additionally, this website will ultimately serve as a model for clinical trial information that can be translated across tumor types.

Note: This abstract was not presented at the conference.

Citation Format: Hala T. Borno, Brian Bakke, Anke Hebig Prophet, Yoon-Ji Kim, Jan Yaeger, Jessica Chao, Pelin Cinar, Celia Kaplan, Eric Small, Christy Boscardin, Ralph Gonzales. Trial Library: A pilot study to examine feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary estimates of efficacy for an online clinical trial matching website on patient-prompted conversations for prostate cancer clinical trials [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the Eleventh AACR Conference on the Science of Cancer Health Disparities in Racial/Ethnic Minorities and the Medically Underserved; 2018 Nov 2-5; New Orleans, LA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2020;29(6 Suppl):Abstract nr A081.

Management of Patients with Advanced Prostate Cancer: Report of the Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference 2019

BACKGROUND

Innovations in treatments, imaging, and molecular characterisation in advanced prostate cancer have improved outcomes, but there are still many aspects of management that lack high-level evidence to inform clinical practice. The Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) 2019 addressed some of these topics to supplement guidelines that are based on level 1 evidence.

OBJECTIVE

To present the results from the APCCC 2019.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Similar to prior conferences, experts identified 10 important areas of controversy regarding the management of advanced prostate cancer: locally advanced disease, biochemical recurrence after local therapy, treating the primary tumour in the metastatic setting, metastatic hormone-sensitive/naïve prostate cancer, nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, bone health and bone metastases, molecular characterisation of tissue and blood, inter- and intrapatient heterogeneity, and adverse effects of hormonal therapy and their management. A panel of 72 international prostate cancer experts developed the programme and the consensus questions.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

The panel voted publicly but anonymously on 123 predefined questions, which were developed by both voting and nonvoting panel members prior to the conference following a modified Delphi process.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

Panellists voted based on their opinions rather than a standard literature review or formal meta-analysis. The answer options for the consensus questions had varying degrees of support by the panel, as reflected in this article and the detailed voting results reported in the Supplementary material.

CONCLUSIONS

These voting results from a panel of prostate cancer experts can help clinicians and patients navigate controversial areas of advanced prostate management for which high-level evidence is sparse. However, diagnostic and treatment decisions should always be individualised based on patient-specific factors, such as disease extent and location, prior lines of therapy, comorbidities, and treatment preferences, together with current and emerging clinical evidence and logistic and economic constraints. Clinical trial enrolment for men with advanced prostate cancer should be strongly encouraged. Importantly, APCCC 2019 once again identified important questions that merit assessment in specifically designed trials.

PATIENT SUMMARY

The Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference provides a forum to discuss and debate current diagnostic and treatment options for patients with advanced prostate cancer. The conference, which has been held three times since 2015, aims to share the knowledge of world experts in prostate cancer management with health care providers worldwide. At the end of the conference, an expert panel discusses and votes on predefined consensus questions that target the most clinically relevant areas of advanced prostate cancer treatment. The results of the voting provide a practical guide to help clinicians discuss therapeutic options with patients as part of shared and multidisciplinary decision making.

A step towards equitable clinical trial recruitment: a protocol for the development and preliminary testing of an online prostate cancer health information and clinical trial matching tool

Background

Recruitment of a diverse participant pool to cancer clinical trials is an essential component of clinical research as it improves the generalizability of findings. Investigating and piloting novel recruitment strategies that take advantage of ubiquitous digital technologies has become an important component of facilitating broad recruitment and addressing inequities in clinical trial participation. Equitable and inclusive recruitment improves generalizability of clinical trial outcomes, benefiting patients, clinicians, and the research community. The increasing prevalence of online connectivity in the USA and use of the Internet as a resource for medical information provides an opportunity for digital recruitment strategies in cancer clinical trials. This study aims to measure the acceptability, preliminary estimates of efficacy, and feasibility of the Trial Library intervention, an Internet-based cancer clinical trial matching tool. This study will also examine the extent to which the Trial Library website, designed to address the linguistic and literacy needs of broader patient populations, influences patient-initiated conversations with physicians about clinical trial participation.

Methods

This is a study protocol for a non-randomized, single-arm pilot study. This is a mixed methods study design that utilizes the statistical analysis of quantitative survey data and the qualitative analysis of interview data to assess the participant experience with the Trial Library intervention. This study will examine (1) acceptability as a measure of participant satisfaction with this intervention, (2) preliminary measure of efficacy as a measure of proportion of participants with documented clinical trial discussion in the electronic medical record, and (3) feasibility of the intervention as a measure of duration of clinical visit.

Discussion

The principles that informed the design of the Trial Library intervention aim to be generalizable to clinical trials across many disease contexts. From the ground up, this intervention is built to be inclusive of the linguistic, literacy, and technological needs of underrepresented patient populations. This study will collect essential preliminary data prior to a multi-site randomized clinical trial of the Trial Library intervention.

Trial registration

This study has received institutional approval from the Committee of Human Subjects Research at the University of California, San Francisco.

Abstract 327: MicroRNA-574-FAM210A Axis Maintains Mitochondrial Translational Homeostasis and Influences Pathological Cardiac Remodeling

Rationale: Translational control is a critical regulatory step in altering protein synthesis under disease conditions. Aberrant synthesis of mitochondrial proteins impairs cardiac function and causes heart disease. However, the mechanism of translational control in mitochondria and during cardiac disease remains underexplored.

Objective: We have found that multiple pathogenic cardiac stressors induce the expression of miR-574 guide and passenger strands (miR-574-5p/3p) in humans and mice. Here, we aim to define a new miR-574-FAM210A axis that regulates cardiac mitochondrial translational homeostasis and prevents adverse cardiac remodeling.

Methods and Results: Echocardiography, histology and biochemical analyses were used to evaluate the cardiac function of miR-574 knockout mice, which exhibit severe cardiac hypertrophy, fibrosis, and cardiac dysfunction under heart failure-triggering stresses. miR-574-5p/3p mimics that were delivered systematically using nanoparticles reduced cardiac pathogenesis with disease insults. Transcriptome analysis of miR-574-null hearts has uncovered FAM210A as a common target mRNA for miR-574-5p/3p. Interactome and translational state analyses identify a FAM210A-bearing trimeric complex that promotes the translation of mitochondrial encoded electron transport chain genes and modulates mitochondrial activities. Moreover, the phenotypic characterization of tamoxifen-inducible CM-specific Fam210a knockout mice suggests that FAM210A plays a critical role in maintaining normal cardiac mitochondrial morphology and function as well as cardiac health and organismal viability.

Conclusions: miR-574-5p and miR-574-3p protect against pathological cardiac remodeling through regulation of FAM210A, a key translational control factor of mitochondrial encoded genes. Thus, we discovered a novel miR-574-FAM210A pathway that modulates cardiac mitochondrial translational homeostasis and influences cardiac remodeling in heart failure.

CYGNSS data map flood inundation during the 2017 Atlantic hurricane season

The 2017 Atlantic Hurricane Season was one of the most active and destructive on record, leading to significant flooding in many parts of the United States and the Caribbean. During flooding events such as these, there is an urgent need to quickly map in detail which areas have been severely affected, yet current satellite missions are not capable of sampling the global land surface at high enough spatio-temporal scales for flooding applications. Here, we demonstrate a novel approach to high-resolution flood mapping by repurposing data from the new NASA mission, CYGNSS. The CYGNSS multi-satellite constellation was designed for frequent temporal sampling of the ocean surface in the tropics. We demonstrate that CYGNSS data provide clear signals of surface saturation and inundation extent over land at higher spatio-temporal resolution than radiometers like SMAP. Using a simple thresholding technique, we are able to estimate that approximately 32,580 km² of land area in Texas flooded during Hurricane Harvey, and approximately 7210 km² of land area flooded in Cuba during Hurricane Irma, or about 7% of Cuba’s total area.

Men's Eating and Living (MEAL) study (CALGB 70807 [Alliance]): recruitment feasibility and baseline demographics of a randomized trial of diet in men on active surveillance for prostate cancer

OBJECTIVE

To assess the feasibility of performing national, randomized trials of dietary interventions for localized prostate cancer.

METHODS

The Men's Eating and Living (MEAL) study (CALGB 70807 [Alliance]) is a phase III clinical trial testing the efficacy of a high-vegetable diet to prevent progression in patients with prostate cancer on active surveillance (AS). Participants were randomized to a validated diet counselling intervention or to a control condition. Chi-squared and Kruskal-Wallis analyses were used to assess between-group differences at baseline.

RESULTS

Between 2011 and 2015, 478 (103%) of a targeted 464 patients were randomized at 91 study sites. At baseline, the mean (sd) age was 64 (6) years and mean (sd) PSA concentration was 4.9 (2.1) ng/mL. Fifty-six (12%) participants were African-American, 17 (4%) were Hispanic/Latino, and 16 (3%) were Asian-American. There were no significant between-group differences for age (P = 0.98), race/ethnicity (P = 0.52), geographic region (P = 0.60), time since prostate cancer diagnosis (P = 0.85), PSA concentration (P = 0.96), clinical stage (T1c or T2a; P = 0.27), or Gleason sum (Gleason 6 or 3+4 = 7; P = 0.76). In a pre-planned analysis, the baseline prostate biopsy samples of the first 50 participants underwent central pathology review to confirm eligibility, with an expectation that <10% would become ineligible. One of 50 participants (2%) became ineligible.

CONCLUSION

The MEAL study shows the feasibility of implementing national, multi-institutional phase III clinical trials of diet for prostate cancer and of testing interventions to prevent disease progression in AS.

Abstract A1-46: Using Medbook Workbench to create evidence streams to guide medical decisions

Background: Clinical datasets typically have small sample size limiting the ability to generate inference with strong statistical significance. By combining: 1) existing datasets; 2)integrated analysis of different data types 3) curated pathways and 4) state of the art machine learning classifiers into one analysis pipeline, clinicians and researchers may be able to combine multiple observations to spot a pattern in an individual patient sample to base a critical decision about therapy. However, few tools exist to enable a diverse set of analytical results to be coherently pooled and disseminated to a research team. New web-based modalities are urgently needed to meet the demands of new genomics-based oncology use cases.

Methods: Building on the success of MSKCC cBioPortal and UCSC Cancer Genomics Browser, an easy to use workbench allows users to generate new datasets by integrating these types of data: Import public datasets from NCBI,Wrangle data into standard format,Import clinical from OnCore,RNA Seq analysis and mutation analysis,Unsupervised clustering analysis,Sharing Data with collaborators in a secure manner,Differential gene expression analysis,Pathway enrichment analysis,Training classifiers to recognize events on existing datasets,Applying classifiers to new datasets to infer molecular events.

We have created a new Medical Information System called MedBook to give a context for integrating multiple observations about patients and their biopsies into a unified social network. Data can be shared with clinicians and collaborators in a secure manner. Borrowing terminology from systems such as FaceBook and Google Plus, we describe an organization of collaborative analyses as evidence “streams” that allow sharing, annotation, and nucleation points for further analyses. Streams are composed of “evidence cards” that encapsulate figures and/or tables. Discussion threads allow interpretation and commenting on findings associated with each evidence card.

Results: We demonstrate the utility of the stream concept using a gene expression based signature that predicts small cell disease in castration resistant prostate cancer. Importantly, the stream concept allows 1) redefinition of the signature to incorporate additional patient samples and clinical definitions on-the-fly, 2) the application of the signature to query samples, 3) viewing the predictions in cBioPortal to assist clinicians judgment of samples in the context of other relevant genomics events, 3) extend the results by leveraging additional bioinformatics apps like the Medbook Workbench and observation Deck 4) the recording of the provenance, and 5) creates a focal point for deliberation about patients, signatures, genes, mutations, pathways, and clinical inferences.

Conclusions: Prior to MedBook, there was a cognitive gap between individual doctor observations and large research paper driven cohort meta-analysis. MedBook is able to fill the gap by facilitating the online integration necessary for data analysis in a dynamic clinical environment.

Citation Format: Robert Baertsch, Chris Wong, Jack Youngren, Josh Stuart, Eric Small, Ted Goldstein. Using Medbook Workbench to create evidence streams to guide medical decisions. [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the AACR Special Conference on Translation of the Cancer Genome; Feb 7-9, 2015; San Francisco, CA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2015;75(22 Suppl 1):Abstract nr A1-46.

Abstract IA20: Molecular and genomic characterization of invasive circulating tumorcells (iCTCs) from men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC)

Background: Molecular characterization and genomic analysis of circulating tumor cells (CTCs) may allow for a better understanding of the mechanisms of resistance to therapies in metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). The Vitatex VitaAssay platform captures invasive CTCs (iCTCs) in a cell surface marker-independent fashion based on their ability to invade a fluorescently-labeled cell adhesion matrix (CAM), allowing for the analysis of multiple CTC subpopulations. We recently demonstrated our ability to detect EMT and stem-like CTC subpopulations with the CAM platform (Friedlander et al., Int J Cancer 2014). We hypothesize that CTC subpopulation diversity is associated with a shorter period of time to resistance for men with mCRPC. Here we sought to estimate epithelial, mesenchymal, stem-like and neuroendocrine iCTC subpopulation diversity in men with CRPC starting abiraterone acetate or enzalutamide therapy and to report the genomic profiles of iCTCs and matched metastatic biopsies.

Methods: Blood is being obtained with informed consent from men with mCRPC partaking in either a dose escalation abiraterone trial or the West Coast Dream Team (WCDT) trial. iCTCs are being isolated from the blood samples using the CAM platform coupled with FACS. Paired metastatic biopsies are being obtained as part of the WCDT, when available. For CTC enrichment, iCTCs are defined as CAM+/CD45-/CD14-. For subpopulation characterizations, mesenchymal iCTCs are defined as vimentin+, stem-like iCTCs as CD44+ and neuroendocrine iCTCs as chomogranin (CgA)+. Agilent array comparative genomic hybridization (aCGH) of iCTCs and paired biopsies is being performed.

Results: iCTCs were isolated using the CAM platform from 96 men, to date. The average baseline iCTC count per 7.5ml was 160 (range 0-1255). In a subset of 69 subjects, the average baseline CD44+ iCTC count per 7.5ml was 153 (range 0 -1423), and in a subset of 31 patients the median vimentin+ iCTC count per 7.5ml was 116 (range 5-538) and in a subset of 5 patients the median CgA+ iCTC counts per 7.5ml was 79 (range 46 - 185). Using aCGH, copy number aberration is detectable in iCTCs. Some iCTC aCGH profiles resemble paired metastatic biopsy aCGH profiles.

Conclusions: Multiple CRPC iCTC subpopulations are identifiable from men with mCRPC, reflecting the heterogeneity of the disease. Data will continue to be collected as part of these two ongoing clinical trials to identify biomarkers of resistance and shed light on resistance pathways.

Citation Format: Terence W. Friedlander, Gayatri Premasekharan, Archana Dilip, Jaime Tawney, Vy Ngo, Elizabeth Gilbert, Charles J. Ryan, Eric Small, Pamela L. Paris. Molecular and genomic characterization of invasive circulating tumorcells (iCTCs) from men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the AACR Precision Medicine Series: Drug Sensitivity and Resistance: Improving Cancer Therapy; Jun 18-21, 2014; Orlando, FL. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Clin Cancer Res 2015;21(4 Suppl): Abstract nr IA20.

Abstract 2542: Sipuleucel-T-induced immune response against secondary cancer antigens is associated with improved overall survival

Introduction and Objective: Tumor cell death in response to immunotherapy may lead to the release of secondary (non-targeted) cancer antigens that prime subsequent immune responses (antigen spread) 1. This may contribute to tumor control and reveal post-treatment biomarkers of clinical outcome. Sipuleucel-T, an immunotherapy targeted towards the prostate-specific antigen, prostatic acid phosphatase, is approved in the US and EU for treatment of asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic, metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. We evaluated: (i) antigen spread after sipuleucel-T treatment, based on IgG antibody responses against secondary cancer antigens, and (ii) association of such IgG responses with overall survival (OS).

Methods: ProtoArray®, an unbiased protein microarray platform, was used to characterize the spectrum of serum IgG responses after treatment. IgG responses against secondary antigens were confirmed using an independent platform, Luminex®, xMAP®. Pre- and post- treatment sera from two clinical trials of sipuleucel-T were analyzed: IMPACT 2 (double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3, NCT00065442) and ProACT (open-label, phase 2, NCT00715078). The correlations between IgG responses (≥ 2 fold elevation post-treatment) and OS were assessed in IMPACT using a Cox regression model, adjusted for baseline PSA, LDH, bone lesions, Gleason score, and prior bisphosphonate use.

Results: Serum IgG responses (p&lt;10-3) towards several secondary cancer antigens (PSA, hK2/KLK2, K-Ras, E-Ras, and LGALS8/PCTA-1) were observed after treatment with sipuleucel-T in IMPACT as well as ProACT. Across trials, the frequency of patients with IgG responses after sipuleucel-T treatment was: ≥25% for PSA, ≥33% for hK2, ≥36% for K-Ras, ≥39% for E-Ras, ≥24% for LGALS8. These IgG responses were observed as early as 2 weeks and up to 6 months after treatment with sipuleucel-T. Control arm patients in IMPACT did not show such responses (p&gt;0.01). In the sipuleucel-T arm of IMPACT (N=140), an IgG response to PSA ≈2 weeks after treatment was positively correlated with increased OS, compared to patients with no IgG response to PSA (Cox p&lt;0.01, HR≈0.41 [95% CI=0.22-0.78]). Other IgG responses (such as those against E-Ras and hK2) at ≈2 or ≈10 weeks after treatment, also showed trends towards improved OS.

Conclusions: Sipuleucel-T elicited IgG responses against multiple cancer antigens. Sipuleucel-T- induced IgG response against PSA was positively correlated with improved OS. These data enhance our understanding of sipuleucel-T's mechanism of action, and may help to identify pharmacodynamic biomarkers of clinical outcome. The methods and results presented here may also help in the characterization of antigen spread and pharmacodynamic biomarkers after treatment with other cancer immunotherapies.

1. Ribas A, et al. Trends Immunol. 24:58-61 (2003)

2. Kantoff PW, et al. N Engl J Med. 363:411-22 (2010)

Citation Format: Debraj GuhaThakurta, Li-Qun Fan, Tuyen Vu, Francis Stewart, Philip Kantoff, Eric Small, Celeste Higano, Thomas Gardner, Nadeem Sheikh, James Trager. Sipuleucel-T-induced immune response against secondary cancer antigens is associated with improved overall survival. [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 105th Annual Meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research; 2014 Apr 5-9; San Diego, CA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2014;74(19 Suppl):Abstract nr 2542. doi:10.1158/1538-7445.AM2014-2542

Significant and sustained antitumor activity in post-docetaxel, castration-resistant prostate cancer with the CYP17 inhibitor abiraterone acetate

PURPOSE

The principal objective of this trial was to evaluate the antitumor activity of abiraterone acetate, an oral, specific, irreversible inhibitor of CYP17 in docetaxel-treated patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In this multicenter, two-stage, phase II study, abiraterone acetate 1,000 mg was administered once daily continuously. The primary end point was achievement of a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) decline of > or = 50% in at least seven of 35 patients. Per an attained phase II design, more than 35 patients could be enrolled if the primary end point was met. Secondary objectives included: PSA declines of > or = 30% and > or = 90%; rate of RECIST (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors) responses and duration on study; time to PSA progression; safety and tolerability; and circulating tumor cell (CTC) enumeration.

RESULTS

Docetaxel-treated patients with CRPC (N = 47) were enrolled. PSA declines of > or = 30%, > or = 50% and > or = 90% were seen in 68% (32 of 47), 51% (24 of 47), and 15% (seven of 47) of patients, respectively. Partial responses (by RECIST) were reported in eight (27%) of 30 patients with measurable disease. Median time to PSA progression was 169 days (95% CI, 113 to 281 days). The median number of weeks on study was 24, and 12 (25.5%) of 47 patients remained on study > or = 48 weeks. CTCs were enumerated in 34 patients; 27 (79%) of 34 patients had at least five CTCs at baseline. Eleven (41%) of 27 patients had a decline from at least five to less than 5 CTCs, and 18 (67%) of 27 had a > or = 30% decline in CTCs after starting treatment with abiraterone acetate. Abiraterone acetate was well tolerated.

CONCLUSION

Abiraterone acetate has significant antitumor activity in post-docetaxel patients with CRPC. Randomized, phase III trials of abiraterone acetate are underway to define the future role of this agent.

A multicenter phase II study of abiraterone acetate (AA) in docetaxel pretreated castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) patients (pts)

5047

Background: Despite castration, androgens remain critical to prostate cancer. Abiraterone acetate (AA) specifically and irreversibly inhibits CYP17, a key enzyme in androgen biosynthesis. Methods: 47 CRPC pts who had failed androgen deprivation therapy and had prior docetaxel chemotherapy received AA orally (1000mg QD) in 28 day cycles. Low dose glucocorticoids were allowed. Results: Patient demographics in table . Total maximal PSA declines with AA at any point on study of ≥30%, ≥50%, and ≥ 90% were observed in 32 (69%), 24 (51%) and 7 (15%) pts respectively. A similar trend in PSA response was seen at wk 12. 35 pts were evaluable by RECIST; 6 (17%) pts had a partial response and 23 (66%) pts had stable disease. 23% of pts showed ECOG improvement (PS 1 to 0 in 10 pts, PS 2 to 1 in 1 pt); 53% of pts maintained PS. Median duration on treatment was 167 days (95% CI 130–201). 17 pts received >6 cycles of AA; 8 pts received ≥ 12 cycles. Toxicities related to mineralocorticoid excess were mainly grade 1–2 (hypokalemia 51%; HTN 17%; edema 13%) and were treated with eplerenone or corticosteroids. Conclusions: AA has anti-tumor activity in these heavily pretreated pts, as evidenced by sustained PSA declines, improvement in PS and RECIST responses. A phase III trial assessing the efficacy and safety of AA and prednisone in CRPC pts who have failed docetaxel chemotherapy is underway.

[Table: see text]

[Table: see text]

Ixabepilone, mitoxantrone, and prednisone in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer refractory to docetaxel-based therapy: A phase II study of the DOD Prostate Cancer Clinical Trials Consortium

5058

Background: Mitoxantrone (M) plus prednisone (P) and ixabepilone (Ix) each have modest, non cross-resistant activity as second line chemotherapy regimens in docetaxel-refractory patients with CRPC. These agents were therefore combined in a phase I study which demonstrated anti-cancer activity and defined the recommended phase II dose used in this trial. Methods: Patients with metastatic CRPC and progression after 3 or more cycles of docetaxel were enrolled in a phase II multicenter study of the combination of prednisone 5 mg BID, Ix (35 mg/m2) and M (12 mg/m2) administered intravenously on day 1 every 21 days, with pegfilgrastim (6 mg on day 2) support. Results: To date, 43 pts have been enrolled and have received a median of 4 cycles. Of 37 patients currently evaluable for response, 14 (38%; 95% CI: 22–55%) have had a confirmed ≥50% decline in PSA and 19 (51%; 95% CI 34–68%) have had a confirmed ≥30% decline in PSA. Two of 15 patients with evaluable measurable disease (13%) have had a RECIST-defined objective response. All 43 patients are evaluable for toxicity. Grade 3 or 4 neutropenia was seen in 6 pts (17%) and grade 3 or 4 thrombocytopenia was seen in 3 (8%). Nonhematologic grade 3/4 events possibly related to study drug have included grade 3 fatigue (3 pts), grade 3 pneumonia (2 pts), and grade 3 atrial fibrillation, grade 4 myocardial infarction, grade 4 prostatitis, grade 3 nausea/vomiting, grade 3 neuropathy, grade 3 elevated transaminases, grade 3 dizziness, grade 3 dehydration, grade 3 shortness of breath, and grade 4 vasovagal syncope (1 pt each). Grade 2 neuropathy has been seen in 4 patients. Conclusions: The Ix, M, P regimen is active as second-line therapy in CRPC patients with progressive disease after docetaxel therapy and is reasonably well tolerated. Further investigation of this regimen is warranted. This study was supported in part by CTEP/NCI and the DOD Prostate Cancer Clinical Trials Consortium.

[Table: see text]

Prostate cancer clinical trials consortium: A multicenter mechanism for the rapid design, development, and implementation of early phase clinical trials

e16065

Background: Leading investigators in prostate cancer have hypothesized that clinical trials (CT) are optimally conducted as multicenter studies. To test this, the Prostate Cancer Clinical Trials Consortium (PCCTC) was formed with support from the Prostate Cancer Foundation (PCF) and the Department of Defense Clinical Consortium Award (DOD). Since the PCCTC's inception in 2006, members have cooperatively designed, carried out, and evaluated phase 1 and 2 multicenter studies in prostate cancer. Methods: PCF and DOD awards support a consortium of 13 cancer research centers. Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center serves as the coordinating center and is charged with creating an infrastructure to conduct early phase, multicenter trials. Annually, each participating center is required to introduce at least one CT for consideration by the PCCTC and accrue at least 35 patients to PCCTC studies. Investigators meet face-to-face twice per year to discuss the PCCTC's progress, and hold monthly conference calls to discuss scientific objectives, trial design, and ongoing studies. Results: Since inception, the PCCTC has expanded from 8 to 13 leading research centers. Through September 2008, it has opened 47 trials and accrued 1,282 patients at member sites. Members utilize a CT management system for protocol tracking, electronic data capture, and data storage. A legal framework has been instituted, and standard operating procedures, administrative structure, editorial support, centralized budgeting, and mechanisms for scientific review have been established. Each year, the number of trials presented and patients accrued increases, and three concepts have progressed to the next phase of clinical testing. Conclusions: The PCCTC fulfills a congressional directive to create a CT instrument dedicated to rapid accrual to early-phase, multicenter studies in prostate cancer. The member institutions have built a shared administrative, informatics, legal, financial, statistical, and scientific infrastructure to support this endeavor. As the PCCTC has expanded and taken an increasingly active role in designing and evaluating protocols, clinical trials continue to open and accrue in excess of federally mandated goals.

No significant financial relationships to disclose.

Reflex sympathetic dystrophy: reflections from a clinician

Reflex sympathetic dystrophy is defined as chronic musculoskeletal pain and autonomic dysfunction. It is a difficult diagnosis to make, and the adolescent often sees many specialists before arriving at the correct diagnosis. In this article I review reflex sympathetic dystrophy and reflect on the differential diagnosis, pertinent medical history, personal characteristics of patients with reflex sympathetic dystrophy, physical examination, and laboratory evaluation. Principles of management are considered, including physical therapy, pharmacology, psychological therapy, and alternative therapies. Accurate diagnosis and management are critical for not prolonging the adolescent's and the family's suffering. It is important to provide aggressive physical therapy, stress management, relaxation training, and close follow-up. It is also critical to avoid immobilization, surgery, or invasive procedures and unnecessary tests.

Long term efficacy of peripheral androgen blockade on prostate cancer: CALGB 9782

4573

Background: The treatment of patients with a rising PSA after definitive local therapy is controversial. Patients are reluctant to undergo androgen suppression due to side effects and interest focuses on the timing and intensity of additional therapy. The use of peripheral androgen blockade in this setting is appealing. Methods: Patients with a rising PSA after definitive local therapy were enrolled in a multi-institutional trial. Accrual of 101 patients lasted from Sept 30, 1998 to July 16, 2001. All patients had undergone previous definitive local therapy at least 1 year, and no more than 10 years prior to enrollment. All patients had a repeated rising PSA, above 1 ng/ml, with no detectable evidence of recurrent disease. CT and bone scans were negative. Patients received a combination of oral therapy consisting of Finasteride, at a dose of 5 mg/day, and Flutamide, at a dose of 250 mg TID. Results: The median age was 71, with a median baseline testosterone level of 322 ng/dl. A >80% PSA decline was seen in 91/94, (97%) of the patients. Three other patients had PSA declines of 77%, 73% and 38%, all of which were maintained for at least 28 days. The median time to PSA nadir was 3.2 months. The current median follow-up is 59 months. To date, only 22 patients have progressed, with 47 patients still on peripheral androgen blockade. Eight patients have died without progression, and 22 patients went off therapy for other reasons not related to progression. Also noted were patients showing PSA responses to Flutamide withdrawal, and per protocol remaining on Finasteride. Toxicity to date remains very mild. Conclusions: Peripheral androgen blockade showed excellent activity produced durable PSA responses in this select group of patients. While the clinical significance of a decline in PSA alone is not fully understood_the durability of these PSA responses is encouraging. The median duration of progression free survival and overall survival has not been reached, and is likely to be longer than five years. Quality of life data is undergoing further analysis. This report supports further study of less aggressive treatments for patients who have only a rising PSA after definitive local therapy.

No significant financial relationships to disclose.

Randomized phase II study comparing 4 monthly doses of ipilimumab (MDX-010) as a single agent or in combination with a single dose of docetaxel in patients with hormone-refractory prostate cancer

4609

Background: Ipilimumab is a fully human anti-CTLA-4 IgG1 monoclonal antibody that blocks CTLA-4 and augments immune responses. The current study evaluated the safety and activity of ipilimumab alone or with a single dose of docetaxel in hormone-refractory prostate cancer (HRPC). Methods: 43 chemotherapy naïve patients (pts) with HRPC, were treated; 23 were in arm A (ipilimumab at 3 mg/kg q 4 weeks × 4 doses) and 20 in arm B (ipilimumab as in Arm A and one dose of 75 mg/m2 of docetaxel on day 1). Results: Six pts, 3 in each arm, demonstrated a decrease in PSA of > 50%. Three pts, 2 in arm A, and 1 in arm B had confirmed PSA responses with durations of 79+ days, 169+ days, and 280 days, respectively. There were no radiologic responses with these PSA responses. Thirty-six (84%) of the 43 pts experienced 1 or more adverse events considered to be related to treatment with ipilimumab. The most common adverse events included fatigue (44%), pruritus (26%), nausea (19%), rash (12%), constipation (12%), and weight loss (12%). Serious adverse events (SAEs) occurred in 18 patients (42%), who experienced 52 SAEs. The majority (42 out of 52, 81%) were judged by the Investigator to be unrelated or unlikely to be related to treatment with ipilimumab. Five of the 52 SAEs reported in 3 pts were considered to be possible immune breakthrough events (IBEs), associated with drug exposure and consistent with an immune-based mechanism of action. These were adrenal insufficiency (1), diarrhea, colitis, and melena (all in one patient) and colitis (1). One of these pts had a confirmed PSA response. Conclusions: Ipilimumab was well tolerated in this group of pts with HRPC. Three pts overall (6%) experienced an IBE, a phenomenon that has been correlated in other studies with efficacy. There were several confirmed responses as assessed by PSA, one of which was correlated with an IBE. There was no apparent enhancement of activity by coadministration of a single dose of docetaxel. Further studies exploring ipilimumab in prostate cancer are warranted, either as monotherapy at higher doses, or in combination with immune modulators or vaccines.

[Table: see text]