Identification of a Predictive Genomic Biomarker for Prostate-directed Therapy in Synchronous Low-volume Metastatic Castration-sensitive Prostate Cancer

BACKGROUND

Standard of care management for synchronous metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC) includes androgen deprivation therapy with a second-generation antiandrogen therapy and/or docetaxel. Recently, randomized data have demonstrated that prostate-directed therapy (PDT) is associated with an improvement in overall survival (OS) among patients with low-volume metastatic disease. Tumor genomics represents an additional dimension to define the clinical trajectory of patients with mCSPC.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate a high-risk (HiRi) genomic signature to predict the benefit from PDT.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

We performed a single-institution retrospective review of men with synchronous low-volume mCSPC who underwent DNA panel sequencing of their tumor. Patients were classified according to the presence of HiRi mutation including pathogenic mutations in TP53, ATM, BRCA1, BRCA2, or Rb1.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

The primary endpoint was to determine the effect of PDT on OS in patients with and without a HiRi mutation. A survival analysis was performed with the Kaplan-Meier method compared with log-rank test and multivariable Cox regression. The interaction between HiRi mutation and PDT was evaluated.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

A total of 101 patients with synchronous low-volume CSPC were included with a median follow-up of 44 mo. Approximately half of patients were found to have a HiRi pathogenic mutation (49%). Patients with HiRi mutations demonstrated median OS of 73 versus 66.8 mo (p = 0.3) for no PDT versus PDT. Conversely, patients without a HiRi mutation demonstrated a significant improvement in OS of 60 versus 105.3 mo (p < 0.001) for no PDT versus PDT. The p value for interaction for OS between PDT and HiRi mutation was statistically significant (p < 0.001). Limitations include the retrospective nature of the study.

CONCLUSIONS

Here, we have identified a HiRi genomic biomarker that appears predictive for the lack of benefit from PDT in men with synchronous low-volume mCSPC. Further work validating these results is warranted.

PATIENT SUMMARY

In this report, we evaluated a high-risk genomic biomarker to predict the benefit from prostate-directed therapy for men with synchronous low-volume metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer. We found that men without a high-risk mutation appear to experience a greater clinical benefit from prostate-directed therapy than those with a high-risk mutation.

Noninvasive Detection of Neuroendocrine Prostate Cancer through Targeted Cell-free DNA Methylation

Castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) is a heterogeneous disease associated with phenotypic subtypes that drive therapy response and outcome differences. Histologic transformation to castration-resistant neuroendocrine prostate cancer (CRPC-NE) is associated with distinct epigenetic alterations, including changes in DNA methylation. The current diagnosis of CRPC-NE is challenging and relies on metastatic biopsy. We developed a targeted DNA methylation assay to detect CRPC-NE using plasma cell-free DNA (cfDNA). The assay quantifies tumor content and provides a phenotype evidence score that captures diverse CRPC phenotypes, leveraging regions to inform transcriptional state. We tested the design in independent clinical cohorts (n = 222 plasma samples) and qualified it achieving an AUC > 0.93 for detecting pathology-confirmed CRPC-NE (n = 136). Methylation-defined cfDNA tumor content was associated with clinical outcomes in two prospective phase II clinical trials geared towards aggressive variant CRPC and CRPC-NE. These data support the application of targeted DNA methylation for CRPC-NE detection and patient stratification.

SIGNIFICANCE

Neuroendocrine prostate cancer is an aggressive subtype of treatment-resistant prostate cancer. Early detection is important, but the diagnosis currently relies on metastatic biopsy. We describe the development and validation of a plasma cell-free DNA targeted methylation panel that can quantify tumor fraction and identify patients with neuroendocrine prostate cancer noninvasively. This article is featured in Selected Articles from This Issue, p. 384.

The STAMPEDE2 Trial: a Site Survey of Current Patterns of Care, Access to Imaging and Treatment of Metastatic Prostate Cancer

AIMS

The forthcoming STAMPEDE2 trial has three comparisons in metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer. We aim to determine clinical practices among STAMPEDE trial investigators for access to imaging and therapeutic choices and explore their interest in participation in STAMPEDE2.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The survey was developed and distributed online to 120 UK STAMPEDE trial sites. Recipients were invited to complete the survey between 16 and 30 May 2022. The survey consisted of 30 questions in five sections on access to stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy (SABR), 177lutetium-prostate-specific membrane antigen-617 (177Lu-PSMA-617), choice of systemic therapies and use of positron emission tomography/computerised tomography and whole-body magnetic resonance imaging.

RESULTS

From 58/120 (48%) sites, 64 respondents completed the survey: 55/64 (86%) respondents were interested to participate in SABR, 44/64 (69%) in 177Lu-PSMA-617 and 56/64 (87.5%) in niraparib with abiraterone comparisons; 45/64 (70%) respondents had access to bone, spine and lymph node metastases SABR delivery and 7/64 (11%) to 177Lu-PSMA-617. In addition to androgen deprivation therapy, 60/64 (94%) respondents used androgen receptor signalling inhibitors and 46/64 (72%) used docetaxel; 29/64 (45%) respondents would consider triplet therapy with androgen deprivation therapy, androgen receptor signalling inhibitors and docetaxel. Positron emission tomography/computerised tomography was available to 62/64 (97%) respondents and requested by 45/64 (70%) respondents for disease uncertainty on conventional imaging and 39/64 (61%) at disease relapse. Whole-body magnetic resonance imaging was available to 24/64 (38%) respondents and requested by 13/64 (20%) respondents in highly selected patients. In low-volume disease, 38/64 (59%) respondents requested scans at baseline and disease relapse. In high-volume disease, 29/64 (45%) respondents requested scans at baseline, best response (at prostate-specific antigen nadir) and disease relapse; 54/64 (84%) respondents requested computerised tomography and bone scan for best response assessment.

CONCLUSION

There is noteworthy disparity in clinical practice across current study sites, however most have expressed an interest in participation in the forthcoming STAMPEDE2 trial.

Validation of a Genomic Classifier in the NRG Oncology/RTOG 0521 Phase III Trial of Docetaxel with Androgen Suppression and Radiotherapy for Localized High-Risk Prostate Cancer

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE(S)

Decipher is a prognostic genomic classifier (GC) validated in several prospective NRG Oncology Phase III trials. Herein, we validate the GC in pre-treatment biopsy samples for risk stratification in a cohort of high-risk men treated with definitive radiotherapy and androgen suppression with or without docetaxel chemotherapy.

MATERIALS/METHODS

As per a pre-specified and approved NCI analysis plan (Navigator #1061), we obtained available formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissue from biopsy specimens from the NRG biobank from patients enrolled on the NRG/RTOG 0521 randomized phase III trial. After central review, the highest-grade tumors were profiled on clinical-grade whole-transcriptome arrays (Veracyte, San Diego, CA) and GC scores were obtained. Pre-specified categorical GC scores, adjusted for archival tissue analysis, were used to define higher (>0.46) and lower (≤0.46) risk groups. The primary objective was to validate the independent prognostic ability of GC for metastasis-free survival (MFS) with Cox multivariable analyses (MVA).

RESULTS

Samples were obtained from 283 consented, evaluable patients with tissue (50% of trial) yielding 183 (65%) GC scores that passed quality metrics, 91 from control and 92 from the interventional arm. Median age was 66 years, median PSA was 19.3 ng/uL (IQR: 8.1-41.4), 81% had clinical stage ≥T2 and 80% had Gleason score ≥8 (47% ≥9). Median GC score was 0.55 (IQR: 0.38-0.78) and overall the arms were balanced for key covariates. With a median follow-up of 9.9 years (IQR: 9.3, 10.7), 67 MFS events including 34 distant metastases (DM) were observed. On MVA, only the GC (per 0.1 unit) was independently associated with MFS (HR 1.12, 95% CI 1.01-1.25) as well as DM (sHR 1.22, 95% CI 1.06-1.41), whereas the 4 pre-defined trial risk groups used for stratification (based on Gleason score, T-stage and PSA), randomization and patient age were not. For categorical GC, on MVA, higher-risk GC patients (65%) had worse DM (sHR 2.82, 95% CI 1.1-7.3) compared to those with lower GC. Cumulative incidence of DM at 10-years was 27% for higher GC vs 9% (95% CI 7-18%) for lower GC. No biomarker-by-treatment interaction with GC and the addition of docetaxel was detected.

CONCLUSION

In pre-treatment biopsy samples from a randomized Phase 3 trial cohort, GC demonstrated its ability to further risk stratify clinically high-risk men demonstrating an independent association of GC score with DM and MFS. High-risk prostate cancer is a heterogeneous disease state and GC can improve risk stratification to help personalize shared decision-making. NRG-GU009/PREDICT-RT (NCT04513717) aims to determine the optimal therapy based on GC score for high-risk prostate cancer.

Transcriptomic Heterogeneity of Metastatic Disease Timing within Metastatic Castration-Sensitive Prostate Cancer

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE(S)

Metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC) is commonly partitioned into high- and low-volume subgroups which have demonstrated differential biology, prognosis, and response to therapy. Timing of metastasis has similarly demonstrated differences in clinical outcomes, however less is known about any potential underlying biologic differences between these disease states. Herein we aim to compare transcriptomic differences between synchronous and metachronous mCSPC and identify any differential responses to therapy.

MATERIALS/METHODS

We performed an international multi-institutional retrospective review of men with mCSPC who completed RNA expression profiling evaluation of their primary tumor. Patients were stratified according to disease timing (synchronous vs metachronous). The primary endpoint was to identify differences in transcriptomic profiles between disease time. Median genomic scores between groups were compared with Mann-Whitney U test. Secondary analyses included determining clinical and transcriptomic variables associated with overall survival (OS) from time of metastasis. Survival analysis was performed with the Kaplan-Meier Method and Multivariable Cox regression.

RESULTS

A total of 252 patients were included with a median follow-up of 39.6 months. Patients with synchronous disease experienced worse 5-yr OS (39% vs 79%, p<0.01) and demonstrated lower median Androgen Receptor Activity (AR-A) (11.78 vs 12.64, p<0.01) and Hallmark Androgen Response (HAR) (3.15 vs 3.32; p<0.01). Multivariable cox-regression identified only high-volume disease (HR = 4.97, 95% CI 2.71-9.10; p<0.01) and HAR score (HR = 0.51, 95% CI 0.28-0.88; p = 0.02 significantly associated with OS. Finally, patients with synchronous (HR = 0.47, 95% CI 0.30-0.72; <0.01) but not metachronous (HR = 1.37, 95% CI 0.50-3.92; p = 0.56) disease were found to have better OS with Androgen Receptor (AR) + non-AR combination therapy as compared to monotherapy (p value for interaction = 0.05).

CONCLUSION

We have demonstrated a potential biologic difference between metastatic timing of mCSPC. Specifically, for patients with low volume disease, those with metachronous low volume disease have a more hormone dependent transcriptional profile and exhibit a better prognosis than synchronous low volume disease.

Identification of a Predictive Genomic Biomarker for Prostate Directed Therapy in Synchronous Low-Volume Metastatic Castration Sensitive Prostate Cancer

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE(S)

Standard of care management for metastatic castration sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC) includes androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) with docetaxel or second-generation anti-androgen therapy. Recently, randomized data has demonstrated radiotherapy to the prostate is associated with an improvement in overall survival among patients with low-volume metastatic disease. Tumor genomics represents an additional dimension to understand the clinical trajectory of patients with mCSPC. Herein we aim to evaluate a high-risk genomic signature for its ability to predict response to prostate directed therapy (PDT).

MATERIALS/METHODS

We performed a single institution retrospective review of men with low-volume mCSPC who underwent next-generation sequencing of their tumor. Patients were classified according to the presence of high-risk (HiRi) mutation including pathogenic mutations in either TP53, ATM, BRCA1/2, or Rb1. Our primary endpoint was to determine the effect of PDT on overall survival (OS) in patients with and without a HiRi mutation. Survival analysis was performed with the Kaplan-Meier method compared with log-rank test and multivariable cox regression. Interaction between HiRi mutation and PDT was evaluated.

RESULTS

A total of 101 patients with synchronous low-volume CSPC were included in our analysis with a median follow-up of 44 months. Approximately half of patients were found to have a HiRi pathogenic mutation (48.5%) with TP53 mutations accounting for 75.5% of HiRi mutations. On multivariable cox regression PDT was associated with improvement in OS (HR = 0.37, 95% CI 0.16-0.88; p = 0.03). When stratified by presence of HiRi mutation, PDT was not associated with any clinical outcome. Patients with HiRi mutations demonstrated a median OS of 73 vs 66.8 months (p = 0.28) for no PDT and PDT, respectively. Conversely, patients without a HiRi mutation demonstrated a significant improvement in median OS of 60 vs 105.3 months (p<0.01) for no PDT and PDT, respectively. The p-value for interaction for OS between PDT and HiRi mutation was statistically significant (p<0.01).

CONCLUSION

Here we have identified a high-risk genomic biomarker that appears predictive for response to PDT in men with synchronous low-volume mCSPC. Further work validating these results with prospective randomized data is warranted.

Integrating extracellular vesicle and circulating cell-free DNA analysis using a single plasma aliquot improves the detection of HER2 positivity in breast cancer patients

Multi-analyte liquid biopsies represent an emerging opportunity for non-invasive cancer assessment. We developed ONCE (One Aliquot for Circulating Elements), an approach for the isolation of extracellular vesicles (EV) and cell-free DNA (cfDNA) from a single aliquot of blood. We assessed ONCE performance to classify HER2-positive early-stage breast cancer (BrCa) patients by combining EV-associated RNA (EV-RNA) and cfDNA signals on n = 64 healthy donors (HD) and non-metastatic BrCa patients. Specifically, we isolated EV-enriched samples by a charge-based (CB) method and investigated EV-RNA and cfDNA by next-generation sequencing (NGS) and by digital droplet PCR (ddPCR). Sequencing of cfDNA and EV-RNA from HER2- and HER2+ patients demonstrated concordance with in situ molecular analyses of matched tissues. Combined analysis of the two circulating analytes by ddPCR showed increased sensitivity in ERBB2/HER2 detection compared to single nucleic acid components. Multi-analyte liquid biopsy prediction performance was comparable to tissue-based sequencing results from TCGA. Also, imaging flow cytometry analysis revealed HER2 protein on the surface of EV isolated from the HER2+ BrCa plasma, thus corroborating the potential relevance of studying EV as companion analyte to cfDNA. This data confirms the relevance of combining cfDNA and EV-RNA for HER2 cancer assessment and supports ONCE as a valuable tool for multi-analytes liquid biopsies' clinical implementation.

Niraparib plus abiraterone acetate with prednisone in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer and homologous recombination repair gene alterations: second interim analysis of the randomized phase III MAGNITUDE trial

BACKGROUND

Patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) and BRCA alterations have poor outcomes. MAGNITUDE found patients with homologous recombination repair gene alterations (HRR+), particularly BRCA1/2, benefit from first-line therapy with niraparib plus abiraterone acetate and prednisone (AAP). Here we report longer follow-up from the second prespecified interim analysis (IA2).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients with mCRPC were prospectively identified as HRR+ with/without BRCA1/2 alterations and randomized 1 : 1 to niraparib (200 mg orally) plus AAP (1000 mg/10 mg orally) or placebo plus AAP. At IA2, secondary endpoints [time to symptomatic progression, time to initiation of cytotoxic chemotherapy, overall survival (OS)] were assessed.

RESULTS

Overall, 212 HRR+ patients received niraparib plus AAP (BRCA1/2 subgroup, n = 113). At IA2 with 24.8 months of median follow-up in the BRCA1/2 subgroup, niraparib plus AAP significantly prolonged radiographic progression-free survival {rPFS; blinded independent central review; median rPFS 19.5 versus 10.9 months; hazard ratio (HR) = 0.55 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.39-0.78]; nominal P = 0.0007} consistent with the first prespecified interim analysis. rPFS was also prolonged in the total HRR+ population [HR = 0.76 (95% CI 0.60-0.97); nominal P = 0.0280; median follow-up 26.8 months]. Improvements in time to symptomatic progression and time to initiation of cytotoxic chemotherapy were observed with niraparib plus AAP. In the BRCA1/2 subgroup, the analysis of OS with niraparib plus AAP demonstrated an HR of 0.88 (95% CI 0.58-1.34; nominal P = 0.5505); the prespecified inverse probability censoring weighting analysis of OS, accounting for imbalances in subsequent use of poly adenosine diphosphate-ribose polymerase inhibitors and other life-prolonging therapies, demonstrated an HR of 0.54 (95% CI 0.33-0.90; nominal P = 0.0181). No new safety signals were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

MAGNITUDE, enrolling the largest BRCA1/2 cohort in first-line mCRPC to date, demonstrated improved rPFS and other clinically relevant outcomes with niraparib plus AAP in patients with BRCA1/2-altered mCRPC, emphasizing the importance of identifying this molecular subset of patients.

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.

Transcriptomic and clinical heterogeneity of metastatic disease timing within metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

Metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC) is commonly classified into high- and low-volume subgroups which have demonstrated differential biology, prognosis, and response to therapy. Timing of metastasis has similarly demonstrated differences in clinical outcomes; however, less is known about any underlying biologic differences between these disease states. Herein, we aim to compare transcriptomic differences between synchronous and metachronous mCSPC and identify any differential responses to therapy.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We performed an international multi-institutional retrospective review of men with mCSPC who completed RNA expression profiling evaluation of their primary tumor. Patients were stratified according to disease timing (synchronous versus metachronous). The primary endpoint was to identify differences in transcriptomic profiles between disease timing. The median transcriptomic scores between groups were compared with the Mann-Whitney U test. Secondary analyses included determining clinical and transcriptomic variables associated with overall survival (OS) from the time of metastasis. Survival analysis was carried out with the Kaplan-Meier method and multivariable Cox regression.

RESULTS

A total of 252 patients were included with a median follow-up of 39.6 months. Patients with synchronous disease experienced worse 5-year OS (39% versus 79%; P < 0.01) and demonstrated lower median androgen receptor (AR) activity (11.78 versus 12.64; P < 0.01) and hallmark androgen response (HAR; 3.15 versus 3.32; P < 0.01). Multivariable Cox regression identified only high-volume disease [hazard ratio (HR) = 4.97, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.71-9.10; P < 0.01] and HAR score (HR = 0.51, 95% CI 0.28-0.88; P = 0.02) significantly associated with OS. Finally, patients with synchronous (HR = 0.47, 95% CI 0.30-0.72; P < 0.01) but not metachronous (HR = 1.37, 95% CI 0.50-3.92; P = 0.56) disease were found to have better OS with AR and non-AR combination therapy as compared with monotherapy (P value for interaction = 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

We have demonstrated a potential biologic difference between metastatic timing of mCSPC. Specifically, for patients with low-volume disease, those with metachronous low-volume disease have a more hormone-dependent transcriptional profile and exhibit a better prognosis than synchronous low-volume disease.

Niraparib and Abiraterone Acetate for Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer

PURPOSE

Metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) remains a lethal disease with current standard-of-care therapies. Homologous recombination repair (HRR) gene alterations, including BRCA1/2 alterations, can sensitize cancer cells to poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibition, which may improve outcomes in treatment-naïve mCRPC when combined with androgen receptor signaling inhibition.

METHODS

MAGNITUDE (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03748641) is a phase III, randomized, double-blinded study that evaluates niraparib and abiraterone acetate plus prednisone (niraparib + AAP) in patients with (HRR+, n = 423) or without (HRR-, n = 247) HRR-associated gene alterations, as prospectively determined by tissue/plasma-based assays. Patients were assigned 1:1 to receive niraparib + AAP or placebo + AAP. The primary end point, radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) assessed by central review, was evaluated first in the BRCA1/2 subgroup and then in the full HRR+ cohort, with secondary end points analyzed for the full HRR+ cohort if rPFS was statistically significant. A futility analysis was preplanned in the HRR- cohort.

RESULTS

Median rPFS in the BRCA1/2 subgroup was significantly longer in the niraparib + AAP group compared with the placebo + AAP group (16.6 v 10.9 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.53; 95% CI, 0.36 to 0.79; P = .001). In the overall HRR+ cohort, rPFS was significantly longer in the niraparib + AAP group compared with the placebo + AAP group (16.5 v 13.7 months; HR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.56 to 0.96; P = .022). These findings were supported by improvement in the secondary end points of time to symptomatic progression and time to initiation of cytotoxic chemotherapy. In the HRR- cohort, futility was declared per the prespecified criteria. Treatment with niraparib + AAP was tolerable, with anemia and hypertension as the most reported grade ≥ 3 adverse events.

CONCLUSION

Combination treatment with niraparib + AAP significantly lengthened rPFS in patients with HRR+ mCRPC compared with standard-of-care AAP.

[Media: see text].

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.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVE

To present the voting results of the APCCC 2022.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

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

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

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

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

PATIENT SUMMARY

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

TWITTER SUMMARY

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

TAKE-HOME MESSAGE

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

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

BACKGROUND

Prostate cancer (PCa) is a clinically heterogeneous disease. The creation of an expression-based subtyping model based on prostate-specific biological processes was sought.

METHODS

Unsupervised machine learning of gene expression profiles from prospectively collected primary prostate tumors (training, n = 32,000; evaluation, n = 68,547) was used to create a prostate subtyping classifier (PSC) based on basal versus luminal cell expression patterns and other gene signatures relevant to PCa biology. Subtype molecular pathways and clinical characteristics were explored in five other clinical cohorts.

RESULTS

Clustering derived four subtypes: luminal differentiated (LD), luminal proliferating (LP), basal immune (BI), and basal neuroendocrine (BN). LP and LD tumors both had higher androgen receptor activity. LP tumors also had a higher expression of cell proliferation genes, MYC activity, and characteristics of homologous recombination deficiency. BI tumors possessed significant interferon γactivity and immune infiltration on immunohistochemistry. BN tumors were characterized by lower androgen receptor activity expression, lower immune infiltration, and enrichment with neuroendocrine expression patterns. Patients with LD tumors had less aggressive tumor characteristics and the longest time to metastasis after surgery. Only patients with BI tumors derived benefit from radiotherapy after surgery in terms of time to metastasis (hazard ratio [HR], 0.09; 95% CI, 0.01-0.71; n = 855). In a phase 3 trial that randomized patients with metastatic PCa to androgen deprivation with or without docetaxel (n = 108), only patients with LP tumors derived survival benefit from docetaxel (HR, 0.21; 95% CI, 0.09-0.51).

CONCLUSIONS

With the use of expression profiles from over 100,000 tumors, a PSC was developed that identified four subtypes with distinct biological and clinical features.

PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY

Prostate cancer can behave in an indolent or aggressive manner and vary in how it responds to certain treatments. To differentiate prostate cancer on the basis of biological features, we developed a novel RNA signature by using data from over 100,000 prostate tumors-the largest data set of its kind. This signature can inform patients and physicians on tumor aggressiveness and susceptibilities to treatments to help personalize cancer management.

A correlative biomarker study and integrative prognostic model in chemotherapy-naïve metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer treated with enzalutamide

BACKGROUND

There is a considerable need to incorporate biomarkers of resistance to new antiandrogen agents in the management of castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC).

METHODS

We conducted a phase II trial of enzalutamide in first-line chemo-naïve asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic mCRPC and analyzed the prognostic value of TMPRSS2-ERG and other biomarkers, including circulating tumor cells (CTCs), androgen receptor splice variant (AR-V7) in CTCs and plasma Androgen Receptor copy number gain (AR-gain). These biomarkers were correlated with treatment response and survival outcomes and developed a clinical-molecular prognostic model using penalized cox-proportional hazard model. This model was validated in an independent cohort.

RESULTS

Ninety-eight patients were included. TMPRSS2-ERG fusion gene was detected in 32 patients with no differences observed in efficacy outcomes. CTC detection was associated with worse outcome and AR-V7 in CTCs was associated with increased rate of progression as best response. Plasma AR gain was strongly associated with an adverse outcome, with worse median prostate specific antigen (PSA)-PFS (4.2 vs. 14.7 m; p < 0.0001), rad-PFS (4.5 vs. 27.6 m; p < 0.0001), and OS (12.7 vs. 38.1 m; p < 0.0001). The clinical prognostic model developed in PREVAIL was validated (C-Index 0.70) and the addition of plasma AR (C-Index 0.79; p < 0.001) increased its prognostic ability. We generated a parsimonious model including alkaline phosphatase (ALP); PSA and AR gain (C-index 0.78) that was validated in an independent cohort.

CONCLUSIONS

TMPRSS2-ERG detection did not correlate with differential activity of enzalutamide in first-line mCRPC. However, we observed that CTCs and plasma AR gain were the most relevant biomarkers.

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.

Impact of run-in treatment with abiraterone acetate and prednisone (AAP) in the MAGNITUDE study of niraparib (NIRA) and AAP in patients (pts) with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) and homologous recombination repair (HRR) gene alterations

172

Background: NIRA/AAP significantly improved outcomes in pts with mCRPC and HRR gene alterations, particularly in BRCA, in the phase 3 MAGNITUDE study. As a practical measure, pts were permitted to receive up to 4 mos of AAP (in 1L mCRPC) prior to randomization to allow time for genomic testing. We evaluated the impact of AAP run-in treatment on the efficacy of NIRA/AAP. Methods: 423 pts with mCRPC and HRR gene alterations were randomized 1:1 to receive NIRA/AAP or placebo (PBO)/AAP. At the prespecified second interim analysis, a sensitivity analysis based on the duration of AAP run-in was conducted. Pts with BRCA alterations were also analyzed separately. Results: Median duration of prior AAP treatment received was 1.9 (range, 0.3–4.1) mos. Pts receiving AAP ≤2 mos had similar benefit (radiographic progression-free survival [rPFS] hazard ratio [HR], 0.69 [95% confidence interval [CI], 0.36-1.30]; time to cytotoxic chemotherapy [TCC] HR, 0.52 [95% CI, 0.24-1.11]; time to symptomatic progression [TSP] HR, 0.32 [95% CI, 0.13-0.79]; Table) to pts not receiving any prior AAP. rPFS benefit was not demonstrated in pts who had previously received AAP >2 – 4 mos: HR, 1.47 (95% CI, 0.66-3.30). Findings were consistent in the BRCA population. Conclusions: Pts receiving a short run-in (≤2 mos) of AAP alone obtained similar benefit from NIRA/AAP as those who received both NIRA/AAP together for initial treatment of mCRPC. While interpretation of data is limited by the small sample size and event numbers, for pts where NIRA/AAP is being considered as therapy, AAP may be initiated during HRR testing and combination treatment should be initiated expeditiously once HRR positivity is established to attain maximal treatment benefit. Clinical trial information: NCT03748641 . [Table: see text]

Use of prostate cancer subtyping by gene expression to predict response to radiation and chemohormonal therapies

241

Background: We previously reported on the use of gene expression profiling to characterize four primary subtypes in an analysis of over 100,000 prostate cancer primary tumors. Here we examine these subtypes and response to radiation (RT) after prostatectomy or chemotherapy in addition to androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) in hormone-sensitive metastatic prostate cancer (mHSPC). Methods: We examined a 215-gene prostate subtyping classifier (PSC) which groups luminal and basal gene expression profiles into one of four subtypes; luminal differentiated (LD), luminal proliferating (LP), basal immune (BI) and basal neuroendocrine-like (BN). The log-rank method was used to compare (i) metastasis-free survival between patients who did and did not receive salvage RT in the META855 cohort of localized disease patients treated with radical prostatectomy (n=855) and the (ii) overall survival of patients on the Phase III mHSPC EA3805 CHAARTED trial of ADT or ADT + docetaxel chemotherapy (n=160). Results: After radical prostatectomy, patients with BI tumors derived benefit from RT in terms of metastasis-free survival ( P=9.23e-4) while those with other subtype tumors did not (Each Log-rank P≥0.5). Patients with metastatic disease and LP tumors derived benefit from docetaxel (Log-rank P=0.002) while those with other subtypes tumors did not (Log-rank P=0.2). Conclusions: Basal-luminal subtyping segments tumors by relevant biological processes with potential implications for identifying patients who benefit from salvage radiation post prostatectomy and addition of docetaxel to ADT in mHSPC.

Niraparib (NIRA) with abiraterone acetate and prednisone (AAP) in patients (pts) with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) and homologous recombination repair (HRR) gene alterations: Second interim analysis (IA2) of MAGNITUDE

170

Background: In the primary analysis of the phase 3 MAGNITUDE study, NIRA/AAP significantly improved outcomes in pts with mCRPC and HRR gene alterations. Here, we report results from IA2 of secondary endpoints in MAGNITUDE. Methods: 423 eligible pts with mCRPC and HRR alterations (HRR+ cohort) were randomized 1:1 to receive NIRA/AAP (n = 212) or placebo (PBO)/AAP (n = 211). At the prespecified IA2, secondary endpoints (time to cytotoxic chemotherapy [TCC], time to symptomatic progression [TSP], overall survival [OS]) were formally assessed and the primary rPFS endpoint was updated in the HRR+ cohort, with sensitivity analysis performed for the subgroup of pts with BRCA alterations. Results: Updated descriptive rPFS results at IA2 (cutoff: June 17, 2022) were consistent with the primary analysis in the HRR+ cohort. In the BRCA subgroup, NIRA/AAP extended median rPFS to 19.5 mos vs 10.9 mos with PBO/AAP. NIRA/AAP led to statistically significant benefit in TSP in the HRR+ cohort with consistent benefit in the BRCA subgroup. Continued consistent improvement of TCC was seen with NIRA/AAP in the HRR+ cohort and in the BRCA subgroup. There was a trend towards improved OS with NIRA/AAP in the BRCA subgroup in the primary stratified analysis and the multivariate analysis (MVA), accounting for imbalances in key baseline characteristics. BRCA pts treated with NIRA/AAP experienced delayed time to worst pain intensity (HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.44, 1.12; nominal P = 0.1338) and pain interference (HR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.40, 1.12; nominal P = 0.1275) compared to PBO/AAP. The safety profile at IA2 was consistent with that of the primary analysis, with no new safety signals observed. Conclusions: With 26.8 months of median follow-up, there was a statistically significant and meaningful clinical benefit in TSP and meaningful clinical benefit in TCC. Additionally, updated rPFS results from MAGNITUDE IA2 were consistent with the primary analysis; OS benefit was not conclusive due to immaturity and will be followed through to final analysis. Taken together, these data continue to support the use of NIRA/AAP in pts with mCRPC and BRCA alterations or select other HRR gene alterations. Clinical trial information: NCT03748641 . [Table: see text]

Clinical testing of transcriptome-wide expression profiles in high-risk localized and metastatic prostate cancer starting androgen deprivation therapy: an ancillary study of the STAMPEDE abiraterone Phase 3 trial

Metastatic and high-risk localized prostate cancer respond to hormone therapy but outcomes vary. Following a pre-specified statistical plan, we used Cox models adjusted for clinical variables to test associations with survival of multi-gene expression-based classifiers from 781 patients randomized to androgen deprivation with or without abiraterone in the STAMPEDE trial. Decipher score was strongly prognostic (p<2×10-5) and identified clinically-relevant differences in absolute benefit, especially for localized cancers. In metastatic disease, classifiers of proliferation, PTEN or TP53 loss and treatment-persistent cells were prognostic. In localized disease, androgen receptor activity was protective whilst interferon signaling (that strongly associated with tumor lymphocyte infiltration) was detrimental. Post-Operative Radiation-Therapy Outcomes Score was prognostic in localized but not metastatic disease (interaction p=0.0001) suggesting the impact of tumor biology on clinical outcome is context-dependent on metastatic state. Transcriptome-wide testing has clinical utility for advanced prostate cancer and identified worse outcomes for localized cancers with tumor-promoting inflammation.

Continuous enzalutamide after progression of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer treated with docetaxel (PRESIDE): an international, randomised, phase 3b study

BACKGROUND

Although androgen deprivation therapy is typically given long-term for men with metastatic prostate cancer, second-generation hormone therapies are generally discontinued before the subsequent line of treatment. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy of continuing enzalutamide after progression in controlling metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) treated with docetaxel and prednisolone.

METHODS

PRESIDE was a two-period, multinational, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3b study done at 123 sites in Europe (in Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Russia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, and the UK). Patients were eligible for period 1 (P1) of the study if they had histologically confirmed prostate adenocarcinoma without neuroendocrine differentiation or small-cell features, serum testosterone concentrations of 1·73 nmol/L or less, and had progressed during androgen deprivation therapy with a luteinising hormone-releasing hormone agonist or antagonist or after bilateral orchiectomy. In P1, patients received open-label enzalutamide 160 mg per day orally. At week 13, patients were assessed for either radiographic or prostate-specific antigen (PSA) progression (25% or more increase and 2 ng/mL or more above nadir). Patients who showed any decline in PSA at week 13 and subsequently progressed (radiographic progression, PSA progression, or both) were screened and enrolled in period 2 (P2), during which eligible patients were treated with up to ten cycles of intravenous docetaxel 75 mg/m² every 3 weeks and oral prednisolone 10 mg/day, and randomly assigned (1:1) to oral enzalutamide 160 mg/day or oral placebo. Patients were stratified by type of disease progression. The block size was four and the overall number of blocks was 400. Patients, investigators, and study organisers were masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival analysed in all patients in P2. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02288247, and is no longer recruiting.

FINDINGS

Between Dec 1, 2014, and Feb 15, 2016, 816 patients were screened for P1 of the study. 688 patients were enrolled in P1 and 687 received open-label enzalutamide. In P2, 271 patients were randomly assigned at 73 sites to receive enzalutamide (n=136) or placebo (n=135). The data cutoff for analysis was April 30, 2020. Median progression-free survival with enzalutamide was 9·5 months (95% CI 8·3-10·9) versus 8·3 months (6·3-8·7) with placebo (hazard ratio 0·72 [95% CI 0·53-0·96]; p=0·027). The most common grade 3 treatment-emergent adverse events were neutropenia (17 [13%] of 136 patients in the enzalutamide group vs 12 [9%] of 135 patients in the placebo group) and asthenia (ten [7%] vs six [4%]). The most common grade 4 treatment-emergent adverse event in P2 was neutropenia (23 [17%] of 136 patients in the enzalutamide group vs 28 [21%] of 135 patients in the placebo group). Serious treatment-emergent adverse events were reported in 67 (49%) of 136 patients in the enzalutamide group and 52 (39%) of 135 patients in the placebo group. Two (15%) of 13 deaths in the enzalutamide group (caused by septic shock and haematuria) and one (14%) of seven deaths in the placebo group (caused by actue kidney injury) were associated with docetaxel.

INTERPRETATION

PRESIDE met its primary endpoint and showed that continuing enzalutamide with docetaxel plus androgen deprivation therapy delayed time to progression compared with docetaxel plus androgen deprivation therapy alone, supporting the hypothesis that enzalutamide maintenance could control persistent androgen-dependent clones in men with mCRPC who progress after treatment with enzalutamide alone.

FUNDING

Astellas Pharma and Pfizer.

Accumulation of copy number alterations and clinical progression across advanced prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

Genomic copy number alterations commonly occur in prostate cancer and are one measure of genomic instability. The clinical implication of copy number change in advanced prostate cancer, which defines a wide spectrum of disease from high-risk localised to metastatic, is unknown.

METHODS

We performed copy number profiling on 688 tumour regions from 300 patients, who presented with advanced prostate cancer prior to the start of long-term androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), in the control arm of the prospective randomised STAMPEDE trial. Patients were categorised into metastatic states as follows; high-risk non-metastatic with or without local lymph node involvement, or metastatic low/high volume. We followed up patients for a median of 7 years. Univariable and multivariable Cox survival models were fitted to estimate the association between the burden of copy number alteration as a continuous variable and the hazard of death or disease progression.

RESULTS

The burden of copy number alterations positively associated with radiologically evident distant metastases at diagnosis (P=0.00006) and showed a non-linear relationship with clinical outcome on univariable and multivariable analysis, characterised by a sharp increase in the relative risk of progression (P=0.003) and death (P=0.045) for each unit increase, stabilising into more modest increases with higher copy number burdens. This association between copy number burden and outcome was similar in each metastatic state. Copy number loss occurred significantly more frequently than gain at the lowest copy number burden quartile (q=4.1 × 10-6). Loss of segments in chromosome 5q21-22 and gains at 8q21-24, respectively including CHD1 and cMYC occurred more frequently in cases with higher copy number alteration (for either region: Kolmogorov-Smirnov distance, 0.5; adjusted P<0.0001). Copy number alterations showed variability across tumour regions in the same prostate. This variance associated with increased risk of distant metastases (Kruskal-Wallis test P=0.037).

CONCLUSIONS

Copy number alteration in advanced prostate cancer associates with increased risk of metastases at diagnosis. Accumulation of a limited number of copy number alterations associates with most of the increased risk of disease progression and death. The increased likelihood of involvement of specific segments in high copy number alteration burden cancers may suggest an order underlying the accumulation of copy number changes.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00268476 , registered on December 22, 2005. EudraCT  2004-000193-31 , registered on October 4, 2004.

Abiraterone acetate plus prednisolone for metastatic patients starting hormone therapy: 5-year follow-up results from the STAMPEDE randomised trial (NCT00268476)

Abiraterone acetate plus prednisolone (AAP) previously demonstrated improved survival in STAMPEDE, a multiarm, multistage platform trial in men starting long-term hormone therapy for prostate cancer. This long-term analysis in metastatic patients was planned for 3 years after the first results. Standard-of-care (SOC) was androgen deprivation therapy. The comparison randomised patients 1:1 to SOC-alone with or without daily abiraterone acetate 1000 mg + prednisolone 5 mg (SOC + AAP), continued until disease progression. The primary outcome measure was overall survival. Metastatic disease risk group was classified retrospectively using baseline CT and bone scans by central radiological review and pathology reports. Analyses used Cox proportional hazards and flexible parametric models, accounting for baseline stratification factors. One thousand and three patients were contemporaneously randomised (November 2011 to January 2014): median age 67 years; 94% newly-diagnosed; metastatic disease risk group: 48% high, 44% low, 8% unassessable; median PSA 97 ng/mL. At 6.1 years median follow-up, 329 SOC-alone deaths (118 low-risk, 178 high-risk) and 244 SOC + AAP deaths (75 low-risk, 145 high-risk) were reported. Adjusted HR = 0.60 (95% CI: 0.50-0.71; P = 0.31 × 10^-9 ) favoured SOC + AAP, with 5-years survival improved from 41% SOC-alone to 60% SOC + AAP. This was similar in low-risk (HR = 0.55; 95% CI: 0.41-0.76) and high-risk (HR = 0.54; 95% CI: 0.43-0.69) patients. Median and current maximum time on SOC + AAP was 2.4 and 8.1 years. Toxicity at 4 years postrandomisation was similar, with 16% patients in each group reporting grade 3 or higher toxicity. A sustained and substantial improvement in overall survival of all metastatic prostate cancer patients was achieved with SOC + abiraterone acetate + prednisolone, irrespective of metastatic disease risk group.

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.

Docetaxel for Nonmetastatic Prostate Cancer: Long-Term Survival Outcomes in the STAMPEDE Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

STAMPEDE previously reported adding upfront docetaxel improved overall survival for prostate cancer patients starting long-term androgen deprivation therapy. We report long-term results for non-metastatic patients using, as primary outcome, metastatic progression-free survival (mPFS), an externally demonstrated surrogate for overall survival.

METHODS

Standard of care (SOC) was androgen deprivation therapy with or without radical prostate radiotherapy. A total of 460 SOC and 230 SOC plus docetaxel were randomly assigned 2:1. Standard survival methods and intention to treat were used. Treatment effect estimates were summarized from adjusted Cox regression models, switching to restricted mean survival time if non-proportional hazards. mPFS (new metastases, skeletal-related events, or prostate cancer death) had 70% power (α = 0.05) for a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.70. Secondary outcome measures included overall survival, failure-free survival (FFS), and progression-free survival (PFS: mPFS, locoregional progression).

RESULTS

Median follow-up was 6.5 years with 142 mPFS events on SOC (3 year and 54% increases over previous report). There was no good evidence of an advantage to SOC plus docetaxel on mPFS (HR = 0.89, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.66 to 1.19; P = .43); with 5-year mPFS 82% (95% CI = 78% to 87%) SOC plus docetaxel vs 77% (95% CI = 73% to 81%) SOC. Secondary outcomes showed evidence SOC plus docetaxel improved FFS (HR = 0.70, 95% CI = 0.55 to 0.88; P = .002) and PFS (nonproportional P = .03, restricted mean survival time difference = 5.8 months, 95% CI = 0.5 to 11.2; P = .03) but no good evidence of overall survival benefit (125 SOC deaths; HR = 0.88, 95% CI = 0.64 to 1.21; P = .44). There was no evidence SOC plus docetaxel increased late toxicity: post 1 year, 29% SOC and 30% SOC plus docetaxel grade 3-5 toxicity.

CONCLUSIONS

There is robust evidence that SOC plus docetaxel improved FFS and PFS (previously shown to increase quality-adjusted life-years), without excess late toxicity, which did not translate into benefit for longer-term outcomes. This may influence patient management in individual cases.

Abstract 401: Single-cell transcriptome and chromatin sequencing uncover gene expression and gene regulatory patterns associated with enzalutamide resistance

Resistance to androgen receptor-targeted therapy due to tumor heterogeneity and clonal evolution is a key challenge for improving prostate cancer outcomes. Despite this, the transcriptomic and chromatin accessibility changes contributing to the emergence of resistance remain incompletely understood at the level of individual cells. Using single-cell assays for transposase-accessible chromatin (ATAC) and RNA sequencing in models of early treatment response and resistance to enzalutamide, we previously identified pre-existing and persistent cell subpopulations that possess regenerative potential when subjected to treatment. Here we analyze the chromatin and transcriptomes of these single cells to characterize their gene regulation and gene expression trajectories. We present evidence of a model of enzalutamide resistance emergence in which the pre-existing and treatment-persistent cells regenerate the bulk of resistant cells. This process is underpinned by chromatin reprogramming that increases the overall relaxation of chromatin upon resistance. We show that the reprogramming of the chromatin further differentially contributes to transcription factor-mediated transcriptional reprogramming via DNA motif exposure in different cell subpopulations. For example, in the treatment-persistent cells, we identify chromatin configurations characterized by the exposure of DNA motifs for GATA2, RELA (a NFkB subunit), CREB1, and E2F1. Pre-existing and treatment-persistent cells consistently display transcriptional features of high developmental potential and RNA velocity analysis identifies them as precursors of cell populations that arise from enzalutamide treatment. We also analyze the pre-existing and treatment-persistent cells in spatial transcriptomics of prostate cancer patient specimens based on their characteristic gene expression profiles. We find these cells to be enriched in cancerous regions of the tissue but also detect them within apparent benign regions, which has potential implications for treatment choice. In summary, we show patterns of gene expression regulation in preclinical models and patient samples that uncover mechanisms of resistance to androgen receptor-targeted therapy in prostate cancer.

Citation Format: Sinja Taavitsainen, Nikolai Engedal, Shaolong Cao, Florian Handle, Andrew Erickson, Stefan Prekovic, Daniel Wetterskog, Teemu Tolonen, Elisa M. Vuorinen, Antti Kiviaho, Reetta Nätkin, Tomi Häkkinen, Wout Devlies, Sallamari Henttinen, Roosa Kaarijärvi, Mari Lahnalampi, Heidi Kaljunen, Karolina Nowakowska, Heimo Syvälä, Merja Bläuer, Paolo Cremaschi, Frank Claessens, Tapio Visakorpi, Teuvo L. Tammela, Teemu Murtola, Kirsi J. Granberg, Alastair D. Lamb, Kirsi Ketola, Ian G. Mills, Gerhardt Attard, Wenyi Wang, Matti Nykter, Alfonso Urbanucci. Single-cell transcriptome and chromatin sequencing uncover gene expression and gene regulatory patterns associated with enzalutamide resistance [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2022; 2022 Apr 8-13. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2022;82(12_Suppl):Abstract nr 401.

Abstract 4133: High prevalence and heterogeneity of emergence of BRCA reversion mutations at progression on niraparib treatment in BRCA-mutant metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) patients

In the phase 2 GALAHAD study (NCT02854436), the PARP inhibitor (PARPi) niraparib, was evaluated in heavily pre-treated patients with mCRPC and DNA-repair gene defects (DRD) who progressed after androgen-receptor (AR) targeted therapy and taxane-based chemotherapy. The results showed that objective response rate (ORR) was 34.2% for patients with measurable disease having biallelic BRCA1/2 alterations (n=76). The development of BRCA reversion mutations, a type of secondary mutation that restores protein function, has been proposed as a key resistance mechanism to PARP inhibition. We aimed to evaluate the relationship between reversion mutations and treatment response in BRCA1/2 altered patients treated with niraparib in the GALAHAD study.

Thirty-three patients with biallelic BRCA alterations (excluding patients with homozygous deletions) had donated an end-of-treatment (EOT) ctDNA sample. We performed sequencing to detect reversion mutations using the Resolution Bioscience ctDx-HRD assay. Mutation patterns at baseline included splice site, nonsense, missense, and frameshift mutations, with the latter being the most common (24/33; 73%). No reversions were detected at baseline and the baseline BRCA alterations were detected at EOT for every patient. Most BRCA patients (28/33; 85%) had at least 1 reversion mutation (range: 1-38 different BRCA alterations) at EOT. Of the 28 patients with reversions, 5 were classified as low reversions: 3 patients had only one reversion mutation, 1 patient had 2 reversions at low allele frequency and 1 patient had 4 reversions at low allele frequency. Patients with reversion mutations showed better composite response (defined as ORR by RECIST 1.1, or CTC conversion to &lt;5/7.5 mL blood, or ≥50% decline in prostate specific antigen) (74.2% vs 25.8%, p=0.01) and longer duration on treatment (median 6.9 vs 3.7 mo, p&lt;0.05) compared to those without or low reversions. Additionally, patients with reversions trended to have longer median radiographic progression-free survival compared to those without or low reversions (8.1 vs 5.5 mo, p=0.12). In conclusion, the high prevalence of patients with BRCA reversion mutations and the displayed longer benefit from niraparib underscores the dependence of these tumors on BRCA mutation as an oncogenic driver and reversion mutations as a marker of secondary resistance to niraparib treatment.

Citation Format: Karen Urtishak, Gerhardt Attard, Tokuwa Kanno, Shibu Thomas, Gary E. Mason, Byron Espina, Eugene Zhu, Natalie Hutnick, Mary Guckert, Adam del Corral, Mark Li, Angela Lopez-Gitlitz, Kim Chi, William Kevin Kelly, Evan Y. Yu, Karim Fizazi, Matthew Smith. High prevalence and heterogeneity of emergence of BRCA reversion mutations at progression on niraparib treatment in BRCA-mutant metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) patients [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2022; 2022 Apr 8-13. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2022;82(12_Suppl):Abstract nr 4133.

ESMO recommendations on the use of circulating tumour DNA assays for patients with cancer: a report from the ESMO Precision Medicine Working Group

Circulating tumour DNA (ctDNA) assays conducted on plasma are rapidly developing a strong evidence base for use in patients with cancer. The European Society for Medical Oncology convened an expert working group to review the analytical and clinical validity and utility of ctDNA assays. For patients with advanced cancer, validated and adequately sensitive ctDNA assays have utility in identifying actionable mutations to direct targeted therapy, and may be used in routine clinical practice, provided the limitations of the assays are taken into account. Tissue based testing remains the preferred test for many cancer patients, due to limitations of ctDNA assays detecting fusion events and copy number changes, although ctDNA assays may be routinely used when faster results will be clinically important, or when tissue biopsies are not possible or inappropriate. Reflex tumour testing should be considered following a non-informative ctDNA result, due to false negative results with ctDNA testing. In patients treated for early-stage cancers, detection of molecular residual disease (MRD) or molecular relapse (MR), has high evidence of clinical validity in anticipating future relapse in many cancers. MRD/MR detection cannot be recommended in routine clinical practice, as currently there is no evidence for clinical utility in directing treatment. Additional potential applications of ctDNA assays, under research development and not recommended for routine practice, include identifying patients not responding to therapy with early dynamic changes in ctDNA levels, monitoring therapy for the development of resistance mutations prior to clinical progression, and in screening asymptomatic people for cancer. Recommendation for reporting of results, future development of ctDNA assays, and future clinical research are made.

Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and pain in the MAGNITUDE study of niraparib (NIRA) with abiraterone acetate and prednisone (AAP) in patients (pts) with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) and homologous recombination repair (HRR) gene alterations

5060

Background: Results from the international, randomized, double-blind, phase 3 MAGNITUDE study demonstrated that NIRA + AAP improved radiographic progression-free survival, time to cytotoxic chemotherapy, and time to symptomatic progression, with manageable toxicity in pts with mCRPC and HRR alterations (9-gene panel). Here, we report HRQoL and pain in MAGNITUDE. Methods: Eligible pts with mCRPC and HRR alterations were randomized 1:1 to NIRA + AAP or placebo (PBO) + AAP orally daily in 28-day cycles. Pts had ECOG status ≤1 and a Brief Pain Inventory–Short Form (BPI-SF) worst pain score ≤3 in prescreening. HRQoL assessments on day 1 of specified cycles included Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy–Prostate (FACT-P) and BPI-SF. Changes from baseline were compared between treatment arms using repeated measures analysis. Proportional hazards regression models were used to compare time to deterioration (TTD) in worst pain intensity between arms. Results: Compliance for FACT-P and BPI-SF was > 80%. Most pts maintained low pain levels over time. Repeated measures analyses showed no clinically meaningful differences in pain over time or between arms. Median TTD in pain intensity was not reached in either arm. At the 25th percentile, there was a trend toward longer TTD in pain intensity with NIRA + AAP vs PBO + AAP (11.1 vs 10.1 mo; HR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.61-1.24). HRQoL was maintained with NIRA + AAP, with no clinically meaningful differences in FACT-P total score over time or between arms. There was a trend toward greater worsening in early cycles on FACT-P physical wellbeing with NIRA + AAP vs PBO + AAP, driven by events within the known safety profile of NIRA + AAP (worsening of side effect bother, lack of energy, and nausea); however, overall, most pts reported minimal side effect burden (Table). Conclusions: In MAGNITUDE, most pts maintained low pain levels and positive HRQoL over time, with no clinically meaningful differences between treatment arms, further supporting the use of NIRA + AAP in pts with mCRPC and HRR alterations. Side effect burden was perceived as low in both arms. Although more pts on NIRA+AAP reported worsening side effects, the symptoms were generally perceived as mild. Clinical trial information: NCT03748641. [Table: see text]

Allele-informed copy number evaluation of plasma DNA samples from metastatic prostate cancer patients: the PCF_SELECT consortium assay

Sequencing of cell-free DNA (cfDNA) in cancer patients' plasma offers a minimally-invasive solution to detect tumor cell genomic alterations to aid real-time clinical decision-making. The reliability of copy number detection decreases at lower cfDNA tumor fractions, limiting utility at earlier stages of the disease. To test a novel strategy for detection of allelic imbalance, we developed a prostate cancer bespoke assay, PCF_SELECT, that includes an innovative sequencing panel covering ∼25 000 high minor allele frequency SNPs and tailored analytical solutions to enable allele-informed evaluation. First, we assessed it on plasma samples from 50 advanced prostate cancer patients. We then confirmed improved detection of genomic alterations in samples with <10% tumor fractions when compared against an independent assay. Finally, we applied PCF_SELECT to serial plasma samples intensively collected from three patients previously characterized as harboring alterations involving DNA repair genes and consequently offered PARP inhibition. We identified more extensive pan-genome allelic imbalance than previously recognized in prostate cancer. We confirmed high sensitivity detection of BRCA2 allelic imbalance with decreasing tumor fractions resultant from treatment and identified complex ATM genomic states that may be incongruent with protein losses. Overall, we present a framework for sensitive detection of allele-specific copy number changes in cfDNA.

Gene-by-gene analysis in the MAGNITUDE study of niraparib (NIRA) with abiraterone acetate and prednisone (AAP) in patients (pts) with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) and homologous recombination repair (HRR) gene alterations

5020

Background: NIRA + AAP significantly improved outcomes in pts with mCRPC and HRR gene alterations in the Phase 3 MAGNTUDE study. There is a paucity of data supporting use of PARP inhibitors in pts with HRR gene alterations other than BRCA1/2. We report on the efficacy of NIRA + AAP in pts with mCRPC and a qualifying single gene HRR alteration other than BRCA1/2. Methods: A pre-specified analysis was undertaken of the primary endpoint (radiographic progression-free survival [rPFS] by BICR), secondary endpoints (time to cytotoxic chemotherapy [TCC], time to symptomatic progression [TSP], overall survival [OS]), as well as time to PSA progression (TPSA) and overall response rate (ORR) across 186 pts (91 randomized to NIRA + AAP, 95 to PBO + AAP) with an alteration in the ATM, BRIP1, CDK12, CHEK2, FANCA, HDAC2, or PALB2 gene (excluding cooccurring alterations) . This analysis of individual alterations was not powered for formal statistical inference. Given the rarity of some alterations, groups based on functional similarity are also presented. Results: (Table). Pts with PALB2 or CHEK2 alterations had consistent improvement across all endpoints. In pts with ATM alterations benefit was observed in TCC, TSP, TPSA and ORR. There was benefit only in TPSA and ORR for pts with CDK12 alterations. When combined into functional groups, pts with an alteration in the HRR-Fanconi pathway ( BRIP1, FANCA, and PALB2) as well as pts with a HRR associated alteration ( CHEK2 or HDAC2) showed improvement in all endpoints. Conclusions: These data support the overall conclusions of the MAGNITUDE primary analysis and support benefit of NIRA + AAP in pts with HRR mutations beyond BRCA1/2. Clinical trial information: NCT03748641. [Table: see text]

Quality of Life in Men With Prostate Cancer Randomly Allocated to Receive Docetaxel or Abiraterone in the STAMPEDE Trial

PURPOSE

Docetaxel and abiraterone acetate plus prednisone or prednisolone (AAP) both improve survival when commenced alongside standard of care (SOC) androgen deprivation therapy in locally advanced or metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer. Thus, patient-reported quality of life (QOL) data may guide treatment choices.

METHODS

A group of patients within the STAMPEDE trial were contemporaneously enrolled with the possibility of being randomly allocated to receive either docetaxel + SOC or AAP + SOC. A mixed-model assessed QOL in those who had completed at least one QLQ-C30 + PR25 questionnaire. The primary outcome measure was difference in global-QOL (QLQ-C30 Q29&30) between patients allocated to docetaxel + SOC or AAP + SOC over the 2 years after random assignment, with a predefined criterion for clinically meaningful difference of > 4.0 points. Secondary outcome measures included longitudinal comparison of functional domains, pain, and fatigue, plus global-QOL at defined timepoints.

RESULTS

Five hundred fifteen patients (173 docetaxel + SOC and 342 AAP + SOC) were included. Baseline characteristics, proportion of missing data, and mean baseline global-QOL scores (docetaxel + SOC 77.8 and AAP + SOC 78.0) were similar. Over the 2 years following random assignment, the mean modeled global-QOL score was +3.9 points (95% CI, +0.5 to +7.2; P = .022) higher in patients allocated to AAP + SOC. Global-QOL was higher for patients allocated to AAP + SOC over the first year (+5.7 points, 95% CI, +3.0 to +8.5; P < .001), particularly at 12 (+7.0 points, 95% CI, +3.0 to +11.0; P = .001) and 24 weeks (+8.3 points, 95% CI, +4.0 to +12.6; P < .001).

CONCLUSION

Patient-reported QOL was superior for patients allocated to receive AAP + SOC, compared with docetaxel + SOC over a 2-year period, narrowly missing the predefined value for clinical significance. Patients receiving AAP + SOC reported clinically meaningful higher global-QOL scores throughout the first year following random assignment.

The ReIMAGINE prostate cancer risk study protocol: A prospective cohort study in men with a suspicion of prostate cancer who are referred onto an MRI-based diagnostic pathway with donation of tissue, blood and urine for biomarker analyses

INTRODUCTION

The ReIMAGINE Consortium was conceived to develop risk-stratification models that might incorporate the full range of novel prostate cancer (PCa) diagnostics (both commercial and academic).

METHODS

ReIMAGINE Risk is an ethics approved (19/LO/1128) multicentre, prospective, observational cohort study which will recruit 1000 treatment-naive men undergoing a multi-parametric MRI (mpMRI) due to an elevated PSA (≤20ng/ml) or abnormal prostate examination who subsequently had a suspicious mpMRI (score≥3, stage ≤T3bN0M0). Primary outcomes include the detection of ≥Gleason 7 PCa at baseline and time to clinical progression, metastasis and death. Baseline blood, urine, and biopsy cores for fresh prostate tissue samples (2 targeted and 1 non-targeted) will be biobanked for future analysis. High-resolution scanning of pathology whole-slide imaging and MRI-DICOM images will be collected. Consortium partners will be granted access to data and biobanks to develop and validate biomarkers using correlation to mpMRI, biopsy-based disease status and long-term clinical outcomes.

RESULTS

Recruitment began in September 2019(n = 533). A first site opened in September 2019 (n = 296), a second in November 2019 (n = 210) and a third in December 2020 (n = 27). Acceptance to the study has been 65% and a mean of 36.5ml(SD+/-10.0), 12.9ml(SD+/-3.7) and 2.8ml(SD+/-0.7) urine, plasma and serum donated for research, respectively. There are currently 4 academic and 15 commercial partners spanning imaging (~9 radiomics, artificial intelligence/machine learning), fluidic (~3 blood-based and ~2urine-based) and tissue-based (~1) biomarkers.

CONCLUSION

The consortium will develop, or adjust, risk models for PCa, and provide a platform for evaluating the role of novel diagnostics in the era of pre-biopsy MRI and targeted biopsy.

Phase 3 MAGNITUDE study: First results of niraparib (NIRA) with abiraterone acetate and prednisone (AAP) as first-line therapy in patients (pts) with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) with and without homologous recombination repair (HRR) gene alterations

12

Background: Approximately 20% of mCRPC has alterations in genes associated with HRR and is responsive to PARP inhibitors (PARPi) such as NIRA. Combined PARPi with androgen receptor pathway targeting may also benefit unselected mCRPC. MAGNITUDE assessed whether adding NIRA to AAP improves outcomes in pts with mCRPC with or without alterations in HRR associated genes. Methods: MAGNITUDE (NCT03748641) is a randomized, double-blind phase 3 study. In eligible mCRPC pts, ≤4 mos of prior AAP for mCRPC was allowed. Pts with (HRR biomarker [BM]+; ATM, BRCA1, BRCA2, BRIP1, CDK12, CHEK2, FANCA, HDAC2, PALB2) and without specified gene alterations (HRR BM-) were randomized 1:1 to receive NIRA 200 mg once daily + AAP or placebo (PBO) + AAP. Primary endpoint was radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) assessed by blinded independent central review (BICR) in the BRCA1/2 group followed by all HRR BM+ pts. Secondary endpoints were time to initiation of cytotoxic chemotherapy (TTCC), time to symptomatic progression (TTSP) and overall survival (OS). Other endpoints included time to PSA progression (TTPP) and objective response rate (ORR). Results: 423 HRR BM+ pts were randomized to NIRA + AAP (n = 212) or PBO + AAP (n = 211). Median age was 69, 23% had prior AAP, 21% had visceral metastases, and 53% had BRCA1/2 mutations. Median follow-up was 18.6 mos. NIRA + AAP significantly improved rPFS by BICR in the BRCA1/2 subgroup and in all HRR BM+ pts, reducing the risk of progression or death by 47% (16.6 vs 10.9 mo) and 27% (16.5 vs 13.7 mo) respectively (Table), vs PBO + AAP. Investigator assessed rPFS was consistent with BICR. NIRA + AAP delayed TTCC, TTSP, and TTPP and improved ORR in HRR BM+ pts (Table). First interim analysis of OS is immature. The preplanned futility analysis in 233 HRR BM- pts showed no benefit of adding NIRA to AAP in the prespecified composite endpoint (first of PSA progression or rPFS; HR, 1.09; 95% CI, 0.75-1.57). No new safety signals were seen. In HRR BM+ pts, 67% and 46.4% had grade 3/4 AEs and 9% and 3.8% discontinued treatment in the NIRA + AAP and PBO + AAP arms, respectively. There were no clinically significant differences in overall quality of life (FACT-P). Conclusions: NIRA + AAP improves rPFS and other clinically relevant outcomes in pts with mCRPC and alterations in HRR associated genes. There was no evidence of benefit with the addition of NIRA to AAP in HRR BM- pts with mCRPC. Clinical trial information: NCT03748641. [Table: see text]

A randomized, double-blind, placebo (PBO)-controlled, phase 3b study of the efficacy and safety of continuing enzalutamide (ENZA) in chemotherapy-naïve, metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) patients (pts) treated with docetaxel (DOC) plus prednisolone (PDN) who have progressed on ENZA: PRESIDE

15

Background: PRESIDE (NCT02288247) evaluated the benefit of continued ENZA + androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) with DOC + PDN in men with mCRPC who progressed on ENZA + ADT. Methods: PRESIDE (Dec 2014–Apr 2020) enrolled chemotherapy-naïve men with mCRPC and disease progression while on a luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH) agonist/antagonist (ADT) or after bilateral orchiectomy. Pts received open-label ENZA (160 mg) + ADT in Period 1 (P1). Those with a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) response of ≥50% change from baseline to week (wk) 13 and later progression were eligible for Period 2 (P2). P2 pts received DOC (75 mg/m2), PDN (10 mg), and ADT, and were randomized to ENZA (160 mg) or PBO. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) in P2 (from randomization to radiographic/clinical progression or death). Secondary endpoints included time to PSA progression (TTPP) [≥25% increase; absolute increase ≥2 ng/mL] and PSA response in P2. Hazard ratios (HRs) were from a Cox proportional hazards model with covariates for treatment and P1 progression. Adverse events (AEs) were recorded to assess safety. Results: 687 pts received ENZA in P1; 273 pts were randomized and 271 were treated in P2. Baseline demographics and characteristics were balanced between P2 arms. Median ENZA exposure was 62.6 wks in P1 and 36.1 and 30.1 wks in P2 with ENZA and PBO, respectively. At P2 data cut-off (Apr 30, 2020), 269 (99.3%) pts had discontinued therapy; 93 pts in each arm (ENZA, 74.4%; PBO, 75.6%) had progression. PFS was significantly improved with ENZA (HR 0.72; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.53, 0.96; p = 0.027), with a higher median PFS with ENZA (9.53 months; 95% CI 8.25, 10.87) than with PBO (8.28 months; 95% CI 6.28, 8.71). ENZA also significantly delayed TTPP (8.44 vs. 6.24 months with PBO; HR 0.58; 95% CI 0.41, 0.82; p = 0.002) and improved PSA response at any time (ENZA, n = 76 [55.9%]; PBO, n = 50 [37.0%]). There were 46 (6.7%) deaths in P1 and 20 (ENZA, n = 13 [9.6%]; PBO, n = 7 [5.2%]) in P2. In P2, 264 (97.4%) pts had a treatment-emergent AE (TEAE) [ENZA, n = 133 (97.8%); PBO, n = 131 (97.0%)]. Grade 3/4 TEAEs were reported by 84 (61.8%) pts on ENZA and 84 (62.2%) on PBO, and 12 (8.8%) and 9 (6.7%) pts, respectively, had TEAEs leading to discontinuation. Neutropenia (ENZA, 16.9%; PBO, 20.7%) was the most common grade 4 TEAE. Drug-related TEAEs (ENZA, 46.3%; PBO, 41.5%) were similar, and 90.4% of pts in each arm reported DOC-related TEAEs. Conclusions: Continued ENZA therapy in men with mCRPC who progressed on ENZA + ADT and received post-progression DOC + PDN significantly improved PFS compared to PBO. Treatment was well tolerated and ENZA AEs were consistent with its known safety profile. Clinical trial information: NCT02288247.

Blood biomarkers and association with clinical outcomes in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC): prespecified longitudinal analysis from the ACIS study of apalutamide (APA) or placebo combined with abiraterone acetate plus prednisone (AAP)

142

Background: In ACIS, APA + AAP improved radiographic progression-free survival in mCRPC vs AAP; difference in overall survival (OS) was not statistically significant. We report a prespecified analysis of androgen receptor (AR) or non-AR genomic/transcriptional aberrations, known to be associated with poor prognosis, and their associations with OS in patients (pts) with mCRPC. Methods: Circulating tumor (ct)DNA and aberrations in 17 PC-relevant genes were assessed using next-generation sequencing at baseline (BL; n = 197) and at end of study treatment (EOST; n = 140) (biomarker population). ctDNA was summarized qualitatively; genomic aberrations were normalized by ctDNA detection. AR splice variant version 7 (ARv7) was detected by quantitative RT-PCR. Cox proportional hazards model assessed association of OS with biomarkers in univariate/multivariate analyses overall and in pts receiving subsequent treatment (tx). Results: BL characteristics of biomarker and total study populations were similar. From BL to EOST: ctDNA detection did not differ (123/196 [63%] to 92/140 [66%], p=0.6); significant increases occurred in ARv7, AR mutations, and any AR aberration (Table). Prevalence of aberrations in PI3K and homologous recombination repair (HRR) pathways did not change from BL to EOST (40/123 [33%] to 34/92 [37%], p=0.5 and 18/123 [15%] to 14/92 [15%], p>0.9, respectively). Worse OS was associated with ctDNA detection or HRR pathway inactivation at BL (HR, 2.5 or 2.2; all p < 0.001) or presence of ctDNA, ARv7, AR amplification or inactivation of TP53, RB1, or RB1/TP35 pathway at EOST (2.2, p < 0.001; 2.1, p < 0.001; 2.6, p < 0.001; 1.5, p < 0.05; 1.7, p < 0.05; 2.1, p < 0.001, respectively) in univariate analyses. EOST ARv7, AR amplification, and inactivation of RB1, TP53, or RB1/TP53 pathway was associated with worse OS in pts receiving subsequent tx. Detection of ctDNA and RB1 inactivation at BL and RB1/TP53 pathway inactivation at EOST was strongly associated with worse OS (2.1, 3.3, 2.9, respectively, all p < 0.01) in multivariate analyses. Conclusions: In ACIS, AAP or APA + AAP tx was associated with increased AR mutations and ARv7 expression. Detection of ctDNA and select AR/non-AR aberrations may predict poor survival in mCRPC. These markers may be used to improve tx selection following confirmation of their predictive value. Clinical trial information: NCT02257736. [Table: see text]

Abiraterone acetate and prednisolone with or without enzalutamide for high-risk non-metastatic prostate cancer: a meta-analysis of primary results from two randomised controlled phase 3 trials of the STAMPEDE platform protocol

BACKGROUND

Men with high-risk non-metastatic prostate cancer are treated with androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) for 3 years, often combined with radiotherapy. We analysed new data from two randomised controlled phase 3 trials done in a multiarm, multistage platform protocol to assess the efficacy of adding abiraterone and prednisolone alone or with enzalutamide to ADT in this patient population.

METHODS

These open-label, phase 3 trials were done at 113 sites in the UK and Switzerland. Eligible patients (no age restrictions) had high-risk (defined as node positive or, if node negative, having at least two of the following: tumour stage T3 or T4, Gleason sum score of 8-10, and prostate-specific antigen [PSA] concentration ≥40 ng/mL) or relapsing with high-risk features (≤12 months of total ADT with an interval of ≥12 months without treatment and PSA concentration ≥4 ng/mL with a doubling time of <6 months, or a PSA concentration ≥20 ng/mL, or nodal relapse) non-metastatic prostate cancer, and a WHO performance status of 0-2. Local radiotherapy (as per local guidelines, 74 Gy in 37 fractions to the prostate and seminal vesicles or the equivalent using hypofractionated schedules) was mandated for node negative and encouraged for node positive disease. In both trials, patients were randomly assigned (1:1), by use of a computerised algorithm, to ADT alone (control group), which could include surgery and luteinising-hormone-releasing hormone agonists and antagonists, or with oral abiraterone acetate (1000 mg daily) and oral prednisolone (5 mg daily; combination-therapy group). In the second trial with no overlapping controls, the combination-therapy group also received enzalutamide (160 mg daily orally). ADT was given for 3 years and combination therapy for 2 years, except if local radiotherapy was omitted when treatment could be delivered until progression. In this primary analysis, we used meta-analysis methods to pool events from both trials. The primary endpoint of this meta-analysis was metastasis-free survival. Secondary endpoints were overall survival, prostate cancer-specific survival, biochemical failure-free survival, progression-free survival, and toxicity and adverse events. For 90% power and a one-sided type 1 error rate set to 1·25% to detect a target hazard ratio for improvement in metastasis-free survival of 0·75, approximately 315 metastasis-free survival events in the control groups was required. Efficacy was assessed in the intention-to-treat population and safety according to the treatment started within randomised allocation. STAMPEDE is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00268476, and with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN78818544.

FINDINGS

Between Nov 15, 2011, and March 31, 2016, 1974 patients were randomly assigned to treatment. The first trial allocated 455 to the control group and 459 to combination therapy, and the second trial, which included enzalutamide, allocated 533 to the control group and 527 to combination therapy. Median age across all groups was 68 years (IQR 63-73) and median PSA 34 ng/ml (14·7-47); 774 (39%) of 1974 patients were node positive, and 1684 (85%) were planned to receive radiotherapy. With median follow-up of 72 months (60-84), there were 180 metastasis-free survival events in the combination-therapy groups and 306 in the control groups. Metastasis-free survival was significantly longer in the combination-therapy groups (median not reached, IQR not evaluable [NE]-NE) than in the control groups (not reached, 97-NE; hazard ratio [HR] 0·53, 95% CI 0·44-0·64, p<0·0001). 6-year metastasis-free survival was 82% (95% CI 79-85) in the combination-therapy group and 69% (66-72) in the control group. There was no evidence of a difference in metatasis-free survival when enzalutamide and abiraterone acetate were administered concurrently compared with abiraterone acetate alone (interaction HR 1·02, 0·70-1·50, p=0·91) and no evidence of between-trial heterogeneity (I2 p=0·90). Overall survival (median not reached [IQR NE-NE] in the combination-therapy groups vs not reached [103-NE] in the control groups; HR 0·60, 95% CI 0·48-0·73, p<0·0001), prostate cancer-specific survival (not reached [NE-NE] vs not reached [NE-NE]; 0·49, 0·37-0·65, p<0·0001), biochemical failure-free-survival (not reached [NE-NE] vs 86 months [83-NE]; 0·39, 0·33-0·47, p<0·0001), and progression-free-survival (not reached [NE-NE] vs not reached [103-NE]; 0·44, 0·36-0·54, p<0·0001) were also significantly longer in the combination-therapy groups than in the control groups. Adverse events grade 3 or higher during the first 24 months were, respectively, reported in 169 (37%) of 451 patients and 130 (29%) of 455 patients in the combination-therapy and control groups of the abiraterone trial, respectively, and 298 (58%) of 513 patients and 172 (32%) of 533 patients of the combination-therapy and control groups of the abiraterone and enzalutamide trial, respectively. The two most common events more frequent in the combination-therapy groups were hypertension (abiraterone trial: 23 (5%) in the combination-therapy group and six (1%) in control group; abiraterone and enzalutamide trial: 73 (14%) and eight (2%), respectively) and alanine transaminitis (abiraterone trial: 25 (6%) in the combination-therapy group and one (<1%) in control group; abiraterone and enzalutamide trial: 69 (13%) and four (1%), respectively). Seven grade 5 adverse events were reported: none in the control groups, three in the abiraterone acetate and prednisolone group (one event each of rectal adenocarcinoma, pulmonary haemorrhage, and a respiratory disorder), and four in the abiraterone acetate and prednisolone with enzalutamide group (two events each of septic shock and sudden death).

INTERPRETATION

Among men with high-risk non-metastatic prostate cancer, combination therapy is associated with significantly higher rates of metastasis-free survival compared with ADT alone. Abiraterone acetate with prednisolone should be considered a new standard treatment for this population.

FUNDING

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

Cost-utility analysis of adding abiraterone acetate plus prednisone/prednisolone to long-term hormone therapy in newly diagnosed advanced prostate cancer in England: Lifetime decision model based on STAMPEDE trial data

Adding abiraterone acetate (AA) plus prednisolone (P) to standard of care (SOC) improves survival in newly diagnosed advanced prostate cancer (PC) patients starting hormone therapy. Our objective was to determine the value for money to the English National Health Service (NHS) of adding AAP to SOC. We used a decision analytic model to evaluate cost-effectiveness of providing AAP in the English NHS. Between 2011-2014, the STAMPEDE trial recruited 1917 men with high-risk localised, locally advanced, recurrent or metastatic PC starting first-line androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT), and they were randomised to receive SOC plus AAP, or SOC alone. Lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were estimated using STAMPEDE trial data supplemented with literature data where necessary, adjusting for baseline patient and disease characteristics. British National Formulary (BNF) prices (£98/day) were applied for AAP. Costs and outcomes were discounted at 3.5%/year. AAP was not cost-effective. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was £149,748/QALY gained in the non-metastatic (M0) subgroup, with 2.4% probability of being cost-effective at NICE's £30,000/QALY threshold; and the metastatic (M1) subgroup had an ICER of £47,503/QALY gained, with 12.0% probability of being cost-effective. Scenario analysis suggested AAP could be cost-effective in M1 patients if priced below £62/day, or below £28/day in the M0 subgroup. AAP could dominate SOC in the M0 subgroup with price below £11/day. AAP is effective for non-metastatic and metastatic disease but is not cost-effective when using the BNF price. AAP currently only has UK approval for use in a subset of M1 patients. The actual price currently paid by the English NHS for abiraterone acetate is unknown. Broadening AAP's indication and having a daily cost below the thresholds described above is recommended, given AAP improves survival in both subgroups and its cost-saving potential in M0 subgroup.

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.

ReIMAGINE: a prostate cancer research consortium with added value through its patient and public involvement and engagement

BACKGROUND

ReIMAGINE aims to improve the current prostate specific antigen (PSA)/biopsy risk stratification for prostate cancer (PCa) and develop a new image-based method (with biomarkers) for diagnosing high/low risk PCa in men. ReIMAGINE's varied patient and public involvement (PPI) and engagement (PE) strategy maximises the impact of its scientific output by informing and shaping the different stages of research.

AIMS

Through including the voice of patients and the public, the ReIMAGINE Consortium aims to translate these different perspectives into the design and implementation process. This will improve the overall quality of the research by: reflecting the needs and priorities of patients and the public, ensuring methods and procedures are feasible and appropriate ensuring information is relevant and accessible to those being recruited to the study identifying dissemination channels relevant to patients/the public and developing outputs that are accessible to a lay audience With support from our patient/user groups, the ReIMAGINE Consortium aims to improve our ability to derive prognostic information and allocate men to the most appropriate and effective therapies, using a novel image-based risk stratification with investigation of non-imaging biomarkers.

FINDINGS

We have been working with patients and the public from initiation of the project to ensure that the research is relevant to men and their families. Our PPI Sub-Committee, led by a PCa patient, has been involved in our dissemination strategy, outreach activities, and study design recommendations. For example, the sub-committee have developed a variety of informative videos relevant and accessible to those being recruited, and organised multiple online research engagement events that are accessible to a lay audience. As quoted by one of the study participants, "the more we present the benefits and opportunities to patients and the public, the more research commitment we obtain, and the sooner critical clinical questions such as PCa diagnostics will be addressed".

Apalutamide plus abiraterone acetate and prednisone versus placebo plus abiraterone and prednisone in metastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer (ACIS): a randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind, multinational, phase 3 study

BACKGROUND

The majority of patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) will have disease progression of a uniformly fatal disease. mCRPC is driven by both activated androgen receptors and elevated intratumoural androgens; however, the current standard of care is therapy that targets a single androgen signalling mechanism. We aimed to investigate the combination treatment using apalutamide plus abiraterone acetate, each of which suppresses the androgen signalling axis in a different way, versus standard care in mCRPC.

METHODS

ACIS was a randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind, phase 3 study done at 167 hospitals in 17 countries in the USA, Canada, Mexico, Europe, the Asia-Pacific region, Africa, and South America. We included chemotherapy-naive men (aged ≥18 years) with mCRPC who had not been previously treated with androgen biosynthesis signalling inhibitors and were receiving ongoing androgen deprivation therapy, with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0 or 1, and a Brief Pain Inventory-Short Form question 3 (ie, worst pain in the past 24 h) score of 3 or lower. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) via a centralised interactive web response system with a permuted block randomisation scheme (block size 4) to oral apalutamide 240 mg once daily plus oral abiraterone acetate 1000 mg once daily and oral prednisone 5 mg twice daily (apalutamide plus abiraterone-prednisone group) or placebo plus abiraterone acetate and prednisone (abiraterone-prednisone group), in 28-day treatment cycles. Randomisation was stratified by presence or absence of visceral metastases, ECOG performance status, and geographical region. Patients, the investigators, study team, and the sponsor were masked to group assignments. An independent data-monitoring committee continually monitored data to ensure ongoing patient safety, and reviewed efficacy data. The primary endpoint was radiographic progression-free survival assessed in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was reported for all patients who received at least one dose of study drug. This study is completed and no longer recruiting and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02257736.

FINDINGS

982 men were enrolled and randomly assigned from Dec 10, 2014 to Aug 30, 2016 (492 to apalutamide plus abiraterone-prednisone; 490 to abiraterone-prednisone). At the primary analysis (median follow-up 25·7 months [IQR 23·0-28·9]), median radiographic progression-free survival was 22·6 months (95% CI 19·4-27·4) in the apalutamide plus abiraterone-prednisone group versus 16·6 months (13·9-19·3) in the abiraterone-prednisone group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·69, 95% CI 0·58-0·83; p<0·0001). At the updated analysis (final analysis for overall survival; median follow-up 54·8 months [IQR 51·5-58·4]), median radiographic progression-free survival was 24·0 months (95% CI 19·7-27·5) versus 16·6 months (13·9-19·3; HR 0·70, 95% CI 0·60-0·83; p<0·0001). The most common grade 3-4 treatment-emergent adverse event was hypertension (82 [17%] of 490 patients receiving apalutamide plus abiraterone-prednisone and 49 [10%] of 489 receiving abiraterone-prednisone). Serious treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 195 (40%) patients receiving apalutamide plus abiraterone-prednisone and 181 (37%) patients receiving abiraterone-prednisone. Drug-related treatment-emergent adverse events with fatal outcomes occurred in three (1%) patients in the apalutamide plus abiraterone-prednisone group (2 pulmonary embolism, 1 cardiac failure) and five (1%) patients in the abiraterone-prednisone group (1 cardiac failure and 1 cardiac arrest, 1 mesenteric arterial occlusion, 1 seizure, and 1 sudden death).

INTERPRETATION

Despite the use of an active and established therapy as the comparator, apalutamide plus abiraterone-prednisone improved radiographic progression-free survival. Additional studies to identify subgroups of patients who might benefit the most from combination therapy are needed to further refine the treatment of mCRPC.

FUNDING

Janssen Research & Development.

Plasma tumor DNA is associated with increased risk of venous thromboembolism in metastatic castration-resistant cancer patients

Cancer is a risk factor for venous thromboembolism (VTE). Plasma tumor DNA (ptDNA) is an independent predictor of outcome in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). We aimed to investigate the association between ptDNA and VTE in mCRPC. This prospective biomarker study included 180 mCRPC patients treated with abiraterone and enzalutamide from April 2013 to December 2018. We excluded patients with a previous VTE history and/or ongoing anticoagulation therapy. Targeted next-generation sequencing was performed to determine ptDNA fraction from pretreatment plasma samples. VTE risk based on survival analysis was performed using cumulative incidence function and estimating sub-distributional hazard ratio (SHR). At a median follow-up of 58 months (range 0.5-111.0), we observed 21 patients who experienced VTE with a cumulative incidence at 12 months of 17.1% (95% confidence interval [CI] 10.3-23.9). Elevated ptDNA, visceral metastasis, prior chemotherapy and lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) were significantly associated with higher VTE incidence compared to patients with no thrombosis (12-month estimate, 18.6% vs 3.5%, P = .0003; 44.4% vs 14.8%, P = .015; 24.7% vs 4.5%, P = .006; and 30.0% vs 13.5%, P = .05, respectively). In the multivariate analysis including ptDNA level, visceral metastases, number of lesions and serum LDH, high ptDNA fraction was the only independent factor associated with the risk of thrombosis (HR 5.78, 95% CI 1.63-20.44, P = .006). These results first suggest that baseline ptDNA fraction in mCRPC patients treated with abiraterone or enzalutamide may be associated with increased VTE risk. These patients may be followed-up more closely for the VTE risk, and the need for a primary thromboprophylaxis should be taken into account in mCRPC with elevated ptDNA.