Search

BackgroundInnovations 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.ObjectiveTo present the voting results of the APCCC 2022.Design, setting, and participantsThe 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 analysisThe 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 limitationsThe 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.ConclusionsThese 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.

Although prostate cancer is the type of cancer most commonly survived by men in the United States, it remains the second most common cause of death from cancer, largely owing to metastatic disease. Patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) whose disease has progressed on standard-of-care therapies have few options and a poor prognosis. Prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) is a type II integral membrane protein that is commonly expressed in prostate cancer. Expression is limited on extra-prostatic tissues other than the salivary glands, lacrimal glands, duodenal epithelium, Kupffer cells, and renal tubules. PSMA-directed theranostics has emerged to exploit the specificity of PSMA for prostate cancer cells and has demonstrated promising results in the clinic. Radionuclides linked to PSMA inhibitors/binders have resulted in US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval of 2 radiodiagnostics for PSMA-directed positron emission tomography/computed tomography. In addition, these radionuclides have led to the development of lutetium Lu 177PSMA-617 therapy, which is currently under priority FDA review. Multiple novel PSMA-targeted modalities have been developed and are currently under clinical investigation, including ligand-drug and cellular immune therapies. In this review, we discuss the development of PSMA-directed theranostics, along with its clinical implications, limitations, and future directions.

Purpose: Biomarkers are needed in patients with non-clear cell renal cell carcinomas (NC-RCC) to inform treatment selection but also to identify novel therapeutic targets. We thus sought to profile circulating angiokines in the context of a randomized treatment trial of everolimus versus sunitinib. \ud \ud Experimental Design: ASPEN (NCT01108445) was an international, randomized, open-label phase 2 trial of patients with metastatic papillary, chromophobe, or unclassified NC-RCC with no prior systemic therapy. Patients were randomized to everolimus or sunitinib and treated until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was radiographic progression-free survival (PFS) defined by RECIST 1.1 criteria. Plasma angiokines were collected at baseline, cycle 3, and progression and associated with PFS and overall survival. \ud \ud Results: We enrolled 108 patients, 51 received sunitinib and 57 everolimus; of these, 89 patients had evaluable plasma for 23 angiokines. At the final data cutoff, 87 PFS and 62 mortality events had occurred. Angiokines that were independently adversely prognostic for OS were osteopontin (OPN), HGF, and VCAM-1, and these were also associated with poor risk disease. SDF-1 was associated with improved survival. OPN was also significantly associated with worse PFS. No statistically significant angiokine-treatment outcome interactions were observed for sunitinib or everolimus. OPN, HGF, TIMP-1, VCAM-1, PDGF-AA and IL-6 levels increased with progression on everolimus, while OPN, PlGF, TIMP-1, VEGF, and soluble VEGFR-2 and VCAM-1 increased with progression on sunitinib. \ud \ud Conclusions: In patients with metastatic non-clear cell RCC, we identified several poor prognosis angiokines and immunomodulatory chemokines during treatment with sunitinib or everolimus, particularly OPN.

Additional file 4: Supplemental Figure 3: PFS and OS by median NER and NLR among treatment na��ve patients: A) Median PFS was 14.3 mo in the mNER group (n=41) (HR 0.49, p

Additional file 2: Supplemental Figure 1: PFS and OS by median NER and NLR among intermediate/poor risk. A) Median PFS was 8.2 mo in the mNER group (n=46) (HR 0.55, p=0.01). B) Median OS was NR in the mNER group (n=46) (HR 0.32, p

Additional file 1:.

Additional file 3: Supplemental Figure 2: PFS and OS by median NER and NLR among favorable risk. A) Median PFS was 34.0 mo in the mNER group (n=9) (HR 0.33, p=0.07). B) Median OS was NR in the mNER group (n=9) (HR 0.56, p=0.64). C) Median PFS was 5.9 mo in the mNLR group (n=9) (HR 0.89, p=0.84). D) Median OS was NR in the mNLR group (n=9) (HR 1.64, p=0.69).

Additional file 3: Supplemental Figure 2: PFS and OS by median NER and NLR among favorable risk. A) Median PFS was 34.0 mo in the mNER group (n=9) (HR 0.33, p=0.07). B) Median OS was NR in the mNER group (n=9) (HR 0.56, p=0.64). C) Median PFS was 5.9 mo in the mNLR group (n=9) (HR 0.89, p=0.84). D) Median OS was NR in the mNLR group (n=9) (HR 1.64, p=0.69).

Additional file 2: Supplemental Figure 1: PFS and OS by median NER and NLR among intermediate/poor risk. A) Median PFS was 8.2 mo in the mNER group (n=46) (HR 0.55, p=0.01). B) Median OS was NR in the mNER group (n=46) (HR 0.32, p

Additional file 4: Supplemental Figure 3: PFS and OS by median NER and NLR among treatment na��ve patients: A) Median PFS was 14.3 mo in the mNER group (n=41) (HR 0.49, p

85 Background: In the VISION trial, targeted radioligand therapy with 177Lu-PSMA-617 significantly prolonged radiographic progression free survival (rPFS) and overall survival when added to standard of care (SoC) in patients with advanced prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA)-PET-positive metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. There was a higher incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) with 177Lu-PSMA-617 + SoC vs SoC. However, treatment exposure was more than three times longer in the 177Lu-PSMA-617 + SoC arm and thus relative toxicity may have been overestimated. A post hoc analysis of the relationship between exposure and frequency of TEAEs was performed to facilitate comparison of rates between arms. Methods: In this international, open-label study, adult patients previously treated with ≥ 1 androgen receptor pathway inhibitors and 1–2 taxane regimens were randomized 2:1 to 177Lu-PSMA-617 (7.4 GBq Q6W, ≤ 6 cycles) + SoC or SoC. Safety was a secondary endpoint. TEAEs (regardless of causality) were reported from start of randomized treatment for up to 30 days after last treatment administration (including SoC) or 1 day before subsequent anticancer treatment, whichever occurred first. Overall TEAE incidence was adjusted for treatment exposure by calculating incidence per 100 patient treatment-years (PTY). The analysis was performed for the first occurrence of TEAEs. Results: Exposure-adjusted incidence of any grade, grade ≥ 3 and selected TEAEs are listed in the table. There was similar exposure-adjusted incidence of gastrointestinal events and fatigue and higher exposure-adjusted incidence of musculoskeletal and renal events with SoC compared with 177Lu-PSMA-617 + SoC suggesting an association with treatment exposure rather than 177Lu-PSMA-617. Dry mouth, dry eye and acute myelosuppression maintained a higher incidence, confirming relationship with 177Lu-PSMA-617 treatment. Conclusions: The adjusted safety analysis, accounting for a longer safety observation due to longer rPFS in patients receiving 177Lu-PSMA-617, reveals a comparable incidence of TEAEs between arms. This confirms a favorable risk/benefit profile of 177Lu-PSMA-617 added to SoC in this patient population. Clinical trial information: NCT03511664. [Table: see text]

BackgroundThe large registry, PROVENGE Registry for the Observation, Collection, and Evaluation of Experience Data (PROCEED)(NCT01306890), evaluated sipuleucel-T immunotherapy for asymptomatic/minimally symptomatic metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC).MethodsPROCEED enrolled patients with mCRPC receiving 3 biweekly sipuleucel-T infusions. Assessments included overall survival (OS), serious adverse events (SAEs), cerebrovascular events (CVEs), and anticancer interventions (ACIs). Follow-up was for ≥3years or until death or study withdrawal.ResultsIn 2011-2017, 1976 patients were followed for 46.6months (median). The median age was 72years, and the baseline median prostate-specific antigen level was 15.0ng/mL; 86.7% were white, and 11.6% were African American. Among the patients, 1902 had 1 or more sipuleucel-T infusions. The median OS was 30.7months (95% confidence interval [CI], 28.6-32.2months). Known prognostic factors were independently associated with OS in a multivariable analysis. Among the 1255 patients who died, 964 (76.8%) died of prostate cancer (PC) progression. The median time from the first infusion to PC death was 42.7months (95% CI, 39.4-46.2months). The incidence of sipuleucel-T-related SAEs was 3.9%. The incidence of CVEs was 2.8%, and the rate per 100 person-years was 1.2 (95% CI, 0.9-1.6). The CVE incidence among 11,972 patients with mCRPC from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare database was 2.8%; the rate per 100 person-years was 1.5 (95% CI, 1.4-1.7). One or more ACIs (abiraterone, enzalutamide, docetaxel, cabazitaxel, or radium 223) were received by 77.1% of the patients after sipuleucel-T; 32.5% and 17.4% of the patients experienced 1- and 2-year treatment-free intervals, respectively.ConclusionsPROCEED provides contemporary survival data for sipuleucel-T-treated men in a real-world setting of new life-prolonging agents, which will be useful in discussing treatment options with patients and in powering future trials with sipuleucel-T. The safety and tolerability of sipuleucel-T in PROCEED were consistent with previous findings.

Tasquinimod is an immunomodulating and anti-antiangiogenic oral agent with anti-prostate cancer activity in preclinical studies and in clinical trials of men with metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC), including single agent activity and in combination with taxanes. We sought to identify the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) of tasquinimod in combination with cabazitaxel and prednisone in men with chemorefractory mCRPC.Men with mCRPC who had failed prior docetaxel chemotherapy received cabazitaxel 25 mg/mWe enrolled 25 men with chemorefractory mCRPC. The RP2D was 0.5 mg tasquinimod based on excess DLTs (two of three men) observed at dose level 3 (1.0 mg) including grade 3 sensory neuropathy and grade 3 atrial fibrillation. Dose level 2 was expanded to 14 men, where 3 DLTs were observed: grade 3 fatigue, grade 4 febrile neutropenia, and grade 3 liver function abnormalities. The proportion of men with a ≥30% PSA decline was 63% and the median composite progression-free survival (PFS) was 8.5 months (95% CI 4.2-16.4 months) based on 12 PFS events. The median number of cycles of cabazitaxel was 6 (range 1-13), with six men receiving10 cycles. Best overall RECIST responses (CR + PR) were observed in three men (12%), with stable disease in 12 (48%). No pharmacokinetic interactions were observed.We determined the RP2D of tasquinimod combined with cabazitaxel to be 0.5 mg daily following a 3 week lead-in of tasquinimod 0.25 mg with growth factor support. No unexpected toxicities occurred. Prostate 77: 385-395, 2017. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Satraplatin is an orally bioavailable platinum chemotherapeutic agent under development for several cancer types, including hormone-refractory prostate cancer (HRPC). Satraplatin is being developed for the treatment of men with chemorefractory HRPC for several reasons: 1) relative ease of administration, 2) potential lack of cross-resistance with other platinum agents, 3) clinical benefits seen in early studies of HRPC, and 4) an unmet need in this patient population after docetaxel failure. As men who have progressed after docetaxel and prednisone have an expected median survival of approximately 12 months, there is great opportunity for improved palliation in this disease. Satraplatin may provide a palliative benefit for these men in terms of progression-free survival according to the most recent analyses of the phase III SPARC trial comparing satraplatin and prednisone to prednisone alone in the second-line setting for HRPC, and is currently under USFDA review for this indication. Whether satraplatin and prednisone offer an advantage over docetaxel retreatment or other cytotoxic agents in this setting is an unanswered question and worthy of study. Investigation of predictors of platinum sensitivity and the use of satraplatin in patients with neuroendocrine subsets of metastatic prostate cancer may be warranted given the advances in biomarker and genomic technology and the known sensitivity of small cell cancers to platinum agents. Further study of satraplatin alone or in combination with docetaxel or other molecular and chemotherapeutic agents seems warranted to improve on current outcomes.

Carcinosarcomas are rare, biphasic tumors that are comprised of carcinomatous and sarcomatous elements. While the exact mechanism by which these two phenotypes arise within a single tumor remains unclear, molecular evidence indicates that the epitheliod and spindle-cell components share a clonal origin. We propose that the biphasic nature of these neoplasms may represent an extreme case of epithelial plasticity, in which an epithelial-like cell undergoes a transition to a more mesenchymal phenotype. The present review will discuss both the histological and molecular biological evidence of the involvement of epithelial plasticity in driving the mixed phenotypes observed in carcinosarcomas.

http://archive.org/details/travelingdensity1094514740 US Army (USA) authors.