Search

Cell phenotype underlies prostate cancer presentation and treatment resistance and can be regulated by epigenomic features. However, the osteotropic tendency of prostate cancer limits access to metastatic tissue, meaning most prior insights into prostate cancer chromatin biology are from preclinical models that do not fully represent disease complexity. Noninvasive chromatin immunoprecipitation of histones in plasma cell-free in humans may enable capture of disparate prostate cancer phenotypes. Here, we analyzed activating promoter- and enhancer-associated H3K4me2 from cfDNA in metastatic prostate cancer enriched for divergent patterns of metastasis and diverse clinical presentation. H3K4me2 density across prostate cancer genes, accessible chromatin, and lineage-defining transcription factor binding sites correlated strongly with circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) fraction-demonstrating capture of prostate cancer-specific biology and informing the development of a statistical framework to adjust for ctDNA fraction. Chromatin hallmarks mirrored synchronously measured clinico-genomic features: bone versus liver-predominant disease, serum PSA, biopsy-confirmed histopathological subtype, and RB1 deletions convergently indicated phenotype segregation along an axis of differential androgen receptor activity and neuroendocrine identity. Detection of lineage switching after sequential progression on systemic therapy in select patients indicates potential utility for individualized resistance monitoring. Epigenomic footprints of metastasis-induced normal tissue destruction were evident in bulk cfDNA from two patients. Finally, a public epigenomic resource was generated using a distinct chromatin marker that has not been widely investigated in prostate cancer. These results provide insight into the adaptive molecular landscape of aggressive prostate cancer and endorse plasma cfDNA chromatin profiling as a biomarker source and biological discovery tool.

No consensus strategies exist for prognosticating metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). Circulating tumor DNA fraction (ctDNA%) is increasingly reported by commercial and laboratory tests but its utility for risk stratification is unclear. Here, we intersect ctDNA%, treatment outcomes, and clinical characteristics across 738 plasma samples from 491 male mCRPC patients from two randomized multicentre phase II trials and a prospective province-wide blood biobanking program. ctDNA% correlates with serum and radiographic metrics of disease burden and is highest in patients with liver metastases. ctDNA% strongly predicts overall survival, progression-free survival, and treatment response independent of therapeutic context and outperformed established prognostic clinical factors. Recognizing that ctDNA-based biomarker genotyping is limited by low ctDNA% in some patients, we leverage the relationship between clinical prognostic factors and ctDNA% to develop a clinically-interpretable machine-learning tool that predicts whether a patient has sufficient ctDNA% for informative ctDNA genotyping (available online: https://www.ctDNA.org ). Our results affirm ctDNA% as an actionable tool for patient risk stratification and provide a practical framework for optimized biomarker testing., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

De novo metastatic prostate cancer is highly aggressive, but the paucity of routinely collected tissue has hindered genomic stratification and precision oncology. Here, we leveraged a rare study of surgical intervention in 43 de novo metastatic prostate cancers to assess somatic genotypes across 607 synchronous primary and metastatic tissue regions plus circulating tumor DNA. Intra-prostate heterogeneity was pervasive and impacted clinically relevant genes, resulting in discordant genotypes between select primary restricted regions and synchronous metastases. Additional complexity was driven by polyclonal metastatic seeding from phylogenetically related primary populations. When simulating clinical practice relying on a single tissue region, genomic heterogeneity plus variable tumor fraction across samples caused inaccurate genotyping of dominant disease; however, pooling extracted DNA from multiple biopsy cores before sequencing can rescue misassigned somatic genotypes. Our results define the relationship between synchronous treatment-sensitive primary and metastatic lesions in men with de novo metastatic prostate cancer and provide a framework for implementing genomics-guided patient management., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature America, Inc.)

Background: The TheraP study reported improved prostate-specific antigen responses with lutetium-177 [ 177 Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 versus cabazitaxel in men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer progressing after docetaxel. In this Article, we report the secondary outcome of overall survival with mature follow-up, and an updated imaging biomarker analysis. We also report the outcomes of participants excluded due to ineligibility on gallium-68 [ 68 Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 and 2-[ 18 F]fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose (2-[ 18 F]FDG) PET-CT., Methods: TheraP was an open-label, randomised phase 2 trial at 11 centres in Australia. Eligible participants had metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer progressing after docetaxel, and PET imaging with [ 68 Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 and 2-[ 18 F]FDG that showed prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA)-positive disease and no sites of metastatic disease with discordant 2-[ 18 F]FDG-positive and PSMA-negative findings. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to treatment with [ 177 Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 (every 6 weeks for a maximum of six cycles; starting at 8·5 GBq, decreasing by 0.5 GBq to 6·0 GBq for the sixth cycle) versus cabazitaxel (20 mg/m 2 every 3 weeks, maximum of ten cycles). Overall survival was analysed by intention-to-treat and summarised as restricted mean survival time (RMST) to account for non-proportional hazards, with a 36-month restriction time corresponding to median follow-up. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03392428, and is complete., Findings: 291 men were registered from Feb 6, 2018, to Sept 3, 2019; after study imaging, 200 were eligible and randomly assigned to treatment with [ 177 Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 (n=99) or cabazitaxel (n=101). After completing study treatment, 20 (20%) participants assigned to cabazitaxel and 32 (32%) assigned to [ 177 Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 were subsequently treated with the alternative regimen. After a median follow-up of 35·7 months (IQR 31·1 to 39·2), 77 (78%) participants had died in the [ 177 Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 group and 70 (69%) participants had died in the cabazitaxel group. Overall survival was similar among those assigned to [ 177 Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 versus those assigned to cabazitaxel (RMST 19·1 months [95% CI 16·9 to 21·4] vs 19·6 months [17·4 to 21·8]; difference -0·5 months [95% CI -3·7 to 2·7]; p=0·77). No additional safety signals were identified with the longer follow-up in this analysis. 80 (27%) of 291 men who were registered after initial eligibility screening were excluded after [ 68 Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 and 2-[ 18 F]FDG PET. In the 61 of these men with follow-up available, RMST was 11·0 months (95% CI 9·0 to 13·1)., Interpretation: These results support the use of [ 177 Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 as an alternative to cabazitaxel for PSMA-positive metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer progressing after docetaxel. We did not find evidence that overall survival differed between the randomised groups. Median overall survival was shorter for men who were excluded because of low PSMA expression or 2-[ 18 F]FDG-discordant disease., Funding: Australian and New Zealand Urogenital and Prostate Cancer Trials Group, Prostate Cancer Foundation of Australia, Endocyte (a Novartis company), Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organization, Movember, It's a Bloke Thing, CAN4CANCER, and The Distinguished Gentleman's Ride., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests MSH reports research grant support (to their institution) from Novartis (including AAA and Endocyte), Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organization (ANSTO), Bayer, Isotopia, and MIM; and consulting fees for lectures or advisory boards from Astellas and AstraZeneca in the past 2 years, and from Janssen, MSD, and Mundipharma in the past 5 years. LE reports personal fees from AstraZenca, Janssen, and Astellas, outside the submitted work. SS reports grants from AAA, AstraZeneca, MSD, and Genetech to their institution; and personal fees from AstraZeneca, MSD, Bristol Myers Squibb, and AstraZeneca to their institution, outside the submitted work. DAP reports personal fees from Ipsen and Eisai, outside the submitted work. RJF reports institution funding and consulting fees from AIQ Solutions, outside of the submitted work; and committee involvement in the Australasian Radiopharmaceutical Trials Network (unpaid). CG donated personal fees from Astellas, Janssen, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, EMD Serono, Ipsen, Astellas, and MSD, direct and complete, to a third party not-for-profit. AMS reports trial or research funding from EMD Serono, ITM, AVID, Medimmune, Telix, Adalta, Fusion, Antengene, Earli, Curis, and Cyclotek; grants from the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) and Medical Research Future Fund (MRFF), including an NHMRC Investigator Grant; and board and advisory committee involvement for the Australian and New Zealand Society of Nuclear Medicine and Australian and New Zealand Urogenital and Prostate (ANZUP) Cancer Trials Group (unpaid); all outside the submitted work. EMK reports personal fees from Astellas Pharma, Janssen, Pfizer, Ipsen, and Roche, all outside the submitted work; and is supported by a Prostate Cancer Foundation Young Investigator Award and University of British Columbia Killam Postdoctoral Fellowship. AAA reports grants or personal fees from Janssen, Astellas, Novartis, Merck Serono, Tolmar, Amgen, Pfizer, Bayer, Telix Pharmaceuticals, Bristol Myers Squibb, Sanofi, Noxopharm, AstraZeneca, Ipsen, MSD, Aculeus Therapeutics, and Daiichi Sankyo; and grants from Astellas (investigator), Merck Serono (investigator), AstraZeneca (investigator), Bristol Myers Squibb (institutional), AstraZeneca (institutional), Aptevo Therapeutics (institutional), GlaxoSmithKline (institutional), Pfizer (institutional), MedImmune (institutional), Astellas (institutional), Synthorx (institutional), Bionomics (institutional), Sanofi Aventis (institutional), Novartis (institutional), Ipsen (institutional), Exelixis (institutional), MSD (institutional), Janssen (institutional), Eli Lilly (institutional), Gilead Sciences (institutional), Merck Serono (institutional), and Hinova (institutional), all outside the submitted work. MRS reports grants to his institution from the NHMRC, Cancer Australia, Astellas, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bionomics, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Medivation, MSD, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, and Tilray, all outside the submitted work. IDD reports grants from the NHMRC, during the conduct of the study; and institutional payments to support prostate cancer trials from Pfizer, the ANZUP Cancer Trials Group, Bayer, Astellas, Janssen, Movember Foundation, and MSD, outside the submitted work. IDD is also unremunerated Chair of the ANZUP Cancer Trials Group, and is supported in part by an NHMRC Investigator Grant (grant number 2016274). AMJ reports consulting or advisory roles (to their institution) from Janssen Oncology, Ipsen, AstraZeneca, Sanofi, Pfizer, Novartis, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Serono, Eisai, Bayer, and Astellas Pharma; and research funding (to their institution) from Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen Oncology, MSD, Mayne Pharma, Genentech, Bayer, Lilly, Pfizer, and AstraZeneca. AI reports personal fees for a consulting role for Curium Pharma and payment to their institution for a consulting role from Ambrx Pharma, all outside the submitted work. AJW reports a consulting role for and travel support from Bayer. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Genomic alterations in DNA damage response (DDR) genes are common in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). Understanding how these genomic events impact prognosis and/or treatment response is vital for optimising clinical outcomes., Methods: Targeted sequencing was performed on 407 plasma samples from 375 men with mCRPC. Using the CLIA-certified PredicineCARE™ cell-free DNA (cfDNA) assay, pathogenic alterations in 152 key genes (including 27 DDR-related genes) were assessed, as was the presence and mechanisms of biallelic loss in BRCA2., Findings: At least one DDR alteration was present in 34.5% (129/375) of patients (including monoallelic alterations). The most frequently altered DDR genes were BRCA2 (19%), ATM (13%), FANCA (5%), CHEK2 (5%) and BRCA1 (3%). Patients with BRCA alterations, especially BRCA2, had significantly worse progression-free survival (PFS) (Hazard ratio (HR) 3.3 [95% CI 1.9-6.0]; Cox regression p < 0.001), overall survival (HR 2.2 [95% CI 1.1-4.5]; Cox regression p = 0.02) and PSA response rates to androgen receptor (AR) pathway inhibitors (32% vs 60%, chi-square p = 0.02). BRCA-deficient tumours were also enriched for alterations within multiple genes including in the AR and PI3K pathways. Zygosity of BRCA2 alterations had no discernible impact on clinical outcomes, with similarly poor PFS for monoallelic vs biallelic loss (median 3.9 months vs 3.4 months vs copy neutral 9.8 months)., Interpretation: These data emphasise that the BRCA genes, in particular BRCA2, are key prognostic biomarkers in mCRPC. The clinical utility of BRCA2 as a marker of poor outcomes may, at least in cfDNA assays, be independent of the zygosity state detected. Enrichment of actionable genomic alterations in cfDNA from BRCA-deficient mCRPC may support rational co-targeting strategies in future clinical trials., Funding: Several funding sources have supported this study. A full list is provided in the Acknowledgments. No funding was received from Predicine, Inc. during the conduct of the study., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests M.K received travel/accommodation from Celgene; D.C, T.Z, P.D and S.J are stockholders in Predicine, Inc.; L.G.H received research funding from Astellas Pharma, travel/accommodation from Astellas Pharma and Pfizer, honoraria from Janssen and Astellas and is on the scientific advisory board from Imagion; Kate Mahon received travel/accommodation from Astellas Pharma; E.M.K received honoraria from Janssen, research funding from Astellas Pharma and AstraZeneca, and travel/accommodations from Astellas Pharma, Pfizer, and Ipsen; A.A.A is a consultant for Astellas Pharma, Janssen, Novartis and Aculeus Therapeutics, is on the speakers bureau for Astellas Pharma, Janssen, Novartis, Amgen, Ipsen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Serono and Bayer, received honoraria from Astellas Pharma, Janssen, Novartis, Tolmar, Amgen, Pfizer, Telix, Sanofi, Astra Zeneca, Merck Serono, Bristol Myers Squibb, Ipsen, Bayer, Pfizer, Noxopharm, Merck Sharpe Dohme, and Aculeus Therapeutics, is on the Scientific Advisory Board for Astellas Pharma, Novartis, Sanofi, AstraZeneca, Tolmar, Pfizer, Telix, Merck Serono, Janssen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Ipsen, Bayer, Merck Sharpe Dome, Amgen, and Noxopharm, travel/accommodations from Astellas, Merck Serono, Amgen, Novartis, Janssen, Tolmar, Pfizer and Bayer, and received research funding from Astellas (investigator), Merck Serono (investigator), Astra Zeneca (investigator), Bristol Myers Squibb (institutional), Astra Zeneca (institutional), Aptevo Therapeutics (institutional), Glaxo Smith Kline (institutional), Pfizer (institutional), MedImmune (institutional), Astellas (institutional), SYNthorx (institutional), Bionomics (institutional), Sanofi Aventis (institutional), Novartis (institutional), Ipsen (institutional), Exelixis (institutional), Merck Sharpe Dome (institutional), Janssen (institutional), Eli Lilly (institutional), Gilead Sciences (institutional), Merck Serono (institutional), Hinova (institutional)., (Copyright © 2023. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

Purpose: Androgen receptor pathway inhibitors (ARPI) are standard of care for treatment-naïve metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC), but rapid resistance is common. Early identification of resistance will improve management strategies. We investigated whether changes in circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) fraction during ARPI treatment are linked with mCRPC clinical outcomes., Experimental Design: Plasma cell-free DNA was collected from 81 patients with mCRPC at baseline and after 4 weeks of first-line ARPI treatment during two prospective multicenter observational studies (NCT02426333; NCT02471469). ctDNA fraction was calculated from somatic mutations in targeted sequencing and genome copy-number profiles. Samples were classified into detected versus undetected ctDNA. Outcome measurements were progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Nondurable treatment response was defined as PFS ≤6 months., Results: ctDNA was detected in 48/81 (59%) baseline and 29/81 (36%) 4-week samples. ctDNA fraction for samples with detected ctDNA was lower at 4 weeks versus baseline (median 5.0% versus 14.5%, P = 0.017). PFS and OS were shortest for patients with persistent ctDNA at 4 weeks (univariate HR, 4.79; 95% CI, 2.62-8.77 and univariate HR, 5.49; 95% CI, 2.76-10.91, respectively), independent of clinical prognostic factors. For patients exhibiting change from detected to undetected ctDNA by 4 weeks, there was no significant PFS difference versus patients with baseline undetected ctDNA. ctDNA change had a positive predictive value of 88% and negative predictive value of 92% for identifying nondurable responses., Conclusions: Early changes in ctDNA fraction are strongly linked to duration of first-line ARPI treatment benefit and survival in mCRPC and may inform early therapy switches or treatment intensification. See related commentary by Sartor, p. 2745., (©2023 American Association for Cancer Research.)

Purpose: To determine prognostic and predictive clinical outcomes in metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC) and metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) on the basis of a combination of plasma-derived genomic alterations and lipid features in a longitudinal cohort of patients with advanced prostate cancer., Methods: A multifeature classifier was constructed to predict clinical outcomes using plasma-based genomic alterations detected in 120 genes and 772 lipidomic species as informative features in a cohort of 71 patients with mHSPC and 144 patients with mCRPC. Outcomes of interest were collected over 11 years of follow-up. These included in mHSPC state early failure of androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) and exceptional responders to ADT; early death (poor prognosis) and long-term survivors in mCRPC state. The approach was to build binary classification models that identified discriminative candidates with optimal weights to predict outcomes. To achieve this, we built multi-omic feature-based classifiers using traditional machine learning (ML) methods, including logistic regression with sparse regularization, multi-kernel Gaussian process regression, and support vector machines., Results: The levels of specific ceramides (d18:1/14:0 and d18:1/17:0), and the presence of CHEK2 mutations, AR amplification, and RB1 deletion were identified as the most crucial factors associated with clinical outcomes. Using ML models, the optimal multi-omics feature combination determined resulted in AUC scores of 0.751 for predicting mHSPC survival and 0.638 for predicting ADT failure; and in mCRPC state, 0.687 for prognostication and 0.727 for exceptional survival. The models were observed to be superior than using a limited candidate number of features for developing multi-omic prognostic and predictive signatures., Conclusion: Using a ML approach that incorporates multiple omic features improves the prediction accuracy for metastatic prostate cancer outcomes significantly. Validation of these models will be needed in independent data sets in future.

Specific classes of DNA damage repair (DDR) defect can drive sensitivity to emerging therapies for metastatic prostate cancer. However, biomarker approaches based on DDR gene sequencing do not accurately predict DDR deficiency or treatment benefit. Somatic alteration signatures may identify DDR deficiency but historically require whole-genome sequencing of tumour tissue. We assembled whole-exome sequencing data for 155 high ctDNA fraction plasma cell-free DNA and matched leukocyte DNA samples from patients with metastatic prostate or bladder cancer. Labels for DDR gene alterations were established using deep targeted sequencing. Per sample mutation and copy number features were used to train XGBoost ensemble models. Naive somatic features and trinucleotide signatures were associated with specific DDR gene alterations but insufficient to resolve each class. Conversely, XGBoost-derived models showed strong performance including an area under the curve of 0.99, 0.99 and 1.00 for identifying BRCA2, CDK12, and mismatch repair deficiency in metastatic prostate cancer. Our machine learning approach re-classified several samples exhibiting genomic features inconsistent with original labels, identified a metastatic bladder cancer sample with a homozygous BRCA2 copy loss, and outperformed an existing exome-based classifier for BRCA2 deficiency. We present DARC Sign (DnA Repair Classification SIGNatures); a public machine learning tool leveraging clinically-practical liquid biopsy specimens for simultaneously identifying multiple types of metastatic prostate cancer DDR deficiencies. We posit that it will be useful for understanding differential responses to DDR-directed therapies in ongoing clinical trials and may ultimately enable prospective identification of prostate cancers with phenotypic evidence of DDR deficiency., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Introduction: Health economic outcomes of real-world treatment sequencing of androgen receptor-targeted agents (ARTA) and docetaxel (DOC) remain unclear., Material and Methods: Data from the electronic Castration-resistant Prostate cancer Australian Database (ePAD) were analyzed including median overall survival (mOS) and median time-to-treatment failure (mTTF). Mean total costs (mTC) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) of treatment sequences were estimated using the average sample method and Zhao and Tian estimator., Results: Of 752 men, 441 received ARTA, 194 DOC, and 175 both sequentially. Of participants treated with both, first-line DOC followed by ARTA was the more common sequence (n = 125, 71%). mOS for first-line ARTA was 8.38 years (95% CI: 3.48, not-estimated) vs. 3.29 years (95% CI: 2.92, 4.02) for DOC. mTTF was 15.7 months (95% CI: 14.2, 23.7) for the ARTA-DOC sequence and 18.2 months (95% CI: 16.2, 23.2) for DOC-ARTA. In first-line, ARTA cost an additional $13,244 per mTTF month compared to DOC. In second-line, ARTA cost $6726 per mTTF month. The DOC-ARTA sequence saved $2139 per mTTF compared to ARTA-DOC, though not statistically significant., Conclusion: ICERs show ARTA had improved clinical benefit compared to DOC but at higher cost. There were no significant cost differences between combined sequences.

Aims: Multiple life-prolonging therapies are available for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). However, the optimal treatment strategy following progression through standard treatment with docetaxel, androgen receptor signaling inhibitor (ARSI) and cabazitaxel, remains unclear. We aimed to describe treatment patterns in men with mCRPC following progression on standard treatments and determine whether subsequent treatment choice impacts overall survival., Methods: Clinicopathologic and treatment data were extracted from the electronic CRPC Australian Database (ePAD) for patients who had received docetaxel, ARSIs and cabazitaxel in any order. Data were analyzed to compare groups that did versus did not receive subsequent systemic therapy. Treatment sequences, median duration of treatment, and median overall survival (mOS) were reported for each treatment group., Results: Ninety-eight eligible patients were identified, with 51 receiving subsequent systemic therapy. Those who received further treatment were younger (68 vs. 71 years, p < .01) but did not have any other differences in clinicopathologic features compared to those who received no further treatment. Patients who received upfront docetaxel were more likely to proceed to subsequent treatment (p = .02). Subsequent systemic therapies varied, the most common being carboplatin-based regimens (n = 13, 25.5%) and many patients were rechallenged with ARSI (n = 10, 19.6%) or docetaxel (n = 6, 11.8%). There was no difference in mOS according to subsequent systemic therapy (p = .09)., Conclusion: This retrospective multicenter analysis demonstrates the variation in treatment sequences used for mCRPC in the real-world setting. In the absence of high quality, prospective evidence, our results suggest that subsequent treatment choice does not influence survival outcomes and the optimal choice is guided by individual patient and disease-related factors., (© 2022 John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd.)

Plasma circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) represents short fragments of tumor-derived DNA released into the bloodstream primarily from cancer cells undergoing apoptosis. In metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC), characterizing genomic alterations in ctDNA identifies mutations, copy number alterations, and structural rearrangements with predictive and prognostic biomarker utility. These associations with clinical outcomes have resulted in ctDNA increasingly incorporated into routine clinical care. In this review, we summarize current and emerging applications for ctDNA analysis in metastatic prostate cancer, including outcome prediction, treatment selection, and characterization of treatment resistance. We also discuss potential pitfalls with interpreting ctDNA findings, namely false negatives arising from low tumor content and optimal assay design, including correction for clonal hematopoiesis of indeterminate potential and germline variants. Understanding the influence of these limitations on interpretation of ctDNA results is necessary to overcome barriers to clinical implementation. Nevertheless, as assay availability and technology continue to improve, recognizing both opportunities and shortcomings of ctDNA analysis will retain relevance with informing the implementation of precision-oncology initiatives for metastatic prostate cancer., Competing Interests: EMK reports consulting roles with Astellas Pharma, Janssen and Ipsen; honoraria from Astellas Pharma, Janssen, Ipsen and Research Review, and research funding from AstraZeneca (institutional), Merck (institutional) and Astellas Pharma (institutional). AWW reports commercial research grants from Janssen and ESSA Pharma, and honoraria from AstraZeneca, Astellas, Janssen, and Merck. KNC reports grants and personal fees from Astellas, AstraZeneca, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Point Biopharma, Roche, and Sanofi. The handling editor AA declared a past co-authorship with the author KNC., (Copyright © 2022 Kwan, Wyatt and Chi.)

Objective: PSMA PET/CT has demonstrated superior sensitivity over conventional imaging in the detection of local and distant recurrence in biochemically relapsed (BCR) prostate cancer. We prospectively investigated the management impact of 68 Ga-PSMA PET/CT imaging in men with BCR, with the aim of identifying baseline clinicopathological predictors for management change., Patients and Methods: Men with BCR who met eligibility criteria underwent 68 Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT at Monash Health (Melbourne, Australia). Intended management plans were prospectively documented before and after 68 Ga-PSMA PET/CT imaging. Binary logistic regression analysis was performed to identify potential clinicopathological predictors of management change. Descriptive statistics were used to characterize the nature of these changes., Results: Seventy men underwent 68 Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT imaging. Median age was 67 years (IQR 63-72) and median PSA was 0.48 ng/ml (IQR 0.21-1.9). PSMA-avid disease was observed in 56% (39/70) of patients. Pre-scan management plan was altered following scanning in 43% (30/70) of patients. Management changes were significantly more common in patients with higher baseline PSA levels (PSA≥2 ng/ml, p = 0.01). 18/36 (50%) of the patients initially planned for watchful waiting had their management changed, including the use of salvage pelvic radiotherapy (n = 7) and stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy to oligometastatic disease (n = 6)., Conclusion: Management change after 68 Ga-PSMA PET/CT for BCR is common and typically resulted in treatment intensification strategies in those planned for a watchful waiting approach. This study adds to the growing pool of evidence supporting the clinical utility of PSMA PET/CT imaging in the care of patients with BCR after definitive therapy., (© 2021 John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd.)

Background: Genomic alterations to the androgen receptor (AR) are common in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). AR copy number amplifications, ligand-binding domain missense mutations, and intronic structural rearrangements can all drive resistance to approved AR pathway inhibitors and their detection via tissue or liquid biopsy is linked to clinical outcomes. With an increasingly crowded treatment landscape, there is hope that AR genomic alterations can act as prognostic and/or predictive biomarkers to guide patient management., Methods: In this review, we evaluate the current evidence for AR genomic alterations as clinical biomarkers in mCRPC, focusing on correlative studies that have used plasma circulating tumor DNA to characterize AR genotype., Results: We highlight data that demonstrates the complexity of AR genotype within individual patients, and suggest that future studies should account for cancer clonal heterogeneity and variable tumor content in liquid biopsy samples. Given the potential for cooccurrence of multiple AR genomic alterations in the same or competing subclones of a patient, it is distinctly challenging to attribute blanket clinical significance to any individual alteration. This challenge is further complicated by the varied treatment exposures in contemporary patients, and the fact that AR genotype continues to evolve in the mCRPC setting across sequential lines of systemic therapy., Conclusions: As treatment access and liquid biopsy technology continues to improve, we posit that real-time measures of AR biology are likely to play a key role in emerging precision oncology strategies for metastatic prostate cancer., (© 2022 Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Background: CheckMate 9KD (NCT03338790) is a non-randomized, multicohort, phase 2 trial of nivolumab plus other anticancer treatments for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). We report results from cohorts A1 and A2 of CheckMate 9KD, specifically evaluating nivolumab plus rucaparib., Methods: CheckMate 9KD enrolled adult patients with histologically confirmed mCRPC, ongoing androgen deprivation therapy, and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-1. Cohort A1 included patients with postchemotherapy mCRPC (1-2 prior taxane-based regimens) and ≤2 prior novel hormonal therapies (eg, abiraterone, enzalutamide, apalutamide); cohort A2 included patients with chemotherapy-naïve mCRPC and prior novel hormonal therapy. Patients received nivolumab 480 mg every 4 weeks plus rucaparib 600 mg two times per day (nivolumab dosing ≤2 years). Coprimary endpoints were objective response rate (ORR) per Prostate Cancer Clinical Trials Working Group 3 and prostate-specific antigen response rate (PSA 50 -RR; ≥50% PSA reduction) in all-treated patients and patients with homologous recombination deficiency (HRD)-positive tumors, determined before enrollment. Secondary endpoints included radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS), overall survival (OS), and safety., Results: Outcomes (95% CI) among all-treated, HRD-positive, and BRCA1/2 -positive populations for cohort A1 were confirmed ORR: 10.3% (3.9-21.2) (n=58), 17.2% (5.8-35.8) (n=29), and 33.3% (7.5-70.1) (n=9); confirmed PSA 50 -RR: 11.9% (5.9-20.8) (n=84), 18.2% (8.2-32.7) (n=44), and 41.7% (15.2-72.3) (n=12); median rPFS: 4.9 (3.7-5.7) (n=88), 5.8 (3.7-8.4) (n=45), and 5.6 (2.8-15.7) (n=12) months; and median OS: 13.9 (10.4-15.8) (n=88), 15.4 (11.4-18.2) (n=45), and 15.2 (3.0-not estimable) (n=12) months. For cohort A2 they were confirmed ORR: 15.4% (5.9-30.5) (n=39), 25.0% (8.7-49.1) (n=20), and 33.3% (7.5-70.1) (n=9); confirmed PSA 50 -RR: 27.3% (17.0-39.6) (n=66), 41.9 (24.5-60.9) (n=31), and 84.6% (54.6-98.1) (n=13); median rPFS: 8.1 (5.6-10.9) (n=71), 10.9 (6.7-12.0) (n=34), and 10.9 (5.6-12.0) (n=15) months; and median OS: 20.2 (14.1-22.8) (n=71), 22.7 (14.1-not estimable) (n=34), and 20.2 (11.1-not estimable) (n=15) months. In cohorts A1 and A2, respectively, the most common any-grade and grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) were nausea (40.9% and 40.8%) and anemia (20.5% and 14.1%). Discontinuation rates due to TRAEs were 27.3% and 23.9%, respectively., Conclusions: Nivolumab plus rucaparib is active in patients with HRD-positive postchemotherapy or chemotherapy-naïve mCRPC, particularly those harboring BRCA1/2 mutations. Safety was as expected, with no new signals identified. Whether the addition of nivolumab incrementally improves outcomes versus rucaparib alone cannot be determined from this trial., Trial Registration Number: NCT03338790., Competing Interests: Competing interests: KF reports advisory board fees (all institutional) from Amgen, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Clovis, Janssen, MSD, Novartis/AAA, Sanofi, CureVac, and Orion. MR reports research grants (all institutional) from Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS) and Janssen; speakers bureau fees from Astellas, BMS, Janssen, Merck, MSD, and Roche; and advisory board fees from Astellas, Janssen, Merck, MSD, and Roche. DPP reports consulting fees from Ada Cap, Amgen, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bicycle Therapeutics, Boehringer Ingelheim, BMS, Clovis Oncology, Exelixis, Gilead Sciences, Incyte, Ipsen, Johnson & Johnson/Janssen, Lilly, Mirati, Monopteros, Pfizer, Pharmacyclics, Regeneron, Roche, Seattle Genetics, and UroGen; stock ownership in Bellicum Pharmaceuticals and Tyme; payment for expert testimony from Sanofi and Celgene; research grants from Ada Cap, Agensys, Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BioXcel Therapeutics, BMS, Clovis Oncology, Eisai, Endocyte, Genentech, Gilead Sciences, Innocrin, Lilly, MedImmune, Medivation, Merck, Mirati, Novartis, Pfizer, Progenics, Replimune, Roche, Sanofi Aventis, and Seattle Genetics; local principal investigator (PI) nonfinancial interests (all institutional) in Ada Cap, Agensys, Inc., Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BioXcel Therapeutics, BMS, Clovis Oncology, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Endocyte, Genentech, Innocrin, MedImmune, Medivation, Merck, Mirati, Novartis, and Pfizer; medical writing support from Bioscript; study funding from Astellas; and editing support from Complete HealthVizion. JCG reports consulting fees from Eisai; honoraria from AstraZeneca, BMS, Ipsen, and MSD Australia, advisory board fees from BMS and Janssen (J&J); and stock ownership in ICON Cancer Care. JP-G reports research funding (all institutional) from BMS, Amgen, Roche, and Seattle Genetics; travel expenses from Roche, BMS, and MSD; and advisory board fees from BMS, Roche, Ipsen, Seattle Genetics, and MSD. LL reports local PI nonfinancial (all institutional) from Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BMS, Hoffman-La Roche, Janssen, MedImmune, Merck, Myovant, Pfizer, Sanofi and Telix. SZ reports research grants (institutional) from Eisai; speakers bureau fees from Eisai (personal) and Merck (institutional); honoraria for educational events from Eisai, Ipsen, Merck, MSD, and Pfizer; travel expenses from Celgene (institutional); advisory board fees from Amgen, Bayer, and Sanofi (personal), and Astellas, BMS, EUSA, Merck, MSD, Pfizer, and Roche, (all institutional); receipt of drugs (institutional) from KURA; local PI nonfinancial interests from Astellas, Bayer, Calithera Biosciences, Clovis Oncology, Exelixis, Sanofi/Aventis, and SEAGEN; and coordinating PI nonfinancial interests from AVEO Pharmaceuticals, BMS, Pfizer, and Roche. MB reports consulting fees from AstraZeneca, BMS, MSD Oncology, Novartis, and Roche/Genentech; and speakers bureau fees from AstraZeneca, BMS, MSD Oncology, and Roche/Genentech. HM reports travel expenses from Pfizer and Roche, advisory board fees from Astellas, Bayer, BMS, Janssen, MSD, Pfizer, Sanofi, AstraZeneca, and Roche; and PI nonfinancial interests from BMS, Janssen, MSD, Pfizer, Roche, and Sanofi. GG reports research funding (institutional) from BMS; speakers bureau fees (all institutional) from Amgen, Astellas Pharma, BMS, Ipsen, Janssen Oncology, MSD Oncology, and Sanofi/Aventis; travel expenses from Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, BMS, Ipsen, Janssen Oncology, and Sanofi; and advisory board fees (all institutional) from AstraZeneca, Bayer, BMS, Ipsen, Janssen, MSD Oncology, Pfizer, and Sanofi/Aventis. DAB reports research grants (all institutional) from Astellas, Bayer, and Janssen; speakers bureau fees from AstraZeneca, Bayer, BMS, Janssen, Merck, MSD, and Roche; and advisory board fees from Astellas, Bayer, Janssen. SLM reports speakers bureau fees from BMS; and local PI nonfinancial interests (all institutional) from BMS, Merck, and Roche/Genentech. JCVL reports employment from Hospital Civil de Guadalajara 'Fray Antonio Alcalde'; and local PI nonfinancial interests (all personal and institutional) from AstraZeneca, BMS, Europharma, Janssen, MSD, and Novartis. EMK reports speakers bureau fees from Astellas Pharma, Ipsen, and Janssen; writing engagement fees from Research Review; and local PI nonfinancial interests (all institutional) from Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, BMS, Merck KGaA, and Pfizer. DC reports consulting fees from Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, BMS, Ipsen, Janssen Oncology, Lilly, MSD Oncology, Novartis, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Roche/Genentech, and Sanofi; travel expenses from AstraZeneca Spain, BMS, Pfizer, and Roche; and research funding (institutional) from Janssen. AF reports honoraria from Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BMS, Ipsen, Janssen-Cilag, MSD Oncology, Pfizer, Roche/Genentech, and Sanofi/Aventis; and travel expenses from Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BMS, Ipsen, Janssen-Cilag, MSD Oncology, Pfizer, Roche/Genentech, and Sanofi/Aventis. FS reports research grants (all institutional) from Astellas, AstraZeneca, BMS, Janssen, Merck, Myovant, Novartis, Pfizer, and Sanofi; consulting fees from Astellas, AstraZeneca, Janssen, Merck, Myovant, Novartis, Pfizer, and Sanofi; honoraria from Astellas, AstraZeneca, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, and Sanofi; advisory board fees from Astellas, Bayer, BMS, Janssen, Myovant, Novartis, and Pfizer; and local PI nonfinancial interests (all institutional) from Amgen, Astellas, Bayer, BMS, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and Sanofi. M-OG reports trial funding and medical writing funding from BMS, research funding (institutional) from BMS and Intuitive Surgical; consulting fees from Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Bayer Vital, BMS, Eisai, EUSA Pharma, Ipsen, Merck Serono, MSD, Pfizer, Roche Pharma AG, and Takeda; honoraria from Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, BMS, EUSA Pharma, Ipsen, Merck Serono, MSD, and Pfizer; and travel expenses from BMS and Merck Serono. DRS has no competing interest to report. AJA reports research funding and writing grant (institutional) from BMS; consulting fees from Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BMS, Dendreon, Exelixis, Forma, Janssen, Merck, Myovant, Novartis/AAA, and Pfizer; advisory board fees from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Dendreon, Merck, Myovant, Novartis/AAA, and Pfizer; local PI nonfinancial interests (institutional) from Amgen, Bayer, BeiGene, Merck, Forma, and AstraZeneca; coordinating PI nonfinancial interests (institutional) from Astellas, BMS, Janssen, and Pfizer; and steering committee member nonfinancial interests (institutional) from Dendreon. PB reports employment from and stock ownership in BMS. NPA reports employment from and stock ownership in BMS. KU-K reports employment from and stock ownership in BMS at the time of the study. KU-K is now employed by BioNTech US. XW reports employment from and stock ownership in BMS at the time of the study, and stock ownership in AstraZeneca. XW is no longer employed by BMS. JL reports employment from and stock ownership in BMS. AL reports employment from and stock ownership in Clovis Oncology. RKP reports research funding (institutional) from Janssen and Pharmacyclics; speakers bureau fees from AstraZeneca, Genentech/Roche, and Sanofi; advisory board fees from Bayer, BMS, Dendreon, EMD Serono, Genomic Health, Janssen, Jounce, and Pfizer; PI nonfinancial interests from BMS, ESSA, Janssen, Merck, and Pfizer/EMD Serono; steering committee member nonfinancial interests from BMS; and licensed technology to Tempus Labs., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

177 Lu-PSMA-617 is an effective therapy for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). However, treatment resistance occurs frequently, and combination therapies may improve outcomes. We report the final safety and efficacy results of a phase I/II study combining 177 Lu-PSMA-617 with idronoxil (NOX66), a radiosensitizer, and examine potential clinical, blood-based, and imaging biomarkers. Methods: Fifty-six men with progressive mCRPC previously treated with taxane chemotherapy and novel androgen signaling inhibitor (ASI) were enrolled. Patients received up to 6 doses of 177 Lu-PSMA-617 (7.5 GBq) on day 1 in combination with a NOX66 suppository on days 1-10 of each 6-wk cycle. Cohort 1 ( n  = 8) received 400 mg of NOX66, cohort 2 ( n  = 24) received 800 mg, and cohort 3 ( n  = 24) received 1,200 mg. 68 Ga-PSMA and 18 F-FDG PET/CT were performed at study entry, and semiquantitative imaging analysis was undertaken. Blood samples were collected for analysis of blood-based biomarkers, including androgen receptor splice variant 7 expression. The primary outcomes were safety and tolerability; secondary outcomes included efficacy, pain scores, and xerostomia. Regression analyses were performed to explore the prognostic value of baseline clinical, blood-based, and imaging parameters. Results: Fifty-six of the 100 men screened were enrolled (56%), with a screening failure rate of 26% (26/100) for PET imaging criteria. All men had received prior treatment with ASI and docetaxel, and 95% (53/56) had received cabazitaxel. Ninety-six percent (54/56) of patients received at least 2 cycles of combination NOX66 and 177 Lu-PSMA-617, and 46% (26/56) completed 6 cycles. Common adverse events were anemia, fatigue, and xerostomia. Anal irritation attributable to NOX66 occurred in 38%. Forty-eight of 56 had a reduction in prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level (86%; 95% CI, 74%-94%); 34 of 56 (61%; 95% CI, 47%-74%) had a PSA reduction of at least 50%. Median PSA progression-free survival was 7.5 mo (95% CI, 5.9-9 mo), and median overall survival was 19.7 mo (95% CI, 9.5-30 mo). A higher PSMA SUV mean correlated with treatment response, whereas a higher PSMA tumor volume and prior treatment with ASI for less than 12 mo were associated with worse overall survival. Conclusion: NOX66 with 177 Lu-PSMA-617 is a safe and feasible strategy in men being treated with third-line therapy and beyond for mCRPC. PSMA SUV mean , PSMA-avid tumor volume, and duration of treatment with ASI were independently associated with outcome., (© 2022 by the Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.)

Background: Both changes in circulating lipids represented by a validated poor prognostic 3-lipid signature (3LS) and somatic tumour genetic aberrations are individually associated with worse clinical outcomes in men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). A key question is how the lipid environment and the cancer genome are interrelated in order to exploit this therapeutically. We assessed the association between the poor prognostic 3-lipid signature (3LS), somatic genetic aberrations and clinical outcomes in mCRPC., Methods: We performed plasma lipidomic analysis and cell-free DNA (cfDNA) sequencing on 106 men with mCRPC commencing docetaxel, cabazitaxel, abiraterone or enzalutamide (discovery cohort) and 94 men with mCRPC commencing docetaxel (validation cohort). Differences in lipid levels between men ± somatic genetic aberrations were assessed with t-tests. Associations between the 3LS and genetic aberrations with overall survival (OS) were examined using Kaplan-Meier methods and Cox proportional hazard models., Results: The 3LS was associated with shorter OS in the discovery (hazard ratio [HR] 2.15, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.4-3.3, p < 0.001) and validation cohorts (HR 2.32, 95% CI 1.59-3.38, p < 0.001). Elevated plasma sphingolipids were associated with AR, TP53, RB1 and PI3K aberrations (p < 0.05). Men with both the 3LS and aberrations in AR, TP53, RB1 or PI3K had shorter OS than men with neither in both cohorts (p ≤ 0.001). The presence of 3LS and/or genetic aberration was independently associated with shorter OS for men with AR, TP53, RB1 and PI3K aberrations (p < 0.02). Furthermore, aggressive-variant prostate cancer (AVPC), defined as 2 or more aberrations in TP53, RB1 and/or PTEN, was associated with elevated sphingolipids. The combination of AVPC and 3LS predicted for a median survival of ~12 months. The relatively small sample size of the cohorts limits clinical applicability and warrants future studies., Conclusions: Elevated circulating sphingolipids were associated with AR, TP53, RB1, PI3K and AVPC aberrations in mCRPC, and the combination of lipid and genetic abnormalities conferred a worse prognosis. These findings suggest that certain genotypes in mCRPC may benefit from metabolic therapies., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Background: Immune checkpoint inhibitor monotherapy in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) has produced modest results. High-dose radiotherapy may be synergistic with checkpoint inhibitors., Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of the PD-L1 inhibitor avelumab with stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy (SABR) in mCRPC., Design, Setting, and Participants: From November 2017 to July 2019, this prospective phase 2 study enrolled 31 men with progressive mCRPC after at least one prior androgen receptor-directed therapy. Median follow-up was 18.0 mo., Intervention: Avelumab 10 mg/kg intravenously every 2 wk for 24 wk (12 cycles). A single fraction of SABR (20 Gy) was administered to one or two disease sites within 5 d before the first and second avelumab treatments., Outcomes Measurements and Statistical Analysis: The primary endpoint was the disease control rate (DCR), defined as a confirmed complete or partial response of any duration, or stable disease/non-complete response/non-progressive disease for ≥6 mo (Prostate Cancer Clinical Trials Working Group 3-modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours version 1.1). Secondary endpoints were the objective response rate (ORR), radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS), overall survival (OS), and safety. DCR and ORR were calculated using the Clopper-Pearson exact binomial method., Results and Limitations: Thirty-one evaluable men were enrolled (median age 71 yr, 71% with ≥2 prior mCRPC therapy lines, 81% with >5 total metastases). The DCR was 48% (15/31; 95% confidence interval [CI] 30-67%) and ORR was 31% (five of 16; 95% CI 11-59%). The ORR in nonirradiated lesions was 33% (four of 12; 95% CI 10-65%). Median rPFS was 8.4 mo (95% CI 4.5-not reached [NR]) and median OS was 14.1 mo (95% CI 8.9-NR). Grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in six patients (16%), with three (10%) requiring high-dose corticosteroid therapy. Plasma androgen receptor alterations were associated with lower DCR (22% vs 71%, p = 0.13; Fisher's exact test). Limitations include the small sample size and the absence of a control arm., Conclusions: Avelumab with SABR demonstrated encouraging activity and acceptable toxicity in treatment-refractory mCRPC. This combination warrants further investigation., Patient Summary: In this study of men with advanced and heavily pretreated prostate cancer, combining stereotactic radiotherapy with avelumab immunotherapy was safe and resulted in nearly half of patients experiencing cancer control for 6 months or longer. Stereotactic radiotherapy may potentially improve the effectiveness of immunotherapy in prostate cancer., (Copyright © 2021 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Treatment options for men with metastatic prostate cancer have greatly expanded in the last decade. Androgen receptor pathway inhibitors, taxane cytotoxic therapy, poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors, and radionuclide theranostics against prostate-specific membrane antigen have collectively contributed to incremental improvements in both quality and longevity of life for patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). Despite these successes, few studies inform on optimal therapy selection and sequencing across this crowded treatment landscape. Genomic analysis of both tissue and liquid biopsy specimens shows promise in bridging this practice gap, with alterations in several key prostate cancer driver genes demonstrating clear associations with clinical outcomes, as well as informing use of novel precision medicine targeted therapies. In this review, we evaluate the current evidence of genomic alterations in various oncogenic signaling pathways as clinical biomarkers in mCRPC, focusing on correlative studies that analyzed outcomes based on findings in plasma cell-free DNA. We highlight the pitfalls of interpreting genomic findings in samples with substandard tumor content, and suggest pathologic and disease factors to consider when embarking upon tumor genotyping to guide treatment decisions in metastatic prostate cancer. As access to life-prolonging therapies improves, and barriers to cost-effective genotyping and reliable data interpretation are overcome, we anticipate that predictive and prognostic biomarkers that inform on disease biology, drug sensitivity, and therapy resistance will inevitably be integrated into the routine care of patients with metastatic prostate cancer.

Introduction: Several systemic therapies have demonstrated a survival advantage in metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). Access to these medications varies significantly worldwide. In Australia until recently, patients must have received docetaxel first, unless unsuitable for chemotherapy, despite no evidence suggesting superiority over androgen receptor signalling inhibitors (ARSIs). Our study investigated real-world systemic treatment patterns in Australian patients with mCRPC., Methods: The electronic CRPC Australian Database (ePAD) was interrogated to identify mCRPC patients. Clinicopathological features, treatment and outcome data, stratified by first-line systemic therapies, were extracted. Comparisons between groups utilised Kruskal-Wallis tests and Chi-Square analyses. Time-to-event data were calculated using Kaplan-Meier methods and groups compared using log-rank tests. Factors influencing overall survival (OS) and time to treatment failure (TTF) were analysed through Cox proportional hazards regression models., Results: We identified 578 patients who received first-line systemic therapy for mCRPC. Enzalutamide (ENZ) was most commonly prescribed ( n  = 240, 41%), followed by docetaxel (DOC, n  = 164, 28%) and abiraterone (AA, n  = 100, 17%). Patients receiving ENZ or AA were older (79, 78.5 years respectively) compared with DOC (71 years, p  = 0.001) and less likely to have ECOG performance status 0 (45%, 44%, 59% in ENZ, AA and DOC groups respectively p  < 0.0001). Median TTF was significantly higher in those receiving ENZ (12.4 months) and AA (11.9 months) compared to DOC (8.3 months, p  < 0.001). PSA50 response rates and OS were not statistically different. Time to developing CRPC > 12 months was independently associated with longer TTF (HR 0.67, p  < 0.001) and OS (HR 0.49, p  = 0.002)., Conclusion: In our real-world population, ENZ and AA were common first-line systemic therapy choices, particularly among older patients and those with poorer performance status. Patients receiving ENZ and AA demonstrated superior TTF compared to DOC, while OS was not statistically different. Our findings highlight the important role of ARSIs, given the variability of access worldwide., (© 2021 The Authors. BJUI Compass published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of BJU International Company.)

Background: Trials of lutetium prostate specific membrane antigen (PSMA) in men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) have demonstrated good safety and efficacy, but combination strategies may improve outcomes. Idronoxil is a synthetic flavonoid derivative with radiosensitising properties., Objective: To evaluate the safety and activity of 177 Lu PSMA 617 (LuPSMA-617) in combination with idronoxil suppositories (NOX66) in patients with end-stage mCRPC., Design, Setting, and Participants: Thirty-two men with progressive mCRPC previously treated with taxane-based chemotherapy (91% treated with both docetaxel and cabazitaxel) and abiraterone and/or enzalutamide were enrolled in this phase I dose escalation study with phase II dose expansion., Intervention: Screening with 68 Ga PSMA and 18 F-fludeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (PET)/computed tomography (CT) was performed. Men received up to six cycles of LuPSMA-617 (7.5 GBq) on day 1, with escalating doses of NOX66 on days 1-10 of a 6-wk cycle. Cohort 1 (n = 8) received 400 mg and cohort 2 (n = 24) 800 mg of NOX66., Outcome Measurements and Statistical Analysis: Adverse events (AEs), pain inventory scores, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) response, progression-free survival, and overall survival were evaluated., Results and Limitations: Fifty-six men were screened and 32 (57%) were enrolled with a screen failure rate of 21% for PET imaging criteria. Dosing was as follows: 97% (31/32) received two or more doses and 47% (15/32) completed six doses. Common AEs included xerostomia, fatigue, and anaemia. Anal irritation attributable to NOX66 occurred in 28%. PSA responses were as follows: 91% (29/32) had any PSA response (median -74%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 76-97) and 62.5% (20/32) had a PSA fall of >50% (95% CI 45-77). The median PSA progression-free survival was 6.1 mo (95% CI 2.8-9.2) and median overall survival was 17.1 mo (95% CI 6.5-27.1)., Conclusions: NOX66 with LuPSMA-617 is a safe and feasible therapeutic strategy in men treated with third-line therapy and beyond for mCRPC., Patient Summary: Addition of NOX66 to 177 Lu prostate-specific membrane antigen 617 is safe, and further studies are needed to assess its potential to augment the anticancer effects of LuPSMA-617., (Copyright © 2020 European Association of Urology. All rights reserved.)

Context: Multiple studies have reported on the genomic characteristics of metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC). The impact of these findings on prognostication, treatment selection, and clinical trial design remains unclear., Objective: To summarise genomic alteration prevalences in liquid and/or tissue biopsies, infer their clinical implications, and compare genomic alteration frequencies across different disease states and clinical phenotypes., Evidence Acquisition: The PubMed and Web of Knowledge databases were systematically searched up to January 2021. Quality assessment was performed using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal tools., Evidence Synthesis: In total, 11 studies encompassing 1682 mHSPC patients were included. High-volume disease was associated with more frequent alterations in TP53, DNA damage repair, and Wnt pathways. Tumours from patients with de novo mHSPC were enriched for alterations in TP53 and CDK12 compared with recurrent disease. Alterations in AR, TP53, cell cycle signalling, and MYC were associated with a poorer clinical outcome. A comparative analysis of gene alteration frequencies across disease states revealed a relative increase from localised to castration-resistant tumours, with noteworthy enrichment of CTNNB1 alterations in mHSPC (5%), which warrants further investigation. This study was limited by variability in methodology and definitions used among the eligible studies, including differences in sequencing methods, analytes (being either tissue or liquid), alteration calling thresholds, and target patient populations with a relative under-representation of recurrent metastatic disease., Conclusions: Several genomic alterations are associated with differential prognosis and clinical phenotypes in mHSPC. We urge that emerging data on these potential predictive biomarkers must be validated in biomarker-driven randomised controlled trials before any clinical implementation. Alignment of the assay methodology and reporting will be critical for ensuring rapid scalability., Patient Summary: We reviewed current data on genomic alterations of metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer, and summarised key genomic subtypes that associate with specific clinical phenotypes and treatment outcomes., (Copyright © 2021 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Total plasma cell-free DNA (cfDNA) levels were recently shown to be prognostic in two large phase III trials of taxane chemotherapy in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). However, whether cfDNA concentration is predictive of treatment outcomes with androgen receptor pathway inhibitors (ARPIs) is unknown. We quantified plasma cfDNA levels at baseline (n = 74) and 4 weeks on treatment (n = 56) in a prospective cohort of mCRPC patients treated with the ARPIs abiraterone acetate or enzalutamide. Elevated total cfDNA concentration (log 10 ) at both baseline (hazard ratio [HR] 5.5, p < 0.001) and week 4 (HR 7.5, p < 0.001) was a significant negative prognostic factor for overall survival (OS), a finding maintained after adjustment for plasma circulating tumour DNA fraction. Unexpectedly, a rise in cfDNA concentration from baseline to week 4 was also associated with significantly improved OS (HR 0.14, p = 0.003). Conversely, patients with ≥29.8% decrease in cfDNA from baseline (optimal cut-point) had significantly shorter median OS than the rest of the cohort (10.5 vs 25.7 mo, p = 0.03). Collectively, our findings point to the potential prognostic utility of quantifying cfDNA in mCRPC and in particular suggest that dynamic changes in total cfDNA levels may be a novel early predictive biomarker for therapeutic outcome in ARPI-treated patients. PATIENT SUMMARY: We measured the levels of total cell-free DNA (cfDNA) in the plasma of patients with metastatic prostate cancer prior to and 4 weeks after starting new hormonal drugs. We found that patients with higher levels of cfDNA or a higher proportion of tumour-derived DNA at baseline had worse outcomes on hormonal therapies. Similarly, higher levels of cfDNA at 4 weeks into therapy were also associated with worse outcomes. However, a rise in total cfDNA levels at 4 weeks compared with baseline was linked with better outcomes. Measuring changes in cfDNA concentration may be a useful and technically straightforward early way to predict how patients will respond to treatment in metastatic prostate cancer., (Copyright © 2020 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Bone metastases occur frequently in castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) and may lead to skeletal-related events (SREs), including symptomatic skeletal events (SSEs). Bone-modifying agents (BMAs) delay SREs and SSEs. However, the real-world use of BMAs is debated given the absence of demonstrated survival advantage and potential adverse events (AEs). Our retrospective study examined BMA use and SSE rates in Australian patients with CRPC., Methods: Patients with CRPC and bone metastases were identified from the electronic CRPC Australian Database. Patient characteristics, treatment patterns and AEs were analysed. Descriptive statistics reported baseline characteristics, SSE rates and BMA use. Comparisons between groups used t-tests and Chi-square analyses. Overall survival was calculated by the Kaplan-Meier method., Results: A total of 532 eligible patients were identified with a median age of 73 years (range: 44-97 years). BMAs were prescribed in 232 men (46%), 183 of whom received denosumab. Patients receiving first-line docetaxel for CRPC were more likely to commence BMAs than those receiving abiraterone or enzalutamide (51% vs 31% vs 38%; p = 0.004). SSEs occurred in 148 men (28%), most commonly symptomatic lesions requiring intervention (75%). At the time of initial SSEs, only 28% were receiving BMAs. Patients treated at sites with lower BMA use (

Circulating lipids or cytokines are associated with prognosis in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). This study aimed to understand the interactions between lipid metabolism and immune response in mCRPC by investigating the relationship between the plasma lipidome and cytokines. Plasma samples from two independent cohorts of men with mCRPC ( n = 146, 139) having life-prolonging treatments were subjected to lipidomic and cytokine profiling (290, 763 lipids; 40 cytokines). Higher baseline levels of sphingolipids, including ceramides, were consistently associated with shorter overall survival in both cohorts, whereas the associations of cytokines with overall survival were inconsistent. Increasing levels of IL6, IL8, CXCL16, MPIF1, and YKL40 correlated with increasing levels of ceramide in both cohorts. Men with a poor prognostic 3-lipid signature at baseline had a shorter time to radiographic progression (poorer treatment response) if their lipid profile at progression was similar to that at baseline, or their cytokine profile at progression differed to that at baseline. In conclusion, baseline levels of circulating lipids were more consistent as prognostic biomarkers than cytokines. The correlation between circulating ceramides and cytokines suggests the regulation of immune responses by ceramides. The association of treatment response with the change in lipid profiles warrants further research into metabolic interventions.

Objectives: To investigate the recent real-world use of first-generation antiandrogens (FGAs) in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) using a retrospective multicentre cohort study., Patients and Methods: The electronic CRPC Australian Database (ePAD) was interrogated to identify patients with mCRPC. Clinicopathological features, treatment and outcome data, stratified by FGA use, were retrieved and reported through descriptive statistics. Survival analyses were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method and groups compared using log-rank tests. Factors influencing overall survival (OS) were analysed using Cox proportional hazards regression model., Results: We identified 634 patients with mCRPC, enrolled in ePAD between January 2016 and March 2019, including 322 (51%) who received FGAs. The median follow-up was 21.9 months. Patients treated with FGAs were more likely to have lower International Society of Urological Pathologists (ISUP) grade group (P = 0.04), longer median time to CRPC (25.6 vs 16.0 months, P < 0.001), and were less likely to have visceral metastases (5.0% vs 11.2%, P = 0.005) or to have received upfront docetaxel (P < 0.001). A ≥50% reduction from pre-treatment prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level (PSA50 response) during FGA treatment occurred in 119 (37%) patients and was independently associated with improved OS (hazard ratio 0.233, P < 0.001). Prior FGA treatment did not significantly influence the selection of subsequent life-prolonging treatments for mCRPC or their PSA50 response rates., Conclusion: In our present cohort, FGAs were commonly used in lower-risk mCRPC and their use did not significantly influence the choice or duration of subsequent systemic therapy. A PSA50 response to FGA therapy was an independent favourable prognostic marker associated with improved OS., (© 2021 The Authors. BJU International © 2021 BJU International.)

Background: Intrinsic resistance to androgen receptor signalling inhibitors (ARSI) occurs in 20-30% of men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). Ceramide metabolism may have a role in ARSI resistance. Our study's aim is to investigate the association of the ceramide-sphingosine-1-phosphate (ceramide-S1P) signalling axis with ARSI resistance in mCRPC., Methods: Lipidomic analysis (∼700 lipids) was performed on plasma collected from 132 men with mCRPC, before commencing enzalutamide or abiraterone. AR gene aberrations in 77 of these men were identified by deep sequencing of circulating tumour DNA. Associations between circulating lipids, radiological progression-free survival (rPFS) and overall survival (OS) were examined by Cox regression. Inhibition of ceramide-S1P signalling with sphingosine kinase (SPHK) inhibitors (PF-543 and ABC294640) on enzalutamide efficacy was investigated with in vitro assays, and transcriptomic and lipidomic analyses of prostate cancer (PC) cell lines (LNCaP, C42B, 22Rv1)., Findings: Men with elevated circulating ceramide levels had shorter rPFS (HR=2·3, 95% CI=1·5-3·6, p = 0·0004) and shorter OS (HR=2·3, 95% CI=1·4-36, p = 0·0005). The combined presence of an AR aberration with elevated ceramide levels conferred a worse prognosis than the presence of only one or none of these characteristics (median rPFS time = 3·9 vs 8·3 vs 17·7 months; median OS time = 8·9 vs 19·8 vs 34·4 months). SPHK inhibitors enhanced enzalutamide efficacy in PC cell lines. Transcriptomic and lipidomic analyses indicated that enzalutamide combined with SPHK inhibition enhanced PC cell death by SREBP-induced lipotoxicity., Interpretation: Ceramide-S1P signalling promotes ARSI resistance, which can be reversed with SPHK inhibitors., Funding: None., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest E.M.K.: Honoraria – Janssen, Ipsen, Astellas Pharma, Research Review; Consulting or Advisory Role – Astellas Pharma, Janssen, Ipsen; Research Funding – Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca; Travel & accommodation – Astellas Pharma, Pfizer, Ipsen, Roche.B.T.: Grants and personal fees – Amgen, AstraZeneca, Astellas, BMS, Janssen, Pfizer, MSD, Ipsen, Bayer; Personal fees – IQVIA, Sanofi, Tolmar, Novartis, Roche.A.Z.: Advisory Role – Astellas; Honoraria – Astellas; Grants and personal fees – Astra Zeneca, Pfizer; Personal fees – Merck Sharp & Dome, Bayer, Mundipharma, Janssen.I.D.D.: Institutional funding – Pfizer, ANZUP Cancer Trials Group, Bayer, Astellas, Janssen, Movember Foundation, Merck Sharp & Dome; Unremunerated chair of ANZUP Cancer Trials Group.T.S.: Travel – Astra Zeneca.D.R.S.: Grants – Regeneron, Amgen, Arrowhead, Espirion, Novartis; Personal fees – Amgen, Sanofi.A.A.: Consultant – Astellas, Janssen, Novartis; Speakers Bureau – Astellas, Janssen, Novartis, Amgen, Ipsen, Bristol Myers Squibb; Merck Serono, Bayer; Honoraria – Astellas, Novartis, Sanofi, AstraZeneca, Tolmar, Telix, Merck Serono; Janssen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Ipsen, Bayer, Pfizer, Amgen, Noxopharm, Merck Sharpe Dome; Scientific Advisory Board – Astellas, Novartis, Sanofi, AstraZeneca, Tolmar, Pfizer, Telix, Merck Serono; Janssen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Ipsen, Bayer, Merck Sharpe Dome, Amgen, Noxopharm; Travel & accommodation – Astellas, Merck Serono, Amgen, Novartis, Janssen, Tolmar, Pfizer; Investigator research funding – Astellas, Merck Serono, Astra Zeneca; Institutional research funding – Bristol Myers Squibb, Astra Zeneca, Aptevo Therapeutics, Glaxo Smith Kline, Pfizer, MedImmune, Astellas, SYNthorx, Bionomics, Sanofi Aventis, Novartis, Ipsen.A.M.J.: Insitutional funding – Pfizer, Astellas.L.G.H.: Research funding – Astellas; Travel sponsorship – Janssen, Pfizer; Honoraria – Imagion Biosystems. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: The androgen receptor (AR) pathway-associated gene nuclear receptor coactivator 2 (NCOA2) has an established oncogenic role in early prostate cancer and likewise is a driver of metastatic disease and castration-resistant prostate cancer. However, its significance as a biomarker in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC), both alone and in conjunction with co-occurring AR alterations using a liquid biopsy approach has not been investigated., Methods: Ninety-one patients were included in this study, (n = 68 receiving an androgen receptor pathway inhibitor and n = 23 receiving taxane chemotherapy). Up to 30 ml of peripheral blood was collected before commencing treatment from each patient. Plasma cell-free DNA, along with a matched germline sample, underwent targeted next-generation sequencing using a validated, highly sensitive in-house prostate cancer panel. Variants in AR and NCOA2 were identified and correlated with clinical outcomes., Results: Plasma AR and NCOA2 aberrations were identified in 35% and 13% of the cohort, respectively, whilst 8% had concurrent AR and NCOA2 alterations. NCOA2 copy number gain and any NCOA2 aberration predicted for lower prostate-specific antigen (PSA) response rates. Likewise, median overall survival was shorter for NCOA2 gain (10.1 vs. 18.3 months; p = .004), remaining significant after adjusting for covariates including circulating tumor DNA fraction and tumor suppressor gene alterations. Importantly, dual AR and NCOA2 aberrations were also associated with inferior outcomes, including no PSA responses in patients treated with AR pathway inhibitors (0% vs. 64%; p = .02)., Conclusions: These data highlight the importance of identifying multiple markers of AR pathway modulation in mCRPC and represent the first instance of the assessment of plasma NCOA2 status as a prognostic biomarker for standard-of-care therapies. Further assessment is warranted to determine if NCOA2 aberrations are a marker of primary resistance to AR pathway inhibitors., (© 2021 Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Background: It remains unclear which patients with metastatic germ cell tumours (mGCTs) need prophylactic anticoagulation to prevent venous thromboembolic events (VTEs)., Objective: To assess the risk and onset of VTEs stratified by risk factors., Design, Setting, and Participants: This multi-institutional retrospective dataset included mGCT patients treated with first-line platinum-based chemotherapy., Intervention: Patients with prophylactic anticoagulation were excluded., Outcome Measurements and Statistical Analysis: A regression analysis was performed to select risk factors for VTEs. The simulated number needed to treat (NNT) and the number needed to harm (NNH) with prophylactic anticoagulation were calculated based on the cumulative incidences retrieved from this study and hazard rates of recently published trials describing the efficacy of prophylactic anticoagulation to prevent VTEs and the risk of bleeding events., Results and Limitations: From 1120 patients, 121 (11%) had a VTE, which occurred prior to chemotherapy in 49 (4%) and on or after chemotherapy in 72 (6%). Six patients (<1%) had a bleeding event without anticoagulation. After backward regression, the one risk factor for a VTE during or after chemotherapy was the use of a venous access device. The simulated cumulative VTE incidence from prophylactic anticoagulation for patients on or after chemotherapy would translate into an NNT of 45 (95% confidence interval [CI] 36-56) and an NNH of 186 (95% CI 87-506). Limitations are mainly related to the retrospective nature of the study., Conclusions: The mGCTs associated VTEs are most common before and during, but not after, chemotherapy. Avoiding venous access device and/or prophylactic anticoagulation with an acceptable risk-benefit profile may decrease VTE occurring on chemotherapy., Patient Summary: We found that venous thromboembolic events (VTEs) occur rarely after chemotherapy. Based on experience of prophylactic anticoagulation in other cancers, we conclude that the risk of VTE in men undergoing chemotherapy for metastatic germ cell tumours can be decreased by thromboprophylaxis with a reasonable risk-benefit profile and by avoidance of venous access devices., (Copyright © 2020 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)