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

BackgroundInnovations 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.ObjectiveTo present consensus voting results for select questions from APCCC 2022.Design, setting, and participantsBefore 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 analysisConsensus was defined as ≥75% agreement, with strong consensus defined as ≥90% agreement.Results and limitationsThe 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.ConclusionsThese 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 summaryThe 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.     

Management of Patients with Advanced Prostate Cancer: The Report of the Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference APCCC 2017

Background

In advanced prostate cancer (APC), successful drug development as well as advances in imaging and molecular characterisation have resulted in multiple areas where there is lack of evidence or low level of evidence. The Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) 2017 addressed some of these topics.

Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference 2017

In March 2017 the ?Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference‘ (APCCC) took place in St. Gallen (Switzerland). The APCCC-panelists are internationally well known experts. With the actual data in mind they discussed treatment options for patients with advanced prostate cancer in order to update the international APCCC-recommendations from the previous meeting in 2015. Recently these consensus recommendations have been published in “European Urology”.A group of German experts discussed this year APCCC-votes during the meeting and the recommendations that were concluded from the votes from the German perspective. Reasons for an additional German discussion are country-specific variations that may have influenced the APCCC-votes und recommendations. Due to the concept of the APCCC-meeting the wording of the questions could not always be as necessary.One focus of this year consensus discussion was the treatment of metastatic castration-naive prostate cancer (mCNPC). There are new data which may also influence the therapeutic situation of patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). Further points of discussion were the impact of new imaging procedures in the clinical setting as well as the treatment of oligometastatic prostate cancer.     

Results from a Canadian consensus forum of key controversial areas in the management of advanced prostate cancer: Recommendations for Canadian healthcare providers

IntroductionRapid progress in diagnostics and therapeutics for the management of prostate cancer (PCa) has created areas where high-level evidence to guide practice is lacking. The Genitourinary Research Consortium (GURC) conducted its second Canadian consensus forum to address areas of controversy in the management of PCa and provide recommendations to guide treatment.MethodsA panel of PCa specialists discussed topics related to the management of PCa. The core scientific committee finalized the design, questions, and analysis of the consensus results. Attendees then voted to indicate their management choice regarding each statement/topic. Questions for voting were adapted from the 2019 Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference. The thresholds for agreement were set at ≥75% for “consensus agreement,” >50% for “near-consensus,” and ≤50% for “no consensus.”ResultsThe panel was comprised of 29 PCa experts, including urologists (n=12), medical oncologists (n=12), and radiation oncologists (n=5). Voting took place for 65 predetermined questions and three ad hoc questions. Consensus was reached for 34 questions, spanning a variety of areas, including biochemical recurrence, treatment of metastatic castration-sensitive PCa, management of non-metastatic and metastatic castration-resistant PCa, bone health, and molecular profiling.ConclusionsThe consensus forum identified areas of consensus or near-consensus in more than half of the questions discussed. Areas of consensus typically aligned with available evidence, and areas of variability may indicate a lack of high-quality evidence and point to future opportunities for further research and education.     

Clinical Outcomes in Cyclin-dependent Kinase 12 Mutant Advanced Prostate Cancer

BackgroundCyclin-dependent kinase 12 (CDK12) loss occurs in 3–7% of metastatic prostate cancer patients and is characterized by a genomic instability signature, but the clinical implications of CDK12 loss are not well established.ObjectiveTo determine the clinical course of patients with CDK12 mutant advanced prostate cancer compared with other genomic subtypes.Design, setting, and participantsA retrospective analysis of data from three academic medical centers, including 317 patients with advanced prostate cancer and prior next-generation sequencing from tumor tissue (n = 172) or circulating tumor DNA (n = 145), was performed. Forty-six patients had CDK12 mutations; 34 had biallelic CDK12 loss (79%).Outcome measurements and statistical analysisPatients were stratified by mutation status (CDK12, homologous recombination deficiency [HRD; BRCA1/2 and ATM], TP53, and other cohort). The Kaplan-Meier method was used to evaluate time to event outcomes: time to development of metastatic disease, time to development of castration resistance, and time to prostate-specific antigen (PSA) progression after first-line androgen receptor pathway inhibitor (ARPI) therapy in a patient subset.Results and limitationsThe median follow-up was 66.6 mo. Patients with CDK12 mutant prostate cancer exhibited shorter time to metastasis (median = 34.9 mo, p = 0.004) and development of castration-resistant disease (median = 32.7 mo, p < 0.001), compared with other genomic subtypes, with shorter time to PSA progression on first-line ARPI treatment of metastatic castration-resistant disease (median = 3.6 mo, p = 0.0219). CDK12 mutant patients did not have overall shorter time on treatment compared with other mutation subgroups, and CDK12 status did not demonstrate statistical significance in multivariate analysis. Limitations include variable center-dependent practice patterns and heterogeneity due to combining tumor and liquid biopsy data.ConclusionsOur data suggest that advanced prostate cancers harboring CDK12 mutations display aggressive clinical behavior, underscoring the need to fully delineate the molecular and clinical characteristics, and appropriate therapeutic approaches for distinct subtypes of advanced prostate cancers.Patient summaryIn this report, we evaluate the clinical characteristics and outcomes of patients with prostate cancer and CDK12 mutation in their tumors. These patients seem to have more aggressive disease, with more high-grade Gleason ≥8 cancers and shorter time to developing metastatic cancer. Cases of advanced CDK12-mutated prostate cancer may warrant consideration of therapy intensification or combination approaches.     

EAU-ESMO Consensus Statements on the Management of Advanced and Variant Bladder Cancer—An International Collaborative Multistakeholder Effort2: Under the Auspices of the EAU-ESMO Guidelines Committees

BackgroundAlthough guidelines exist for advanced and variant bladder cancer management, evidence is limited/conflicting in some areas and the optimal approach remains controversial.ObjectiveTo bring together a large multidisciplinary group of experts to develop consensus statements on controversial topics in bladder cancer management.DesignA steering committee compiled proposed statements regarding advanced and variant bladder cancer management which were assessed by 113 experts in a Delphi survey. Statements not reaching consensus were reviewed; those prioritised were revised by a panel of 45 experts prior to voting during a consensus conference.SettingOnline Delphi survey and consensus conference.ParticipantsThe European Association of Urology (EAU), the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO), experts in bladder cancer management.Outcome measurements and statistical analysisStatements were ranked by experts according to their level of agreement: 1–3 (disagree), 4–6 (equivocal), and 7–9 (agree). A priori (level 1) consensus was defined as ≥70% agreement and ≤15% disagreement, or vice versa. In the Delphi survey, a second analysis was restricted to stakeholder group(s) considered to have adequate expertise relating to each statement (to achieve level 2 consensus).Results and limitationsOverall, 116 statements were included in the Delphi survey. Of these statements, 33 (28%) achieved level 1 consensus and 49 (42%) achieved level 1 or 2 consensus. At the consensus conference, 22 of 27 (81%) statements achieved consensus. These consensus statements provide further guidance across a broad range of topics, including the management of variant histologies, the role/limitations of prognostic biomarkers in clinical decision making, bladder preservation strategies, modern radiotherapy techniques, the management of oligometastatic disease, and the evolving role of checkpoint inhibitor therapy in metastatic disease.ConclusionsThese consensus statements provide further guidance on controversial topics in advanced and variant bladder cancer management until a time when further evidence is available to guide our approach.Patient summaryThis report summarises findings from an international, multistakeholder project organised by the EAU and ESMO. In this project, a steering committee identified areas of bladder cancer management where there is currently no good-quality evidence to guide treatment decisions. From this, they developed a series of proposed statements, 71 of which achieved consensus by a large group of experts in the field of bladder cancer. It is anticipated that these statements will provide further guidance to health care professionals and could help improve patient outcomes until a time when good-quality evidence is available.     

Genomic Testing in Patients with Metastatic Castration-resistant Prostate Cancer: A Pragmatic Guide for Clinicians

ContextGenomic testing is becoming increasingly important in patients with advanced prostate cancer (PC) and is being incorporated in clinical practice to guide treatment.ObjectiveTo review the current understanding of genomic alterations and the status of genomic testing in patients with metastatic castration-resistant PC (mCRPC), and the potential use of genomic tests in clinical practice.Evidence acquisitionWe reviewed recent publications (past 15 yr) from PubMed, proceedings of scientific conferences, and published guidelines. Reports on mCRPC in the following areas were selected: development, testing, and validation of techniques for identifying genomic alterations; molecular characterization; and trials of genetically targeted therapies.Evidence synthesismCRPC tumors harbor molecular alterations that are possible targets for treatment, and a number of therapies are in development to exploit these alterations (eg, PD-1 inhibitors, PARP inhibitors, tyrosine kinase inhibitors). Next-generation sequencing of DNA from tumor tissue can identify somatic alterations that would not be identified by germline testing. Work is ongoing to evaluate the use of less invasive somatic testing methods (eg, sequencing of cell-free circulating tumor DNA). Current international guidelines recommend germline and/or somatic testing for men with advanced and/or high-risk PC regardless of family history to identify those with homologous recombination repair gene mutations or mismatch repair defects/microsatellite instability who may be eligible for treatment with a PARP inhibitor or pembrolizumab, respectively.ConclusionsGenomic testing for mCRPC may provide information on prognostic, predictive, and resistance biomarkers. Although the incorporation of testing into clinical practice remains challenging, routine genomic testing of men with advanced PC is recommended to guide management and treatment decisions.Patient summarySimilar to many cancers, prostate cancer is caused by defects in the cancer’s DNA, which are called genetic or genomic defects. New treatments targeting these defects are approved for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. Specific new tests are under development to detect these potentially treatable genetic defects.     

EAU Guidelines on Prostate Cancer. Part II: Treatment of Advanced,Relapsing, and Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer

ObjectiveTo present a summary of the 2013 version of the European Association of Urology (EAU) guidelines on the treatment of advanced, relapsing, and castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC).Evidence acquisitionThe working panel performed a literature review of the new data (2011–2013). The guidelines were updated, and levels of evidence and/or grades of recommendation were added to the text based on a systematic review of the literature that included a search of online databases and bibliographic reviews.Evidence synthesisLuteinising hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH) agonists are the standard of care in metastatic prostate cancer (PCa). LHRH antagonists decrease testosterone without any testosterone surge, and they may be associated with an oncologic benefit compared with LHRH analogues. Complete androgen blockade has a small survival benefit of about 5%. Intermittent androgen deprivation results in noninferior oncologic efficacy when compared with continuous androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) in well-selected populations. In locally advanced and metastatic PCa, early ADT does not result in a significant survival advantage when compared with delayed ADT. Relapse after local therapy is defined by prostate-specific antigen (PSA) values >0.2 ng/ml following radical prostatectomy (RP) and >2 ng/ml above the nadir and after radiation therapy (RT). Therapy for PSA relapse after RP includes salvage RT (SRT) at PSA levels <0.5 ng/ml and SRP or cryosurgical ablation of the prostate in radiation failures. Endorectal magnetic resonance imaging and 11C-choline positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) are of limited importance if the PSA is <1.0 ng/ml; bone scans and CT can be omitted unless PSA is >20 ng/ml. Follow-up after ADT should include analysis of PSA and testosterone levels, and screening for cardiovascular disease and metabolic syndrome. Treatment of CRPC includes sipuleucel-T, abiraterone acetate plus prednisone (AA/P), or chemotherapy with docetaxel at 75 mg/m² every 3 wk. Cabazitaxel, AA/P, enzalutamide, and radium-223 are available for second-line treatment of CRPC following docetaxel. Zoledronic acid and denosumab can be used in men with CRPC and osseous metastases to prevent skeletal-related complications.ConclusionsThe knowledge in the field of advanced, metastatic, and castration-resistant PCa is rapidly changing. These EAU guidelines on PCa summarise the most recent findings and put them into clinical practice. A full version is available at the EAU office or at www.uroweb.org.Patient summaryWe present a summary of the 2013 version of the European Association of Urology guidelines on treatment of advanced, relapsing, and castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC).Luteinising hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH) agonists are the standard of care in metastatic prostate cancer (PCa). LHRH antagonists decrease testosterone without any testosterone surge, and they might be associated with an oncologic benefit compared with LHRH analogues. Complete androgen blockade has a small survival benefit of about 5%. Intermittent androgen deprivation results in noninferior oncologic efficacy when compared with continuous androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) in well-selected populations. In locally advanced and metastatic PCa, early ADT does not result in a significant survival advantage when compared with delayed ADT. Relapse after local therapy is defined by prostate-specific antigen (PSA) values >0.2 ng/ml following radical prostatectomy (RP) and >2 ng/ml above the nadir and after radiation therapy. Therapy for PSA relapse after RP includes salvage radiation therapy at PSA levels <0.5 ng/ml and salvage RP or cryosurgical ablation of the prostate in radiation failures. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and 11C-choline positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) are of limited importance if the PSA is <1.0 ng/ml; bone scans, and CT can be omitted unless PSA is >20 ng/ml. Follow-up after ADT should include analysis of PSA and testosterone levels, and screening for cardiovascular disease and metabolic syndrome. Treatment of castration-resistant CRPC includes sipuleucel-T, abiraterone acetate plus prednisone (AA/P), or chemotherapy with docetaxel 75 mg/m² every 3 wk. Cabazitaxel, AA/P, enzalutamide, and radium-223 are available for second-line treatment of CRPC following docetaxel. Zoledronic acid and denosumab can be used in men with CRPC and osseous metastases to prevent skeletal-related complications.The guidelines reported should be adhered to in daily routine to improve the quality of care in PCa patients. As we have shown recently, guideline compliance is only in the area of 30–40%.     

晚期前列腺癌联合雄激素阻断治疗的长期随访

目的:了解晚期前列腺癌联合雄激素阻断治疗的长期生存率。方法:选取1993年1月~2000年1月初采用联合雄激素阻断治疗的59例前列腺腺癌患者,其中28.81%和45.76%为临床局部晚期(T3-4 N0M0期)和转移(TxNxM+期)病例,全部随访5年以上。结果:全组病例3、5、7年的总体生存率分别是79.36%、61.46%、49.15%,其中,临床局部晚期和转移者的5年生存率分别为80.77%和32.65%,而高分化腺癌和低分化腺癌的5年生存率分别为86.21%和30%(P<0.01)。另外,PSA>30μg/L时其长期生存率有明显下降趋势。结论:采用内分泌治疗的晚期前列腺癌,病理低分化、临床分期达T3 c-4NxMx或TxNxM+期及PSA>30μg/L均提示预后较差,晚期前列腺癌病例的治疗应综合多因素,选择个体化方案。     

Current Approach to Androgen Deprivation Therapy in Patients With Advanced Prostate Cancer

ContextGuidelines for the management of prostate cancer are based on specific levels of clinical evidence.ObjectiveThis review examines the clinical evidence for the use of androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) in prostate cancer (PCa). This is placed in the context of individual patient management and how guidelines should be adapted to optimise individual patient care.Evidence acquisitionDuring the 2010 Annual Congress of the European Association of Urology (EAU) in Barcelona, Spain, a satellite symposium was held on the individualised management of patients with PCa. This paper is based on one of the presentations at the symposium. Data were retrieved from recent review articles, original articles, and abstracts on adjuvant ADT in PCa.Evidence synthesisADT is one of the main treatment options for locally advanced and metastatic PCa. The EAU Guidelines recommend a risk adapted approach to the use of ADT in patients with locally advanced disease and in those with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) relapse following radical prostatectomy. ADT provides specific benefits in patients with a PSA rise following radical prostatectomy, such as poorly differentiated PCa (Gleason score 8–10) and a very short PSA doubling time (<12 mo). The use of immediate versus deferred ADT in locally advanced disease remains controversial, while intermittent ADT can be considered for patients with both PSA rise following local treatment or metastatic disease. Individualised patient care management is required in the modern day use of ADT in men with PCa and a balance has to be reached between the risks and benefits so that appropriate patient populations can be targeted. Patients should be actively involved in such treatment-making decisions.ConclusionsADT is still the standard of care for non-localised PCa, but treatment strategies should be adapted to individual patient profiles.     

Activity and Adverse Events of Actinium-225-PSMA-617 in Advanced Metastatic Castration-resistant Prostate Cancer After Failure of Lutetium-177-PSMA

BackgroundBeta-emitting Lu-177-labeled prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) radioligand therapy (RLT) is a new option for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC), but its antitumor effect can decrease over time.ObjectiveTo report the safety and activity of alpha-emitting Ac-225-PSMA-617 RLT in mCRPC that has progressed after Lu-177-PSMA.Design, setting, and participantsTwenty-six patients were treated under a compassionate use protocol. The eligibility criteria included previous treatment with abiraterone or enzalutamide, previous taxane-based chemotherapy, progression after Lu-177-PSMA, and positive PSMA-ligand uptake. The median number of previous mCRPC regimens was 6. Ac-225-PSMA-617 was given every 8 wk until progression/intolerable side effects.Outcome measurements and statistical analysisProstate-specific antigen (PSA) decline, PSA progression-free survival (PSA-PFS), clinical progression-free survival (cPFS), overall survival (OS), and toxicity were measured.Results and limitationsSixty-one cycles of Ac-225-PSMA-617 (median number of cycles 2; median activity 9 MBq) were administered. A PSA decline of ≥50% was achieved in 17/26 patients. The median PSA-PFS, cPFS, and OS periods were 3.5 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.8–11.2), 4.1 (95% CI 3–14.8), and 7.7 (95% CI 4.5–12.1) mo, respectively. Liver metastases were associated with shorter PSA-PFS (median 1.9 vs 4.0 mo; p = 0.02), cPFS (median 1.8 vs 5.2 mo; p = 0.001), and OS (median 4.3 vs 10.4 mo; p = 0.01). Hematological grade 3/4 toxicities were anemia (35%), leucopenia (27%), and thrombocytopenia (19%). All patients experienced grade 1/2 xerostomia. Two and six patients stopped due to hematological toxicity and xerostomia, respectively. A limitation is the retrospective design.ConclusionsAc-225-PSMA-617 showed measurable antitumor effect after Lu-177-PSMA failure in late-stage mCRPC. Grade 3/4 hematological side effects were observed in up to one-third of patients, and xerostomia led to treatment halt in a relevant number of patients.Patient summaryAc-225-labeled prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA)-617 therapy showed substantial antitumor effect in late metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer after Lu-177-PSMA failure. However, dry mouth is a common side effect that caused about a quarter of patients to stop therapy.     

中医药治疗前列腺癌手术去势后1例报道

前列腺癌是全球第二大男性癌症,大部分患者在确诊时已经发展为中晚期,雄激素剥夺疗法(Androgen deprivation therapy,ADT)始终是转移性前列腺癌最基础的治疗,但不论间歇性还是连续性内分泌治疗均有不良反应以及均会发展为去势抵抗性前列腺癌.中医药不仅对内分泌治疗产生的不良反应有改善作用,而且还能提高...     

Managing Nonmetastatic Castration-resistant Prostate Cancer

Context

Patients with nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC) have rising prostate-specific antigen (PSA) and castrate testosterone levels, with no radiological findings of metastatic disease on computed tomography and bone scan. Given recent drug approvals for nmCRPC, with many other therapeutics and imaging modalities being developed, management of nmCRPC is a rapidly evolving field that merits detailed investigation.

Targeted Next-generation Sequencing of Advanced Prostate Cancer Identifies Potential Therapeutic Targets and Disease Heterogeneity

Background

Most personalized cancer care strategies involving DNA sequencing are highly reliant on acquiring sufficient fresh or frozen tissue. It has been challenging to comprehensively evaluate the genome of advanced prostate cancer (PCa) because of limited access to metastatic tissue.

Objective

To demonstrate the feasibility of a novel next-generation sequencing (NGS)–based platform that can be used with archival formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) biopsy tissue to evaluate the spectrum of DNA alterations seen in advanced PCa.

Design, setting, and participants

FFPE samples (including archival prostatectomies and prostate needle biopsies) were obtained from 45 patients representing the spectrum of disease: localized PCa, metastatic hormone-naive PCa, and metastatic castration-resistant PCa (CRPC). We also assessed paired primaries and metastases to understand disease heterogeneity and disease progression.

Intervention

At least 50 ng of tumor DNA was extracted from FFPE samples and used for hybridization capture and NGS using the Illumina HiSeq 2000 platform.

Outcome measurements and statistical analysis

A total of 3320 exons of 182 cancer-associated genes and 37 introns of 14 commonly rearranged genes were evaluated for genomic alterations.

Results and limitations

We obtained an average sequencing depth of >900X. Overall, 44% of CRPCs harbored genomic alterations involving the androgen receptor gene (AR), including AR copy number gain (24% of CRPCs) or AR point mutation (20% of CRPCs). Other recurrent mutations included transmembrane protease, serine 2 gene (TMPRSS2):v-ets erythroblastosis virus E26 oncogene homolog (avian) gene (ERG) fusion (44%); phosphatase and tensin homolog gene (PTEN) loss (44%); tumor protein p53 gene (TP53) mutation (40%); retinoblastoma gene (RB) loss (28%); v-myc myelocytomatosis viral oncogene homolog (avian) gene (MYC) gain (12%); and phosphatidylinositol-4,5-bisphosphate 3-kinase, catalytic subunit α gene (PIK3CA) mutation (4%). There was a high incidence of genomic alterations involving key genes important for DNA repair, including breast cancer 2, early onset gene (BRCA2) loss (12%) and ataxia telangiectasia mutated gene (ATM) mutations (8%); these alterations are potentially targetable with poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose)polymerase inhibitors. A novel and actionable rearrangement involving the v-raf murine sarcoma viral oncogene homolog B1 gene (BRAF) was also detected.

Conclusions

This first-in-principle study demonstrates the feasibility of performing in-depth DNA analyses using FFPE tissue and brings new insight toward understanding the genomic landscape within advanced PCa.     

Role of Androgen Receptor Variants in Prostate Cancer: Report from the 2017 Mission Androgen Receptor Variants Meeting

Context

Although a number of studies have demonstrated the importance of constitutively active androgen receptor variants (AR-Vs) in prostate cancer, questions still remain about the precise role of AR-Vs in the progression of castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC).

Avances en uro-oncología «OncoForum»: lo mejor del 2019

ObjectiveReview the latest evidence on urologic oncology on kidney, bladder and prostate tumors.MethodsAbstracts on kidney, bladder and prostate cancer presented at the 2019 congresses (EAU, AUA, ASCO and ESMO) and the publications with the greatest impact in this period, with the highest evaluation by the OncoForum committee, are reviewed.ResultsIn patients with metastatic kidney cancer, regimens including immunotherapy (nivolumab + ipilimumab, pembrolizumab) have been shown to be superior to sunitinib in terms of survival. In patients with non-muscle invasive bladder cancer, pembrolizumab has been shown to be an effective alternative in those refractory to bacillus Calmette-Guérin, while in patients with metastatic urothelial cancer, third-line enfortumab vedotin achieved a significant response rate (44%). In patients with localized prostate cancer (PCa), ultrafractionated external radiotherapy did not show any greater acute toxicity than fractionated or hypofractionated radiotherapy. The benefit of enzalutamide and apalutamide associated with castration has been confirmed in M1 PCa patients, regardless of disease volume. In patients with castration-resistant M0 PCa, treatment with enzalutamide, apalutamide or darolutamide has been associated with a delay in the occurrence of metastasis and prolonged survival. Cabazitaxel has demonstrated a survival benefit in patients with metastatic CRPC, while olaparib showed anti-tumor activity after chemotherapy in those tumors with mutations in DNA repair genes.ConclusionsThese data show the implementation of immunotherapy as a novel alternative against renal and bladder cancer. The arrival of new agents for advanced urothelial carcinoma should be highlighted, and the efficacy of enzalutamide and apalutamide in de novo metastatic prostate cancer is established. In metastatic CRPC, cabazitaxel and olaparib (targeting mutations) are promising therapeutic options.     

Apalutamide and Overall Survival in Prostate Cancer

BackgroundThe phase 3 SPARTAN study evaluated apalutamide versus placebo in patients with nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC) and prostate-specific antigen doubling time of ≤10 mo. At primary analysis, apalutamide improved median metastasis-free survival (MFS) by 2 yr and overall survival (OS) data were immature.ObjectiveWe report the prespecified event-driven final analysis for OS.Design, setting, and participantsA total of 1207 patients with nmCRPC (diagnosed by conventional imaging) were randomised 2:1 to apalutamide (240 mg/d) or placebo, plus on-going androgen deprivation therapy. After MFS was met and the study was unblinded, 76 (19%) patients still receiving placebo crossed over to apalutamide.Outcome measurements and statistical analysisOS and time to cytotoxic chemotherapy (TTChemo) were analysed by group-sequential testing with O’Brien-Fleming-type alpha spending function.Results and limitationsAt median 52-mo follow-up, 428 deaths had occurred. The median treatment duration was 32.9 mo for apalutamide group and 11.5 mo for placebo group. Median OS was markedly longer with apalutamide versus placebo, reaching prespecified statistical significance (73.9 vs 59.9 mo, hazard ratio [HR]: 0.78 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 0.64–0.96]; p = 0.016). Apalutamide also lengthened TTChemo versus placebo (HR: 0.63 [95% CI, 0.49–0.81]; p = 0.0002). Discontinuation rates in apalutamide and placebo groups due to progressive disease were 43% and 74%, and due to adverse events 15% and 8.4%, respectively. Subsequent life-prolonging therapy was received by 371 (46%) patients in the apalutamide arm and by 338 (84%) patients in the placebo arm including 59 patients who received apalutamide after crossover. Safety was consistent with previous reports; when adverse events were adjusted for treatment exposure, rash had the greatest difference of incidence between the apalutamide and placebo groups.ConclusionsExtension of OS with apalutamide compared with placebo conferred impactful benefit in patients with nmCRPC. There was a 22% reduction in the hazard of death in the apalutamide group despite 19% crossover (placebo to apalutamide) and higher rates of subsequent therapy in the placebo group.Patient summaryWith data presented herein, all primary and secondary study end points of SPARTAN were met; findings demonstrate the value of apalutamide as a treatment option for nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer.     

METastasis Reporting and Data System for Prostate Cancer: Practical Guidelines for Acquisition,Interpretation, and Reporting of Whole-body Magnetic Resonance Imaging-based Evaluations of Multiorgan Involvement in Advanced Prostate Cancer

Context

Comparative reviews of whole-body magnetic resonance imaging (WB-MRI) and positron emission tomography/computed tomography (CT; with different radiotracers) have shown that metastasis detection in advanced cancers is more accurate than with currently used CT and bone scans. However, the ability of WB-MRI and positron emission tomography/CT to assess therapeutic benefits has not been comprehensively evaluated. There is also considerable variability in the availability and quality of WB-MRI, which is an impediment to clinical development. Expert recommendations for standardising WB-MRI scans are needed, in order to assess its performance in advanced prostate cancer (APC) clinical trials.

Dural Metastases in Advanced Prostate Cancer: A Case Report and Review of the Literature

Dural metastases from advanced prostate cancer are considered an uncommon diagnosis. However, autopsy studies show a high association between advanced prostate cancer and metastases to the meninges. Because the overall survival of advanced prostate cancer patients is expected to improve with the advent of new therapies, the incidence of clinically relevant dural metastases from prostate cancer will likely increase. We present a case of a heavily pre-treated castration-resistant prostate cancer patient who developed metastases to the duramater. This entity should be considered in the differential diagnosis of any patient with advanced castration-resistant prostate cancer and neurological symptoms. Clinicians should also be aware of the poor prognosis and survival rates associated with the condition.Key Words: Prostatic neoplasm, Metastasis, Dura mater     

Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer: Sequencing Oral and Infusion Agents

Purpose of Review

To update treatment options and considerations for castration-resistant prostate cancer with specific attention to sequencing of agents based on available evidence and treatment rationale.

Recent Findings

The newest research developments over the last several years include multicenter studies that address the sequencing of therapies to improve the treatment of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. Chemotherapy agents, as well as androgen receptor antagonists, are evolving, and there are new tests available to define which patients are more likely to benefit. In addition, there have been some additional trials looking into the safety and efficacy of combination treatment and new therapies.

Summary

There are multiple factors that should be considered to determine the sequence and/or combinations of therapies for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer that can improve quality of life and survival. Promising novel agents in combination with personalized medicine will likely continue to improve treatment of these patients.