61MO Biomarker analysis of men with enzalutamide (enza)-resistant metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) treated with pembrolizumab (pembro) + enza in KEYNOTE-199

Background: In KEYNOTE-199 (NCT02787005), pembro + enza had durable antitumor activity in enza-refractory mCRPC. We evaluated the association between prespecified biomarkers and clinical outcomes. Methods: Cohorts 4 (C4; RECIST-measurable disease) and 5 (C5; nonmeasurable, bone-predominant disease) enrolled men with chemotherapy-naive mCRPC, irrespective of PD-L1 status, that progressed after initial response to enza. We evaluated TMB by whole exome sequencing (n = 64), PD-L1 combined positive score (CPS) by IHC (n = 124), and 18-gene T-cell–inflamed gene expression profile (TcellinfGEP) by NanoString (n = 51). Outcomes were DCR, PFS, PSA response, PSA progression, OS, and ORR per blinded independent review (C4 only). Significance of continuous biomarkers (CPS, TMB, GEP) was prespecified at 0.05 for 1-sided P values from logistic (ORR, DCR, PSA response) and Cox proportional hazard (PFS, OS, PSA progression) regression adjusted for ECOG PS. Results: In C4, ORR was 10% (5/48) in pts with evaluable TMB data and 12% (10/81) in pts with CPS data. In C4 and C5, 16% (10/64) and 14% (17/124) of pts with TMB and CPS data, respectively, achieved a PSA response. TMB was significantly associated with DCR (P = 0.03) and trended toward an association with PSA response (P = 0.08). TMB (AUROC [95% CI]: 0.68 [0.51-0.86]), but not CPS (0.54 [0.41-0.67]) or TcellinfGEP (0.55 [0.37-0.74]), enriched for PSA response. TMB (P = 0.04), but not CPS (P = 0.57) or TcellinfGEP (P = 0.32), was significantly associated with PSA progression. There was 1 MSI-H pt (per Promega PCR assay); this pt achieved an objective and PSA response and had PFS \u3e6 months. TMB, CPS, and TcellinfGEP were not associated with PFS or OS. There was a low prevalence of TMB ≥175 mut/exome (11%) and TcellinfGEP-high (≥−0.318; 16%). Conclusions: In this biomarker analysis of KEYNOTE-199 C4-C5, PD-L1 CPS and TcellinfGEP were not significantly associated with clinical outcome. Despite the low prevalence of TMB ≥175 mut/exome, TMB was positively associated with outcomes of pembro + enza in pts with mCRPC. The sample sizes for the exploratory analyses were small, and results should be interpreted with caution

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

BACKGROUND: Innovations in treatments, imaging and molecular characterisation have improved outcomes for people with advanced prostate cancer; however, many aspects of clinical management are devoid of high-level evidence. At the Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) 2019, many of these topics were addressed, and consensus was not always reached. The results from clinical trials will most reliably plus the gaps. METHODS: An invited panel of 57 experts voted on 123 multiple-choice questions on clinical management at APCCC 2019. No consensus was reached on 88 (71.5%) questions defined as <75% of panellists voting for the same answer option. We reviewed clinicaltrials.gov to identify relevant ongoing phase III trials in these areas of non-consensus. RESULTS: A number of ongoing phase III trials were identified that are relevant to these non-consensus issues. However, many non-consensus issues appear not to be addressed by current clinical trials. Of note, no phase III but only phase II trials were identified, investigating side effects of hormonal treatments and their management. CONCLUSIONS: Lack of consensus almost invariably indicates gaps in existing evidence. The high percentage of questions lacking consensus at APCCC 2019 highlights the complexity of advanced prostate cancer care and the need for robust, clinically relevant trials that can fill current gaps with high-level evidence. Our review of these areas of non-consensus and ongoing trials provides a useful summary, indicating areas in which future consensus may soon be reached. This review may facilitate academic investigators to identify and prioritise topics for future research

Addition of docetaxel to hormonal therapy in low- and high-burden metastatic hormone sensitive prostate cancer : long-term survival results from the STAMPEDE trial

Background STAMPEDE has previously reported that the use of upfront docetaxel improved overall survival (OS) for metastatic hormone naïve prostate cancer patients starting long-term androgen deprivation therapy. We report on long-term outcomes stratified by metastatic burden for M1 patients. Methods We randomly allocated patients in 2 : 1 ratio to standard-of-care (SOC; control group) or SOC + docetaxel. Metastatic disease burden was categorised using retrospectively-collected baseline staging scans where available. Analysis used Cox regression models, adjusted for stratification factors, with emphasis on restricted mean survival time where hazards were non-proportional. Results Between 05 October 2005 and 31 March 2013, 1086 M1 patients were randomised to receive SOC (n = 724) or SOC + docetaxel (n = 362). Metastatic burden was assessable for 830/1086 (76%) patients; 362 (44%) had low and 468 (56%) high metastatic burden. Median follow-up was 78.2 months. There were 494 deaths on SOC (41% more than the previous report). There was good evidence of benefit of docetaxel over SOC on OS (HR = 0.81, 95% CI 0.69–0.95, P = 0.009) with no evidence of heterogeneity of docetaxel effect between metastatic burden sub-groups (interaction P = 0.827). Analysis of other outcomes found evidence of benefit for docetaxel over SOC in failure-free survival (HR = 0.66, 95% CI 0.57–0.76, P  0.5 in each case). There was no evidence that docetaxel resulted in late toxicity compared with SOC: after 1 year, G3-5 toxicity was reported for 28% SOC and 27% docetaxel (in patients still on follow-up at 1 year without prior progression). Conclusions The clinically significant benefit in survival for upfront docetaxel persists at longer follow-up, with no evidence that benefit differed by metastatic burden. We advocate that upfront docetaxel is considered for metastatic hormone naïve prostate cancer patients regardless of metastatic burden

Consensus Statement on Circulating Biomarkers for Advanced Prostate Cancer

Context: In advanced prostate cancer (PC), there is increasing investigation of circulating biomarkers, including quantitation and characterization of circulating tumour cells and cell-free nucleic acids, for therapeutic monitoring and as prognostic and predictive biomarkers. However, there is a lack of consensus and standardisation regarding analyses, reporting, and integration of results into specific clinical contexts. A consensus meeting on circulating biomarkers was held to address these topics. Objective: To present a report of the consensus statement on circulating biomarkers in advanced PC. Evidence acquisition: Four important areas of controversy in the field of circulating biomarkers in PC management were identified: known clinical utility of circulating biomarkers; unmet clinical needs for circulating biomarkers in PC care; most pressing blood-based molecular assays required; and essential steps for developing circulating biomarker assays. A panel of 18 international PC experts in the field of circulating biomarkers developed the programme and consensus questions. The panel voted publicly but anonymously on 50 predefined questions developed following a modified Delphi process. Evidence synthesis: Voting was based solely on panellist opinions of the predefined topics and therefore not on a standard literature review or meta-analysis. The outcomes of the voting had varying degrees of support, as reflected in the wording of this article and in the detailed voting results provided in the Supplementary material. Conclusions: The expert voting results presented can guide the future development of circulating biomarkers for PC care. Notably, the consensus meeting highlighted the importance of reproducibility and variability studies, among other significant areas in need of trials specifically designed to address them. Patient summary: A panel of international experts met to discuss and vote on the use of different blood-based prostate cancer tests, and how they can be used to guide treatment and disease monitoring to deliver more precise and better patient care

Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer Tissue Acquisition From Bone Metastases for Molecular Analyses.

Background The urgent need for castration-resistant prostate cancer molecular characterization to guide treatment has been constrained by the disease's predilection to metastasize primarily to bone. We hypothesized that the use of clinical and imaging criteria could maximize tissue acquisition from bone marrow biopsies (BMBs). We aimed to develop a score for the selection of patients undergoing BMB.Materials and methods A total of 115 BMBs were performed in 101 patients: 57 were included in a derivation set and 58 were used as the validation set. The clinical and laboratory data and prebiopsy computed tomography parameters (Hounsfield units [HUs]) were determined. A score for the prediction of biopsy positivity was developed from logistic regression analysis of the derivation set and tested in the validation set.Results Of the 115 biopsy specimens, 75 (62.5%) were positive; 35 (61.4%) in the test set and 40 (69%) in the validation set. On univariable analysis, hemoglobin (P = .019), lactate dehydrogenase (P = .003), prostate-specific antigen (P = .005), and mean HUs (P = .004) were selected. A score based on the LDH level (≥ 225 IU/L) and mean HUs (≥ 125) was developed in multivariate analysis and was associated with BMB positivity in the validation set (odds ratio, 5.1; 95% confidence interval, 1.9%-13.4%; P = .001). The area under the curve of the score was 0.79 in the test set and 0.77 in the validation set.Conclusion BMB of the iliac crest is a feasible technique for obtaining tumor tissue for genomic analysis in patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer metastatic to the bone. A signature based on the mean HUs and LDH level can predict a positive yield with acceptable internal validity. Prospective studies of independent cohorts are needed to establish the external validity of the score

Consensus Statement on Circulating Biomarkers for Advanced Prostate Cancer

Context: In advanced prostate cancer (PC), there is increasing investigation of circulating biomarkers, including quantitation and characterization of circulating tumour cells and cell-free nucleic acids, for therapeutic monitoring and as prognostic and predictive biomarkers. However, there is a lack of consensus and standardisation regarding analyses, reporting, and integration of results into specific clinical contexts. A consensus meeting on circulating biomarkers was held to address these topics. Objective: To present a report of the consensus statement on circulating biomarkers in advanced PC. Evidence acquisition: Four important areas of controversy in the field of circulating biomarkers in PC management were identified: known clinical utility of circulating biomarkers; unmet clinical needs for circulating biomarkers in PC care; most pressing blood-based molecular assays required; and essential steps for developing circulating biomarker assays. A panel of 18 international PC experts in the field of circulating biomarkers developed the programme and consensus questions. The panel voted publicly but anonymously on 50 predefined questions developed following a modified Delphi process. Evidence synthesis: Voting was based solely on panellist opinions of the predefined topics and therefore not on a standard literature review or meta-analysis. The outcomes of the voting had varying degrees of support, as reflected in the wording of this article and in the detailed voting results provided in the Supplementary material. Conclusions: The expert voting results presented can guide the future development of circulating biomarkers for PC care. Notably, the consensus meeting highlighted the importance of reproducibility and variability studies, among other significant areas in need of trials specifically designed to address them. Patient summary: A panel of international experts met to discuss and vote on the use of different blood-based prostate cancer tests, and how they can be used to guide treatment and disease monitoring to deliver more precise and better patient car

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

Background Innovations in treatments, imaging, and molecular characterisation in advanced prostate cancer have improved outcomes, but there are still many aspects of management that lack high-level evidence to inform clinical practice. The Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) 2019 addressed some of these topics to supplement guidelines that are based on level 1 evidence.Objective To present the results from the APCCC 2019.Design, setting, and participants Similar to prior conferences, experts identified 10 important areas of controversy regarding the management of advanced prostate cancer: locally advanced disease, biochemical recurrence after local therapy, treating the primary tumour in the metastatic setting, metastatic hormone-sensitive/naïve prostate cancer, nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, bone health and bone metastases, molecular characterisation of tissue and blood, inter- and intrapatient heterogeneity, and adverse effects of hormonal therapy and their management. A panel of 72 international prostate cancer experts developed the programme and the consensus questions.Outcome measurements and statistical analysis The panel voted publicly but anonymously on 123 predefined questions, which were developed by both voting and nonvoting panel members prior to the conference following a modified Delphi process.Results and limitations Panellists voted based on their opinions rather than a standard literature review or formal meta-analysis. The answer options for the consensus questions had varying degrees of support by the panel, as reflected in this article and the detailed voting results reported in the Supplementary material.Conclusions These voting results from a panel of prostate cancer experts can help clinicians and patients navigate controversial areas of advanced prostate management for which high-level evidence is sparse. However, diagnostic and treatment decisions should always be individualised based on patient-specific factors, such as disease extent and location, prior lines of therapy, comorbidities, and treatment preferences, together with current and emerging clinical evidence and logistic and economic constraints. Clinical trial enrolment for men with advanced prostate cancer should be strongly encouraged. Importantly, APCCC 2019 once again identified important questions that merit assessment in specifically designed trials.Patient summary The Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference provides a forum to discuss and debate current diagnostic and treatment options for patients with advanced prostate cancer. The conference, which has been held three times since 2015, aims to share the knowledge of world experts in prostate cancer management with health care providers worldwide. At the end of the conference, an expert panel discusses and votes on predefined consensus questions that target the most clinically relevant areas of advanced prostate cancer treatment. The results of the voting provide a practical guide to help clinicians discuss therapeutic options with patients as part of shared and multidisciplinary decision making

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

BACKGROUND: Innovations in treatments, imaging, and molecular characterisation in advanced prostate cancer have improved outcomes, but various areas of management still lack high-level evidence to inform clinical practice. The 2021 Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) addressed some of these questions to supplement guidelines that are based on level 1 evidence. OBJECTIVE: To present the voting results from APCCC 2021. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: The experts identified three major areas of controversy related to management of advanced prostate cancer: newly diagnosed metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC), the use of prostate-specific membrane antigen ligands in diagnostics and therapy, and molecular characterisation of tissue and blood. A panel of 86 international prostate cancer experts developed the programme and the consensus questions. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The panel voted publicly but anonymously on 107 pre-defined questions, which were developed by both voting and non-voting panel members prior to the conference following a modified Delphi process. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: The voting reflected the opinions of panellists and did not incorporate a standard literature review or formal meta-analysis. The answer options for the consensus questions received varying degrees of support from panellists, as reflected in this article and the detailed voting results reported in the Supplementary material. CONCLUSIONS: These voting results from a panel of experts in advanced prostate cancer can help clinicians and patients to navigate controversial areas of management for which high-level evidence is scant. However, diagnostic and treatment decisions should always be individualised according to patient characteristics, such as the extent and location of disease, prior treatment(s), comorbidities, patient preferences, and treatment recommendations, and should also incorporate current and emerging clinical evidence and logistic and economic constraints. Enrolment in clinical trials should be strongly encouraged. Importantly, APCCC 2021 once again identified salient questions that merit evaluation in specifically designed trials. PATIENT SUMMARY: The Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference is a forum for discussing current diagnosis and treatment options for patients with advanced prostate cancer. An expert panel votes on predefined questions focused on the most clinically relevant areas for treatment of advanced prostate cancer for which there are gaps in knowledge. The voting results provide a practical guide to help clinicians in discussing treatment options with patients as part of shared decision-making

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

BACKGROUND: Innovations in imaging and molecular characterisation and the evolution of new therapies have improved outcomes in advanced prostate cancer. Nonetheless, we continue to lack high-level evidence on a variety of clinical topics that greatly impact daily practice. To supplement evidence-based guidelines, the 2022 Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC 2022) surveyed experts about key dilemmas in clinical management. OBJECTIVE: To present consensus voting results for select questions from APCCC 2022. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Before the conference, a panel of 117 international prostate cancer experts used a modified Delphi process to develop 198 multiple-choice consensus questions on (1) intermediate- and high-risk and locally advanced prostate cancer, (2) biochemical recurrence after local treatment, (3) side effects from hormonal therapies, (4) metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer, (5) nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, (6) metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, and (7) oligometastatic and oligoprogressive prostate cancer. Before the conference, these questions were administered via a web-based survey to the 105 physician panel members ("panellists") who directly engage in prostate cancer treatment decision-making. Herein, we present results for the 82 questions on topics 1-3. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Consensus was defined as ≥75% agreement, with strong consensus defined as ≥90% agreement. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: The voting results reveal varying degrees of consensus, as is discussed in this article and shown in the detailed results in the Supplementary material. The findings reflect the opinions of an international panel of experts and did not incorporate a formal literature review and meta-analysis. CONCLUSIONS: These voting results by a panel of international experts in advanced prostate cancer can help physicians and patients navigate controversial areas of clinical management for which high-level evidence is scant or conflicting. The findings can also help funders and policymakers prioritise areas for future research. Diagnostic and treatment decisions should always be individualised based on patient and cancer characteristics (disease extent and location, treatment history, comorbidities, and patient preferences) and should incorporate current and emerging clinical evidence, therapeutic guidelines, and logistic and economic factors. Enrolment in clinical trials is always strongly encouraged. Importantly, APCCC 2022 once again identified important gaps (areas of nonconsensus) that merit evaluation in specifically designed trials. PATIENT SUMMARY: The Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) provides a forum to discuss and debate current diagnostic and treatment options for patients with advanced prostate cancer. The conference aims to share the knowledge of international experts in prostate cancer with health care providers and patients worldwide. At each APCCC, a panel of physician experts vote in response to multiple-choice questions about their clinical opinions and approaches to managing advanced prostate cancer. This report presents voting results for the subset of questions pertaining to intermediate- and high-risk and locally advanced prostate cancer, biochemical relapse after definitive treatment, advanced (next-generation) imaging, and management of side effects caused by hormonal therapies. The results provide a practical guide to help clinicians and patients discuss treatment options as part of shared multidisciplinary decision-making. The findings may be especially useful when there is little or no high-level evidence to guide treatment decisions

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. OBJECTIVE: To present the report of APCCC 2017. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Ten important areas of controversy in APC management were identified: high-risk localised and locally advanced prostate cancer; "oligometastatic" prostate cancer; castration-naïve and castration-resistant prostate cancer; the role of imaging in APC; osteoclast-targeted therapy; molecular characterisation of blood and tissue; genetic counselling/testing; side effects of systemic treatment(s); global access to prostate cancer drugs. A panel of 60 international prostate cancer experts developed the program and the consensus questions. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The panel voted publicly but anonymously on 150 predefined questions, which have been developed following a modified Delphi process. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Voting is based on panellist opinion, and thus is not based on a standard literature review or meta-analysis. The outcomes of the voting had varying degrees of support, as reflected in the wording of this article, as well as in the detailed voting results recorded in Supplementary data. CONCLUSIONS: The presented expert voting results can be used for support in areas of management of men with APC where there is no high-level evidence, but individualised treatment decisions should as always be based on all of the data available, including disease extent and location, prior therapies regardless of type, host factors including comorbidities, as well as patient preferences, current and emerging evidence, and logistical and economic constraints. Inclusion of men with APC in clinical trials should be strongly encouraged. Importantly, APCCC 2017 again identified important areas in need of trials specifically designed to address them. PATIENT SUMMARY: The second Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference APCCC 2017 did provide a forum for discussion and debates on current treatment options for men with advanced prostate cancer. The aim of the conference is to bring the expertise of world experts to care givers around the world who see less patients with prostate cancer. The conference concluded with a discussion and voting of the expert panel on predefined consensus questions, targeting areas of primary clinical relevance. The results of these expert opinion votes are embedded in the clinical context of current treatment of men with advanced prostate cancer and provide a practical guide to clinicians to assist in the discussions with men with prostate cancer as part of a shared and multidisciplinary decision-making process