Daniel George

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.

Black men are disproportionately affected by prostate cancer (PCa), with earlier presentation, more aggressive disease, and higher mortality rates versus White men. Furthermore, Black men have less access to PCa treatment and experience longer delays between diagnosis and treatment. In this review, the authors discuss the factors contributing to racial disparities and present solutions to improve access to care and increase clinical trial participation among Black men with PCa. Racial disparities observed among Black men with PCa are multifaceted, evolving from institutional racism. Cultural factors include generalized mistrust of the health care system, poor physician-patient communication, lack of information on PCa and treatment options, fear of PCa diagnosis, and perceived societal stigma of the disease. In the United States, geographic trends in racial disparities have been observed. Economic factors, e.g., cost of care, recovery time, and cancer debt, play an important role in racial disparities observed in PCa treatment and outcomes. Racial diversity is often lacking in genomic and precision medicine studies. Black men are largely underrepresented in key phase 3 PCa trials and may be less willing to enroll in clinical trials due to lack of awareness, lack of diversity in clinical trial research teams, and bias of health care providers to recommend clinical research. The authors propose solutions to address these factors that include educating clinicians and institutions on the barriers Black men experience, increasing the diversity of health care providers and clinical research teams, and empowering Black men to be involved in their treatment, which are keys to creating equity for Black men with PCa. LAY SUMMARY: Prostate cancer negatively affects Black men more than men of other races. The history of segregation and mistreatment in the health care system may contribute to mistrust among Black men. Outcomes are worse for Black men because they are less likely to be screened or to receive treatment for prostate cancer. Black men also are unlikely to participate in clinical research, making it difficult for investigators to understand how Black men are affected by prostate cancer. Suggestions for addressing these differences include teaching physicians and nurses about the issues Black men experience getting treatment and improving how Black men get information on prostate cancer.

PURPOSE: To describe a newly established international registry recruiting diverse patients with advanced prostate cancer across academic and community practices to address unmet needs in this population. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Initiated in 2017, IRONMAN (International Registry for Men with Advanced Prostate Cancer) is a prospective cohort of patients with advanced prostate cancer. The study will enroll 5,000 patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC) or castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC), recruited from Australia, the Bahamas, Barbados, Brazil, Canada, Ireland, Jamaica, Kenya, Nigeria, Norway, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and the United States. The study is collecting datatypes to study variation in care and treatment of advanced prostate cancer across countries and across academic, community-based, and government practices with a focus on clinical outcomes, patient-reported outcomes, epidemiologic data, biologic subtypes, and clinician questionnaires. RESULTS: Through July 2022, 2,682 eligible patients were enrolled in 11 of 12 active countries. Sixty-six percent of patients have mHSPC, and 34% have CRPC. On the basis of self-report, 11% of patients are Black and 9% are Hispanic. Five Veterans Affairs Medical Centers are enrolling patients. Globally, 23% of patients report being veterans of military service. CONCLUSION: To our knowledge, this is the first international cohort of people newly diagnosed with advanced prostate cancer designed to describe variations in patient management, experiences, and outcomes. IRONMAN aims to identify optimal treatment sequences to improve survival, understand patient-reported outcomes, and explore novel biomarkers to understand treatment resistance mechanisms. Insights from IRONMAN will inform and guide future clinical management of people with mHSPC and CRPC. This cohort study will provide real-world evidence to facilitate a better understanding of the survivorship of people with advanced prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: Understanding how patients perceive the efficacy, safety, and administrative burden of treatments for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) can facilitate shared-decision making for optimal management. This study sought to elicit patient preferences for mCRPC treatments in the US. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional survey using the discrete-choice experiment method. Participants were asked to state their choices over successive sets of treatment alternatives, defined by varying levels of treatment attributes: overall survival (OS), months until patients develop a fracture or bone metastasis, likelihood of requiring radiation to control bone pain, fatigue, nausea, and administration (i.e., oral/IV injection/IV infusion). Using mixed logit models, we determined the value (i.e., preference weights) that respondents placed on each attribute. Relative attribute importance (RAI) and marginal rates of substitution (MRS) were calculated to understand patients' willingness to make tradeoffs among different attributes. RESULTS: The final data set numbered 160 participants, with a mean age of 71.6 years old and a mean of 8.96 years since prostate cancer diagnosis. Participants' treatment preferences were as follows: OS (RAI: 31%), bone pain control (23%), nausea (16%), delaying fracture or bone metastasis (15%), fatigue (11%), and administration (3%). The MRS demonstrated that respondents were willing to trade 1.9 months of OS to eliminate moderate nausea and 3.3 months of OS for a reduction in fatigue from severe to mild. CONCLUSIONS: Improving OS is the highest priority for patients with mCRPC, but they are willing to trade some survival to reduce the risk of requiring radiation to control bone pain, delay a fracture or bone metastasis, and experience less severe nausea and fatigue.

Multigene assays can provide insight into key biological processes and prognostic information to guide development and selection of adjuvant cancer therapy. We report a comprehensive genomic and transcriptomic analysis of tumor samples from 171 patients at high risk for recurrent renal cell carcinoma post nephrectomy from the S-TRAC trial (NCT00375674). We identify gene expression signatures, including STRAC11 (derived from the sunitinib-treated population). The overlap in key elements captured in these gene expression signatures, which include genes representative of the tumor stroma microenvironment, regulatory T cell, and myeloid cells, suggests they are likely to be both prognostic and predictive of the anti-angiogenic effect in the adjuvant setting. These signatures also point to the identification of potential therapeutic targets for development in adjuvant renal cell carcinoma, such as MERTK and TDO2. Finally, our findings suggest that while anti-angiogenic adjuvant therapy might be important, it may not be sufficient to prevent recurrence and that other factors such as immune response and tumor environment may be of greater importance.