Olaparib improved PFS and OS across subgroups of BRCA1/2mut #prostatecancer patients in the PROFOUND phase III trial.

Considering the high morbidity and mortality of Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in patients with malignancy, they are regarded as a priority for COVID-19 vaccination. However, general vaccine uptake rates among cancer patients are known to be lower than in their healthy counterparts. Thus, we aimed to investigate the attitude and acceptance rates for the COVID-19 vaccine in cancer patients and identify predictive factors for vaccination that could be modified to increase vaccine uptake rates, via a paper-based survey (58 items over six domains). A total of 1001 cancer patients participated in this nationwide, multicenter survey between February and April 2021. We observed that 61.8% of respondents were willing to receive the COVID-19 vaccine. Positive predictive factors found to be independently associated with vaccination were male gender, older age, obesity, previous influenza vaccination history, absence of cancer recurrence, time since cancer diagnosis over 5 years, and higher EuroQol Visual Analogue Scale scores. Along with the well-known factors that are positively correlated with vaccination, here, we report that patients’ disease status and current health status were also associated with their acceptance of the COVID-19 vaccination. Moreover, 91.2% of cancer patients were willing to be vaccinated if their attending physicians recommend it, indicating that almost 30% could change their decision upon physicians’ recommendation. Unlike other factors, which are unmodifiable, physicians’ recommendation is the single modifiable factor that could change patients’ behavior. In conclusion, we firstly report that Korean cancer patients’ acceptance rate of the COVID-19 vaccination was 61.8% and associated with disease status and current health status. Physicians should play a major role in aiding cancer patients’ decision-making concerning COVID-19 vaccines.

Immunotherapy has shown limited efficacy in prostate cancer, largely due to low tumor immunogenicity, sparse tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes, and a suppressive microenvironment. Recent therapeutic strategies aim to boost immune responses and counteract immunosuppressive factors through interventions such as immune checkpoint inhibitors, immunogenic cell death-inducing therapies, and the targeted blockade of pathways like that of transforming growth factor-β. Vaccine-based approaches, potent immune adjuvants, and engineered chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cells are also being investigated to overcome local immune inhibitory signals. Advancements in imaging, multi-omic profiling, and liquid biopsies offer promising avenues for real-time monitoring, better patient selection, and precision treatment. This review provides an overview of the key immunosuppressive features of prostate cancer, current immunotherapeutic modalities, and emerging strategies to transform “cold” tumors into more responsive “hot” targets. By integrating these approaches, we may achieve more durable clinical benefits for patients with advanced or metastatic prostate cancer.

We performed a prospective phase II study to compare acute toxicity among five different hypofractionated schedules using proton therapy. This study was an exploratory analysis to investigate the secondary end-point of biochemical failure-free survival (BCFFS) of patients with long-term follow-up. Eighty-two patients with T1-3bN0M0 prostate cancer who had not received androgen-deprivation therapy were randomized to one of five arms: Arm 1, 60 cobalt gray equivalent (CGE)/20 fractions/5 weeks; Arm 2, 54 CGE/15 fractions/5 weeks; Arm 3, 47 CGE/10 fractions/5 weeks; Arm 4, 35 CGE/5 fractions/2.5 weeks; and Arm 5, 35 CGE/5 fractions/4 weeks. In the current exploratory analysis, these ardms were categorized into the moderate hypofractionated (MHF) group (52 patients in Arms 1–3) and the extreme hypofractionated (EHF) group (30 patients in Arms 4–5). At a median follow-up of 7.5 years (range, 1.3–9.6 years), 7-year BCFFS was 76.2% for the MHF group and 46.2% for the EHF group (p = 0.005). The 7-year BCFFS of the MHF and EHF groups were 90.5 and 57.1% in the low-risk group (p = 0.154); 83.5 and 42.9% in the intermediate risk group (p = 0.018); and 41.7 and 40.0% in the high risk group (p = 0.786), respectively. Biochemical failure tended to be a late event with a median time to occurrence of 5 years. Acute GU toxicities were more common in the MHF than the EHF group (85 vs. 57%, p = 0.009), but late GI and GU toxicities did not differ between groups. Our results suggest that the efficacy of EHF is potentially inferior to that of MHF and that further studies are warranted, therefore, to confirm these findings. This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, no. NCT01709253 ; registered October 18, 2012; retrospectively registered).

Metastatic prostate cancer (mPCa) remains a significant cause of cancer-related mortality in men. Advances in molecular profiling have demonstrated that the androgen receptor (AR) axis, DNA damage repair pathways, and the PI3K/AKT/mTOR pathway are critical drivers of disease progression and therapeutic resistance. Despite the established benefits of hormone therapy, chemotherapy, and bone-targeting agents, mPCa commonly becomes treatment-resistant. Recent breakthroughs have highlighted the importance of identifying actionable genetic alterations, such as BRCA2 or ATM defects, that render tumors sensitive to poly-ADP ribose polymerase (PARP) inhibitors. Parallel efforts have refined imaging—particularly prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) positron emission tomography-computed tomography—to detect and localize metastatic lesions with high sensitivity, thereby guiding patient selection for PSMA-targeted radioligand therapies. Multi-omics innovations, including liquid biopsy technologies, enable the real-time tracking of emergent AR splice variants or reversion mutations, supporting adaptive therapy paradigms. Nonetheless, the complexity of mPCa necessitates combination strategies, such as pairing AR inhibition with PI3K/AKT blockade or PARP inhibitors, to inhibit tumor plasticity. Immuno-oncological approaches remain challenging for unselected patients; however, subsets with mismatch repair deficiency or neuroendocrine phenotypes may benefit from immune checkpoint blockade or targeted epigenetic interventions. We present these pivotal advances, and discuss how biomarker-guided integrative treatments can improve mPCa management.