ASCO Guidelines provide recommendations with comprehensive review and analyses of the relevant literature for each recommendation, following the guideline development process as outlined in the ASCO Guidelines Methodology Manual . ASCO Guidelines follow the ASCO Conflict of Interest Policy for Clinical Practice Guidelines . Clinical Practice Guidelines and other guidance (“Guidance”) provided by ASCO is not a comprehensive or definitive guide to treatment options. It is intended for voluntary use by clinicians and should be used in conjunction with independent professional judgment. Guidance may not be applicable to all patients, interventions, diseases or stages of diseases. Guidance is based on review and analysis of relevant literature, and is not intended as a statement of the standard of care. ASCO does not endorse third-party drugs, devices, services, or therapies and assumes no responsibility for any harm arising from or related to the use of this information. See complete disclaimer in Appendix 1 and 2 (online only) for more . PURPOSE: To provide evidence-based recommendations for patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). METHODS: An Expert Panel including patient representation completed a systematic review of the evidence and made recommendations. RESULTS: Depending upon prior treatment received, androgen receptor pathway inhibitors (ARPIs: enzalutamide, abiraterone with prednisone), poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors (PARPi), chemotherapeutic agents (docetaxel, cabazitaxel), radiopharmaceuticals (radium 223, ¹⁷⁷ Lu-prostate-specific membrane antigen [PSMA]-617), and sipuleucel-T have demonstrated an overall survival (OS) benefit for patients with mCRPC. For patients with BRCA1 / 2 alterations who did not receive prior ARPI, the combination of PARPi and ARPI (talazoparib + enzalutamide, olaparib and/or niraparib + abiraterone) has shown clinical benefit. For patients with BRCA1 / 2 alterations who received prior ARPI or ARPI followed by docetaxel, olaparib showed OS benefit. In select patients with microsatellite instability-high/mismatch repair-deficient, pembrolizumab showed clinical efficacy. RECOMMENDATIONS: Prior systemic therapy for castration-sensitive prostate cancer will determine subsequent therapy used for mCRPC. Continue androgen-deprivation therapy for patients with mCRPC indefinitely. Early adoption of somatic genetic testing and palliative care is recommended. Patients with mCRPC and bony metastases should receive a bone-protective agent. The panel recommends the combination of ARPI with PARPi in patients with BRCA1 / 2 alterations who did not receive prior ARPI. For patients who received prior ARPI, the panel recommends docetaxel chemotherapy. The panel recommends ¹⁷⁷ Lu-PSMA-617 or cabazitaxel chemotherapy for patients who receive prior ARPI and docetaxel chemotherapy. For patients with BRCA1 / 2 alterations who received prior ARPI, the panel recommends PARPi monotherapy. Radium 223 is recommended for patients with symptomatic bone–only disease. Evidence for optimal sequencing for mCRPC regimens is lacking. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/genitourinary-cancer-guidelines .

Background Overexpression/activation of focal adhesion kinase (FAK) in human malignancies has led to its evaluation as a therapeutic target. We report the first-in-human phase I study of BI 853520, a novel, potent, highly selective FAK inhibitor. Objective Our objectives were to identify the maximum tolerated dose (MTD), and to evaluate safety, pharmacokinetics (PK), pharmacodynamics (PD), biomarker expression, and preliminary activity. Patients and Methods The study comprised a standard 3 + 3 dose-escalation phase followed by an expansion phase in patients with selected advanced, nonhematologic malignancies. Results Thirty-three patients received BI 853520 in the dose-escalation phase; the MTD was 200 mg once daily (QD). Dose-limiting toxicities included proteinuria and fatigue, both of which were grade 3. Preliminary PK data supported QD dosing. In the expansion cohort, 63 patients received BI 853520 200 mg QD. Drug-related adverse events (AEs) in > 10% of patients included proteinuria (57%), nausea (57%), fatigue (51%), diarrhea (48%), vomiting (40%), decreased appetite (19%), and peripheral edema (16%). Most AEs were grade 1–2; grade 3 proteinuria, reported in 13 patients (21%), was generally reversible upon treatment interruption. Nineteen patients underwent dose reduction due to AEs, and three drug-related serious AEs were reported, none of which were fatal. Preliminary PD analysis indicated target engagement. Of 63 patients, 49 were evaluable; 17 (27%) achieved a best response of stable disease (4 with 150 + days), and 32 (51%) patients had progressive disease. Conclusions BI 853520 has a manageable and acceptable safety profile, favorable PK, and modest antitumor activity at an MTD of 200 mg QD in patients with selected advanced nonhematologic malignancies. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT01335269.

Purpose: The phase III PROfound study (NCT02987543) evaluated olaparib versus abiraterone or enzalutamide (control) in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) with tumor homologous recombination repair (HRR) gene alterations. We present exploratory analyses on the use of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) testing as an additional method to identify patients with mCRPC with HRR gene alterations who may be eligible for olaparib treatment. Patients and Methods: Plasma samples collected during screening in PROfound were retrospectively sequenced using the FoundationOne®Liquid CDx test for BRCA1, BRCA2 (BRCA), and ATM alterations in ctDNA. Only patients from Cohort A (BRCA/ATM alteration positive by tissue testing) were evaluated. We compared clinical outcomes, including radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) between the ctDNA subgroup and Cohort A. Results: Of the 181 (73.9%) Cohort A patients who gave consent for plasma sample ctDNA testing, 139 (76.8%) yielded a result and BRCA/ATM alterations were identified in 111 (79.9%). Of these, 73 patients received olaparib and 38 received control. Patients’ baseline demographics and characteristics, and the prevalence of HRR alterations were comparable with the Cohort A intention-to-treat (ITT) population. rPFS was longer in the olaparib group versus control [median 7.4 vs. 3.5 months; hazard ratio (HR), 0.33; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.21–0.53; nominal P < 0.0001], which is consistent with Cohort A ITT population (HR, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.25–0.47). Conclusions: When tumor tissue testing is not feasible or has failed, ctDNA testing may be a suitable alternative to identify patients with mCRPC carrying BRCA/ATM alterations who may benefit from olaparib treatment.

Over the last 40 years, there has been a significant increase in the incidence of testicular cancer. The epidemiologic evidence to understand this phenomenon is unclear, however exogenous estrogen exposure is thought to be a driver in the development of testicular cancer. This is of particular importance in the transgender population because utilization of exogenous estrogen therapy is an essential aspect of the transition process. We present the case of a 38-year-old Caucasian male to female transgender patient who presented with metastatic testicular cancer 15 months after initiating estrogen therapy. She presented to our emergency department with worsening back pain and fatigue. A clinical examination revealed a right-sided testicular mass. A computed tomography scan of her abdomen/pelvis identified a right groin lesion measuring 6.4 cm, a retroperitoneal mass causing right-sided hydronephrosis, an extensive deep vein thrombosis, and pathologic abdominal lymphadenopathy. Germ cell tumor markers revealed an alpha-fetoprotein of < 2.5 μg/L and a beta-human chorionic gonadotrophin of 2526 IU/L. Her lactate dehydrogenase was 5294 U/L. Medical oncology advised the discontinuation of hormonal therapy at this time. On the basis of elevation in germ cell tumor markers and the burden of disease, she was treated with four cycles of bleomycin, etoposide, and cisplatin chemotherapy. A decision to defer upfront radical inguinal orchiectomy was made due to not wanting to have an early interruption in anticoagulation. Following the completion of the chemotherapy, a 6 cm retroperitoneal mass persisted. Due to the location of the mass and surgical morbidity associated with excision, she was followed with positron emission tomography-computed tomography by Uro-oncology, with no evidence of recurrent disease 2 years since the time of diagnosis. While there are recognized risks associated with estrogen therapy less is known about the extent to which exogenous estrogen can serve as a driver of malignancy. With recent experimental evidence revealing a pro-growth impact of estrogen on human testicular cells, continued reporting of similar cases in the literature is imperative to see if a link between exogenous estrogen exposure and testicular cancer exists.