Purpose: To investigate whether radium-223 increases peripheral immune responses to sipuleucel-T in men with bone-predominant, minimally symptomatic metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). Patients and Methods: A total of 32 patients were randomized 1:1 in this open-label, phase II multicenter trial. Patients in the control arm received three sipuleucel-T treatments, 2 weeks apart. Those in the combination arm received six doses of radium-223 monthly, with sipuleucel-T intercalated between the second and fourth doses of radium-223. The primary endpoint was a comparison of peripheral antigen PA2024-specific T-cell responses (measured by proliferation index). Secondary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and PSA responses. Results: We enrolled 32 patients, followed for a median of 1.6 years. Six weeks after the first sipuleucel-T dose, participants in the control arm had a 3.2-fold greater change in PA2024-specific T-cell responses compared with those who received combination treatment (P = 0.036). Patients in the combination arm were more likely to have a >50% PSA decline [5 (31%) vs. 0 patients; P = 0.04], and also demonstrated longer PFS [39 vs. 12 weeks; HR, 0.32; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.14–0.76] and OS (not reached vs. 2.6 years; HR, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.08–1.23). Conclusions: Our data raise the possibility of greater clinical activity with the combination of sipuleucel-T and radium-223 in men with asymptomatic bone mCRPC, despite the paradoxically lower immune responses observed. Additional study to confirm these findings in a larger trial is warranted.

Clonal hematopoiesis of indeterminate potential (CHIP) refers to the expansion of cells of hematopoietic lineage that carry acquired somatic alterations associated with hematologic malignancies. The most commonly altered genes giving rise to CHIP are DNMT3A, TET2, and ASXL1. However, advanced sequencing technologies have resulted in highly sensitive detection of clonal hematopoiesis beyond these known driver genes. In practice, CHIP is commonly identified as an incidental finding in liquid and tissue biopsies of patients with solid tumors. CHIP can have broad clinical consequences, given its association with hematologic malignancies and nonmalignant diseases. CHIP can also interfere with next-generation DNA sequencing results, so clinicians should pay careful attention when these results are being used to guide therapy. Future research is needed to determine how solid tumor malignancies and their treatments alter the progression of CHIP, and in turn, how CHIP might be used to improve treatment selection and outcomes for patients with solid tumors.

PURPOSE: The continuous development of new imaging approaches, molecular phenotyping, genetic subtypes, prognosis assessments, and effective therapies across a range of disease states has created a need to redefine terminology and best practices for clinical trial conduct in patients with advanced prostate cancer. Methods: We convened an international expert committee of diverse working groups, the Prostate Cancer Working Group 4 (PCWG4), between 2016 and 2025. Our objective was to formulate updated criteria based on emerging evidence and clinical trial data in a biomarker context to provide guidance for clinical trial design, eligibility, and end point assessments for patients with advanced prostate cancer. RESULTS: PCWG4 redefines terminology around the disease state and previous therapies in a patient-centric context and terminology focused on androgen pathway modulation. We consider imaging, with a particular focus on positron emission tomography (PET)–defined disease. New recommendations are provided for disease state terminology, defining eligibility criteria, response and delay/prevent end points, intervals for reassessments including imaging, and patient-reported outcome determination. We provide recommendations in a biomarker-based context of use for the intended indication, reflective of patient benefit for specific interventions. We emphasize the need for development of validated PET imaging and molecular and phenotypic criteria as well as trial designs to appropriately risk stratify patients, predict and assess benefit, and measure post-treatment outcomes reliably in a trial framework. CONCLUSION: PCWG4 updates recommendations on patient and tumor characterization, therapy development, and imaging criteria and extends guidance into earlier androgen pathway modulator–naïve/sensitive disease states to reflect an evolving, heterogeneous, and diverse patient population to optimize treatment benefits for all patients.

PURPOSE: We sought to investigate whether enzalutamide (ENZA), without concurrent androgen deprivation therapy, increases freedom from prostate-specific antigen (PSA) progression (FFPP) when combined with salvage radiation therapy (SRT) in men with recurrent prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy (RP). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Men with biochemically recurrent prostate cancer after RP were enrolled into a randomized, double‐blind, phase II, placebo-controlled, multicenter study of SRT plus ENZA or placebo (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02203695 ). Random assignment (1:1) was stratified by center, surgical margin status (R0 v R1), PSA before salvage treatment (PSA ≥ 0.5 v < 0.5 ng/mL), and pathologic Gleason sum (7 v 8‐10). Patients were assigned to receive either ENZA 160 mg once daily or matching placebo for 6 months. After 2 months of study drug therapy, external-beam radiation (66.6‐70.2 Gy) was administered to the prostate bed (no pelvic nodes). The primary end point was FFPP in the intention-to-treat population. Secondary end points were time to local recurrence within the radiation field, metastasis‐free survival, and safety as determined by frequency and severity of adverse events. RESULTS: Eighty-six (86) patients were randomly assigned, with a median follow-up of 34 (range, 0-52) months. Trial arms were well balanced. The median pre-SRT PSA was 0.3 (range, 0.06-4.6) ng/mL, 56 of 86 patients (65%) had extraprostatic disease (pT3), 39 of 86 (45%) had a Gleason sum of 8-10, and 43 of 86 (50%) had positive surgical margins (R1). FFPP was significantly improved with ENZA versus placebo (hazard ratio [HR], 0.42; 95% CI, 0.19 to 0.92; P = .031), and 2-year FFPP was 84% versus 66%, respectively. Subgroup analyses demonstrated differential benefit of ENZA in men with pT3 (HR, 0.22; 95% CI, 0.07 to 0.69) versus pT2 disease (HR, 1.54; 95% CI, 0.43 to 5.47; P_interaction = .019) and R1 (HR, 0.14; 95% CI, 0.03 to 0.64) versus R0 disease (HR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.36 to 2.76; P_interaction = .023). There were insufficient secondary end point events for analysis. The most common adverse events were grade 1-2 fatigue (65% ENZA v 53% placebo) and urinary frequency (40% ENZA v 49% placebo). CONCLUSION: SRT plus ENZA monotherapy for 6 months in men with PSA-recurrent high-risk prostate cancer after RP is safe and delays PSA progression relative to SRT alone. The impact of ENZA on distant metastasis or survival is unknown at this time.

PURPOSE: Two poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors (olaparib and rucaparib) are US Food and Drug Administration–approved for patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) harboring BRCA1/ 2 mutations, but the relative efficacy of PARP inhibition in BRCA1- versus BRCA2-altered mCRPC is understudied.METHODS: We conducted a multicenter retrospective analysis involving 12 sites. We collected genomic and clinical data from 123 patients with BRCA1/ 2-altered mCRPC who were treated with PARP inhibitors. The primary efficacy end point was the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) response (≥ 50% PSA decline) rate. Secondary end points were PSA progression-free survival (PSA-PFS), clinical or radiographic PFS, and overall survival. We compared clinical outcomes, and other genomic characteristics, among BRCA1- versus BRCA2-altered mCRPC.RESULTS: A total of 123 patients (13 BRCA1 and 110 BRCA2) were included. PARP inhibitors used were olaparib (n = 116), rucaparib (n = 3), talazoparib (n = 2), and veliparib (n = 2). At diagnosis, 72% of patients had Gleason 8-10 disease. BRCA1 patients were more likely to have metastatic disease at presentation (69% v 37%; P = .04). Age, baseline PSA, metastatic distribution, and types of previous systemic therapies were similar between groups. There were equal proportions of germline mutations (51% v 46%; P = .78) in both groups. BRCA1 patients had more monoallelic (56% v 41%; P = .49) and concurrent TP53 (55% v 36%; P = .32) mutations. PSA₅₀responses in BRCA1- versus BRCA2-altered patients were 23% versus 63%, respectively ( P = .01). BRCA2 patients achieved longer PSA-PFS (HR, 1.94; 95% CI, 0.92 to 4.09; P = .08), PFS (HR, 2.08; 95% CI, 0.99 to 4.40; P = .05), and overall survival (HR, 3.01; 95% CI, 1.32 to 6.83; P = .008). Biallelic (compared with monoallelic) mutations, truncating (compared with missense) mutations, and absence of a concurrent TP53 mutation were associated with PARP inhibitor sensitivity.CONCLUSION: PARP inhibitor efficacy is diminished in BRCA1- versus BRCA2-altered mCRPC. This is not due to an imbalance in germline mutations but might be related to more monoallelic mutations and/or concurrent TP53 alterations in the BRCA1 group.