PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
March 4, 2026Journal of Clinical Oncology2 citations

Trial design and objectives for prostate cancer: Recommendations from the Prostate Cancer Clinical Trials Working Group 4 (PCWG4).

View Full Paper
AAAndrew J. ArmstrongMMMichael J. MorrisEAEmmanuel S. Antonarakis

Key Points

  • The main aim is to update clinical trial design recommendations for advanced prostate cancer, incorporating new imaging techniques and molecular assessments.
  • International expert committee convened from 2016 to 2025.
  • Updated recommendations based on emerging clinical trial data.
  • Focus on imaging modalities and patient-centric terminology.
  • Defined eligibility criteria and assessment endpoints.
  • New terminologies for disease states and prior therapies were established.
  • Introduced imaging-specific criteria for assessing radiographic progression.
  • Developed endpoints that include ctDNA, circulating tumor cells, and PSA declines.
  • Recommendations provide a framework for risk stratification and predicting patient benefit.

Abstract

162 Background: Clinical trial conduct in advanced prostate cancer has changed dramatically with the continued development of new imaging approaches, molecular phenotypes and genetic subtypes, prognosis assessments, and effective therapies across a range of disease states. This created a need to redefine terminology and best practices for clinical trials. Methods: We convened PCWG4, an international expert committee of multidisciplinary working groups, between 2016 and 2025 to update and expand PCWG2-3 recommendations based on emerging evidence and clinical trial data in an innovative biomarker and imaging context to provide guidance for clinical trial design, eligibility, and endpoint assessments. Results: PCWG4 redefines terminology around disease states and prior therapies in a patient-centric context, considering imaging modalities, with a particular focus on PET-defined disease. New recommendations are provided for disease state terminology, defining eligibility criteria, imaging and non-imaging-based responses. We define delay/prevent endpoints including responses by pathology, ctDNA, circulating tumor cells, and PSA declines, and specify intervals for re-assessments including imaging, biomarker assessments, and patient reported outcomes. We propose new imaging-specific rPFS criteria including guidance with serial PSMA PET/CT imaging (Table). We provide recommendations in a biomarker-based context for the 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. Conclusions: PCWG4 expands guidance on patient and tumor profiling, as well as therapy development, to include both androgen deprivation therapy sensitive and resistant settings, reflecting today’s more heterogeneous and diverse patient population to optimize outcomes. PCWG4-defined radiographic progression by imaging modality for patients with metastatic disease. Pretreatment Scan On-treatment Scan #1(≥week 8) On-treatment Scan #2 All Subsequent Scans Bone scintigraphy Comparator Comparator for subsequent scansPOD never called here POD:PCWG3 criteria (2+2 additional new lesions) POD:≤5 new lesions: PCWG3 criteria 2 new lesions confirmed≥6 new lesions CT/MRI Any measurable disease Comparator PCWG3/RECIST PCWG3/RECIST PCWG3/RECIST PSMA PET Bones, and lymph nodes and lung metastases (non-RECIST qualifying by + on PET only) Comparator POD:≤5 new lesions: 2 new lesions confirmed on a subsequent scan≥6 new lesions Same as prior Same as prior Liver and non-pulmonary viscera Comparator POD:Any single new lesion that represents disease Same as prior Same as prior

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Armstrong et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/69a7ccb2d48f933b5eed877ehttps://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2026.44.7_suppl.162
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper