Get your free personalized podcast brief

We scan new podcasts and send you the top 5 insights daily.

As potent ADCs prove effective, the current paradigm of treating until disease progression is unsustainable due to cumulative toxicity. Experts urge trial designers to be "brave" and prospectively investigate optimal, fixed treatment durations sooner rather than later, shifting the goal from indefinite therapy to achieving a deep remission.

Related Insights

After years of treatment intensification, a new focus in metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer is de-escalation. Trials like ADREAM are evaluating planned treatment interruptions for patients with excellent responses, aiming to provide 'treatment-free intervals' that improve quality of life without sacrificing efficacy.

The future of advanced prostate cancer treatment may involve combining ADCs with bispecific T-cell engagers. This strategy could use ADCs for a short duration to deliver a potent hit, followed by immunotherapy to achieve durable remission, potentially reducing toxicity and enabling earlier use.

For an older patient population, the ultimate goal in prostate cancer treatment might not be a traditional cure, but rather turning it into a quiescent, chronic disease manageable with well-tolerated therapy, similar to HIV. This reframes success as long-term control until a patient dies of other causes.

An ADC may show better response rates than chemotherapy, but its true benefit is compromised if toxicities lead to treatment discontinuation. As seen with failed PARP/IO combinations, if patients cannot tolerate a drug long enough, the regimen's overall effectiveness can become inferior to standard therapy.

Traditional endpoints like progression-free survival (PFS) incentivize continuous treatment. The NCI group proposes "treatment-free survival," a novel metric that quantifies time spent *off* therapy. This endpoint better captures the patient experience and rewards treatments that provide durable responses after a finite course.

For patients with oligometastatic disease who achieve a deep PSA response (e.g., to zero), oncologists consider finite treatment durations (e.g., 18-24 months) followed by observation. This "do less harm" approach challenges the standard of continuous therapy until progression, aiming for long-term treatment-free intervals.

Success with shorter, fixed-duration ADC regimens in perioperative bladder cancer trials is prompting oncologists to evolve their thinking in the metastatic setting. The conversation is shifting away from indefinite treatment towards stopping therapy earlier for patients with deep responses.

As multiple effective Antibody-Drug Conjugates (ADCs) become available, the primary clinical challenge is no longer *if* they work, but *how* to use them best. Key unanswered questions involve optimal sequencing, dosing for treatment versus maintenance, and overall length of therapy, mirroring issues already seen in breast cancer.

A high-level discussion among experts reveals a growing debate about the long-term use of antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs). They question whether the benefits of continuous chemotherapy delivery outweigh the cumulative and novel toxicities, suggesting a need for a more balanced approach to treatment duration.

For biochemically recurrent (BCR) prostate cancer, which is often indolent, trials should not wait years to study treatment reduction. The NCI group universally agreed that de-escalation strategies—such as intermittent therapy—should be the default design from the outset, prioritizing quality of life and avoiding overtreatment.

Prostate Cancer ADC Trials Must Address Fixed Treatment Duration, Not Just Treat to Progression | RiffOn