The Prostate Net

06/16/2026

Good news in Prostate Cancer treatment...but, for whom

The Prostate Net recently collaborated with PeerView Institute for Medical Education to present a symposium highlighting many of the novel drug advances and therapeutic expansions transforming the treatment and management of advanced prostate cancer. The program emphasized a rapidly evolving reality: prostate cancer care is becoming increasingly personalized, with treatment decisions guided not only by disease stage, but also by the unique biology of each patient's cancer.

That message became even more relevant with the recent FDA approval of TRUQAP® (capivasertib) for patients with PTEN-deficient metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer. Approximately one in four men diagnosed with metastatic hormone-sensitive disease may have PTEN-deficient tumors, a subgroup associated with more aggressive disease and poorer outcomes.

This approval represents an important advance in patient-centered care because it offers a targeted treatment option for patients whose cancers have a specific molecular characteristic. However, the promise of precision medicine can only be realized if patients are identified early through appropriate biomarker testing.

The critical question now is not simply whether patients can access TRUQAP, but whether they have access to the information, testing, and clinical guidance needed to determine if they are eligible for it. Ensuring equitable access to biomarker testing in community practices, regional hospitals, and academic centers alike will be essential to making sure every patient has the opportunity to benefit from these advances.

As a committed advocate for the voice of the patient, the critical question that I have for clinicians, policy makers, advocates, and industry stakeholders is: "How can we ensure that biomarker testing becomes a standard part of care for every patient with advanced prostate cancer, regardless of where they receive treatment?"

Read the announcement at: https://www.onclive.com/view/fda-approves-capivasertib-plus-abiraterone-and-prednisone-for-pten-deficient-mhspc

Let's move forward together to insure a time when that question needn't be asked.

The FDA approved capivasertib plus abiraterone and prednisone for PTEN-deficient metastatic androgen pathway modulation–naive or sensitive prostate cancer.

06/15/2026

On May 26th The Prostate Net collaborated with PeerView Institute for Medical Education to present a Symposium that addressed many of the Novel Drug Advances and Therapeutic Expansion occuring in the treatment and management of advanced stage prostate cancer.

This information was provided both live and online to hundreds of participants within the framework of informing the total healthcare community or clinicians, investigators, healthcare professionals, clinical research organizations and patient advocates as to the latest protocols and procedures with anticipated benefit to those patients for whom, until most recently, potential for extended life and better quality has not been an option.

For those of you who were unable to participate in the LIVE event, we want to share with you access to both a replay of the actual symposium or the opportunity to download the presentation slides for in-depth review. Both options are available from: PeerView.com/2026Prostate-Share

We trust that this information will be of use in your ongoing work and in providing better benefits to and for your patients.

06/15/2026

A recent "Report From the State of the CDC Workforce Study" discusses the "significant changes and challenges, including lack of permanent leadership, elimination of programs, reductions-in-force and loss of staff, a deadly shooting, new policies, and restrictions on hiring, communication, and spending" since the second Trump Administration took over leadership of the U.S. federal government on January 20, 2025.

Key Findings:

CDC workers are concerned about CDC’s ability to function effectively.
• 99% say that the changes under this Administration have reduced CDC’s capacity
to respond to a pandemic or public health emergency
• 94% say that their specific work unit’s function has been impaired to the point that
they can no longer fully achieve their mission

CDC is losing talented staff.
• 68% of those still working at CDC have taken a concrete step toward leaving CDC
since Inauguration Day, such as applying for a new job
• 95% of those who left CDC voluntarily since Inauguration Day did so mostly or
entirely due to the changes implemented by this Administration

CDC workers are experiencing an increasingly challenging work environment.
• 99% say that the changes under this Administration have lowered morale
• 99% say that these changes made it harder to do their job

The difficulties described by CDC workers portend a U.S. government losing its ability
to protect the public’s health. Read the report at:

06/09/2026

Why are so many young people getting cancer?

“Multiple cancers are increasing in incidence globally among individuals under the age of 50,” oncologist Kimmie Ng told the audience at the American Society of Clinical Oncology meeting in Chicago, Illinois, last week. “The vast majority are considered sporadic, with unknown cause.”

Researchers around the world are grappling with a vexing problem: why are so many young people developing cancers once considered the purview of old age?

The question was prominent at two of the world’s largest cancer meetings this year, and hypotheses abounded. Ultra-processed foods, obesity, microbial toxins and agricultural chemicals were all considered. But a clear answer remained elusive.

Read the story at:

Candidates for the trend are emerging, but are likely to vary from one type of tumor to another.

06/08/2026

Despite recognition that racial and ethnic categories are poor proxies for genetic diversity, race is still used to guide pharmaceutical use, posing risks of ineffectively low or dangerously high dosing. A recent article in the New England Journal of Medicine discussed the concept of "Prescription without Precision".

Some key elements of concern are:

- Dosing medication strictly on the basis of race rather than biology poses severe clinical risks. Because "race" is a social construct rather than a biological one, genetic variations within racial groups vastly exceed the variations between them. Relying on racial categories leads to dangerously inaccurate dosing and perpetuates health disparities.

- Dangerous Adverse Effects: Assuming all individuals of a specific race metabolize drugs the same way can lead to toxic build-up or adverse events. For instance, certain blood pressure or statin guidelines that vary by race can inadvertently expose some patients to dangerous over-dosing or ineffective treatments.

- Masking True Patient Need: Relying on racial categories as a biological shortcut ignores the fundamental pillars of personalized medicine—such as a patient's actual weight, organ function, and specific genetic variants (pharmacogenomics).

- Overestimating Kidney Function (eGFR): Historically, some renal formulas used to estimate Glomerular Filtration Rate (eGFR) applied a "Black race" multiplier, which assumed higher kidney function. This masked the severity of chronic kidney disease.

- Genetic Overlap: There is no specific set of genes exclusive to any racial category. Genetic ancestry is vastly more complex than the broad, historical categories used for demographic purposes.

- Misinterpreting Socioeconomic Factors: Treating health disparities as strictly "genetic" often distracts from the upstream social determinants of health. Environmental factors, institutional biases, and unequal access to healthcare play a much larger role in adverse health outcomes than inherited biology.

Read the article at:

Despite recognition that racial and ethnic categories are poor proxies for genetic diversity, race is still used to guide pharmaceutical use, posing risks of ineffectively low or dangerously high d...

06/08/2026

A new study, released Saturday, comes from the State of the Nation Project, backed by a bipartisan group of experts. This year’s assessment is based on 31 measures and was created by scholars and by advisers to the last five presidents, including Donald Trump.

The bad news is that just about every part of the country is seeing a decline in self-reported personal well-being and mental health. Likewise, people throughout the country trust less in institutions and in their fellow Americans. Overall, we increasingly are unhappy.

Read the summary at:

What is the state of the nation?   As America marks its 250th anniversary, that question is both urgent and fitting. We cannot hope to get better without a clear-eyed view of what ails us–and where we are excelling. In our first

06/05/2026

White House proposes vast overhaul of US science funding:

The proposed rules would put political appointees in control of all federal grants; de-emphasize peer review; place more restrictions on meeting attendance for grant holders; limit collaborations between federally funded US scientists and overseas colleagues; and restrict federal financial support for the publication of US scientists’ results in scientific journals.

The 412-page proposal, issued by the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on 29 May, applies to all federal agencies, including the National Institutes of Health (NIH) — the world’s largest funder of biomedical research — and the National Science Foundation (NSF).

Just four days after it was posted, the proposal had drawn more than 3,500 comments from the public. Comments reviewed by Nature were almost all critical, although some agreed that reform was needed.

Read the article at:

The Trump administration’s proposal aims to improve transparency in federal funding, but critics fear the proposed rules would politicize research

06/04/2026

Promising Results, With Remaining Questions:

A major clinical trial called PROTEUS showed that adding a hormone-blocking pill called apalutamide to standard hormone therapy, before and after surgery, significantly reduced the risk of prostate cancer spreading in men with high-risk localized disease, with 78.2% of patients on apalutamide free from distant metastasis at five years, compared to 73.5% on placebo.

The drug nearly eliminated detectable cancer in the prostate before surgery in some patients as well, with 8.9% of men on apalutamide having no cancer or minimal cancer remaining at the time of their operation, compared to just 1% of those who did not receive it.

Apalutamide is not yet FDA-approved for use before and after surgery in this setting, but the PROTEUS results are expected to form the basis of a new FDA submission.

An area of concern from my perspective as a patient advocate:

This treatment is not for everyone. PROTEUS enrolled men with specifically high-risk, aggressive prostate cancer. The decision to add a year of hormone therapy involves real side effects — hot flashes, fatigue, possible mood changes — and should be made carefully with your doctor based on your individual situation.
Who was considered "high risk" in PROTEUS?

Patients had to meet one of several aggressive disease criteria before entering the study. These included:

Gleason Score 9–10 (Grade Group 5) in at least one biopsy core.
Extensive Gleason 8 disease (Grade Group 4) on biopsy.
A combination of:
Gleason 7 (4+3) or Gleason 8 disease, and
High tumor volume and/or
PSA ≥20 ng/mL.

Some patients had clinical lymph-node-positive disease (cN1) but no distant metastases.

Cancer was still considered potentially curable with surgery but had a substantial risk of recurrence or metastasis.

Who was NOT represented in PROTEUS?
The results should not automatically be applied to men with:

Gleason 3+3 (Grade Group 1)
Gleason 3+4 (Grade Group 2)
Most favorable-intermediate-risk disease
Many cases of unfavorable-intermediate-risk disease
Low-volume cancers detected through screening
Men on active surveillance

These patients generally have a much lower risk of recurrence, and the balance between benefit and the side effects of a year of androgen deprivation plus apalutamide may be very different.

Bottomline, while these are important results for the targeted group of study participants, they do not indicate applicability for every patient, even those within the "High Risk" profile. It should encourage every man to establish a baseline of their prostate health as they would for high blood, high cholesterol, cardiac risk conditions, diabetes, etc. and then speak with a healthcare professional to determine the appropriate course of monitoring or action based on their own personalized condition.

For more information on the PROTEUS study, read the article at:

The PROTEUS trial suggests adding apalutamide (Erleada) to hormone therapy before and after surgery helps men with high-risk prostate cancer.

06/02/2026

In this article in the New England Journal of Medicine, the authors have directly, and correctly, targeted the cynicism and criticism that most patients have relative to the healthcare system in the U.S.

A couple of the more salient quotes:

"In this age of corporate medicine, when health system leaders say, we are building the new hospital of the future alongside world-class facilities for biomedical research, I hear: we are playing to win in our current medical system rather than innovating to improve it, even though it is failing patients and causing unprecedented departures from the health professions.

"And when — the situational complexity and their good intentions notwithstanding — they say, we have acquired two more community-based local hospitals, a move that will allow us to see more patients with complex medical needs at our flagship campus, I hear: having already ghettoized primary care and psychiatry, those desperately needed, health-essential, underfunded services, into another former community-based hospital where our cultural imperialism has already been established, we are continuing to invade foreign territories in search of locally scarce raw materials and significant captive markets, leaving the colonized literally and culturally impoverished while increasing our own wealth and power."

Read the article at:

Increasingly, in the age of corporate medicine, the fundamental values of U.S. health system leaders and clinicians are diverging, to the detriment of trust, communication, morale, and patient care.

05/22/2026

Artificial intelligence is poised to take on a more-active role in the laboratory: two new systems, described today in Nature, use teams of AI agents to develop hypotheses, propose experiments and analyse data.

Each system still relies on human input at various stages, but they boast timelines that can be remarkably shorter than when the process is left to human minds and hands alone. When the systems were asked to identify existing drugs that might be repurposed for different conditions, they arrived at plausible answers in a matter of hours.

Read the article at:

Systems can generate hypotheses, interpret data and suggest ways to develop medicines.