Disparities in the Delivery of Prostate Cancer Survivorship Care in the USA: A Claims-based Analysis of Urinary Adverse Events and Erectile Dysfunction Among Prostate Cancer Survivors.

Background and objective: Incidence rates for prostate cancer (PCa) diagnosis and mortality are higher for Black men. It is unknown whether similar disparities exist in survivorship care. We assessed the delivery and quality of survivorship care for Black men undergoing PCa therapy in terms of the burden of and treatment for urinary adverse events (UAEs) and erectile dysfunction (ED). Methods: We queried Optum Clinformatics data for all patients diagnosed with PCa from January 1, 2002 to December 31, 2017 and identified those who underwent primary PCa treatment. Index cohorts were identified in each year and followed longitudinally until 2017. Data for UAE diagnoses, UAE treatments, and ED treatments were analyzed in index cohorts. Cox proportional-hazards regression models were used to examine associations of race with UAE diagnosis, UAE treatment, and ED treatment. Key findings and limitations: We identified 146, 216 patients with a PCa diagnosis during the study period, of whom 55, 149 underwent primary PCa treatment. In the primary treatment group, 32.7% developed a UAE and 28.2% underwent UAE treatment. The most common UAEs were urinary incontinence (11%), ureteral obstruction/stricture (4.5%), bladder neck contracture (4.5%), and urethral stricture (3.7%). The most common UAE treatments were cystoscopy (13%), suprapubic tube placement (6%), and urethral dilation (5%). Overall, UAE diagnosis rates were higher for Black patients, who had significantly higher risk of urethral obstruction, rectourethral fistula, urinary incontinence, cystitis, urinary obstruction, and ureteral fistula. Overall, UAE treatment rates were lower for Black patients, who had significantly higher risk of fecal diversion and/or rectourethral fistula repair (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.71, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.04-2.79). Regarding ED treatments, Black patients had higher risk of penile prosthesis placement (aHR 1.591, 95% CI 1.26-2.00) and intracavernosal injection (aHR 1.215, 95% CI 1.08-1.37). Conclusions and clinical implications: Despite a high UAE burden, treatment rates were low in a cohort with health insurance. Black patients had a higher UAE burden and lower UAE treatment rates. Multilevel interventions are needed to address this stark disparity. ED treatment rates were higher for Black patients. Patient summary: We reviewed data for patients treated for prostate cancer (PCa) and found that 32.7% were diagnosed with a urinary adverse event (UAE) following their PCa treatment. The overall treatment rate for these UAEs was 28.2%. Analysis by race showed that the UAE diagnosis rate was higher for Black patients, who were also more likely to receive treatment for erectile dysfunction.

Prostate Cancer, Version 3.2024.

The NCCN Guidelines for Prostate Cancer include recommendations for staging and risk assessment after a prostate cancer diagnosis and for the care of patients with localized, regional, recurrent, and metastatic disease. These NCCN Guidelines Insights summarize the panel's discussions for the 2024 update to the guidelines with regard to initial risk stratification, initial management of very-low-risk disease, and the treatment of nonmetastatic recurrence.

Primary cancer prevention for cancers with no known infectious etiology: Time for a new paradigm.

Vaccines developed for hepatitis B and human papilloma virus infections have been very successful in reducing the burden of cancer due to these infections. In the past decade, our understanding of the immunology of cancer has greatly improved and important progress has been made in the use of immunotherapy for several cancers. However, for the majority of cancers, an infectious etiology is either unknown or does not exist. Prostate cancer, for which no infectious etiology is known, is the most common cancer in men in the United States. Here we discuss the rationale for developing a preventive vaccine for prostate cancer, discuss a possible approach for further work in this area and a means of testing the effectiveness of a prostate cancer prevention vaccine in a clinical trial.

Cardiovascular Mortality and Duration of Androgen Deprivation in Locally Advanced Prostate Cancer: Long-term Update of NRG/RTOG 9202.

BACKGROUND: Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) has been associated with coronary heart disease and myocardial infarction (MI) in prostate cancer patients, but controversy persists regarding its effects on cardiovascular mortality (CVM). OBJECTIVE: We assessed the long-term relationship between ADT and CVM in a prostate cancer randomized trial (NRG Oncology/Radiation Therapy Oncology Group 9202). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: From 1992 to 1995, 1554 men with locally advanced prostate cancer (T2c-T4, prostate-specific antigen <150 ng/ml) received radiotherapy with 4 mo (short-term [STADT]) versus 28 mo (longer-term [LTADT]) of ADT. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Using the Fine-Gray and Cox regression models, the relationship between ADT and mortality was evaluated. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: With a median follow-up of 19.6 yr, LTADT was associated with improved overall survival (OS) versus STADT (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0.88; p = 0.03) and prostate cancer survival (subdistribution HR [sHR] 0.70, p = 0.003). Comparing LTADT with STADT, prostate cancer mortality improved by 6.0% (15.6% [95% confidence interval 13.0-18.3%] vs 21.6% [18.6-24.7%]) at 15 yr, while CVM increased by 2.2% (14.9% [12.4-17.6%] vs 12.7% [10.4-15.3%]). In multivariable analyses, LTADT was not associated with increased CVM versus STADT (sHR 1.22 [0.93-1.59]; p = 0.15). An association between LTADT and MI death was detected (sHR 1.58 [1.00-2.50]; p = 0.05), particularly in patients with prevalent cardiovascular disease (CVD; sHR 2.54 [1.16-5.58]; p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: With 19.6 yr of follow-up, LTADT was not significantly associated with increased CVM in men with locally advanced prostate cancer. Patients may have increased MI mortality with LTADT, particularly those with baseline CVD. Overall, there remained a prostate cancer mortality benefit and no OS detriment with LTADT. PATIENT SUMMARY: In a long-term analysis of a large randomized prostate cancer trial, radiation with 28 mo of hormone therapy did not increase the risk of cardiovascular death significantly versus 4 mo of hormone therapy. Future studies are needed for patients with pre-existing heart disease, who may have an increased risk of myocardial infarction death with longer hormone use.

Effects of Androgen Deprivation Therapy on Prostate Cancer Outcomes According to Competing Event Risk: Secondary Analysis of a Phase 3 Randomised Trial.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies indicate that the benefit of short-term androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) with radiotherapy (RT) for prostate cancer depends on competing risks. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether a quantitative method to stratify patients by risk for competing events (omega score) could identify subgroups that selectively benefit from ADT. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: An ancillary analysis of NRG/RTOG 9408 phase 3 trial (NCT00002597) involving 1945 prostate cancer patients was conducted. INTERVENTION: Short-term ADT. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: We applied generalised competing event regression models incorporating age, performance status, comorbidity, T category, Gleason score (GS), and prostate-specific antigen (PSA), to stratify patients according to relative hazards for primary cancer-related events (distant metastasis or prostate cancer death) versus competing noncancer mortality. We tested interactions between ADT and subgroups defined by standard risk criteria versus relative risk (RR) using the omega score. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: T2b, higher GS, and higher PSA were associated with an increased RR for cancer-related versus competing mortality events (a higher omega score); increased age and comorbidity were associated with a decreased omega score. Of 996 patients with low-risk/favourable intermediate-risk (FIR) disease, 286 (28.7%) had a high omega score (≥0.314). Of 768 patients with unfavourable intermediate-risk disease, 175 (22.8%) had a low omega score. The overall discordance in risk classification was 26.1%. Both standard criteria and omega score identified significant interactions for the effect of ADT on cancer-related events and late mortality in low- versus high-risk subgroups. Within the low-risk/FIR subgroup, a higher omega score identified patients in whom ADT significantly reduced cancer events and improved event-free survival. Limitations are the need for external/prospective validation and lower RT doses than contemporary standards. CONCLUSIONS: Stratification based on competing event risk is useful for identifying prostate cancer patients who selectively benefit from ADT. PATIENT SUMMARY: We analysed the effectiveness of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) for localised prostate cancer among patients, defined by the relative risk (RR) for cancer versus noncancer events. Among patients with traditional low-risk/favourable intermediate-risk disease, those with a higher RR benefitted from short-term ADT.

Age 70 +/- 5 Years and Cancer-Specific Outcomes After Treatment of Localized Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review.

A secondary analysis of 2 randomized Radiation Therapy Oncology Group trials demonstrated that age ≥70 years was a favorable prognostic factor among men treated with external beam radiation therapy (EBRT). In contrast, several series based on men undergoing radical prostatectomy (RP) suggested that older age was an unfavorable prognostic factor. Our study was initiated to determine whether these observations reflect a true but paradoxical underlying age-related treatment-dependent biological phenomenon. We conducted a systematic review (PubMed, January 1, 1999-January 30, 2023) evaluating the effect of age on cancer-specific outcomes after definitive local treatment with either RP or EBRT. Our main objective was to assess possible interactions between age (using a cutoff of 70 +/- 5 years) and treatment type, with regard to adverse cancer-specific outcomes (eg, pathology, biochemical failure, distant metastasis, or prostate cancer-specific survival). Forty-five studies were selected for inclusion in this systematic review, including 30 and 15 studies with patients treated with RP and EBRT, respectively. Among patients treated with RP, 10 (50%) of these studies suggested that older age was associated with worse outcome(s) after RP. None suggested that age was a favorable prognostic factor after RP. Among the EBRT-based studies, 8 (53%) suggested that older age was associated with better outcomes, with an additional 3 studies (21%) trending to support a better outcome. None of these studies involving EBRT suggested that older age was an adverse prognostic factor. This systematic review suggests that age using a categorical cutoff of 70 +/- 5 years may be an adverse prognostic factor for men undergoing RP but a favorable prognostic factor for men treated with EBRT. Further research is needed to validate these findings.

Prostate Cancer, Race, and Health Disparity: What We Know.

ABSTRACT: Prostate cancer (PCa) in African American men is one of the most common cancers with a great disparity in outcomes. The higher incidence and tendency to present with more advanced disease have prompted investigators to postulate that this is a problem of innate biology. However, unequal access to health care and poorer quality of care raise questions about the relative importance of genetics versus social/health injustice. Although race is inconsistent with global human genetic diversity, we need to understand the sociocultural reality that race and racism impact biology. Genetic studies reveal enrichment of PCa risk alleles in populations of West African descent and population-level differences in tumor immunology. Structural racism may explain some of the differences previously reported in PCa clinical outcomes; fortunately, there is high-level evidence that when care is comparable, outcomes are comparable.

Prostate Cancer, Version 4.2023, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology.

The NCCN Guidelines for Prostate Cancer provide a framework on which to base decisions regarding the workup of patients with prostate cancer, risk stratification and management of localized disease, post-treatment monitoring, and treatment of recurrence and advanced disease. The Guidelines sections included in this article focus on the management of metastatic castration-sensitive disease, nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC), and metastatic CRPC (mCRPC). Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) with treatment intensification is strongly recommended for patients with metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer. For patients with nonmetastatic CRPC, ADT is continued with or without the addition of certain secondary hormone therapies depending on prostate-specific antigen doubling time. In the mCRPC setting, ADT is continued with the sequential addition of certain secondary hormone therapies, chemotherapies, immunotherapies, radiopharmaceuticals, and/or targeted therapies. The NCCN Prostate Cancer Panel emphasizes a shared decision-making approach in all disease settings based on patient preferences, prior treatment exposures, the presence or absence of visceral disease, symptoms, and potential side effects.

The National Cancer Institute's Cancer Disparities Research Partnership Program: a unique funding model 20 years later.

The burden of cancer and access to effective treatment are not experienced equally by all in the United States. For underserved populations that often access the health-care system when their cancers are in advanced disease stages, radiation oncology services are essential. In 2001, the National Cancer Institute's (NCI's) Radiation Research Program created and implemented the Cancer Disparities Research Partnership Program (CDRP). CDRP was a pioneering funding model whose goal was to increase participation of medically underserved populations in NCI clinical trials. CDRP's Cooperative Agreement funding supported for awardees the planning, development, and conduct of radiation oncology clinical research in institutions not traditionally involved in NCI-sponsored research and cared for a disproportionate number of medically underserved, health-disparities populations. The awardee secured and provided support for mentorship from 1 of 2 NCI comprehensive cancer centers named in its application. Six CDRP awards were made over two 5-year funding periods ending in 2013, with the end-of-program accomplishments previously reported. With the current focus on addressing equity, diversity, and inclusion, the 6 principal investigators were surveyed, 5 of whom responded about the impact of CDRP on their institutions, communities, and personal career paths. The survey that was emailed included 10 questions on a 5-point Likert scale. It was not possible to collect patient data this long after completion of the program. This article provides a 20-year retrospective of the experiences and observations from those principal investigators that can inform those now planning, building, and implementing equity, diversity, and inclusion programs.

Effect of Brachytherapy With External Beam Radiation Therapy Versus Brachytherapy Alone for Intermediate-Risk Prostate Cancer: NRG Oncology RTOG 0232 Randomized Clinical Trial.

PURPOSE: To determine whether addition of external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) to brachytherapy (BT) (COMBO) compared with BT alone would improve 5-year freedom from progression (FFP) in intermediate-risk prostate cancer. METHODS: Men with prostate cancer stage cT1c-T2bN0M0, Gleason Score (GS) 2-6 and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) 10-20 or GS 7, and PSA < 10 were eligible. The COMBO arm was EBRT (45 Gy in 25 fractions) to prostate and seminal vesicles followed by BT prostate boost (110 Gy if 125-Iodine, 100 Gy if 103-Pd). BT arm was delivered to prostate only (145 Gy if 125-Iodine, 125 Gy if 103-Pd). The primary end point was FFP: PSA failure (American Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology [ASTRO] or Phoenix definitions), local failure, distant failure, or death. RESULTS: Five hundred eighty-eight men were randomly assigned; 579 were eligible: 287 and 292 in COMBO and BT arms, respectively. The median age was 67 years; 89.1% had PSA < 10 ng/mL, 89.1% had GS 7, and 66.7% had T1 disease. There were no differences in FFP. The 5-year FFP-ASTRO was 85.6% (95% CI, 81.4 to 89.7) with COMBO compared with 82.7% (95% CI, 78.3 to 87.1) with BT (odds ratio [OR], 0.80; 95% CI, 0.51 to 1.26; Greenwood T P = .18). The 5-year FFP-Phoenix was 88.0% (95% CI, 84.2 to 91.9) with COMBO compared with 85.5% (95% CI, 81.3 to 89.6) with BT (OR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.49 to 1.30; Greenwood T P = .19). There were no differences in the rates of genitourinary (GU) or GI acute toxicities. The 5-year cumulative incidence for late GU/GI grade 2+ toxicity is 42.8% (95% CI, 37.0 to 48.6) for COMBO compared with 25.8% (95% CI, 20.9 to 31.0) for BT (P < .0001). The 5-year cumulative incidence for late GU/GI grade 3+ toxicity is 8.2% (95% CI, 5.4 to 11.8) compared with 3.8% (95% CI, 2.0 to 6.5; P = .006). CONCLUSION: Compared with BT, COMBO did not improve FFP for prostate cancer but caused greater toxicity. BT alone can be considered as a standard treatment for men with intermediate-risk prostate cancer.

Development and External Validation of a Machine Learning Model for Prediction of Lymph Node Metastasis in Patients with Prostate Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND) is the gold standard for diagnosis of lymph node involvement (LNI) in patients with prostate cancer. The Roach formula, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) calculator, and Briganti 2012 nomogram are elegant and simple traditional tools used to estimate the risk of LNI and select patients for PLND. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether machine learning (ML) can improve patient selection and outperform currently available tools for predicting LNI using similar readily available clinicopathologic variables. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Retrospective data for patients treated with surgery and PLND between 1990 and 2020 in two academic institutions were used. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: We trained three models (two logistic regression models and one gradient-boosted trees-based model [XGBoost]) on data provided from one institution (n = 20267) with age, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels, clinical T stage, percentage positive cores, and Gleason scores as inputs. We externally validated these models using data from another institution (n = 1322) and compared their performance to that of the traditional models using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), calibration, and decision curve analysis (DCA). RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: LNI was present in 2563 patients (11.9%) overall, and in 119 patients (9%) in the validation data set. XGBoost had the best performance among all the models. On external validation, its AUC outperformed that of the Roach formula by 0.08 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.042-0.12), the MSKCC nomogram by 0.05 (95% CI 0.016-0.070), and the Briganti nomogram by 0.03 (95% CI 0.0092-0.051; all p < 0.05). It also had better calibration and clinical utility in terms of net benefit on DCA across relevant clinical thresholds. The main limitation of the study is its retrospective design. CONCLUSIONS: Taking all measures of performance together, ML using standard clinicopathologic variables outperforms traditional tools in predicting LNI. PATIENT SUMMARY: Determining the risk of cancer spread to the lymph nodes in patients with prostate cancer allows surgeons to perform lymph node dissection only in patients who need it and avoid the side effects of the procedure in those who do not. In this study, we used machine learning to develop a new calculator to predict the risk of lymph node involvement that outperformed traditional tools currently used by oncologists.

Analysis of a Biopsy-Based Genomic Classifier in High-Risk Prostate Cancer: Meta-Analysis of the NRG Oncology/Radiation Therapy Oncology Group 9202, 9413, and 9902 Phase 3 Randomized Trials.

PURPOSE: Decipher is a genomic classifier (GC) prospectively validated postprostatectomy. We validated the performance of the GC in pretreatment biopsy samples within the context of 3 randomized phase 3 high-risk definitive radiation therapy trials. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A prespecified analysis plan (NRG-GU-TS006) was approved to obtain formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissue from biopsy specimens from the NRG biobank from patients enrolled in the NRG/Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) 9202, 9413, and 9902 phase 3 randomized trials. After central review, the highest-grade tumors were profiled on clinical-grade whole-transcriptome arrays and GC scores were obtained. The primary objective was to validate the independent prognostic ability for the GC for distant metastases (DM), and secondary for prostate cancer-specific mortality (PCSM) and overall survival (OS) with Cox univariable and multivariable analyses. RESULTS: GC scores were obtained on 385 samples, of which 265 passed microarray quality control (69%) and had a median follow-up of 11 years (interquartile range, 9-13). In the pooled cohort, on univariable analysis, the GC was shown to be a prognostic factor for DM (per 0.1 unit; subdistribution hazard ratio [sHR], 1.29; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.18-1.41; P < .001), PCSM (sHR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.16-1.41; P < .001), and OS (hazard ratio [HR], 1.16; 95% CI, 1.08-1.22; P < .001). On multivariable analyses, the GC (per 0.1 unit) was independently associated with DM (sHR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.09-1.36), PCSM (sHR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.09-1.39), and OS (HR, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.05-1.20) after adjusting for age, Prostate Specific Antigen, Gleason score, cT stage, trial, and randomized treatment arm. GC had similar prognostic ability in patients receiving short-term or long-term androgen-deprivation therapy, but the absolute improvement in outcome varied by GC risk. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first validation of a gene expression biomarker on pretreatment prostate cancer biopsy samples from prospective randomized trials and demonstrates an independent association of GC score with DM, PCSM, and OS. High-risk prostate cancer is a heterogeneous disease state, and GC can improve risk stratification to help personalize shared decision making.

Five-Year Patient-Reported Outcomes in NRG Oncology RTOG 0938, Evaluating Two Ultrahypofractionated Regimens for Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSE: There is considerable interest in very short (ultrahypofractionated) radiation therapy regimens to treat prostate cancer based on potential radiobiological advantages, patient convenience, and resource allocation benefits. Our objective is to demonstrate that detectable changes in health-related quality of life measured by the bowel and urinary domains of the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC-50) were not substantially worse than baseline scores. METHODS AND MATERIALS: NRG Oncology's RTOG 0938 is a nonblinded randomized phase 2 study of National Comprehensive Cancer Network low-risk prostate cancer in which each arm is compared with a historical control. Patients were randomized to 5 fractions (7.25 Gy in 2 week and a day [twice a week]) or 12 fractions (4.3Gy in 2.5 weeks [5 times a week]). Secondary objectives assessed patient-reported toxicity at 5 years using the EPIC. Chi-square tests were used to assess the proportion of patients with a deterioration from baseline of >5 points for bowel, >2 points for urinary, and >11 points for sexual score. RESULTS: The study enrolled 127 patients to 5 fractions (121 eligible) and 128 patients to 12 fractions (125 eligible). The median follow-up for all patients at the time of analysis was 5.38 years. The 5-year frequency for >5 point change in bowel score were 38.4% (P = .27) and 23.4% (P = 0.98) for 5 and 12 fractions, respectively. The 5-year frequencies for >2 point change in urinary score were 46.6% (P = .15) and 36.4% (P = .70) for 5 and 12 fractions, respectively. For 5 fractions, 49.3% (P = .007) of patients had a drop in 5-year EPIC-50 sexual score of ≥11 points; for 12 fractions, 54% (P < .001) of patients had a drop in 5-year EPIC-50 sexual score of ≥11 points. Disease-free survival at 5 years is 89.6% (95% CI: 84.0-95.2) in the 5-fraction arm and 92.3% (95% CI: 87.4-97.1) in the 12-fraction arm. There was no late grade 4 or 5 treatment-related urinary or bowel toxicity. CONCLUSIONS: This study confirms that, based on long-term changes in bowel and urinary domains and toxicity, the 5- and 12-fraction regimens are well tolerated. These ultrahypofractionated approaches need to be compared with current standard radiation therapy regimens.

Body composition and mortality in men receiving prostate radiotherapy: A pooled analysis of NRG/RTOG 9406 and NRG/RTOG 0126.

PURPOSE: To validate the association between body composition and mortality in men treated with radiation for localized prostate cancer (PCa). Secondarily, to integrate body composition as a factor to classify patients by risk of all-cause mortality. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Participants of NRG/Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) 9406 and NRG/RTOG 0126 with archived computed tomography were included. Muscle mass and muscle density were estimated by measuring the area and attenuation of the psoas muscles on a single slice at L4-L5. Bone density was estimated by measuring the attenuation of the vertebral body at mid-L5. Survival analyses, including Cox proportional hazards models, assessed the relationship between body composition and mortality. Recursive partitioning analysis (RPA) was used to create a classification tree to classify participants by risk of death. RESULTS: Data from 2066 men were included in this study. In the final multivariable model, psoas area, comorbidity score, baseline prostate serum antigen, and age were significantly associated with survival. The RPA yielded a classification tree with four prognostic groups determined by age, comorbidity, and psoas area. Notably, the classification among older (≥70 years) men into prognostic groups was determined by psoas area. CONCLUSIONS: This study strongly supports that body composition is related to mortality in men with localized PCa. The inclusion of psoas area in the RPA classification tree suggests that body composition provides additive information to age and comorbidity status for mortality prediction, particularly among older men. More research is needed to determine the clinical impact of body composition on prognostic models in men with PCa.

Sequencing of Androgen-Deprivation Therapy of Short Duration With Radiotherapy for Nonmetastatic Prostate Cancer (SANDSTORM): A Pooled Analysis of 12 Randomized Trials.

PURPOSE: The sequencing of androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) with radiotherapy (RT) may affect outcomes for prostate cancer in an RT-field size-dependent manner. Herein, we investigate the impact of ADT sequencing for men receiving ADT with prostate-only RT (PORT) or whole-pelvis RT (WPRT). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Individual patient data from 12 randomized trials that included patients receiving neoadjuvant/concurrent or concurrent/adjuvant short-term ADT (4-6 months) with RT for localized disease were obtained from the Meta-Analysis of Randomized trials in Cancer of the Prostate consortium. Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was performed with propensity scores derived from age, initial prostate-specific antigen, Gleason score, T stage, RT dose, and mid-trial enrollment year. Metastasis-free survival (primary end point) and overall survival (OS) were assessed by IPTW-adjusted Cox regression models, analyzed independently for men receiving PORT versus WPRT. IPTW-adjusted Fine and Gray competing risk models were built to evaluate distant metastasis (DM) and prostate cancer-specific mortality. RESULTS: Overall, 7,409 patients were included (6,325 neoadjuvant/concurrent and 1,084 concurrent/adjuvant) with a median follow-up of 10.2 years (interquartile range, 7.2-14.9 years). A significant interaction between ADT sequencing and RT field size was observed for all end points (P interaction < .02 for all) except OS. With PORT (n = 4,355), compared with neoadjuvant/concurrent ADT, concurrent/adjuvant ADT was associated with improved metastasis-free survival (10-year benefit 8.0%, hazard ratio [HR], 0.65; 95% CI, 0.54 to 0.79; P < .0001), DM (subdistribution HR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.33 to 0.82; P = .0046), prostate cancer-specific mortality (subdistribution HR, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.16 to 0.54; P < .0001), and OS (HR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.57 to 0.83; P = .0001). However, in patients receiving WPRT (n = 3,049), no significant difference in any end point was observed in regard to ADT sequencing except for worse DM (HR, 1.57; 95% CI, 1.20 to 2.05; P = .0009) with concurrent/adjuvant ADT. CONCLUSION: ADT sequencing exhibits a significant impact on clinical outcomes with a significant interaction with field size. Concurrent/adjuvant ADT should be the standard of care where short-term ADT is indicated in combination with PORT.

NCCN Guidelines® Insights: Prostate Cancer, Version 1.2023.

The NCCN Guidelines for Prostate Cancer address staging and risk assessment after a prostate cancer diagnosis and include management options for localized, regional, recurrent, and metastatic disease. The NCCN Prostate Cancer Panel meets annually to reevaluate and update their recommendations based on new clinical data and input from within NCCN Member Institutions and from external entities. These NCCN Guidelines Insights summarizes much of the panel's discussions for the 4.2022 and 1.2023 updates to the guidelines regarding systemic therapy for metastatic prostate cancer.