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.

Risk factors and health behaviors associated with loneliness among cancer survivors during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Loneliness may exacerbate poor health outcomes particularly among cancer survivors during the COVID-19 pandemic. Little is known about the risk factors of loneliness among cancer survivors. We evaluated the risk factors of loneliness in the context of COVID-19 pandemic-related prevention behaviors and lifestyle/psychosocial factors among cancer survivors. Cancer survivors (n = 1471) seen at Huntsman Cancer Institute completed a survey between August-September 2020 evaluating health behaviors, medical care, and psychosocial factors including loneliness during COVID-19 pandemic. Participants were classified into two groups: 'lonely' (sometimes, usually, or always felt lonely in past month) and 'non-lonely' (never or rarely felt lonely in past month). 33% of cancer survivors reported feeling lonely in the past month. Multivariable logistic regression showed female sex, not living with a spouse/partner, poor health status, COVID-19 pandemic-associated lifestyle factors including increased alcohol consumption and marijuana/CBD oil use, and psychosocial stressors such as disruptions in daily life, less social interaction, and higher perceived stress and financial stress were associated with feeling lonely as compared to being non-lonely (all p < 0.05). A significant proportion of participants reported loneliness, which is a serious health risk among vulnerable populations, particularly cancer survivors. Modifiable risk factors such as unhealthy lifestyle behaviors and psychosocial stress were associated with loneliness. These results highlight the need to screen for unhealthy lifestyle factors and psychosocial stressors to identify cancer survivors at increased risk of loneliness and to develop effective management strategies.

The impact of a positive COVID-19 test on timeliness of radiation in patients receiving brachytherapy.

BACKGROUND: Delays in initiating and completing brachytherapy may have adverse oncologic outcomes for patients with cervical, uterine, and prostate cancer. The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on brachytherapy in the United States has not been well-characterized. OBJECTIVES: We aim to evaluate how a positive COVID-19 test affected timeliness of treatment for patients undergoing brachytherapy for cervical, uterine, and prostate cancer. METHODS: We queried the National Cancer Database to identify patients diagnosed with cervical, uterine, and prostate cancer in 2019 and 2020 who received brachytherapy in their treatment. Patients who tested positive for COVID-19 between cancer diagnosis and start of radiation were compared to those who did not test positive for COVID-19. Time in days from cancer diagnosis to initiation of radiation was compared using two-sample t-tests with p < 0.05 signifying significant differences. RESULTS: We identified 38,341 patients with cervical (n = 6,925), uterine (n = 18,587), and prostate cancer (n = 12,829). Rates of COVID-19 positivity were cervical cancer (n = 135; 2%), uterine cancer (n = 236; 1.3%), and prostate cancer (n = 141; 1%). Of those, 35% of cervical, 49% of uterine, and 43% of prostate cancer patients tested positive between their cancer diagnosis and initiation of radiation. Median days to radiation was significantly longer in these patients: 78 versus 51 for cervical cancer (p < 0.01), 150 versus 104 for uterine cancer (p < 0.01), and 154 versus 124 for prostate cancer (p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: For patients with cervical, uterine, and prostate cancer diagnosed between 2019-2020, testing positive for COVID-19 after their cancer diagnosis was associated with a delay to initiation of radiation by 4-7 weeks.

Validation of the Combined Clinical Cell-Cycle Risk Score to Prognosticate Early Prostate Cancer Metastasis From Biopsy Specimens and Comparison With Other Routinely Used Risk Classifiers.

PURPOSE: We aim to independently validate the prognostic utility of the combined cell-cycle risk (CCR) multimodality threshold to estimate risk of early metastasis after definitive treatment of prostate cancer and compare this prognostic ability with other validated biomarkers. METHODS: Patients diagnosed with localized prostate cancer were enrolled into a single-institutional registry for the prospective observational cohort study. The primary end point was risk of metastasis within 3 years of diagnostic biopsy. Secondary end points included time to definitive treatment, time to subsequent therapy, and metastasis after completion of initial definitive treatment. Multivariable cause-specific Cox proportional hazards regression models were produced accounting for competing risk of death and stratified on the basis of the CCR active surveillance and multimodality (MM) thresholds. Time-dependent areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve were calculated. RESULTS: The cohort consisted of 554 men with prostate cancer and available CCR score from biopsy. The CCR score was prognostic for metastasis (hazard ratio [HR], 2.32 [95% CI, 1.17 to 4.59]; P = .02), with scores above the MM threshold having a higher risk than those below the threshold (HR, 5.44 [95% CI, 2.72 to 10.91]; P < .001). The AUC for 3-year risk of metastasis on the basis of CCR was 0.736. When men with CCR above the MM threshold received MM therapy, their 3-year risk of metastasis was significantly lower than those receiving single-modality therapy (3% v 14%). Similarly, a CCR score above the active surveillance threshold portended a faster time to first definitive treatment. CONCLUSION: CCR outperforms other commonly used biomarkers for prediction of early metastasis. We illustrate the clinical utility of the CCR active surveillance and multimodality thresholds. Molecular genomic tests can inform patient selection and personalization of treatment for localized prostate cancer.

The Ability of the STAR-CAP Staging System to Prognosticate the Risk of Subsequent Therapies and Metastases After Initial Treatment of M0 Prostate Cancer.

INTRODUCTION: The International Staging Collaboration for Prostate Cancer (STAR-CAP) has been proposed as a risk model for prostate cancer with superior prognostic power compared to the current staging system. This study aimed to evaluate the performance of STAR-CAP in predicting the risk of subsequent therapy after initial treatment and the risk of developing metastases. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The study included 3425 men from an institutional observational registry with a median age of 64.9 years and a median follow-up time of 5.4 years. The primary endpoints were metastases and progression to additional therapy after initial therapy (radiation ± surgery). The risk of progression in the STAR-CAP group was estimated using a competing risk model (death). RESULTS: The results showed that patients with STAR-CAP stages 1A-1C had a similar risk of requiring additional therapies and developing metastasis. Compared to stage IC, each stage from 2A to 3B incrementally increased the risk of subsequent therapy (hazard ratio (HR) 1.4-5.8, respectively) and metastases (HR 1.5-10.8, respectively). The 5-year probability of receiving subsequent therapy for a patient with stage IC was 8.6%, which increased from 11.4% to 37.4% for those with stages 2A to 3B. The 5-year probability of developing metastases for patients with stage IC was 1.5%, which increased from 2.2% to 8.2% for patients with stages 2A to 3B. CONCLUSIONS: The probability of receiving subsequent therapy was higher for patients undergoing surgery, while radiation therapy patients were more likely to receive treatment with intensified multimodality therapies upfront.

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.

Multi-Institutional Analysis of Cancer Patient Exposure, Perceptions, and Trust in Information Sources Regarding Complementary and Alternative Medicine.

PURPOSE: Complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) use during cancer treatment is controversial. We aim to evaluate contemporary CAM use, patient perceptions and attitudes, and trust in various sources of information regarding CAM. METHODS: A multi-institutional questionnaire was distributed to patients receiving cancer treatment. Collected information included respondents' clinical and demographic characteristics, rates of CAM exposure/use, information sources regarding CAM, and trust in each information source. Comparisons between CAM users and nonusers were performed with chi-squared tests and one-way analysis of variance. Multivariable logistic regression models for trust in physician and nonphysician sources of information regarding CAM were evaluated. RESULTS: Among 749 respondents, the most common goals of CAM use were management of symptoms (42.2%) and treatment of cancer (30.4%). Most CAM users learned of CAM from nonphysician sources. Of CAM users, 27% reported not discussing CAM with their treating oncologists. Overall trust in physicians was high in both CAM users and nonusers. The only predictor of trust in physician sources of information was income >$100,000 in US dollars per year. Likelihood of trust in nonphysician sources of information was higher in females and lower in those with graduate degrees. CONCLUSION: A large proportion of patients with cancer are using CAM, some with the goal of treating their cancer. Although patients are primarily exposed to CAM through nonphysician sources of information, trust in physicians remains high. More research is needed to improve patient-clinician communication regarding CAM use.

Artificial Intelligence Predictive Model for Hormone Therapy Use in Prostate Cancer.

Background: Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) with radiotherapy can benefit patients with localized prostate cancer. However, ADT can negatively impact quality of life and there remain no validated predictive models to guide its use. Methods: Digital pathology image and clinical data from pre-treatment prostate tissue from 5,727 patients enrolled on five phase III randomized trials treated with radiotherapy +/- ADT were used to develop and validate an artificial intelligence (AI)-derived predictive model to assess ADT benefit with the primary endpoint of distant metastasis. After the model was locked, validation was performed on NRG/RTOG 9408 (n = 1,594) that randomized men to radiotherapy +/- 4 months of ADT. Fine-Gray regression and restricted mean survival times were used to assess the interaction between treatment and predictive model and within predictive model positive and negative subgroup treatment effects. Results: In the NRG/RTOG 9408 validation cohort (14.9 years of median follow-up), ADT significantly improved time to distant metastasis (subdistribution hazard ratio [sHR] = 0.64, 95%CI [0.45-0.90], p = 0.01). The predictive model-treatment interaction was significant (p-interaction = 0.01). In predictive model positive patients (n = 543, 34%), ADT significantly reduced the risk of distant metastasis compared to radiotherapy alone (sHR = 0.34, 95%CI [0.19-0.63], p < 0.001). There were no significant differences between treatment arms in the predictive model negative subgroup (n = 1,051, 66%; sHR = 0.92, 95%CI [0.59-1.43], p = 0.71). Conclusions: Our data, derived and validated from completed randomized phase III trials, show that an AI-based predictive model was able to identify prostate cancer patients, with predominately intermediate-risk disease, who are likely to benefit from short-term ADT.

Secondary malignancies in non-Hodgkin lymphoma survivors: 40 years of follow-up assessed by treatment modality.

BACKGROUND: Survivors of non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) have increased secondary malignancy (SM) risk. We quantified this risk by patient and treatment factors. METHODS: Standardized incidence ratios (SIR, observed-to-expected [O/E] ratio) were assessed in 142,637 NHL patients diagnosed from 1975 to 2016 in the National Cancer Institute's Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program. Comparisons were made between subgroups in terms of their SIRs relative to respective endemic populations. RESULTS: In total, 15,979 patients developed SM, more than the endemic rate (O/E 1.29; p < 0.05). Compared with white patients, relative to respective endemic populations, ethnic minorities had a higher risk of SM (white O/E 1.27, 95% CI 1.25-1.29; black O/E 1.40, 95% CI 1.31-1.48; other O/E 1.59, 95% CI 1.49-1.70). Relative to respective endemic populations, patients who received radiotherapy had similar SM rates to those who did not (O/E 1.29 each), but irradiated patients had increased breast cancer (p < 0.05). Patients who received chemotherapy had higher SM rates than those who did not (O/E 1.33 vs. 1.24, p < 0.05) including more leukemia, Kaposi sarcoma, kidney, pancreas, rectal, head and neck, and colon cancers (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: This is the largest study to examine SM risk in NHL patients with the longest follow-up. Treatment with radiotherapy did not increase overall SM risk, while chemotherapy was associated with a higher overall risk. However, certain subsites were associated with a higher risk of SM, and they varied by treatment, age group, race and time since treatment. These findings are helpful for informing screening and long-term follow-up in NHL survivors.

External Beam Radiation Therapy With or Without Brachytherapy Boost in Men With Very-High-Risk Prostate Cancer: A Large Multicenter International Consortium Analysis.

PURPOSE: Very-high-risk (VHR) prostate cancer (PC) is an aggressive subgroup with high risk of distant disease progression. Systemic treatment intensification with abiraterone or docetaxel reduces PC-specific mortality (PCSM) and distant metastasis (DM) in men receiving external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). Whether prostate-directed treatment intensification with the addition of brachytherapy (BT) boost to EBRT with ADT improves outcomes in this group is unclear. METHODS AND MATERIALS: This cohort study from 16 centers across 4 countries included men with VHR PC treated with either dose-escalated EBRT with ≥24 months of ADT or EBRT + BT boost with ≥12 months of ADT. VHR was defined by National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) criteria (clinical T3b-4, primary Gleason pattern 5, or ≥2 NCCN high-risk features), and results were corroborated in a subgroup of men who met Systemic Therapy in Advancing or Metastatic Prostate Cancer: Evaluation of Drug Efficacy (STAMPEDE) trials inclusion criteria (≥2 of the following: clinical T3-4, Gleason 8-10, or PSA ≥40 ng/mL). PCSM and DM between EBRT and EBRT + BT were compared using inverse probability of treatment weight-adjusted Fine-Gray competing risk regression. RESULTS: Among the entire cohort, 270 underwent EBRT and 101 EBRT + BT. After a median follow-up of 7.8 years, 6.7% and 5.9% of men died of PC and 16.3% and 9.9% had DM after EBRT and EBRT + BT, respectively. There was no significant difference in PCSM (sHR, 1.47 [95% CI, 0.57-3.75]; P = .42) or DM (sHR, 0.72, [95% CI, 0.30-1.71]; P = .45) between EBRT + BT and EBRT. Results were similar within the STAMPEDE-defined VHR subgroup (PCSM: sHR, 1.67 [95% CI, 0.48-5.81]; P = .42; DM: sHR, 0.56 [95% CI, 0.15-2.04]; P = .38). CONCLUSIONS: In this VHR PC cohort, no difference in clinically meaningful outcomes was observed between EBRT alone with ≥24 months of ADT compared with EBRT + BT with ≥12 months of ADT. Comparative analyses in men treated with intensified systemic therapy are warranted.

Artificial Intelligence Predictive Model for Hormone Therapy Use in Prostate Cancer.

Predictive Model for Hormone Therapy in Prostate CancerDigital pathology images and clinical data from pretreatment prostate tissue were used to generate a predictive model to determine patients who would benefit from androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). In model-positive patients, ADT significantly reduced the risk of distant metastasis compared with radiotherapy alone.

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.

Second Primary Malignancies in Diffuse Large B-cell Lymphoma Survivors with 40 Years of Follow Up: Influence of Chemotherapy and Radiation Therapy.

Purpose: Previous studies have shown an increased risk of second primary malignancies (SPMs) in survivors of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL). Survivors live longer due to the intensification of and improvements in therapy; thus, we aimed to characterize SPM patterns in patients with DLBCL by treatment modality. Methods and Materials: Standardized incidence ratio and absolute excess risk of SPMs were assessed in patients with primary DLBCL from 1975 to 2016 in the National Cancer Institute's Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program. A subgroup analyses based on, sex, race, age at the time of diagnosis, latency, and treatment modality were performed. Propensity score-adjusted cumulative incidence curves were generated, stratified by treatment and accounting for death as a competing risk. Results: In total, 45,946 patients with DLBCL were identified with a mean follow up of 70 months. Overall, 9.2% of patients developed an SPM with a standardized incidence ratio of 1.23 (95% confidence interval, 1.20-1.27). There was no difference in SPM risk between men and women or Black and White patients. Patients age <25 years were particularly susceptible to the development of SPMs, with a risk 2.5 times greater than patients aged 50 to 74 years. Temporal patterns showed increasing risk of solid malignancies and decreasing risk of hematologic malignancies over time, with bladder cancer posing the greatest absolute excess risk of any cancer type after 15 years. Patients treated with radiation therapy (RT), chemotherapy (CT), and chemoradiation therapy (CRT) all had an increased risk of SPM development compared with the general population. The cumulative incidence of SPMs was the lowest in patients treated with RT and the highest when treated with CRT. In the modern treatment era, the cumulative incidence of SPM for patients treated with CT versus CRT was not significantly different. Conclusions: In this large population-based study, we demonstrate unique SPM risk patterns based on age, latency, and treatment modality that have important implications for the treatment and screening of patients diagnosed with DLBCL.

NCCN Guidelines® Insights: Bladder Cancer, Version 2.2022.

The NCCN Guidelines for Bladder Cancer provide recommendations for the diagnosis, evaluation, treatment, and follow-up of patients with bladder cancer and other urinary tract cancers (upper tract tumors, urothelial carcinoma of the prostate, primary carcinoma of the urethra). These NCCN Guidelines Insights summarize the panel discussion behind recent important updates to the guidelines regarding the treatment of non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer, including how to treat in the event of a bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) shortage; new roles for immune checkpoint inhibitors in non-muscle invasive, muscle-invasive, and metastatic bladder cancer; and the addition of antibody-drug conjugates for metastatic bladder cancer.

The Clinical Significance of Maximum Tumor Diameter on MRI in Men Undergoing Radical Prostatectomy or Definitive Radiotherapy for Locoregional Prostate Cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Maximum tumor diameter (MTD) on pretreatment magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has the potential to further risk stratify for men with prostate cancer (PCa) prior to definitive local therapy. We aim to evaluate the prognostic impact of radiographic maximum tumor diameter (MTD) in men with localized prostate cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: From a single-center retrospective cohort of men receiving definitive treatment for PCa (radical prostatectomy [RP] or radiotherapy [RT]) with available pretreatment MRI, we conducted univariable and multivariable Cox proportional-hazards models for progression using clinical variables including age, NCCN risk group, radiographic extracapsular extension (ECE), radiographic seminal vesical invasion (SVI), and MTD. RP and RT cohorts were analyzed separately. Covariates were used in a classification and regression tree (CART) analysis and progression-free survival was estimated with the Kaplan-Meier method and groups were compared using log-rank tests. RESULTS: The cohort included 631 patients (n = 428 RP, n = 203 RT). CART analysis identified 4 prognostic groups for patients treated with RP and 2 prognostic groups in those treated with RT. In the RP cohort, NCCN low/intermediate risk group patients with MTD>=15 mm had significantly worse PFS than those with MTD <= 14 mm, and NCCN high-risk patients with radiographic ECE had significantly worse PFS than those without ECE. In the RT cohort, PFS was significantly worse in the cohort with MTD >= 23 mm than those <= 22 mm. CONCLUSION: Radiographic MTD may be a useful prognostic factor for patients with locoregional prostate cancer. This is the first study to illustrate that the importance of pretreatment tumor size may vary based on treatment modality.

Factors associated with changes in exercise behaviors during the COVID-19 pandemic.

PURPOSE: There is limited information on how the COVID-19 pandemic has changed health behaviors among cancer patients. We examined changes in exercise behaviors since the pandemic and identified characteristics associated with these changes among cancer patients. METHODS: Cancer patients (n = 1,210) completed a survey from August to September 2020 to assess COVID-19 pandemic-related changes in health behaviors and psychosocial factors. Patients were categorized into three groups: exercising less, exercising did not change, and exercising more. Patient characteristics were compared by exercise groups. RESULTS: One-third of the patients reported a decreased amount of regular exercise, while 10% reported exercising more during the pandemic. Patients who exercised less were more likely to be unemployed/retired and have poor health status and psychosocial stressors such as disruptions in daily life while less likely to be former smokers (all p < 0.05). In contrast, patients who exercised more were younger, had stage IV diagnosis, and also reported disruptions in daily life (all p < 0.05). Patients who were living in rural areas were also more likely not to experience changes in exercise habits (all p < 0.05), although rural-urban status was not identified as a strong predictor. CONCLUSION: A significant proportion of cancer patients experienced changes in exercise habits, especially exercising less, during the first 6 months of the COVID-19 pandemic. Age, employment status, tumor stage, health status, smoking status, and psychosocial factors were associated with changes in exercise behaviors. Our results highlight the importance of promoting physical activity guidelines for cancer survivorship during the COVID-19 pandemic and may help improve the identification of cancer patients susceptible to exercising less.

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on rural and urban cancer patients' experiences, health behaviors, and perceptions.

PURPOSE: The COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted many facets of life. We evaluated pandemic-related health care experiences, COVID-19 prevention behaviors and measures, health behaviors, and psychosocial outcomes among rural and urban cancer patients. METHODS: Among 1,472 adult cancer patients, who visited Huntsman Cancer Institute in the past 4 years and completed a COVID-19 survey (August-September 2020), we assessed the impact of the pandemic on medical appointments, prevention/health behaviors, and psychosocial factors, stratified by urbanicity. FINDINGS: Mean age was 61 years, with 52% female, 97% non-Hispanic White, and 27% were residing in rural areas. Rural versus urban patients were more likely to be older, not employed, uninsured, former/current smokers, consume alcohol, and have pandemic-related changes/cancellations in surgery appointments (all P<.05). Changes/cancellations in other health care access (eg, doctor's visits) were also common, particularly among urban patients. Urban versus rural patients were more likely to socially distance, use masks and hand sanitizer, and experience changes in exercise habits and in their daily lives (all P<.05). Less social interaction and financial stress were common among cancer patients but did not differ by urbanicity. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that the COVID-19 pandemic had a substantial impact on cancer patients, with several challenges specific to rural patients. This comprehensive study provides unique insights into the first 6 months of COVID-19 pandemic-related experiences and continuity of care among rural and urban cancer patients predominantly from Utah. Further research is needed to better characterize the pandemic's short- and long-term effects on rural and urban cancer patients and appropriate interventions.

Nomograms for Metastasis-Free and Overall Survival for Pathologically Node Positive Prostate Cancer Patients Treated With or Without Radiation Therapy Plus Short-Term ADT.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVES: We aimed to develop nomograms to predict the risk reduction for metastasis and death in pathologically node-positive (pN +) prostate cancer patients treated with or without radiation therapy (RT). MATERIALS/METHODS: From a prospectively gathered institutional database, we identified patients with pN + M0 prostate cancer after surgery. We evaluated several regression models of known or suspected clinical-pathologic covariates and selected the model with the highest Harrell's concordance-index (c-index) and clinical utility to prognosticate metastasis for inclusion in a nomogram. Covariates in the final, competing-risk adjusted, metastasis model included PSA nadir after surgery, pathologic T-stage, margin status, Gleason score (GS), number of positive lymph nodes, and use of postoperative radiotherapy combined with androgen deprivation therapy (RT + ADT). The overall survival model also included Charlson comorbidity score and age. RESULTS: 336 pN + men with a mean age of 64.9 years and a median follow-up of 4.1 years who had a radical prostatectomy were included in the analysis. 83 men were recommended RT + ADT, of whom 4% refused the ADT and received RT alone. C-index was 0.85 and 0.71 for the MFS and OS models, respectively. On multivariable analysis (MVA) adjusted for competing risks, RT + ADT significantly improved MFS (HR=0.70 P = < .01) with number of nodes positive, GS 8-10, PSA nadir > 1 ng/mL, and pT3b prognostic for metastasis. MVA for OS demonstrates RT+ADT improves survival (HR=0.40, P = .02), with GS8-10 and PSA nadir > 1.0 prognostic for death. CONCLUSION: We developed predictive nomograms for patients with pN+ prostate cancer following radical prostatectomy. These models can discretely quantify an individual's risk of metastasis or death with and without post-prostatectomy radiotherapy.