External Validation of a Digital Pathology-based Multimodal Artificial Intelligence Architecture in the NRG/RTOG 9902 Phase 3 Trial.

BACKGROUND: Accurate risk stratification is critical to guide management decisions in localized prostate cancer (PCa). Previously, we had developed and validated a multimodal artificial intelligence (MMAI) model generated from digital histopathology and clinical features. Here, we externally validate this model on men with high-risk or locally advanced PCa treated and followed as part of a phase 3 randomized control trial. OBJECTIVE: To externally validate the MMAI model on men with high-risk or locally advanced PCa treated and followed as part of a phase 3 randomized control trial. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Our validation cohort included 318 localized high-risk PCa patients from NRG/RTOG 9902 with available histopathology (337 [85%] of the 397 patients enrolled into the trial had available slides, of which 19 [5.6%] failed due to poor image quality). OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Two previously locked prognostic MMAI models were validated for their intended endpoint: distant metastasis (DM) and PCa-specific mortality (PCSM). Individual clinical factors and the number of National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) high-risk features served as comparators. Subdistribution hazard ratio (sHR) was reported per standard deviation increase of the score with corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) using Fine-Gray or Cox proportional hazards models. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: The DM and PCSM MMAI algorithms were significantly and independently associated with the risk of DM (sHR [95% CI] = 2.33 [1.60-3.38], p < 0.001) and PCSM, respectively (sHR [95% CI] = 3.54 [2.38-5.28], p < 0.001) when compared against other prognostic clinical factors and NCCN high-risk features. The lower 75% of patients by DM MMAI had estimated 5- and 10-yr DM rates of 4% and 7%, and the highest quartile had average 5- and 10-yr DM rates of 19% and 32%, respectively (p < 0.001). Similar results were observed for the PCSM MMAI algorithm. CONCLUSIONS: We externally validated the prognostic ability of MMAI models previously developed among men with localized high-risk disease. MMAI prognostic models further risk stratify beyond the clinical and pathological variables for DM and PCSM in a population of men already at a high risk for disease progression. This study provides evidence for consistent validation of our deep learning MMAI models to improve prognostication and enable more informed decision-making for patient care. PATIENT SUMMARY: This paper presents a novel approach using images from pathology slides along with clinical variables to validate artificial intelligence (computer-generated) prognostic models. When implemented, clinicians can offer a more personalized and tailored prognostic discussion for men with localized prostate cancer.

Insurance Denial of Care for Randomized Controlled Trial-Eligible Patients: Incidence and Success Rate of Peer-To-Peer Authorization in Allowing Patients to Remain Trial-Eligible.

INTRODUCTION: Insurance denials for clinical trials serve as a pertinent barrier for patients to remain trial-eligible, thus hindering the development of therapies and the overall advancement of health care. We present results from an ongoing oncology randomized clinical trial regarding insurance denials and peer-to-peer authorization (P2PA) success rate in allowing patients to remain trial-eligible. METHODS: The ongoing Spine Patient Optimal Radiosurgery Treatment for Symptomatic Metastatic Neoplasms Phase II trial randomizes spine cancer patients to treatment with spine radiosurgery/stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) versus conventional external beam radiation therapy (EBRT). Trial-eligible patients during the first 3 months of enrollment are examined to determine whether the option of SBRT was denied by their insurance. Advocacy for overcoming SBRT denial in P2PA centered on SBRT being recommended as a preferred treatment modality in the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines, and the recent level I evidence demonstrating the advantages of SBRT over EBRT for symptomatic spine cancer. RESULTS: Of 15 trial-eligible patients, 3 (20%) experienced insurance denials for SBRT. P2PA resulted in the reversal of denials in all 3 patients, allowing each to remain trial-eligible for randomization between SBRT and cEBRT. CONCLUSIONS: Despite a clinical oncologic treatment modality for which recent Level 1 evidence is available, the insurance denial rate was 20%. A vigilant P2PA strategy focusing on highlighting National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines and the supporting Level 1 evidence resulted in a very high rate of reversing initial denial.

Increasing Use of Shorter-Course Radiotherapy for Prostate Cancer.

Importance: Randomized clinical trials have demonstrated the noninferiority of shorter radiotherapy (RT) courses (termed hypofractionation) compared with longer RT courses in patients with localized prostate cancer. Although shorter courses are associated with cost-effectiveness, convenience, and expanded RT access, their adoption remains variable. Objective: To identify the current practice patterns of external beam RT for prostate cancer in the US. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study obtained data from the National Cancer Database, which collects hospital registry data from more than 1500 accredited US facilities on approximately 72% of US patients with cancer. Patients were included in the sample if they had localized prostate adenocarcinoma that was diagnosed between 2004 and 2020 and underwent external beam RT with curative intent. Analyses were conducted between February and March 2023. Exposures: Radiotherapy schedules, which were categorized as ultrahypofractionation (≤7 fractions), moderate hypofractionation (20-30 fractions), and conventional fractionation (31-50 fractions). Main Outcomes and Measures: Longitudinal pattern in RT fractionation schedule was the primary outcome. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to evaluate the variables associated with shorter RT courses. Covariables included age, National Comprehensive Cancer Network risk group, rurality, race, facility location, facility type, median income, insurance type or status, and Charlson-Deyo Comorbidity Index. Results: A total of 313 062 patients with localized prostate cancer (mean [SD] age, 68.8 [7.7] years) were included in the analysis. There was a temporal pattern of decline in the proportion of patients who received conventional fractionation, from 76.0% in 2004 to 36.6% in 2020 (P for trend <.001). From 2004 to 2020, use of moderate hypofractionation increased from 22.0% to 45.0% (P for trend <.001), and use of ultrahypofractionation increased from 2.0% to 18.3% (P for trend <.001). By 2020, the most common RT schedule was ultrahypofractionation for patients in the low-risk group and moderate hypofractionation for patients in the intermediate-risk group. On multivariable analysis, treatment at a community cancer program (compared with academic or research program; odds ratio [OR], 0.54 [95% CI, 0.52-0.56]; P < .001), Medicaid insurance (compared with Medicare; OR, 1.49 [95% CI, 1.41-1.57]; P < .001), Black race (compared with White race; OR, 0.90 [95% CI, 0.87-0.92]; P < .001), and higher median income (compared with lower median income; OR, 1.28 [95% CI, 1.25-1.31]; P < .001) were associated with receipt of shorter courses of RT. Conclusions and Relevance: Results of this cohort study showed an increase in the use of shorter courses of RT for prostate cancer from 2004 to 2020; a number of social determinants of health appeared to be associated with reduced adoption of shorter treatment courses. Realignment of reimbursement models may be necessary to enable broader adoption of ultrahypofractionation to support technology acquisition costs.

Use of the Decipher genomic classifier among men with prostate cancer in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Management of localized or recurrent prostate cancer since the 1990s has been based on risk stratification using clinicopathological variables, including Gleason score, T stage (based on digital rectal exam), and prostate-specific antigen (PSA). In this study a novel prognostic test, the Decipher Prostate Genomic Classifier (GC), was used to stratify risk of prostate cancer progression in a US national database of men with prostate cancer. METHODS: Records of prostate cancer cases from participating SEER (Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results) program registries, diagnosed during the period from 2010 through 2018, were linked to records of testing with the GC prognostic test. Multivariable analysis was used to quantify the association between GC scores or risk groups and use of definitive local therapy after diagnosis in the GC biopsy-tested cohort and postoperative radiotherapy in the GC-tested cohort as well as adverse pathological findings after prostatectomy. RESULTS: A total of 572 545 patients were included in the analysis, of whom 8927 patients underwent GC testing. GC biopsy-tested patients were more likely to undergo active active surveillance or watchful waiting than untested patients (odds ratio [OR] =2.21, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.04 to 2.38, P < .001). The highest use of active surveillance or watchful waiting was for patients with a low-risk GC classification (41%) compared with those with an intermediate- (27%) or high-risk (11%) GC classification (P < .001). Among National Comprehensive Cancer Network patients with low and favorable-intermediate risk, higher GC risk class was associated with greater use of local therapy (OR = 4.79, 95% CI = 3.51 to 6.55, P < .001). Within this subset of patients who were subsequently treated with prostatectomy, high GC risk was associated with harboring adverse pathological findings (OR = 2.94, 95% CI = 1.38 to 6.27, P = .005). Use of radiation after prostatectomy was statistically significantly associated with higher GC risk groups (OR = 2.69, 95% CI = 1.89 to 3.84). CONCLUSIONS: There is a strong association between use of the biopsy GC test and likelihood of conservative management. Higher genomic classifier scores are associated with higher rates of adverse pathology at time of surgery and greater use of postoperative radiotherapy.In this study the Decipher Prostate Genomic Classifier (GC) was used to analyze a US national database of men with prostate cancer. Use of the GC was associated with conservative management (ie, active surveillance). Among men who had high-risk GC scores and then had surgery, there was a 3-fold higher chance of having worrisome findings in surgical specimens.

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.

Local Failure Events in Prostate Cancer Treated with Radiotherapy: A Pooled Analysis of 18 Randomized Trials from the Meta-analysis of Randomized Trials in Cancer of the Prostate Consortium (LEVIATHAN).

CONTEXT: The prognostic importance of local failure after definitive radiotherapy (RT) in National Comprehensive Cancer Network intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer (PCa) patients remains unclear. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the prognostic impact of local failure and the kinetics of distant metastasis following RT. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: A pooled analysis was performed on individual patient data of 12 533 PCa (6288 high-risk and 6245 intermediate-risk) patients enrolled in 18 randomized trials (conducted between 1985 and 2015) within the Meta-analysis of Randomized Trials in Cancer of the Prostate Consortium. Multivariable Cox proportional hazard (PH) models were developed to evaluate the relationship between overall survival (OS), PCa-specific survival (PCSS), distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS), and local failure as a time-dependent covariate. Markov PH models were developed to evaluate the impact of specific transition states. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: The median follow-up was 11 yr. There were 795 (13%) local failure events and 1288 (21%) distant metastases for high-risk patients and 449 (7.2%) and 451 (7.2%) for intermediate-risk patients, respectively. For both groups, 81% of distant metastases developed from a clinically relapse-free state (cRF state). Local failure was significantly associated with OS (hazard ratio [HR] 1.17, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.06-1.30), PCSS (HR 2.02, 95% CI 1.75-2.33), and DMFS (HR 1.94, 95% CI 1.75-2.15, p < 0.01 for all) in high-risk patients. Local failure was also significantly associated with DMFS (HR 1.57, 95% CI 1.36-1.81) but not with OS in intermediate-risk patients. Patients without local failure had a significantly lower HR of transitioning to a PCa-specific death state than those who had local failure (HR 0.32, 95% CI 0.21-0.50, p < 0.001). At later time points, more distant metastases emerged after a local failure event for both groups. CONCLUSIONS: Local failure is an independent prognosticator of OS, PCSS, and DMFS in high-risk and of DMFS in intermediate-risk PCa. Distant metastasis predominantly developed from the cRF state, underscoring the importance of addressing occult microscopic disease. However a "second wave" of distant metastases occurs subsequent to local failure events, and optimization of local control may reduce the risk of distant metastasis. PATIENT SUMMARY: Among men receiving definitive radiation therapy for high- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer, about 10% experience local recurrence, and they are at significantly increased risks of further disease progression. About 80% of patients who develop distant metastasis do not have a detectable local recurrence preceding it.

Androgen deprivation therapy use and duration with definitive radiotherapy for localised prostate cancer: an individual patient data meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Randomised trials have investigated various androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) intensification strategies in men receiving radiotherapy for the treatment of prostate cancer. This individual patient data meta-analysis of relevant randomised trials aimed to quantify the benefit of these interventions in aggregate and in clinically relevant subgroups. METHODS: For this meta-analysis, we performed a systematic literature search in MEDLINE, Embase, trial registries, the Web of Science, Scopus, and conference proceedings to identify trials with results published in English between Jan 1, 1962, and Dec 30, 2020. Multicentre randomised trials were eligible if they evaluated the use or prolongation of ADT (or both) in men with localised prostate cancer receiving definitive radiotherapy, reported or collected distant metastasis and survival data, and used ADT for a protocol-defined finite duration. The Meta-Analysis of Randomized trials in Cancer of the Prostate (MARCAP) Consortium was accessed to obtain individual patient data from randomised trials. The primary outcome was metastasis-free survival. Hazard ratios (HRs) were obtained through stratified Cox models for ADT use (radiotherapy alone vs radiotherapy plus ADT), neoadjuvant ADT extension (ie, extension of total ADT duration in the neoadjuvant setting from 3-4 months to 6-9 months), and adjuvant ADT prolongation (ie, prolongation of total ADT duration in the adjuvant setting from 4-6 months to 18-36 months). Formal interaction tests between interventions and metastasis-free survival were done for prespecified subgroups defined by age, National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) risk group, and radiotherapy dose. This meta-analysis is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42021236855. FINDINGS: Our search returned 12 eligible trials that provided individual patient data (10 853 patients) with a median follow-up of 11·4 years (IQR 9·0-15·0). The addition of ADT to radiotherapy significantly improved metastasis-free survival (HR 0·83 [95% CI 0·77-0·89], p<0·0001), as did adjuvant ADT prolongation (0·84 [0·78-0·91], p<0·0001), but neoadjuvant ADT extension did not (0·95 [0·83-1·09], p=0·50). Treatment effects were similar irrespective of radiotherapy dose, patient age, or NCCN risk group. INTERPRETATION: Our findings provide the strongest level of evidence so far to the magnitude of the benefit of ADT treatment intensification with radiotherapy for men with localised prostate cancer. Adding ADT and prolonging the portion of ADT that follows radiotherapy is associated with improved metastasis-free survival in men, regardless of risk group, age, and radiotherapy dose delivered; however, the magnitude of the benefit could vary and shared decision making with patients is recommended. FUNDING: University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, Prostate Cancer Foundation, and the American Society for Radiation Oncology.

Comparison of Multimodal Therapies and Outcomes Among Patients With High-Risk Prostate Cancer With Adverse Clinicopathologic Features.

Importance: The optimal management strategy for high-risk prostate cancer and additional adverse clinicopathologic features remains unknown. Objective: To compare clinical outcomes among patients with high-risk prostate cancer after definitive treatment. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study included patients with high-risk prostate cancer (as defined by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network [NCCN]) and at least 1 adverse clinicopathologic feature (defined as any primary Gleason pattern 5 on biopsy, clinical T3b-4 disease, ≥50% cores with biopsy results positive for prostate cancer, or NCCN ≥2 high-risk features) treated between 2000 and 2014 at 16 tertiary centers. Data were analyzed in November 2020. Exposures: Radical prostatectomy (RP), external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), or EBRT plus brachytherapy boost (BT) with ADT. Guideline-concordant multimodal treatment was defined as RP with appropriate use of multimodal therapy (optimal RP), EBRT with at least 2 years of ADT (optimal EBRT), or EBRT with BT with at least 1 year ADT (optimal EBRT with BT). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was prostate cancer-specific mortality; distant metastasis was a secondary outcome. Differences were evaluated using inverse probability of treatment weight-adjusted Fine-Gray competing risk regression models. Results: A total of 6004 men (median [interquartile range] age, 66.4 [60.9-71.8] years) with high-risk prostate cancer were analyzed, including 3175 patients (52.9%) who underwent RP, 1830 patients (30.5%) who underwent EBRT alone, and 999 patients (16.6%) who underwent EBRT with BT. Compared with RP, treatment with EBRT with BT (subdistribution hazard ratio [sHR] 0.78, [95% CI, 0.63-0.97]; P = .03) or with EBRT alone (sHR, 0.70 [95% CI, 0.53-0.92]; P = .01) was associated with significantly improved prostate cancer-specific mortality; there was no difference in prostate cancer-specific mortality between EBRT with BT and EBRT alone (sHR, 0.89 [95% CI, 0.67-1.18]; P = .43). No significant differences in prostate cancer-specific mortality were found across treatment cohorts among 2940 patients who received guideline-concordant multimodality treatment (eg, optimal EBRT alone vs optimal RP: sHR, 0.76 [95% CI, 0.52-1.09]; P = .14). However, treatment with EBRT alone or EBRT with BT was consistently associated with lower rates of distant metastasis compared with treatment with RP (eg, EBRT vs RP: sHR, 0.50 [95% CI, 0.44-0.58]; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that among patients with high-risk prostate cancer and additional unfavorable clinicopathologic features receiving guideline-concordant multimodal therapy, prostate cancer-specific mortality outcomes were equivalent among those treated with RP, EBRT, and EBRT with BT, although distant metastasis outcomes were more favorable among patients treated with EBRT and EBRT with BT. Optimal multimodality treatment is critical for improving outcomes in patients with high-risk prostate cancer.

Prostate Cancer Radiation Therapy Recommendations in Response to COVID-19.

PURPOSE: During a global pandemic, the benefit of routine visits and treatment of patients with cancer must be weighed against the risks to patients, staff, and society. Prostate cancer is one of the most common cancers radiation oncology departments treat, and efficient resource utilization is essential in the setting of a pandemic. Herein, we aim to establish recommendations and a framework by which to evaluate prostate radiation therapy management decisions. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Radiation oncologists from the United States and the United Kingdom rapidly conducted a systematic review and agreed upon recommendations to safely manage patients with prostate cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic. A RADS framework was created: remote visits, and avoidance, deferment, and shortening of radiation therapy was applied to determine appropriate approaches. RESULTS: Recommendations were provided by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network risk group regarding clinical node-positive, postprostatectomy, oligometastatic, and low-volume M1 disease. Across all prostate cancer stages, telemedicine consultations and return visits were recommended when resources/staff available. Delays in consultations and return visits of between 1 and 6 months were deemed safe based on stage of disease. Treatment can be avoided or delayed until safe for very low, low, and favorable intermediate-risk disease. Unfavorable intermediate-risk, high-risk, clinical node-positive, recurrence postsurgery, oligometastatic, and low-volume M1 disease can receive neoadjuvant hormone therapy for 4 to 6 months as necessary. Ultrahypofractionation is preferred for localized, oligometastatic, and low-volume M1, and moderate hypofractionation is preferred for postprostatectomy and clinical node positive disease. Salvage is preferred to adjuvant radiation. CONCLUSIONS: Resources can be reduced for all identified stages of prostate cancer. The RADS (remote visits, and avoidance, deferment, and shortening of radiation therapy) framework can be applied to other disease sites to help with decision making in a global pandemic.

Development and Validation of a Clinical Prognostic Stage Group System for Nonmetastatic Prostate Cancer Using Disease-Specific Mortality Results From the International Staging Collaboration for Cancer of the Prostate.

Importance: In 2016, the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) established criteria to evaluate prediction models for staging. No localized prostate cancer models were endorsed by the Precision Medicine Core committee, and 8th edition staging was based on expert consensus. Objective: To develop and validate a pretreatment clinical prognostic stage group system for nonmetastatic prostate cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants: This multinational cohort study included 7 centers from the United States, Canada, and Europe, the Shared Equal Access Regional Cancer Hospital (SEARCH) Veterans Affairs Medical Centers collaborative (5 centers), and the Cancer of the Prostate Strategic Urologic Research Endeavor (CaPSURE) registry (43 centers) (the STAR-CAP cohort). Patients with cT1-4N0-1M0 prostate adenocarcinoma treated from January 1, 1992, to December 31, 2013 (follow-up completed December 31, 2017). The STAR-CAP cohort was randomly divided into training and validation data sets; statisticians were blinded to the validation data until the model was locked. A Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) cohort was used as a second validation set. Analysis was performed from January 1, 2018, to November 30, 2019. Exposures: Curative intent radical prostatectomy (RP) or radiotherapy with or without androgen deprivation therapy. Main Outcomes and Measures: Prostate cancer-specific mortality (PCSM). Based on a competing-risk regression model, a points-based Score staging system was developed. Model discrimination (C index), calibration, and overall performance were assessed in the validation cohorts. Results: Of 19 684 patients included in the analysis (median age, 64.0 [interquartile range (IQR), 59.0-70.0] years), 12 421 were treated with RP and 7263 with radiotherapy. Median follow-up was 71.8 (IQR, 34.3-124.3) months; 4078 (20.7%) were followed up for at least 10 years. Age, T category, N category, Gleason grade, pretreatment serum prostate-specific antigen level, and the percentage of positive core biopsy results among biopsies performed were included as variables. In the validation set, predicted 10-year PCSM for the 9 Score groups ranged from 0.3% to 40.0%. The 10-year C index (0.796; 95% CI, 0.760-0.828) exceeded that of the AJCC 8th edition (0.757; 95% CI, 0.719-0.792), which was improved across age, race, and treatment modality and within the SEER validation cohort. The Score system performed similarly to individualized random survival forest and interaction models and outperformed National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) and Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment (CAPRA) risk grouping 3- and 4-tier classification systems (10-year C index for NCCN 3-tier, 0.729; for NCCN 4-tier, 0.746; for Score, 0.794) as well as CAPRA (10-year C index for CAPRA, 0.760; for Score, 0.782). Conclusions and Relevance: Using a large, diverse international cohort treated with standard curative treatment options, a proposed AJCC-compliant clinical prognostic stage group system for prostate cancer has been developed. This system may allow consistency of reporting and interpretation of results and clinical trial design.

Prostate Cancer Radiation Therapy Recommendations in Response to COVID-19.

PURPOSE: During a global pandemic, the benefit of routine visits and treatment of patients with cancer must be weighed against the risks to patients, staff, and society. Prostate cancer is one of the most common cancers radiation oncology departments treat, and efficient resource utilization is essential in the setting of a pandemic. Herein, we aim to establish recommendations and a framework by which to evaluate prostate radiation therapy management decisions. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Radiation oncologists from the United States and the United Kingdom rapidly conducted a systematic review and agreed upon recommendations to safely manage patients with prostate cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic. A RADS framework was created: remote visits, and avoidance, deferment, and shortening of radiation therapy was applied to determine appropriate approaches. RESULTS: Recommendations were provided by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network risk group regarding clinical node-positive, postprostatectomy, oligometastatic, and low-volume M1 disease. Across all prostate cancer stages, telemedicine consultations and return visits were recommended when resources/staff available. Delays in consultations and return visits of between 1 and 6 months were deemed safe based on stage of disease. Treatment can be avoided or delayed until safe for very low, low, and favorable intermediate-risk disease. Unfavorable intermediate-risk, high-risk, clinical node-positive, recurrence postsurgery, oligometastatic, and low-volume M1 disease can receive neoadjuvant hormone therapy for 4 to 6 months as necessary. Ultrahypofractionation is preferred for localized, oligometastatic, and low-volume M1, and moderate hypofractionation is preferred for postprostatectomy and clinical node positive disease. Salvage is preferred to adjuvant radiation. CONCLUSIONS: Resources can be reduced for all identified stages of prostate cancer. The RADS (remote visits, and avoidance, deferment, and shortening of radiation therapy) framework can be applied to other disease sites to help with decision making in a global pandemic.

Performance of clinicopathologic models in men with high risk localized prostate cancer: impact of a 22-gene genomic classifier.

BACKGROUND: Prostate cancer exhibits biological and clinical heterogeneity even within established clinico-pathologic risk groups. The Decipher genomic classifier (GC) is a validated method to further risk-stratify disease in patients with prostate cancer, but its performance solely within National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) high-risk disease has not been undertaken to date. METHODS: A multi-institutional retrospective study of 405 men with high-risk prostate cancer who underwent primary treatment with radical prostatectomy (RP) or radiation therapy (RT) with androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) at 11 centers from 1995 to 2005 was performed. Cox proportional hazards models were used to determine the hazard ratios (HR) for the development of metastatic disease based on clinico-pathologic variables, risk groups, and GC score. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was determined for regression models without and with the GC score. RESULTS: Over a median follow-up of 82 months, 104 patients (26%) developed metastatic disease. On univariable analysis, increasing GC score was significantly associated with metastatic disease ([HR]: 1.34 per 0.1 unit increase, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.19-1.50, p < 0.001), while age, serum PSA, biopsy GG, and clinical T-stage were not (all p > 0.05). On multivariable analysis, GC score (HR: 1.33 per 0.1 unit increase, 95% CI: 1.19-1.48, p < 0.001) and GC high-risk (vs low-risk, HR: 2.95, 95% CI: 1.79-4.87, p < 0.001) were significantly associated with metastasis. The addition of GC score to regression models based on NCCN risk group improved model AUC from 0.46 to 0.67, and CAPRA from 0.59 to 0.71. CONCLUSIONS: Among men with high-risk prostate cancer, conventional clinico-pathologic data had poor discrimination to risk stratify development of metastatic disease. GC score was a significant and independent predictor of metastasis and may help identify men best suited for treatment intensification/de-escalation.

Genomic Risk Predicts Molecular Imaging-detected Metastatic Nodal Disease in Prostate Cancer.

BACKGROUND: The Decipher genomic classifier (GC) is increasingly being used to determine metastasis risk in men with localized prostate cancer (PCa). Whether GCs predict for the presence of occult metastatic disease at presentation or subsequent metastatic progression is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To determine if GC scores predict extraprostatic 68Ga prostate-specific membrane antigen (68Ga-PSMA-11) positron emission tomography (PET) positivity at presentation. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Between December 2015 and September 2018, 91 PCa patients with both GC scores and pretreatment 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET scans were identified. Risk stratification was performed using the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN), Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment (CAPRA), and GC scores. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Logistic regression was used to identify factors correlated with PSMA-positive disease. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: The NCCN criteria identified 23 (25.3%) and 68 patients (74.7%) as intermediate and high risk, while CAPRA scores revealed 28 (30.8%) and 63 (69.2%) as low/intermediate and high risk, respectively. By contrast, only 45 patients (49.4%) had high-risk GC scores. PSMA-avid pelvic nodal involvement was identified in 27 patients (29.7%). Higher GC score was significantly associated with pelvic nodal involvement (odds ratio [OR] 1.38 per 0.1 units; p=0.009) and any PSMA-avid nodal involvement (pelvic or distant; OR 1.40 per 0.1 units; p=0.007). However, higher GC score was not significantly associated with PSMA-avid osseous metastases (OR 1.11 per 0.1 units; p=0.50). Limitations include selection bias for patients able to receive both tests and the sample size. CONCLUSIONS: Each 0.1-unit increase in GC score was associated with an approximate 40% increase in the odds of PSMA-avid lymph node involvement. These data suggest that patients with GC high risk might benefit from more nodal imaging and treatment intensification, potentially via pelvic nodal dissection, pelvic nodal irradiation, and/or the addition of chemohormonal agents. PATIENT SUMMARY: Patients with higher genomic classifier scores were found to have more metastatic lymph node involvement on prostate-specific membrane antigen imaging.

Genomic Validation of 3-Tiered Clinical Subclassification of High-Risk Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSE: Recent data and National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines suggest that high-risk prostate cancer (cT3-4, Gleason score ≥8, or prostate-specific antigen [PSA] >20 ng/mL) is a heterogenous group in terms of long-term patient outcomes. We sought to determine whether subclassification of high-risk prostate cancer based on clinical factors correlates with genomic markers of risk. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We identified 3220 patients with NCCN unfavorable intermediate-risk (n = 2000) or high-risk (n = 1220) prostate cancer from a prospective multi-institutional registry cohort. We defined the following subclassification of high-risk prostate cancer based on previously published data: favorable high risk (cT1c, Gleason 6, and PSA >20 ng/mL or cT1c, Gleason 4 + 4 = 8, PSA <10 ng/mL); very high risk (cT3b-T4 or primary Gleason pattern 5); and standard high risk (all others with cT3a, Gleason score ≥8, or PSA >20 ng/mL). We used a set of 33 previously developed genomic classifiers, including Decipher, to determine whether high-risk genomic features correlate with clinical subclasses of high-risk prostate cancer. RESULTS: Among those with favorable high-risk, standard high-risk, and very high-risk prostate cancer, 50.4%, 64.2%, and 81.6% had a high-risk Decipher score, respectively (P < .001). Among 32 other genomic signatures, 29 had a similar trend of increasing risk scores across the 3 subclasses of high-risk disease (P < .05 after correction for multiple hypothesis testing). Patients in the 3 subclasses of high-risk disease had a median of 4, 6, and 13 high-risk signatures, respectively. In comparison, among those with unfavorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer, 38.2% had a high-risk Decipher score, and the median number of high-risk signatures was 3. CONCLUSIONS: Although NCCN guidelines currently use a 2-tiered system for high-risk prostate cancer, genomic markers of risk correlate with the clinically validated subclassification of high-risk prostate cancer into favorable high-risk, standard high-risk, and very high-risk disease, further confirming the prognostic utility of this 3-tiered stratification.

Bringing Prostate Cancer Germline Genetics into Clinical Practice.

PURPOSE: Until recently the role of germline genetics in prostate cancer care was not well defined. While important questions remain, we reviewed the current understanding of germline genetic alterations related to prostate cancer. We discuss the clinical implications for genetic counseling, genetic testing, early detection and treatment in men with these mutations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We searched PubMed® for English language articles published since 2001 with the key words "germline mutations," "BRCA," "family history" or "prostate cancer genetics." We also used relevant data from websites, including the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, National Comprehensive Cancer Network®, Bureau of Labor Statistics and National Society of Genetic Counselors websites. RESULTS: A number of germline mutations in DNA damage repair genes ( BRCA1, BRCA2, CHEK2, ATM and PALB2) and in DNA mismatch repair genes ( MLH1, MSH2, MSH6 and PMS2) can drive the development of prostate cancer. Careful genetic counseling coupled with multipanel gene testing can help identify men with these mutations and provide enhanced understanding of the disease risk. Cascade testing of family members can then have an impact extending well beyond the index patient. In men with a pathogenic germline mutation the optimal early detection paradigm is not well defined. Data from the IMPACT study ( ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00261456) that the cancer detection rate is substantially elevated in BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers at prostate specific antigen greater than 3 ng/ml has helped establish the importance of close prostate specific antigen screening in these men. Additionally, BRCA2 and likely other DNA damage repair mutations are associated with aggressive disease, although it is not yet clear how this impacts localized disease management. However, there is strong evidence that patients with metastatic, castration resistant prostate cancer who have DNA damage repair defects respond positively to targeting PARP enzymes. In many cancers there is also evidence that patients with an increased tumor mutational burden, such as in Lynch syndrome, are particularly sensitive to immune checkpoint inhibitors. CONCLUSIONS: Emerging evidence supports the implementation of germline genetic counseling and testing as a key component of prostate cancer management. Further research is needed to elucidate the clinical significance of lesser known germline mutations and develop optimal screening, early detection and treatment paradigms in this patient population.

Circulating Tumor Cells as a Predictor of Treatment Response in Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSE: Using nonenrichment-based, potentially more sensitive Epic Sciences circulating tumor cell (CTC) platform, we sought to detect and characterize CTCs in untreated, high-risk localized prostate cancer and to evaluate their clinical implication. METHODS: Between 2012 and 2015, blood samples were prospectively collected from patients with National Comprehensive Cancer Network high-risk localized prostate cancer undergoing either radiotherapy (XRT) plus androgen deprivation therapy or radical prostatectomy (RP) with curative intent. Samples were analyzed with the Epic Sciences platform with 4J,6-diamidino-2-phenylindole, CD45, cytokeratin (CK), and androgen receptor (AR) N-terminal staining. CTC counts were correlated with biochemical recurrence (BCR). RESULTS: A diversity of CTC subtypes, including CK-positive, CK-negative, AR-positive, and CTC clusters, were observed in 73.3% (33 of 45) of patients with evaluable data. The median follow-up was 14.2 months (range, 0.5 to 43.7 months). BCR occurred more frequently in the RP group than XRT (15 of 26 v one of 19), with most patients in the XRT group continuing to receive androgen deprivation therapy. A higher proportion of metastatic events were observed in the RP group (five of 26 v one of 19). In the RP group, BCR and development of metastases were associated with a higher total number of CTCs, AR-positive CTCs, and CTC phenotypic heterogeneity. One patient who developed BCR and metastases quickly after RP had diverse phenotypical CTC subtypes, and single-cell genomic analyses of all detectable CTCs confirmed common prostate cancer copy number alterations and PTEN loss. CONCLUSION: CTCs can be identified in most patients with high-risk localized prostate cancer before definitive therapy using the Epic Sciences platform. If confirmed in a larger cohort with longer follow-up, phenotypic and genomic characterization of CTCs pretherapy may provide an additional means of risk stratifying patients with newly diagnosed high-risk disease and potentially help identify patients who could require multimodal therapy.

Transcriptomic heterogeneity in multifocal prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: Commercial gene expression assays are guiding clinical decision making in patients with prostate cancer, particularly when considering active surveillance. Given heterogeneity and multifocality of primary prostate cancer, such assays should ideally be robust to the coexistence of unsampled higher grade disease elsewhere in the prostate in order to have clinical utility. Herein, we comprehensively evaluated transcriptomic profiles of primary multifocal prostate cancer to assess robustness to clinically relevant multifocality. METHODS: We designed a comprehensive, multiplexed targeted RNA-sequencing assay capable of assessing multiple transcriptional classes and deriving commercially available prognostic signatures, including the Myriad Prolaris Cell Cycle Progression score, the Oncotype DX Genomic Prostate Score, and the GenomeDX Decipher Genomic Classifier. We applied this assay to a retrospective, multi-institutional cohort of 156 prostate cancer samples. Derived commercial biomarker scores for 120 informative primary prostate cancer samples from 44 cases were determined and compared. RESULTS: Derived expression scores were positively correlated with tumor grade (rS = 0.53-0.73; all P < 0.001), both within the same case and across the entire cohort. In cases of extreme grade-discordant multifocality (co-occurrence of grade group 1 [GG1] and ≥GG4 foci], gene expression scores were significantly lower in low- (GG1) versus high-grade (≥GG4) foci (all P < 0.001). No significant differences in expression scores, however, were observed between GG1 foci from prostates with and without coexisting higher grade cancer (all P > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Multifocal, low-grade and high-grade prostate cancer foci exhibit distinct prognostic expression signatures. These findings demonstrate that prognostic RNA expression assays performed on low-grade prostate cancer biopsy tissue may not provide meaningful information on the presence of coexisting unsampled aggressive disease. FUNDING: Prostate Cancer Foundation, National Institutes of Health (U01 CA214170, R01 CA183857, University of Michigan Prostate Specialized Program of Research Excellence [S.P.O.R.E.] P50 CA186786-05, Weill Cornell Medicine S.P.O.R.E. P50 CA211024-01A1), Men of Michigan Prostate Cancer Research Fund, University of Michigan Comprehensive Cancer Center core grant (2-P30-CA-046592-24), A. Alfred Taubman Biomedical Research Institute, and Department of Defense.

Patient-Reported Sexual Aid Utilization and Efficacy After Radiation Therapy for Localized Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSE: To report sexual health-related quality of life outcomes and utilization and efficacy of sexual aids in a contemporary cohort of patients treated for localized prostate cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between 2008 and 2013, 471 consecutive men with localized prostate cancer were treated on 2 institutional protocols (NCT01766492, NCT01618851) or on a prospective institutional registry with patient-reported health-related quality of life. All patients were treated with ultra-hypofractionated radiation therapy. Erectile function (EF) was defined as "firm enough for intercourse" with or without aids per Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite-26 (n = 222 at baseline); results apply to this cohort unless specifically noted. Sexual aid utilization and efficacy were patient reported. Multivariable analysis of EF was performed. RESULTS: Median follow-up was 60 months, median age was 67 years, and 70% had intermediate- or high-risk disease per National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines. At 24 and 60 months, questionnaire response rates were 86% and 67%, and EF was retained in 53% and 41%, respectively. Baseline sexual aid utilization was 37% (n = 82) and was associated with lower 24-month EF preservation on multivariable analysis (adjusted odds ratio 0.49, 95% confidence interval 0.26-0.92). By 60 months, 70% of men had tried aids. Of those who found aids helpful at baseline, 84% to 89% reported continued benefit at 24 to 60 months. Among aid-naïve patients, efficacy was 80% with first-time use within 12 months and 70% more than 12 months after radiation therapy (P = .02). Among men who developed erectile dysfunction but found sexual aids helpful, 25% were not current users at 60 months. CONCLUSIONS: One-third of men used sexual aids at baseline, which doubled by 5 years after radiation therapy. Self-reported efficacy was high and sustained. Despite significant declines in EF, a number of men reported helpfulness of aids but were not active users. Future study is required to understand drivers of aid utilization to optimize posttreatment sexual function.

Development and Validation of a Novel Integrated Clinical-Genomic Risk Group Classification for Localized Prostate Cancer.

Purpose It is clinically challenging to integrate genomic-classifier results that report a numeric risk of recurrence into treatment recommendations for localized prostate cancer, which are founded in the framework of risk groups. We aimed to develop a novel clinical-genomic risk grouping system that can readily be incorporated into treatment guidelines for localized prostate cancer. Materials and Methods Two multicenter cohorts (n = 991) were used for training and validation of the clinical-genomic risk groups, and two additional cohorts (n = 5,937) were used for reclassification analyses. Competing risks analysis was used to estimate the risk of distant metastasis. Time-dependent c-indices were constructed to compare clinicopathologic risk models with the clinical-genomic risk groups. Results With a median follow-up of 8 years for patients in the training cohort, 10-year distant metastasis rates for National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) low, favorable-intermediate, unfavorable-intermediate, and high-risk were 7.3%, 9.2%, 38.0%, and 39.5%, respectively. In contrast, the three-tier clinical-genomic risk groups had 10-year distant metastasis rates of 3.5%, 29.4%, and 54.6%, for low-, intermediate-, and high-risk, respectively, which were consistent in the validation cohort (0%, 25.9%, and 55.2%, respectively). C-indices for the clinical-genomic risk grouping system (0.84; 95% CI, 0.61 to 0.93) were improved over NCCN (0.73; 95% CI, 0.60 to 0.86) and Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment (0.74; 95% CI, 0.65 to 0.84), and 30% of patients using NCCN low/intermediate/high would be reclassified by the new three-tier system and 67% of patients would be reclassified from NCCN six-tier (very-low- to very-high-risk) by the new six-tier system. Conclusion A commercially available genomic classifier in combination with standard clinicopathologic variables can generate a simple-to-use clinical-genomic risk grouping that more accurately identifies patients at low, intermediate, and high risk for metastasis and can be easily incorporated into current guidelines to better risk-stratify patients.