Corrigendum to "Androgen Deprivation and Radiotherapy with or Without Docetaxel for Localized High-risk Prostat Cancer: Long-term Follow-up from the Randomized NRG Oncology RTOG 0521 Trial" [Eur. Eurol. 84(2) (2023) 156-163].

BACKGROUND: Intensification of therapy may improve outcomes for patients with high-risk localized prostate cancer. OBJECTIVE: To provide long-term follow-up data from phase III RTOG 0521, which compared a combination of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) + external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) + docetaxel with ADT + EBRT. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: High-risk localized prostate cancer patients (>50% of patients had Gleason 9-10 disease) were prospectively randomized to 2 yr of ADT + EBRT or ADT + EBRT + six cycles of docetaxel. A total of 612 patients were accrued, and 563 were eligible and included in the modified intent-to-treat analysis. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). Analyses with Cox proportional hazards were performed as prespecified in the protocol; however, there was evidence of nonproportional hazards. Thus, a post hoc analysis was performed using the restricted mean survival time (RMST). The secondary endpoints included biochemical failure, distant metastasis (DM) as detected by conventional imaging, and disease-free survival (DFS). RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: After 10.4 yr of median follow-up among survivors, the hazard ratio (HR) for OS was 0.89 (90% confidence interval [CI] 0.70-1.14; one-sided log-rank p = 0.22). Survival at 10 yr was 64% for ADT + EBRT and 69% for ADT + EBRT + docetaxel. The RMST at 12 yr was 0.45 yr and not statistically significant (one-sided p = 0.053). No differences were detected in the incidence of DFS (HR = 0.92, 95% CI 0.73-1.14), DM (HR = 0.84, 95% CI 0.73-1.14), or prostate-specific antigen recurrence risk (HR = 0.97, 95% CI 0.74-1.29). Two patients had grade 5 toxicity in the chemotherapy arm and zero patients in the control arm. CONCLUSIONS: After a median follow-up of 10.4 yr among surviving patients, no significant differences are observed in clinical outcomes between the experimental and control arms. These data suggest that docetaxel should not be used for high-risk localized prostate cancer. Additional research may be warranted using novel predictive biomarkers. PATIENT SUMMARY: No significant differences in survival were noted after long-term follow-up for high-risk localized prostate cancer patients in a large prospective trial where patients were treated with androgen deprivation therapy + radiation to the prostate ± docetaxel.

Refining Risk Stratification of High-risk and Locoregional Prostate Cancer: A Pooled Analysis of Randomized Trials.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Radiotherapy (RT) and long-term androgen deprivation therapy (ltADT; 18-36 mo) is a standard of care in the treatment of high-risk localized/locoregional prostate cancer (HRLPC). We evaluated the outcomes in patients treated with RT + ltADT to identify which patients have poorer prognosis with standard therapy. METHODS: Individual patient data from patients with HRLPC (as defined by any of the following three risk factors [RFs] in the context of cN0 disease-Gleason score ≥8, cT3-4, and prostate-specific antigen [PSA] >20 ng/ml, or cN1 disease) treated with RT and ltADT in randomized controlled trials collated by the Intermediate Clinical Endpoints in Cancer of the Prostate group. The outcome measures of interest were metastasis-free survival (MFS), overall survival (OS), time to metastasis, and prostate cancer-specific mortality. Multivariable Cox and Fine-Gray regression estimated hazard ratios (HRs) for the three RFs and cN1 disease. KEY FINDINGS AND LIMITATIONS: A total of 3604 patients from ten trials were evaluated, with a median PSA value of 24 ng/ml. Gleason score ≥8 (MFS HR = 1.45; OS HR = 1.42), cN1 disease (MFS HR = 1.86; OS HR = 1.77), cT3-4 disease (MFS HR = 1.28; OS HR = 1.22), and PSA >20 ng/ml (MFS HR = 1.30; OS HR = 1.21) were associated with poorer outcomes. Adjusted 5-yr MFS rates were 83% and 78%, and 10-yr MFS rates were 63% and 53% for patients with one and two to three RFs, respectively; corresponding 10-yr adjusted OS rates were 67% and 60%, respectively. In cN1 patients, adjusted 5- and 10-yr MFS rates were 67% and 36%, respectively, and 10-yr OS was 47%. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: HRLPC patients with two to three RFs (and cN0) or cN1 disease had the poorest outcomes on RT and ltADT. This will help in counseling patients treated in routine practice and in guiding adjuvant trials in HRLPC. PATIENT SUMMARY: Radiotherapy and long-term hormone therapy are standard treatments for high-risk and locoregional prostate cancer. In this report, we defined prognostic groups within high-risk/locoregional prostate cancer and showed that outcomes to standard therapy are poorest in those with two or more "high-risk" factors or evidence of lymph node involvement. Such patients may therefore be the best candidates for intensification of treatment.

Applications of wearable activity monitors for prostate cancer survivors: A systematic scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Wearable technology is used to monitor and motivate physical activity (PA) and provides continuous, objective PA and sleep data outside the clinical setting. We reviewed the literature to understand how wearables are integrated into prostate cancer (PC) investigations in order to identify current practices, gaps, and research opportunities. METHODS: We conducted a literature search for articles using wearables, among PC survivors published between 2012 and 2022. We extracted study details, interventions and outcomes, participant baseline characteristics, and device characteristics and grouped them by study type: randomized control trials (RCTs) and non-randomized studies. RESULTS: Of 354 articles screened, 44 met eligibility criteria (23 RCTs, and 21 non-randomized). 89% used wearables to monitor PA metrics, 11%, sleep metrics, and 6.8%, both. Most studies involved exercise (70% RCTs, 9% non-randomized studies) or lifestyle interventions (30% RCTs, 9% non-randomized studies). Intervention delivery methods included personalized computer-based (48%), in-person (e.g., trainer) (20%), and education web or print-based (20%). Interventions occurred at the participant's home (48%) or at a gym (20%). 57% of the studies evaluated the feasibility and acceptability of the wearable as an activity-measuring device or as part of a remotely delivered computer-based intervention. Studies used wearables to monitor adherence to PA interventions, motivate behavior change, to assess patient outcomes (e.g., patient function, quality of life, mood), or as data collection tools. CONCLUSIONS: Wearables are primarily being used to assess daily activity and monitor adherence to exercise interventions in clinical studies involving PC survivors. Findings suggest that they are feasible for use in this population. More research is needed to understand how to integrate wearables into routine clinical care, expand their use to predict clinical outcomes, or to deliver tailored interventions for PC survivors.

Variation in content discussed by specialty in consultations for clinically localized prostate cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Multidisciplinary consultations improve decisional conflict and guideline-concordant treatment for men with prostate cancer (PC), but differences in the content discussed by specialty during consultations are unknown. METHODS: We audiorecorded and transcribed 50 treatment consultations for localized PC across a multidisciplinary sample of urologists, radiation oncologists, and medical oncologists. Conversation was coded for narrative content using an open coding approach, grouping similar topics into major content areas. The number of words devoted to each content area per consult was used as a proxy for time spent. Multivariable Poisson regression calculated incidence rate ratios (IRR) for content-specific word count across specialties after adjustment for tumor risk and patient demographics. RESULTS: Coders identified 8 narrative content areas: overview of PC; medical history; baseline risk; cancer prognosis; competing risks; treatment options; physician recommendations; and shared decision making (SDM). In multivariable models, specialties significantly differed in proportion of time spent on treatment options, SDM, competing risks, and cancer prognosis. Urologists spent 1.8-fold more time discussing cancer prognosis than medical oncologists (IRR1.80, 95%CI:1.14-2.83) and radiation oncologists (IRR1.84, 95%CI:1.10-3.07). Urologists (IRR11.38, 95%CI:6.62-19.56) and medical oncologists (IRR10.60, 95%CI:6.01-18.72) spent over 10-fold more time discussing competing risks than radiation oncologists. Medical oncologists (IRR2.60, 95%CI:1.65-4.10) and radiation oncologists (IRR1.77, 95%CI:1.06-2.95) spent 2.6- and 1.8-fold more time on SDM than urologists, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Specialists focus on different content in PC consultations. Our results suggest that urologists should spend more time on SDM and radiation oncologists on competing risks. Our results also highlight the importance of medical oncologists in facilitating SDM.

Long-Term Analysis of NRG Oncology RTOG 0415: A Randomized Phase III Noninferiority Study Comparing Two Fractionation Schedules in Patients With Low-Risk Prostate Cancer.

Clinical trials frequently include multiple end points that mature at different times. The initial report, typically based on the primary end point, may be published when key planned co-primary or secondary analyses are not yet available. Clinical Trial Updates provide an opportunity to disseminate additional results from studies, published in JCO or elsewhere, for which the primary end point has already been reported.NRG Oncology RTOG 0415 is a randomized phase III noninferiority (NI) clinical trial comparing conventional fractionation (73.8 Gy in 41 fractions) radiotherapy (C-RT) with hypofractionation (H-RT; 70 Gy in 28) in patients with low-risk prostate cancer. The study included 1,092 protocol-eligible patients initially reported in 2016 with a median follow-up of 5.8 years. Updated results with median follow-up of 12.8 years are now presented. The estimated 12-year disease-free survival (DFS) is 56.1% (95% CI, 51.5 to 60.5) for C-RT and 61.8% (95% CI, 57.2 to 66.0) for H-RT. The DFS hazard ratio (H-RT/C-RT) is 0.85 (95% CI, 0.71 to 1.03), confirming NI (P < .001). Twelve-year cumulative incidence of biochemical failure (BF) was 17.0% (95% CI, 13.8 to 20.5) for C-RT and 9.9% (95% CI, 7.5 to 12.6) for H-RT. The HR (H-RT/C-RT) comparing biochemical recurrence between the two arms was 0.55 (95% CI, 0.39 to 0.78). Late grade ≥3 GI adverse event (AE) incidence is 3.2% (C-RT) versus 4.4% (H-RT), with relative risk (RR) for H-RT versus C-RT 1.39 (95% CI, 0.75 to 2.55). Late grade ≥3 genitourinary (GU) AE incidence is 3.4% (C-RT) versus 4.2% (H-RT), RR 1.26 (95% CI, 0.69 to 2.30). Long-term DFS is noninferior with H-RT compared with C-RT. BF is less with H-RT. No significant differences in late grade ≥3 GI/GU AEs were observed between assignments (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00331773).

A practical guide for assessing and managing cardiovascular risk during androgen-deprivation therapy in patients with prostate cancer.

Prostate cancer is the most common malignancy among men worldwide, and androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) is a mainstay of treatment. There are observational data demonstrating an increased risk of cardiovascular events in patients who receive ADT, particularly those who have an elevated baseline cardiovascular risk. Because, for most patients with prostate cancer, death is predominantly from noncancer-related causes, cardiovascular disease and its risk factors should be optimized during cancer treatment. This review provides an overview of the landscape of ADT treatment and serves as a guide for appropriate cardiovascular screening and risk-mitigation strategies. The authors emphasize the importance of shared communication between the multidisciplinary cancer team and primary care to improve baseline cardiovascular screening and treatment of modifiable risk factors within this higher risk population.

Noninferiority of Hypofractionated vs Conventional Postprostatectomy Radiotherapy for Genitourinary and Gastrointestinal Symptoms: The NRG-GU003 Phase 3 Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: No prior trial has compared hypofractionated postprostatectomy radiotherapy (HYPORT) to conventionally fractionated postprostatectomy (COPORT) in patients primarily treated with prostatectomy. Objective: To determine if HYPORT is noninferior to COPORT for patient-reported genitourinary (GU) and gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms at 2 years. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this phase 3 randomized clinical trial, patients with a detectable prostate-specific antigen (PSA; ≥0.1 ng/mL) postprostatectomy with pT2/3pNX/0 disease or an undetectable PSA (<0.1 ng/mL) with either pT3 disease or pT2 disease with a positive surgical margin were recruited from 93 academic, community-based, and tertiary medical sites in the US and Canada. Between June 2017 and July 2018, a total of 296 patients were randomized. Data were analyzed in December 2020, with additional analyses occurring after as needed. Intervention: Patients were randomized to receive 62.5 Gy in 25 fractions (HYPORT) or 66.6 Gy in 37 fractions (COPORT). Main Outcomes and Measures: The coprimary end points were the 2-year change in score from baseline for the bowel and urinary domains of the Expanded Prostate Cancer Composite Index questionnaire. Secondary objectives were to compare between arms freedom from biochemical failure, time to progression, local failure, regional failure, salvage therapy, distant metastasis, prostate cancer-specific survival, overall survival, and adverse events. Results: Of the 296 patients randomized (median [range] age, 65 [44-81] years; 100% male), 144 received HYPORT and 152 received COPORT. At the end of RT, the mean GU change scores among those in the HYPORT and COPORT arms were neither clinically significant nor different in statistical significance and remained so at 6 and 12 months. The mean (SD) GI change scores for HYPORT and COPORT were both clinically significant and different in statistical significance at the end of RT (-15.52 [18.43] and -7.06 [12.78], respectively; P < .001). However, the clinically and statistically significant differences in HYPORT and COPORT mean GI change scores were resolved at 6 and 12 months. The 24-month differences in mean GU and GI change scores for HYPORT were noninferior to COPORT using noninferiority margins of -5 and -6, respectively, rejecting the null hypothesis of inferiority (mean [SD] GU score: HYPORT, -5.01 [15.10] and COPORT, -4.07 [14.67]; P = .005; mean [SD] GI score: HYPORT, -4.17 [10.97] and COPORT, -1.41 [8.32]; P = .02). With a median follow-up for censored patients of 2.1 years, there was no difference between HYPORT vs COPORT for biochemical failure, defined as a PSA of 0.4 ng/mL or higher and rising (2-year rate, 12% vs 8%; P = .28). Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial, HYPORT was associated with greater patient-reported GI toxic effects compared with COPORT at the completion of RT, but both groups recovered to baseline levels within 6 months. At 2 years, HYPORT was noninferior to COPORT in terms of patient-reported GU or GI toxic effects. HYPORT is a new acceptable practice standard for patients receiving postprostatectomy radiotherapy. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03274687.

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.

Use of Persuasive Language in Communication of Risk during Prostate Cancer Treatment Consultations.

BACKGROUND: Physician treatment preference may influence how risks are communicated in prostate cancer consultations. We identified persuasive language used when describing cancer prognosis, life expectancy, and side effects in relation to a physician's recommendation for aggressive (surgery/radiation) or nonaggressive (active surveillance/watchful waiting) treatment. METHODS: A qualitative analysis was performed on transcribed treatment consultations of 40 men with low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer across 10 multidisciplinary providers. Quotes pertaining to cancer prognosis, life expectancy, and side effects were randomized. Coders predicted physician treatment recommendations from isolated blinded quotes. Testing characteristics of consensus predictions against the physician's treatment recommendation were reported. Coders then identified persuasive strategies favoring aggressive/nonaggressive treatment for each quote. Frequencies of persuasive strategies favoring aggressive/nonaggressive treatment were reported. Logistic regression quantified associations between persuasive strategies and physician treatment recommendations. RESULTS: A total of 496 quotes about cancer prognosis (n = 127), life expectancy (n = 51), and side effects (n = 318) were identified. The accuracy of predicting treatment recommendation based on individual quotes containing persuasive language (n = 256/496, 52%) was 91%. When favoring aggressive treatment, persuasive language downplayed side effect risks and amplified cancer risk (recurrence, progression, or mortality). Significant predictors (P < 0.05) of aggressive treatment recommendation included favorable side effect interpretation, downplaying side effects, and long time horizon for cancer risk due to longevity. When favoring nonaggressive treatment, persuasive language amplified side effect risks and downplayed cancer risk. Significant predictors of nonaggressive treatment recommendation included unfavorable side effect interpretation, favorable interpretation of cancer risk, and short time horizon for cancer risk due to longevity. CONCLUSIONS: Physicians use persuasive language favoring their preferred treatment, regardless of whether their recommendation is appropriate. IMPLICATIONS: Clinicians should quantify risk so patients can judge potential harm without solely relying on persuasive language. HIGHLIGHTS: Physicians use persuasive language favoring their treatment recommendation when communicating risks of prostate cancer treatment, which may influence a patient's treatment choice.Coders predicted physician treatment recommendations based on isolated, randomized quotes about cancer prognosis, life expectancy, and side effects with 91% accuracy.Qualitative analysis revealed that when favoring nonaggressive treatment, physicians used persuasive language that amplified side effect risks and downplayed cancer risk. When favoring aggressive treatment, physicians did the opposite.Providers should be cognizant of using persuasive strategies and aim to provide quantified assessments of risk that are jointly interpreted with the patient so that patients can make evidence-based conclusions regarding risks without solely relying on persuasive language.

Variation in communication of side effects in prostate cancer treatment consultations.

BACKGROUND: Effective communication of treatment side effects (SE) is critical for shared decision-making (SDM) in localized prostate cancer. We sought to qualitatively characterize how physicians communicate SE in consultations. METHODS: We transcribed 50 initial prostate cancer treatment consultations across nine multidisciplinary providers (Urologists, Radiation Oncologists, Medical Oncologists) at our tertiary referral, academic center. Coders identified quotes describing SE and used an inductive approach to establish a hierarchy for granularity of communication: (1) not mentioned, (2) name only, (3) generalization("high"), (4) average incidence without timepoint, (5) average incidence with timepoint, and (6) precision estimate. We reported the most granular mode of communication for each SE throughout the consultation overall and across specialty and tumor risk. RESULTS: Among consultations discussing surgery (n = 40), erectile dysfunction (ED) and urinary incontinence (UI) were omitted in 15% and 12%, not quantified (name only or generalization) in 47% and 30%, and noted as average incidence without timeline in 8% and 8%, respectively. In only 30% and 49% were ED and UI quantified with timeline (average incidence with timeline or precision estimate), respectively. Among consultations discussing radiation (n = 36), irritative urinary symptoms, ED, and other post-radiotherapy SE were omitted in 22%, 42%, and 64-67%, not quantified in 61%, 33%, and 23-28%, and noted as average incidence without timeline in 8%, 22%, and 6-8%, respectively. In only 3-8% were post-radiotherapy SE quantified with timeline. Specialty concordance (but not tumor risk) was associated with higher granularity of communication, though physicians frequently failed to quantify specialty-concordant SE. CONCLUSIONS: SE was often omitted, not quantified, and/or lacked a timeline in treatment consultations in our sample. Physicians should articulate, quantify, and assign a timeline for SE to optimize SDM.

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.

Long-term Outcomes of Chemoradiation for Muscle-invasive Bladder Cancer in Noncystectomy Candidates. Final Results of NRG Oncology RTOG 0524-A Phase 1/2 Trial of Paclitaxel + Trastuzumab with Daily Radiation or Paclitaxel Alone with Daily Irradiation.

BACKGROUND: Chemo-radiation is a well-established alternative to radical cystectomy in patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer. Many patients due to age or medical comorbidity are unfit for either radical cystectomy, or standard cisplatin- or 5-fluorouracil-based chemoradiation, and do not receive appropriate treatment with curative intent. We treated patients with a less aggressive protocol employing seven weekly doses of paclitaxel and daily irradiation. In those whose tumors showed overexpression of her2/neu, seven weekly doses of trastuzumab were also administered. OBJECTIVE: To report the long-term survival outcomes and toxicity results of the of NRG Oncology RTOG 0524 study. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Seventy patients were enrolled and 65 (median age: 76 yr) were deemed eligible. Patients were assigned to daily radiation and weekly paclitaxel + trastuzumab (group 1, 20 patients) or to daily radiation plus weekly paclitaxel (group 2, 45 patients) based on tumor her2/neu overexpression. Radiation was delivered in 1.8 Gy fractions to a total dose of 64.8 Gy. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The primary endpoint was unresolved treatment-related toxicity. The secondary endpoints were complete response rate, protocol completion rate, and disease-free and overall survival. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Protocol therapy was completed by 60% (group 1) and 76% (group 2); complete response rates at 12 wk were 62% in each group. Acute treatment-related adverse events (AEs) of grade ≥3 were observed in 80% in group 1 and 58% in group 2. There was one treatment-related grade 5 AE in group 1. Unresolved acute treatment-related toxicity was 35% in group 1 and 31% in group 2. The median follow-up was 2.3 yr in all patients and 7.2 yr in surviving patients. Overall survival at 5 yr was 25.0% in group 1 and 37.8% in group 2 (33.8% overall). At 5 yr, disease-free survival was 15.0% in group 1 and 31.1% in group 2. CONCLUSIONS: In a cohort of patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer who are not candidates for cystectomy or cisplatin chemotherapy, chemoradiation therapy offers a treatment with a significant response rate and 34% 5-yr overall survival. While there were many AEs in this medically fragile group, there were few grade 4 events and one grade 5 event attributable to therapy. PATIENT SUMMARY: Patients with invasive bladder cancer who cannot tolerate surgery were treated with radiation and systemic therapy without surgically removing their bladders. Most patients tolerated the treatment, were able to keep their bladders, and showed a significant treatment response rate.

Disparities With Systemic Therapies for Black Men Having Advanced Prostate Cancer: Where Do We Stand?

PURPOSE: Prostate cancer represents the most common cancer diagnosis in Black men and is the second leading cause of cancer death in this population. Multilevel disparities have been well-documented in Black men with prostate cancer and play a role in poorer survival outcomes when compared with White men with prostate cancer. In this review, we highlight the changing trend in disparities for systemic therapy outcomes in Black men diagnosed with metastatic prostate cancer. METHODS: We reviewed data from real-world registries and prospective clinical trials with a particular focus on equal access settings to compare outcomes to systemic therapies between Black and White men with metastatic prostate cancer. RESULTS: In metastatic prostate cancer, there is growing evidence to suggest that Black men may have similar, if not better, outcomes to systemic therapies than White men with advanced disease, as corroborated by prospective studies and clinical trials where health care delivery and follow-up are more likely to be standardized. CONCLUSION: This review illustrates the importance of nonbiological drivers of racial disparities in Black men with advanced prostate cancer. Mitigating barriers to health care access and delivery as well as including participation in clinical trials will be pivotal to ongoing efforts to address disparities in systemic therapy outcomes for Black men with metastatic prostate cancer.

Feasibility and acceptability of ChatGPT generated radiology report summaries for cancer patients.

Objective: Patients now have direct access to their radiology reports, which can include complex terminology and be difficult to understand. We assessed ChatGPT's ability to generate summarized MRI reports for patients with prostate cancer and evaluated physician satisfaction with the artificial intelligence (AI)-summarized report. Methods: We used ChatGPT to summarize five full MRI reports for patients with prostate cancer performed at a single institution from 2021 to 2022. Three summarized reports were generated for each full MRI report. Full MRI and summarized reports were assessed for readability using Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FK) score. Radiation oncologists were asked to evaluate the AI-summarized reports via an anonymous questionnaire. Qualitative responses were given on a 1-5 Likert-type scale. Fifty newly diagnosed prostate cancer patient MRIs performed at a single institution were additionally assessed for physician online portal response rates. Results: Fifteen summarized reports were generated from five full MRI reports using ChatGPT. The median FK score for the full MRI reports and summarized reports was 9.6 vs. 5.0, (p < 0.05), respectively. Twelve radiation oncologists responded to our questionnaire. The mean [SD] ratings for summarized reports were factual correctness (4.0 [0.6], understanding 4.0 [0.7]), completeness (4.1 [0.5]), potential for harm (3.5 [0.9]), overall quality (3.4 [0.9]), and likelihood to send to patient (3.1 [1.1]). Current physician online portal response rates were 14/50 (28%) at our institution. Conclusions: We demonstrate a novel application of ChatGPT to summarize MRI reports at a reading level appropriate for patients. Physicians were likely to be satisfied with the summarized reports with respect to factual correctness, ease of understanding, and completeness. Physicians were less likely to be satisfied with respect to potential for harm, overall quality, and likelihood to send to patients. Further research is needed to optimize ChatGPT's ability to summarize radiology reports and understand what factors influence physician trust in AI-summarized reports.

Mortality Risk for Docetaxel-Treated, High-Grade Prostate Cancer With Low PSA Levels: A Meta-Analysis.

Importance: Patients with high-grade prostate cancer with low levels of prostate-specific antigen (PSA; <4 ng/mL) are at high risk of mortality, necessitating an improved treatment paradigm. Objective: To assess for these patients whether adding docetaxel to standard of care (SOC) treatment is associated with decreased prostate cancer-specific mortality (PCSM) and all-cause mortality (ACM). Data Sources: PubMed search from 2000 to 2022. Study Selection: Five prospective randomized clinical trials (RCTs) performed in the US, France, and the United Kingdom evaluating SOC treatment with radiotherapy and androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) or with radical prostatectomy vs SOC plus docetaxel. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Individual data were included from patients with nonmetastatic prostate cancer, a PSA level of less than 4 ng/mL, and a Gleason score of 8 to 10. Patients initiated treatment between February 21, 2006, and December 31, 2015 (median follow-up, 7.1 [IQR, 5.4-9.9] years). Data were analyzed on December 16, 2022. Main Outcomes and Measures: Hazard ratio (HR) of ACM and subdistribution HR (sHR) of PCSM adjusted for performance status (1 vs 0 or good health), Gleason score (9 or 10 vs 8), tumor category (T3-T4 vs T1-T2 or TX), and duration of ADT (2 years vs 4-6 months). Results: From a cohort of 2184 patients, 145 patients (6.6%) in 4 RCTs were eligible (median age, 63 [IQR, 46-67] years). Thirty-one patients died, and of these deaths, 22 were due to prostate cancer. Performance status was 0 for 139 patients (95.9%) and 1 for 6 patients (4.1%). A reduced but nonsignificant risk of ACM (HR, 0.51 [95% CI, 0.24-1.09]) and PCSM (sHR, 0.42 [95% CI, 0.17-1.02]) was associated with patients randomized to SOC plus docetaxel compared with SOC. The risk reduction in ACM (HR, 0.46 [95% CI, 0.21-1.02]) was more pronounced among patients with a performance status of 0 and was significant for PCSM (sHR, 0.30 [95% CI, 0.11-0.86]). Conclusions and Relevance: Adding docetaxel to SOC treatment for patients who are in otherwise good health with a PSA level of less than 4 ng/mL and a Gleason score of 8 to 10 was associated with a significant reduction in PCSM and therefore has the potential to improve prognosis.

Early Endpoints in High-risk Localized Prostate Cancer: Exploratory Analysis of Three Radiation Therapy Oncology Group Phase 3 Studies.

BACKGROUND: Early endpoints in clinical trials of high-risk localized prostate cancer (HRLPC) that resemble those monitored in real-world practice could expedite clinical development. OBJECTIVE: To assess the association of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) recurrence (PSA-R)-based early endpoints with metastasis-free survival (MFS), overall survival (OS), and prostate cancer (PC)-specific survival (PCSS), and to identify clinically undetectable disease. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A post hoc analysis of patients with HRLPC from Radiation Therapy Oncology Group studies 9202, 9902, and 0521 was performed. INTERVENTION: Long-term adjuvant androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) and post-primary definitive radiotherapy. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Event-free survival (EFS; PSA-R, locoregional recurrence [LRR], distant metastasis [DM], or death), biochemical failure (PSA-R), general clinical failure (PSA-R, LRR, DM, ADT initiation, or death), and no evidence of disease (NED; alive patients without PSA-R, LRR, DM, and subsequent PC therapy, and with testosterone recovery) were assessed for association with MFS, OS, and PCSS using correlation and landmark analyses, Kaplan-Meier method, and Cox proportional-hazard model. PSA-R was defined as PSA nadir + 2 ng/ml; PSA nadir + 2 ng/ml and rising; PSA >5, 10, and 25 ng/ml; or PSA doubling time (PSADT) <6 mo. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Among assessed early endpoints, EFS with PSA nadir + 2 ng/ml and rising, or with PSA >5 ng/ml was associated with MFS, OS, and PCSS. No development of EFS with PSADT <6 mo or ADT initiation event or achievement of NED at 3 yr was associated with prolonged OS, MFS, and PCSS (hazard ratio [95% confidence interval], 0.53 [0.45-0.64], 0.63 [0.52-0.76], and 0.26 [0.18-0.36], or 0.56 [0.48-0.66], 0.62 [0.52-0.74], and 0.26 [0.19-0.37]) after the landmark time. Older studies performed before the current guidance should be interpreted with caution. CONCLUSIONS: We identified EFS with PSA nadir + 2 ng/ml and rising, PSA >5 ng/ml, or PSADT <6 mo ± ADT initiation and NED as potentially promising early endpoints in HRLPC that should be validated further. PATIENT SUMMARY: We identified novel clinical measures that may expedite the development of new medicines for patients with localized prostate cancer at a high risk of progression. These measures, which took into account prostate-specific antigen assessments and other clinical characteristics, should be confirmed in future studies. We also defined a novel measure of no evidence of disease that can help treating physicians identify patients with clinically undetectable disease.

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.

Androgen Deprivation and Radiotherapy with or Without Docetaxel for Localized High-risk Prostate Cancer: Long-term Follow-up from the Randomized NRG Oncology RTOG 0521 Trial.

BACKGROUND: Intensification of therapy may improve outcomes for patients with high-risk localized prostate cancer. OBJECTIVE: To provide long-term follow-up data from phase III RTOG 0521, which compared a combination of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) + external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) + docetaxel with ADT + EBRT. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: High-risk localized prostate cancer patients (>50% of patients had Gleason 9-10 disease) were prospectively randomized to 2 yr of ADT + EBRT or ADT + EBRT + six cycles of docetaxel. A total of 612 patients were accrued, and 563 were eligible and included in the modified intent-to-treat analysis. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). Analyses with Cox proportional hazards were performed as prespecified in the protocol; however, there was evidence of nonproportional hazards. Thus, a post hoc analysis was performed using the restricted mean survival time (RMST). The secondary endpoints included biochemical failure, distant metastasis (DM) as detected by conventional imaging, and disease-free survival (DFS). RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: After 10.4 yr of median follow-up among survivors, the hazard ratio (HR) for OS was 0.89 (90% confidence interval [CI] 0.70-1.14; one-sided log-rank p = 0.22). Survival at 10 yr was 64% for ADT + EBRT and 69% for ADT + EBRT + docetaxel. The RMST at 12 yr was 0.45 yr and not statistically significant (one-sided p = 0.053). No differences were detected in the incidence of DFS (HR = 0.92, 95% CI 0.73-1.14), DM (HR = 0.84, 95% CI 0.73-1.14), or prostate-specific antigen recurrence risk (HR = 0.97, 95% CI 0.74-1.29). Two patients had grade 5 toxicity in the chemotherapy arm and zero patients in the control arm. CONCLUSIONS: After a median follow-up of 10.4 yr among surviving patients, no significant differences are observed in clinical outcomes between the experimental and control arms. These data suggest that docetaxel should not be used for high-risk localized prostate cancer. Additional research may be warranted using novel predictive biomarkers. PATIENT SUMMARY: No significant differences in survival were noted after long-term follow-up for high-risk localized prostate cancer patients in a large prospective trial where patients were treated with androgen deprivation therapy + radiation to the prostate ± docetaxel.