Impact of sequencing of androgen receptor-signaling inhibition and radiotherapy in prostate cancer: importance of homologous recombination disruption.

PURPOSE: The synergy of combining androgen receptor-signaling inhibition (ARSI) to radiotherapy (RT) in prostate cancer has been largely attributed to non-homologous end joining (NHEJ) inhibition. However, this mechanism is unlikely to explain recently observed trial results that demonstrated the sequencing of ARSI and RT significantly impacts clinical outcomes, with adjuvant ARSI following RT yielding superior outcomes to neoadjuvant/concurrent therapy. We hypothesized this is driven by differential effects on AR-signaling and alternative DNA repair pathway engagement based on ARSI/RT sequencing. METHODS: We explored the effects of ARSI sequencing with RT (neoadjuvant vs concurrent vs adjuvant) in multiple prostate cancer cell lines using androgen-deprived media and validation with the anti-androgen enzalutamide. The effects of ARSI sequencing were measured with clonogenic assays, AR-target gene transcription and translation quantification, cell cycle analysis, DNA damage and repair assays, and xenograft animal validation studies. RESULTS: Adjuvant ARSI after RT was significantly more effective at killing colony forming cells and decreasing the transcription and translation of downstream AR-target genes across all prostate cancer models evaluated. These results were reproduced in xenograft studies. The differential effects of ARSI sequencing were not fully explained by NHEJ inhibition alone, but by the additional disruption of homologous recombination specifically with adjuvant sequencing of ARSI. CONCLUSION: We demonstrate that altered sequencing of ARSI and RT mediates differential anti-AR-signaling and anti-cancer effects, with the greatest benefit from adjuvant ARSI following RT. These results, combined with our prior clinical findings, support the superiority of an adjuvant-based sequencing approach when using ARSI with RT.

Development and validation of a life expectancy calculator for US patients with prostate cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To develop and validate an accurate, usable prediction model for other-cause mortality (OCM) in patients with prostate cancer diagnosed in the United States. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Model training was performed using the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 1999-2010 including men aged >40 years with follow-up to the year 2014. The model was validated in the Prostate, Lung, Colon, and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial prostate cancer cohort, which enrolled patients between 1993 and 2001 with follow-up to the year 2015. Time-dependent area under the curve (AUC) and calibration were assessed in the validation cohort. Analyses were performed to assess algorithmic bias. RESULTS: The 2420 patient training cohort had 459 deaths over a median follow-up of 8.8 years among survivors. The final model included eight predictors: age; education; marital status; diabetes; hypertension; stroke; body mass index; and smoking. It had an AUC of 0.75 at 10 years for predicting OCM in the validation cohort of 8220 patients. The final model significantly outperformed the Social Security Administration life tables and showed adequate predictive performance across race, educational attainment, and marital status subgroups. There is evidence of major variability in life expectancy that is not captured by age, with life expectancy predictions differing by 10 or more years among patients of the same age. CONCLUSION: Using two national cohorts, we have developed and validated a simple and useful prediction model for OCM for patients with prostate cancer treated in the United States, which will allow for more personalized treatment in accordance with guidelines.

Intermediate clinical endpoints for surrogacy in localised prostate cancer: an aggregate meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The international Intermediate Clinical Endpoints in Cancer of the Prostate working group has established metastasis-free survival as a surrogate for overall survival in localised prostate cancer based on the findings of 19 predominantly radiotherapy-based trials. We sought to comprehensively assess aggregate trial-level performance of commonly reported intermediate clinical endpoints across all randomised trials in localised prostate cancer. METHODS: For this meta-analysis, we searched PubMed for all trials in localised or biochemically recurrent prostate cancer published between Jan 1, 1970, and Jan 15, 2020. Eligible trials had to be randomised, therapeutic, reporting overall survival and at least one intermediate clinical endpoint, and with a sample size of at least 70 participants. Trials of metastatic disease were excluded. Intermediate clinical endpoints included biochemical failure, local failure, distant metastases, biochemical failure-free survival, progression-free survival, and metastasis-free survival. Candidacy for surrogacy was assessed using the second condition of the meta-analytical approach (ie, correlation of the treatment effect of the intermediate clinical endpoint and overall survival), using R2 weighted by the inverse variance of the log intermediate clinical endpoint hazard ratio. The intermediate clinical endpoint was deemed to be a surrogate for overall survival if R2 was 0·7 or greater. FINDINGS: 75 trials (53 631 patients) were included in our analysis. Median follow-up was 9·1 years (IQR 5·7-10·6). Biochemical failure (R2 0·38 [95% CI 0·11-0·64]), biochemical failure-free survival (R2 0·12 [0·0030-0·33]), biochemical failure and clinical failure (R2 0·28 [0·0045-0·65]), and local failure (R2 0·085 [0·00-0·37]) correlated poorly with overall survival. Progression-free survival (R2 0·46 [95% CI 0·22-0·67]) showed moderate correlation with overall survival, and metastasis-free survival (R2 0·78 [0·59-0·89]) correlated strongly. INTERPRETATION: Intermediate clinical endpoints based on biochemical and local failure did not meet the second condition of the meta-analytical approach and are not surrogate endpoints for overall survival in localised prostate cancer. Our findings validate metastasis-free survival as the only identified surrogate endpoint for overall survival to date. FUNDING: Prostate Cancer Foundation and National Institutes of Health.

Conservative management of low-risk prostate cancer among young versus older men in the United States: Trends and outcomes from a novel national database.

BACKGROUND: Management for men aged ≤55 years with low-risk prostate cancer (LRPC) is debated given quality-of-life implications with definitive treatment versus the potential missed opportunity for cure with conservative management. The objective of this study was to define rates of conservative management for LRPC and associated short-term outcomes in young versus older men in the United States. METHODS: The nonpublic Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Prostate with Active Surveillance/Watchful Waiting (AS/WW) Database identified 50,302 men who were diagnosed with LRPC from 2010 through 2015. AS/WW rates in the United States were stratified by age (≤55 vs ≥56 years). Prostate cancer-specific mortality and overall mortality were defined by initial management type (AS/WW vs definitive treatment [referent]) and age. RESULTS: AS/WW utilization increased from 8.61% (2010) to 34.56% (2015) among men aged ≤55 years (P for trend <0.001) and from 15.99% to 43.81% among men aged ≥56 years (P for trend <.001). Among patients who had ≤2 positive biopsy cores, AS/WW rates increased from 12.90% to 48.78% for men aged ≤55 years and from 21.85% to 58.01% for men aged ≥56 years. Among patients who had ≥3 positive biopsy cores, AS/WW rates increased from 3.89% to 22.45% for men aged ≤55 years and from 10.05% to 28.49% for men aged ≥56 years (all P for trend <.001). Five-year prostate cancer-specific mortality rates were <0.30% across age and initial management type subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: AS/WW rates quadrupled for patients aged ≤55 years from 2010 to 2015, with favorable short-term outcomes. These findings demonstrate the short-term safety and increasing acceptance of AS/WW for both younger and older patients. However, there are still higher absolute rates of AS/WW in older patients (P < .001), suggesting some national ambivalence toward AS/WW in younger patients.

International Multicenter Validation of an Intermediate Risk Subclassification of Prostate Cancer Managed with Radical Treatment without Hormone Therapy.

PURPOSE: The NCCN Guidelines® recently endorsed a subclassification of intermediate risk prostate cancer into favorable and unfavorable subgroups. However, this subclassification was developed in a treatment heterogeneous cohort. Thus, to our knowledge the natural history of androgen deprivation treatment naïve favorable and unfavorable intermediate risk prostate cancer cases remains unknown. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Groups at 3 academic centers pooled data on patients with intermediate risk prostate cancer treated with radical monotherapy (dose escalated external beam radiotherapy, brachytherapy or radical prostatectomy) without combined androgen deprivation treatment. We used the cumulative incidence with competing risk analysis to estimate biochemical recurrence, distant metastasis and prostate cancer specific mortality. RESULTS: A total of 2,550 men at intermediate risk were included in study, of whom 1,063 and 1,487 were at favorable and unfavorable risk, respectively. Of the men 1,149 underwent radical prostatectomy, 1,143 underwent dose escalated external beam radiotherapy and 258 underwent brachytherapy. Median followup after the different treatments ranged from 60.4 to 107.4 months. The 10-year cumulative incidence of distant metastasis in the favorable vs unfavorable risk groups was 0.2% (95% CI 0.2-0.2) vs 11.6% (95% CI 7.7-15.5) for radical prostatectomy (p <0.001), 2.8% (95% CI 0.8-4.8) vs 13.5% (95% CI 9.6-17.4) for dose escalated external beam radiotherapy (p <0.001) and 3.5% (95% CI 0-7.4) vs 10.2% (95% CI 4.3-16.1) for brachytherapy (p = 0.063). The 10-year rate of prostate cancer specific mortality in the favorable vs unfavorable risk groups was 0% (95% CI 0-0) vs 3.7% (95% CI 1.7-5.7) for radical prostatectomy (p = 0.016), 0.5% (95% CI 0.5-0.5) vs 5.6% (95% CI 3.6-7.6) for dose escalated external beam radiotherapy (p = 0.015) and 0% (95% CI 0-0) vs 2.5% (95% CI 0.5-4.5) for brachytherapy (p = 0.028). CONCLUSIONS: This multicenter international effort independently validates the prognostic value of the intermediate risk prostate cancer subclassification in androgen deprivation treatment naïve cases across all radical treatment modalities. It is unlikely that treatment intensification would meaningfully improve oncologic outcomes in men at favorable intermediate risk.

Erectile function after stereotactic body radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To elucidate the functional erection rate after prostate stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) and to develop a comprehensive prognostic model of outcomes after treatment. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between 2008 and 2013, 373 consecutive men with localized prostate cancer were treated with SBRT at a single academic institution as part of a prospective clinical trial or prospective registry. Prospective longitudinal patient-reported health-related quality of life (HRQoL) data was collected using the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC)-26 instrument. Functional erections were strictly defined as 'firm enough for intercourse' according to EPIC-26. Detailed comorbidity data were also collected. Logistic regression models were used to predict 24- and 60-month functional erection rates. Observed erection rates after SBRT were compared with those after other radiation therapies (external beam radiation therapy [EBRT] and brachytherapy) using prospectively validated models. RESULTS: The median (interquartile range) follow-up was 56 (37-73) months and the response rate at 2 years was 84%. For those with functional erections at baseline, 57% and 45% retained function at 24 and 60 months, respectively. On multivariable analysis for 24-month erectile function, significant variables included higher baseline sexual HRQoL (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.55 per 10 points, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.37-1.74; P < 0.001) and older age (aOR 0.66 per 10 years, 95% CI 0.43-1.00; P = 0.05). At 60 months, baseline HRQoL and age remained associated with erectile function, along with body mass index (aOR 0.45, 95% CI 0.26-0.78; P < 0.001). The 24- and 60-month models had excellent discrimination (c-index 0.81 and 0.84, respectively). Erection rates after SBRT were not statistically different from model-predicted rates after EBRT or brachytherapy for the whole cohort and the cohort with baseline erectile function. CONCLUSIONS: Intermediate- to long-term post-SBRT erectile function results are promising and not significantly different from other radiotherapy techniques. Clinicians can use our prognostic model to counsel patients regarding expected erectile function after SBRT.

Predictors of multidomain decline in health-related quality of life after stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for localized prostate cancer involves high-dose-per-fraction radiation treatments. Its use is increasing, but concerns remain about treatment-related toxicity. The authors assessed the incidence and predictors of a global decline in health-related quality of life (HRQOL) after prostate SBRT. METHODS: From 2008 to 2014, 713 consecutive men with localized prostate cancer received treatment with SBRT according to a prospective institutional protocol. Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC-26) HRQOL data were collected at baseline and longitudinally for 5 years. EPIC-26 is comprised of 5 domains. The primary endpoint was defined as a decline exceeding the clinically detectable threshold in ≥4 EPIC-26 domains, termed multidomain decline. RESULTS: The median age was 69 years, 46% of patients had unfavorable intermediate-risk or high-risk disease, and 20% received androgen-deprivation therapy. During 1 to 3 months and 6 to 60 months after SBRT, 8% to 15% and 10% to 11% of patients had multidomain declines, respectively. On multivariable analysis, lower baseline bowel HRQOL (odds ratio, 1.8; 95% confidence interval, 1.2-2.7; P < .01) and baseline depression (odds ratio, 5.7; 95% confidence interval, 1.3-24.3; P = .02) independently predicted for multidomain decline. Only 3% to 4% of patients had long-term multidomain declines exceeding twice the clinical threshold, and 30% of such declines appeared to be related to prostate cancer treatment or progression of disease. CONCLUSIONS: Prostate SBRT has minimal long-term impact on multidomain decline, and the majority of more significant multidomain declines appear to be unrelated to treatment. This emphasizes the importance of focusing not only on the side effects of prostate cancer treatment but also on other comorbid illnesses that contribute to overall HRQOL. Cancer 2017;123:1635-1642. © 2017 American Cancer Society.

Very Early Salvage Radiotherapy Improves Distant Metastasis-Free Survival.

PURPOSE: Early salvage radiotherapy following radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer is commonly advocated in place of adjuvant radiotherapy. We aimed to determine the optimal definition of early salvage radiotherapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a multi-institutional retrospective study of 657 men who underwent salvage radiotherapy between 1986 and 2013. Two comparisons were made to determine the optimal definition of early salvage radiotherapy, including 1) the time from radical prostatectomy to salvage radiotherapy (less than 9, 9 to 21, 22 to 47 or greater than 48 months) and 2) the level of detectable pre-salvage radiotherapy prostate specific antigen (0.01 to 0.2, greater than 0.2 to 0.5 or greater than 0.5 ng/ml). Outcomes included freedom from salvage androgen deprivation therapy, and biochemical relapse-free, distant metastases-free and prostate cancer specific survival. RESULTS: Median followup was 9.8 years. Time from radical prostatectomy to salvage radiotherapy did not correlate with 10-year biochemical relapse-free survival rates (R2 = 0.18). Increasing pre-salvage radiotherapy prostate specific antigen strongly correlated with biochemical relapse-free survival (R2 = 0.91). Increasing detectable pre-salvage radiotherapy prostate specific antigen (0.01 to 0.2, greater than 0.2 to 0.5 and greater than 0.5 ng/ml) predicted worse 10-year biochemical relapse-free survival (62%, 44% and 27%), freedom from salvage androgen deprivation therapy (77%, 66% and 49%), distant metastases-free survival (86%, 79% and 66%, each p <0.001) and prostate cancer specific survival (93%, 89% and 80%, respectively, p = 0.001). On multivariable analysis early salvage radiotherapy (prostate specific antigen greater than 0.2 to 0.5 ng/ml) was associated with a twofold increase in biochemical failure, use of salvage androgen deprivation therapy and distant metastases compared to very early salvage radiotherapy (prostate specific antigen 0.01 to 0.2 ng/ml). CONCLUSIONS: The duration from radical prostatectomy to salvage radiotherapy is not independently prognostic for outcomes after salvage radiotherapy and it should not be used to define early salvage radiotherapy. Grouping all patients with pre-salvage radiotherapy prostate specific antigen 0.5 ng/ml or less may be inadequate to define early salvage radiotherapy and it has a relevant impact on ongoing and future clinical trials.

Anatomical patterns of recurrence following biochemical relapse after post-prostatectomy salvage radiation therapy: a multi-institutional study.

OBJECTIVES: To characterise the frequency and detailed anatomical sites of failure for patients receiving post-radical prostatectomy (RP) salvage radiation therapy (SRT). PATIENTS AND METHODS: A multi-institutional retrospective study was performed on 574 men who underwent SRT between 1986 and 2013. Anatomical recurrence patterns were classified as lymphotrophic (lymph nodes only), osteotrophic (bone only), or multifocal if both were present. Isolated first failure sites were defined as sites of initial clinically detected recurrence that remained isolated for at least 3 months. RESULTS: The median follow-up after SRT was 6.8 years. The 8-year rates of local, regional, and distant failure for patients undergoing SRT were 2%, 6%, and 21%, respectively. Of the 22% men (128 of 574) who developed a clinically detectable recurrence, 17%, 50%, and 31% were lymphotrophic, osteotrophic, and multifocal, respectively. The trophic nature of metastases was prognostic for distant metastases-free survival (DMFS) and prostate cancer-specific survival (PCSS); the 10-year rates of DMFS were 18%, 5%, and 7% (P < 0.01), and PCSS were 78%, 68%, and 56% (P < 0.01), for lymphotrophic, osteotrophic, and multifocal failure patterns, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrate that trophism for metastatic site has significant prognostic impact on PCSS in men treated with SRT. Radiographic local failure is an uncommon event after SRT when compared to historical data of patients treated with surgery monotherapy. However, distant failure remains a challenge in this patient population and warrants further therapeutic investigation.

Adjuvant Versus Early Salvage Radiation Therapy Following Radical Prostatectomy for Men with Localized Prostate Cancer.

Radical prostatectomy (RP) is now the most common definitive treatment for high-risk prostate cancer. Unfortunately, many men will have residual microscopic disease after surgery alone. Despite level 1 evidence supporting the use of adjuvant radiation therapy (ART), <10% of men with adverse pathology (positive margins or T3 disease) receive ART in the USA. Early salvage radiation therapy (eSRT) at the time of biochemical recurrence has been proposed as an alternative strategy despite the lack of published randomized trials to support this approach. Multiple randomized trials are ongoing or recently completed to compare ART to eSRT, but given the long natural history of prostate cancer, long-term oncologic outcomes from these trials will not be reported for several years. In this review, we discuss the shifting trends in the diagnosis of high-risk prostate cancer given a decline in PSA screening, use of RP for high-risk disease, and compare and contrast the retrospective and randomized evidence regarding ART and SRT.

Independent surgical validation of the new prostate cancer grade-grouping system.

OBJECTIVE: To report the independent prognostic impact of the new prostate cancer grade-grouping system in a large external validation cohort of patients treated with radical prostatectomy (RP). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between 1994 and 2013, 3 694 consecutive men were treated with RP at a single institution. To investigate the performance of and validate the grade-grouping system, biochemical recurrence-free survival (bRFS) rates were assessed using Kaplan-Meier tests, Cox-regression modelling, and discriminatory comparison analyses. Separate analyses were performed based on biopsy and RP grade. RESULTS: The median follow-up was 52.7 months. The 5-year actuarial bRFS for biopsy grade groups 1-5 were 94.2%, 89.2%, 73.1%, 63.1%, and 54.7%, respectively (P < 0.001). Similarly, the 5-year actuarial bRFS based on RP grade groups was 96.1%, 93.0%, 74.0%, 64.4%, and 49.9% for grade groups 1-5, respectively (P < 0.001). The adjusted hazard ratios for bRFS relative to biopsy grade group 1 were 1.98, 4.20, 5.57, and 9.32 for groups 2, 3, 4, and 5, respectively (P < 0.001), and for RP grade groups were 2.09, 5.27, 5.86, and 10.42 (P < 0.001). The five-grade-group system had a higher prognostic discrimination compared with the commonly used three-tier system (Gleason score 6 vs 7 vs 8-10). CONCLUSIONS: In an independent surgical cohort, we have validated the prognostic benefit of the new prostate cancer grade-grouping system for bRFS, and shown that the benefit is maintained after adjusting for important clinicopathological variables. The greater predictive accuracy of the new system will improve risk stratification in the clinical setting and aid in patient counselling.

More Than Words: Defining Adjuvant, Consolidative, and Salvage Treatment after Radical Prostatectomy.

After radical prostatectomy, adjuvant therapy should be used sparingly when prostate-specific antigen (PSA) is undetectable. Instead, early salvage therapy is recommended for PSA recurrence. Patients with PSA persistence after prostatectomy are at high risk and should be offered consolidative therapy.

Effect of Pelvic External Beam Radiation Therapy on Bone Mineral Density: A Secondary Analysis of a Phase 3 Randomized Controlled Trial.

PURPOSE: Pelvic radiation therapy may lead to decreased bone mineral density (BMD) and increased risk of fracture that could be of particular concern in patients with prostate cancer who also receive androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). We performed an exploratory analysis of a randomized, double-masked, placebo-controlled trial to determine whether exposure to prior pelvic external beam radiation therapy (XRT) affects BMD and risk of fracture in patients with prostate cancer treated with ADT. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Patients with nonmetastatic prostate cancer aged ≥70 years or <70 years with low BMD (T-score < -1) or osteoporotic fracture who had been receiving ADT for ≥12 months were randomly assigned to receive densoumab or placebo every 6 months for 3 years. BMD was measured at baseline and at months 1, 3, 6, 12, 24, and 36. We applied multivariable linear mixed-effects models with an interaction term between the treatment arm and exposure to prior pelvic XRT to evaluate differential XRT effect on percent BMD change between the 2 treatment arms. RESULTS: Among 1407 eligible patients, 31% (n = 447) received prior pelvic XRT. There was no significant difference in any clinical fractures among patients with (5.8%, 26 of 447) or without (5.2%, 50 of 960) prior pelvic XRT (P = .42). Prior pelvic XRT was associated with a significant (0.54%) improvement in BMD (95% CI, 0.05-1.02) in the placebo group and a nonsignificant (0.04%) decline in BMD (95% CI, -0.47 to -0.35) in the denosumab group (interaction P = .007). There was no significant difference in pelvic XRT effect on percent BMD change in the lumbar spine (P = .65) or total hip (P = .39) between the 2 treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: We did not find sufficient evidence to suggest any detrimental effect of pelvic XRT on the treatment effect from denosumab on percent BMD change, with only an approximately 5% incidence of clinical fractures.

Variation in management of lymph node positive prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy within a statewide quality improvement consortium.

BACKGROUND: Patients with lymph node positive (pN+) disease found at the time of radical prostatectomy with pelvic lymphadenectomy for clinically localized prostate cancer (CaP) are at high risk of disease persistence and progression. Contemporary management trends of pN+ CaP are not well described. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients in the Michigan Urologic Surgery Improvement Collaborative (MUSIC) with clinically localized prostate cancer who underwent radical prostatectomy between 2012 and 2023 with cN0/pN+ disease were identified. The primary outcome was to evaluate patient and practice-level factors associated with time to secondary post-RP treatment. Secondary outcomes included practice-level variation in management of pN+ CaP and rates of secondary treatment modality. To assess factors associated with secondary treatment, a Cox proportional hazards model of a 60-day landmark analysis was performed. RESULTS: We identified 666 patients with pN+ disease. Overall, 66% underwent secondary treatment within 12 months post-RP. About 19% of patients with detectable post-RP PSA did not receive treatment. Of patients receiving secondary treatment after 60-days post-RP, 34% received androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) alone, 27% received radiation (RT) alone, 36% received combination, and 4% received other systemic therapies. In the multivariable model, pathologic grade group (GG)3 (HR 1.5; 95%CI: 1.05-2.14), GG4-5 (HR 1.65; 95%CI: 1.16-2.34), positive margins (HR 1.46; 95%CI: 1.13-1.88), and detectable postoperative PSA ≥0.1 ng/ml (HR 3.46; 95%CI: 2.61-4.59) were significantly associated with secondary post-RP treatment. There was wide variation in adjusted practice-level 12-month secondary treatment utilization (28%-79%). CONCLUSIONS: The majority pN+ patients receive treatment within 12 months post-RP which was associated with high-risk pathological features and post-RP PSA. Variation in management of pN+ disease highlights the uncertainty regarding the optimal management. Understanding which patients will benefit from secondary treatment, and which type, will be critical to minimize variation in care.

Variation in Androgen Deprivation Therapy Use Among Men With Intermediate-Risk Prostate Cancer: Results From a Statewide Radiation Oncology Quality Consortium.

PURPOSE: For men with intermediate-risk prostate cancer treated with definitive therapy, the addition of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) reduces the risk of distant metastasis and cancer-related mortality. However, the absolute benefit of ADT varies by baseline cancer risk. Estimates of prognosis have improved over time, and little is known about ADT decision making in the modern era. We sought to characterize variability and identify factors associated with intended ADT use within the Michigan Radiation Oncology Quality Consoritum (MROQC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with localized prostate cancer undergoing definitive radiation therapy were enrolled from June 9, 2020, to June 26, 2023 (n = 815). Prospective data were collected using standardized patient, physician, and physicist forms. Intended ADT use was prospectively defined and was the primary outcome. Associations with patient, tumor, and practice-related factors were tested with multivariable analyses. Random intercept modeling was used to estimate facility-level variability. RESULTS: Five hundred seventy patients across 26 facilities were enrolled with intermediate-risk disease. ADT was intended for 46% of men (n = 262/570), which differed by National Comprehensive Cancer Network favorable intermediate-risk (23.5%, n = 38/172) versus unfavorable intermediate-risk disease (56.3%, n = 224/398; P < .001). After adjusting for the statewide case mix, the predicted probability of intended ADT use varied significantly across facilities, ranging from 15.4% (95% CI, 5.4%-37.0%) to 71.7% (95% CI, 57.0%-82.9%), with P < .01. Multivariable analyses showed that grade group 3 (OR, 4.60 [3.20-6.67]), ≥50% positive cores (OR, 2.15 [1.43-3.25]), and prostate-specific antigen 10 to 20 (OR, 1.87 [1.24-2.84]) were associated with ADT use. Area under the curve was improved when incorporating MRI adverse features (0.76) or radiation treatment variables (0.76), but there remained significant facility-level heterogeneity in all models evaluated (P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: Within a state-wide consortium, there is substantial facility-level heterogeneity in intended ADT use for men with intermediate-risk prostate cancer. Future efforts are necessary to identify patients who will benefit most from ADT and to develop strategies to standardize appropriate use.

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.

Cardiac and Pulmonary Dosimetric Parameters in Patients With Lung Cancer Undergoing Postoperative Radiation Therapy Across a Statewide Consortium.

PURPOSE: The recently published Lung Adjuvant Radiotherapy Trial (Lung ART) reported increased rates of cardiac and pulmonary toxic effects in the postoperative radiation therapy (PORT) arm. It remains unknown whether the dosimetric parameters reported in Lung ART are representative of contemporary real-world practice, which remains relevant for patients undergoing PORT for positive surgical margins. The purpose of this study was to examine heart and lung dose exposure in patients receiving PORT for non-small cell lung cancer across a statewide consortium. METHODS AND MATERIALS: From 2012 to 2022, demographic and dosimetric data were prospectively collected for 377 patients at 27 academic and community centers within the Michigan Radiation Oncology Quality Consortium undergoing PORT for nonmetastatic non-small cell lung cancer. Dosimetric parameters for target coverage and organ-at-risk exposure were calculated using data from dose-volume histograms, and rates of 3-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3D-CRT) and intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) utilization were assessed. RESULTS: Fifty-one percent of patients in this cohort had N2 disease at the time of surgery, and 25% had a positive margin. Sixty-six percent of patients were treated with IMRT compared with 32% with 3D-CRT. The planning target volume was significantly smaller in patients treated with 3D-CRT (149.2 vs 265.4 cm3; P < .0001). The median mean heart dose for all patients was 8.7 Gy (interquartile range [IQR], 3.5-15.3 Gy), the median heart volume receiving at least 5 Gy (V5) was 35.2% (IQR, 18.5%-60.2%), and the median heart volume receiving at least 35 Gy (V35) was 9% (IQR, 3.2%-17.7%). The median mean lung dose was 11.4 Gy (IQR, 8.1-14.3 Gy), and the median lung volume receiving at least 20 Gy (V20) was 19.6% (IQR, 12.7%-25.4%). These dosimetric parameters did not significantly differ by treatment modality (IMRT vs 3D-CRT) or in patients with positive versus negative surgical margins. CONCLUSIONS: With increased rates of IMRT use, cardiac and lung dosimetric parameters in this statewide consortium were slightly lower than those reported in Lung ART. These data provide useful benchmarks for treatment planning in patients undergoing PORT for positive surgical margins.

Evaluation of Social Determinants of Health and Prostate Cancer Outcomes Among Black and White Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Importance: As the field of medicine strives for equity in care, research showing the association of social determinants of health (SDOH) with poorer health care outcomes is needed to better inform quality improvement strategies. Objective: To evaluate the association of SDOH with prostate cancer-specific mortality (PCSM) and overall survival (OS) among Black and White patients with prostate cancer. Data Sources: A MEDLINE search was performed of prostate cancer comparative effectiveness research from January 1, 1960, to June 5, 2020. Study Selection: Two authors independently selected studies conducted among patients within the United States and performed comparative outcome analysis between Black and White patients. Studies were required to report time-to-event outcomes. A total of 251 studies were identified for review. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Three authors independently screened and extracted data. End point meta-analyses were performed using both fixed-effects and random-effects models. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) reporting guideline was followed, and 2 authors independently reviewed all steps. All conflicts were resolved by consensus. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was PCSM, and the secondary outcome was OS. With the US Department of Health and Human Services Healthy People 2030 initiative, an SDOH scoring system was incorporated to evaluate the association of SDOH with the predefined end points. The covariables included in the scoring system were age, comorbidities, insurance status, income status, extent of disease, geography, standardized treatment, and equitable and harmonized insurance benefits. The scoring system was discretized into 3 categories: high (≥10 points), intermediate (5-9 points), and low (<5 points). Results: The 47 studies identified comprised 1 019 908 patients (176 028 Black men and 843 880 White men; median age, 66.4 years [IQR, 64.8-69.0 years]). The median follow-up was 66.0 months (IQR, 41.5-91.4 months). Pooled estimates found no statistically significant difference in PCSM for Black patients compared with White patients (hazard ratio [HR], 1.08 [95% CI, 0.99-1.19]; P = .08); results were similar for OS (HR, 1.01 [95% CI, 0.95-1.07]; P = .68). There was a significant race-SDOH interaction for both PCSM (regression coefficient, -0.041 [95% CI, -0.059 to 0.023]; P < .001) and OS (meta-regression coefficient, -0.017 [95% CI, -0.033 to -0.002]; P = .03). In studies with minimal accounting for SDOH (<5-point score), Black patients had significantly higher PCSM compared with White patients (HR, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.17-1.41; P < .001). In studies with greater accounting for SDOH variables (≥10-point score), PCSM was significantly lower among Black patients compared with White patients (HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.77-0.96; P = .02). Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this meta-analysis suggest that there is a significant interaction between race and SDOH with respect to PCSM and OS among men with prostate cancer. Incorporating SDOH variables into data collection and analyses are vital to developing strategies for achieving equity.

Prospective Evaluation of Limited-Stage Small Cell Lung Cancer Radiotherapy Fractionation Regimen Usage and Acute Toxicity in a Large Statewide Quality Collaborative.

PURPOSE: National guidelines on limited-stage small cell lung cancer (LS-SCLC) treatment give preference to a hyperfractionated regimen of 45 Gy in 30 fractions delivered twice daily; however, use of this regimen is uncommon compared with once-daily regimens. The purpose of this study was to characterize the LS-SCLC fractionation regimens used throughout a statewide collaborative, analyze patient and treatment factors associated with these regimens, and describe real-world acute toxicity profiles of once- and twice-daily radiation therapy (RT) regimens. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Demographic, clinical, and treatment data along with physician-assessed toxicity and patient-reported outcomes were prospectively collected by 29 institutions within the Michigan Radiation Oncology Quality Consortium between 2012 and 2021 for patients with LS-SCLC. We modeled the influence of RT fractionation and other patient-level variables clustered by treatment site on the odds of a treatment break specifically due to toxicity with multilevel logistic regression. National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 4.0, incident grade 2 or worse toxicity was longitudinally compared between regimens. RESULTS: There were 78 patients (15.6% overall) treated with twice-daily RT and 421 patients treated with once-daily RT. Patients receiving twice-daily RT were more likely to be married or living with someone (65% vs 51%; P = .019) and to have no major comorbidities (24% vs 10%; P = .017). Once-daily RT fractionation toxicity peaked during RT, and twice-daily toxicity peaked within 1 month after RT. After stratifying by treatment site and adjusting for patient-level variables, once-daily treated patients had 4.11 (95% confidence interval, 1.31-12.87) higher odds of treatment break specifically due to toxicity than twice-daily treated patients. CONCLUSIONS: Hyperfractionation for LS-SCLC remains infrequently prescribed despite the lack of evidence demonstrating superior efficacy or lower toxicity of once-daily RT. With peak acute toxicity after RT and lower likelihood of a treatment break with twice-daily fractionation in real-word practice, providers may start using hyperfractionated RT more frequently.