Effect of Transperineal Versus Transrectal Prostate Biopsy on the Quality of Hydrogel Spacer Placement in Men Prior to Radiation Therapy for Prostate Cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether prostate biopsy type affects spacer placement quality using a large sample of patients treated in the ambulatory setting. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted on patients diagnosed with prostate cancer who underwent hydrogel spacer placement before primary radiation treatment between 2018 and 2023 after transperineal (TP) or transrectal (TR) prostate biopsy. Study outcomes were Spacer Quality Score (SQS) (0-2, with greater values indicating better placement), Rectal Wall Infiltration (RWI) (0-3, with lower values indicating lack of RWI), and the occurrence of other hydrogel complications. RESULTS: A total of 395 patients were included. A pre-hydrogel TR biopsy was performed in 273 patients (69.1%), while TP biopsy was performed in 122 (30.9%). A SQS ≥1 occurred in 308 (77.9%) patients. A greater proportion of TP patients had a favorable SQS (≥1) compared to those who underwent TR (87.7 vs 73.5%, P <.002). An RWI score ≥2 was found in 180 (45.6%) patients. The proportion of patients with an unfavorable RWI score (≥2) did not differ significantly by type of biopsy performed. Patients who had an interval of >70 days between biopsy and hydrogel placement had significantly decreased odds of an RWI score ≥2 (odds ratio = 0.42, 95% confidence interval: 0.21-0.83). Only one infection was found after hydrogel placement. CONCLUSION: The quality of hydrogel placement was significantly better in men who had undergone TP biopsy. Rectal wall infiltration was more common than previously reported but did not differ between TP and TR biopsies.

Improving Quality Metrics in Radiation Oncology: Implementation of Pretreatment Peer Review for Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy in Patients with Thoracic Cancer.

Purpose: Traditional peer reviews occur weekly, and can take place up to 1 week after the start of treatment. The American Society for Radiation Oncology peer-review white paper identified stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) as a high priority for contour/plan review before the start of treatment, considering both the rapid-dose falloff and short treatment course. Yet, peer-review goals for SBRT must also balance physician time demands and the desire to avoid routine treatment delays that would occur in the setting of a 100% pretreatment (pre-Tx) review compliance requirement or prolonging the standard treatment planning timeline. Herein, we report on our pilot experience of a pre-Tx peer review of thoracic SBRT cases. Methods and Materials: From March 2020 to August 2021, patients undergoing thoracic SBRT were identified for pre-Tx review, and placed on a quality checklist. We implemented twice-weekly meetings for detailed pre-Tx review of organ-at-risk/target contours and dose constraints in the treatment planning system for SBRT cases. Our quality metric goal was to peer review ≥90% of SBRT cases before exceeding 25% of the dose delivered. We used a statistical process control chart with sigma limits (ie, standard deviations [SDs]) to access compliance rates with pre-Tx review implementation. Results: We identified 252 patients treated with SBRT to 294 lung nodules. When comparing pre-Tx review completion from initial rollout to full implementation, our rates improved from 19% to 79% (ie, from 1 sigma limit [SDs]) below to >2 sigma limits (SDs) above. Additionally, early completion of any form of contour/plan review (defined as any pre-Tx or standard review completed before exceeding 25% of the dose delivered) increased from 67% to 85% (March 2020-November 2020) to 76% to 94% (December 2020-August 2021). Conclusions: We successfully implemented a sustainable workflow for detailed pre-Tx contour/plan review for thoracic SBRT cases in the context of twice-weekly disease site-specific peer-review meetings. We reached our quality improvement objective to peer review ≥90% of SBRT cases before exceeding 25% of the dose delivered. This process was feasible to conduct in an integrated network of sites across our system.

Phase II Randomized Study of Salvage Radiation Therapy Plus Enzalutamide or Placebo for High-Risk Prostate-Specific Antigen Recurrent Prostate Cancer After Radical Prostatectomy: The SALV-ENZA Trial.

PURPOSE: We sought to investigate whether enzalutamide (ENZA), without concurrent androgen deprivation therapy, increases freedom from prostate-specific antigen (PSA) progression (FFPP) when combined with salvage radiation therapy (SRT) in men with recurrent prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy (RP). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Men with biochemically recurrent prostate cancer after RP were enrolled into a randomized, double-blind, phase II, placebo-controlled, multicenter study of SRT plus ENZA or placebo (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02203695). Random assignment (1:1) was stratified by center, surgical margin status (R0 v R1), PSA before salvage treatment (PSA ≥ 0.5 v < 0.5 ng/mL), and pathologic Gleason sum (7 v 8-10). Patients were assigned to receive either ENZA 160 mg once daily or matching placebo for 6 months. After 2 months of study drug therapy, external-beam radiation (66.6-70.2 Gy) was administered to the prostate bed (no pelvic nodes). The primary end point was FFPP in the intention-to-treat population. Secondary end points were time to local recurrence within the radiation field, metastasis-free survival, and safety as determined by frequency and severity of adverse events. RESULTS: Eighty-six (86) patients were randomly assigned, with a median follow-up of 34 (range, 0-52) months. Trial arms were well balanced. The median pre-SRT PSA was 0.3 (range, 0.06-4.6) ng/mL, 56 of 86 patients (65%) had extraprostatic disease (pT3), 39 of 86 (45%) had a Gleason sum of 8-10, and 43 of 86 (50%) had positive surgical margins (R1). FFPP was significantly improved with ENZA versus placebo (hazard ratio [HR], 0.42; 95% CI, 0.19 to 0.92; P = .031), and 2-year FFPP was 84% versus 66%, respectively. Subgroup analyses demonstrated differential benefit of ENZA in men with pT3 (HR, 0.22; 95% CI, 0.07 to 0.69) versus pT2 disease (HR, 1.54; 95% CI, 0.43 to 5.47; Pinteraction = .019) and R1 (HR, 0.14; 95% CI, 0.03 to 0.64) versus R0 disease (HR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.36 to 2.76; Pinteraction = .023). There were insufficient secondary end point events for analysis. The most common adverse events were grade 1-2 fatigue (65% ENZA v 53% placebo) and urinary frequency (40% ENZA v 49% placebo). CONCLUSION: SRT plus ENZA monotherapy for 6 months in men with PSA-recurrent high-risk prostate cancer after RP is safe and delays PSA progression relative to SRT alone. The impact of ENZA on distant metastasis or survival is unknown at this time.

The impact of salvage radiotherapy initiation at PSA ≤ 0.5 ng/ml on metastasis-free survival in patients with relapsed prostate cancer following prostatectomy.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Salvage radiation therapy (SRT) is indicated for biochemical failure after radical prostatectomy. Prior data have shown that initiation of SRT at lower PSA levels improves subsequent biochemical control, yet given the long natural history of prostate cancer questions remain regarding optimal timing of SRT. We analyzed the impact of prostate specific antigen (PSA) level at time of salvage radiotherapy with regard to both biochemical relapse-free (bRFS) as well as metastasis-free survival (MFS) in patients with biochemically recurrent prostate cancer. METHODS: Using prospective institutional tumor registry data, univariate and multivariable-adjusted Cox proportional hazards models were constructed to assess association between outcomes and clinical and pathologic prognostic features, including pre-SRT PSA, interval from prostatectomy to SRT, androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), and adverse pathologic features. RESULTS: We identified 397 patients who received salvage RT between 1985 and 2016: 187 (45.8%) received SRT initiated when pre-RT PSA was ≤0.5 ng/ml; 212 (52.0%) patients had pre-SRT PSA > 0.5 ng/ml. Independent of pathologic risk status and ADT use, pre-SRT PSA ≤ 0.5 ng/ml was the most significant predictor of bRFS (HR 0.39, 95% CI [0.27, 0.56]) as well as MFS (HR = 0.58, 95% CI [0.37, 0.91]). Seminal vesicle invasion was also associated with shorter interval to biochemical failure, HR = 1.79, 95% CI [1.07, 2.98], and eventual metastases, HR = 2.07, 95% CI [1.14, 3.740]. CONCLUSIONS: Initiation of salvage RT while PSA levels remain ≤0.5 ng/ml was associated with improved MFS. Consideration for salvage RT initiation while PSA levels remain low is warranted to minimize risk of future prostate cancer metastasis.

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.

Interim analysis of companion, prospective, phase II, clinical trials assessing the efficacy and safety of multi-modal total eradication therapy in men with synchronous oligometastatic prostate cancer.

Multimodal therapies were combined to eradicate the primary site, metastatic, and micrometastatic disease in men with newly diagnosed, synchronous, oligometastatic prostate cancer. The investigation included companion, phase II studies: total eradication therapy-1 (TET-1) for those treatment-naïve and total eradication therapy-2 (TET-2) for those post-prostatectomy. The treatment-naive protocol included androgen deprivation and docetaxel (with concurrent abiraterone added in a protocol amendment), followed by a prostatectomy, adjuvant radiation (if positive margins, T3/4, or detectable PSA), and metastasis-directed therapy. The post-prostatectomy protocol assigned the same therapies (omitting the prostatectomy). The primary endpoint was an undetectable PSA with recovered testosterone. The safety boundaries were ≤ 50% for grade 3/4 neutropenic and ≤ 20% for grade 3/4 surgical- and radiation-related toxicities. Enrollment was planned for 60 patients per protocol, to detect a PSA progression-free survival ≥ 32%, as compared to 15% in a historic control. Enrollment closed early. An interim analysis was conducted once > 50% of patients were evaluable for the primary endpoint. The primary endpoint duration was assessed by median progression-free survival. 52 patients were enrolled (n = 26 per protocol). Medium follow-up was 30.3 months. 80% (24/30) of evaluable patients achieved the primary endpoint; the duration was not reached. Of those not evaluable, 77% (17/22) had not reached the endpoint and 23% (5/22) had exited. There were 8% (4/52) grade 3/4 neutropenic and 2% (1/48) grade 3/4 surgical or radiation-induced toxicities. Interim findings suggest the trials' endpoints were met, advancing the concept of total eradication therapy in men with oligometastatic prostate cancer.

Interplay Between Duration of Androgen Deprivation Therapy and External Beam Radiotherapy With or Without a Brachytherapy Boost for Optimal Treatment of High-risk Prostate Cancer: A Patient-Level Data Analysis of 3 Cohorts.

IMPORTANCE: Radiotherapy combined with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) is a standard of care for high-risk prostate cancer. However, the interplay between radiotherapy dose and the required minimum duration of ADT is uncertain. OBJECTIVE: To determine the specific ADT duration threshold that provides a distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) benefit in patients with high-risk prostate cancer receiving external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) or EBRT with a brachytherapy boost (EBRT+BT). DESIGN, SETTINGS, AND PARTICIPANTS: This was a cohort study of 3 cohorts assembled from a multicenter retrospective study (2000-2013); a post hoc analysis of the Randomized Androgen Deprivation and Radiotherapy 03/04 (RADAR; 2003-2007) randomized clinical trial (RCT); and a cross-trial comparison of the RADAR vs the Deprivación Androgénica y Radio Terapía (Androgen Deprivation and Radiation Therapy; DART) 01/05 RCT (2005-2010). In all, the study analyzed 1827 patients treated with EBRT and 1108 patients treated with EBRT+BT from the retrospective cohort; 181 treated with EBRT and 203 with EBRT+BT from RADAR; and 91 patients treated with EBRT from DART. The study was conducted from October 15, 2020, to July 1, 2021, and the data analyses, from January 5 to June 15, 2021. EXPOSURES: High-dose EBRT or EBRT+BT for an ADT duration determined by patient-physician choice (retrospective) or by randomization (RCTs). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was DMFS; secondary outcome was overall survival (OS). Natural cubic spline analysis identified minimum thresholds (months). RESULTS: This cohort study of 3 studies totaling 3410 men (mean age [SD], 68 [62-74] years; race and ethnicity not collected) with high-risk prostate cancer found a significant interaction between the treatment type (EBRT vs EBRT+BT) and ADT duration (binned to <6, 6 to <18, and ≥18 months). Natural cubic spline analysis identified minimum duration thresholds of 26.3 months (95% CI, 25.4-36.0 months) for EBRT and 12 months (95% CI, 4.9-36.0 months) for EBRT+BT for optimal effect on DMFS. In RADAR, the prolongation of ADT for patients receiving only EBRT was not associated with significant improvements in DMFS (hazard ratio [HR], 1.01; 95% CI, 0.65-1.57); however, for patients receiving EBRT+BT, a longer duration was associated with improved DMFS (DMFS HR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.36-0.87; P = .01). For patients receiving EBRT alone (DART), 28 months of ADT was associated with improved DMFS compared with 18 months (RADAR HR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.17-0.80; P = .01). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: These cohort study findings suggest that the optimal minimum ADT duration for treatment with high-dose EBRT alone is more than 18 months; and for EBRT+BT, it is 18 months or possibly less. Additional studies are needed to determine more precise minimum durations.

Radiating the prostate bed in relapsed oligometastatic prostate cancer: How comprehensive should we be?

PURPOSE: A subset of patients with high-risk pathological features at radical prostatectomy recur with oligometastatic disease. The aim of this study is to investigate the rate of prostate bed recurrence, with or without history of prostate bed irradiation (PBRT), in oligometastatic prostate cancer (OMPC) patients after metastasis-directed therapy (MDT). METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of hormone-sensitive OMPC patients treated initially with curative-intent radical prostatectomy followed by disease recurrence and metastasis-directed stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) at our institution. Prostate bed recurrence rates were compared between patients who had PBRT at any point (i.e., before oligometastatic diagnosis or concurrently with MDT) versus those with no history of PBRT. RESULTS: Seventy-seven patients were included, and 68.8% had received PBRT. There were no significant differences in baseline characteristics between those who had received and had not received PBRT. There were five prostate bed recurrences following MDT, specifically with a 24-month cumulative incidence of 30.4% in patients who did not have PBRT and 2.4% in those who did (p = 0.03). Three of the five recurrences were isolated to the prostate bed at time of recurrence. CONCLUSIONS: Relapsed oligometastatic prostate cancer patients who have not received maximal local consolidative therapy to the prostate bed may have higher rates of local failure. Prospective studies are warranted investigating when prostate bed irradiation should be considered for patients after radical prostatectomy who ultimately have oligometastatic prostate cancer.

Definitions of disease burden across the spectrum of metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer: comparison by disease outcomes and genomics.

BACKGROUND: Several definitions have attempted to stratify metastatic castrate-sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC) into low and high-volume states. However, at this time, comparison of these definitions is limited. Here we aim to compare definitions of metastatic volume in mCSPC with respect to clinical outcomes and mutational profiles. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of patients with biochemically recurrent or mCSPC whose tumors underwent somatic targeted sequencing. 294 patients were included with median follow-up of 58.3 months. Patients were classified into low and high-volume disease per CHAARTED, STAMPEDE, and two numeric (≤3 and ≤5) definitions. Endpoints including radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS), time to development of castration resistance (tdCRPC), and overall survival (OS) were evaluated with Kaplan-Meier survival curves and log-rank test. The incidence of driver mutations between definitions were compared. RESULTS: Median OS and tdCRPC were shorter for high-volume than low-volume disease for all four definitions. In the majority of patients (84.7%) metastatic volume classification did not change across all four definitions. High volume disease was significantly associated with worse OS for all four definitions (CHAARTED: HR 2.89; p < 0.01, STAMPEDE: HR 3.82; p < 0.01, numeric ≤3: HR 4.67; p < 0.01, numeric ≤5: HR 3.76; p < 0.01) however, were similar for high (p = 0.95) and low volume (p = 0.79) disease across all four definitions. Those with discordant classification tended to have more aggressive clinical behavior and mutational profiles. Patients with low-volume disease and TP53 mutation experienced a more aggressive course with rPFS more closely mirroring high-volume disease. CONCLUSIONS: The spectrum of mCSPC was confirmed across four different metastatic definitions for clinical endpoints and genetics. All definitions were generally similar in classification of patients, outcomes, and genetic makeup. Given these findings, the simplicity of numerical definitions might be preferred, especially when integrating metastasis directed therapy. Incorporation of tumor genetics may allow further refinement of current metastatic definitions.

Performance of a Prostate-Specific Membrane Antigen Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography-Derived Risk-Stratification Tool for High-risk and Very High-risk Prostate Cancer.

Importance: Prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) can detect low-volume, nonlocalized (ie, regional or metastatic) prostate cancer that was occult on conventional imaging. However, the long-term clinical implications of PSMA PET/CT upstaging remain unclear. Objectives: To evaluate the prognostic significance of a nomogram that models an individual's risk of nonlocalized upstaging on PSMA PET/CT and to compare its performance with existing risk-stratification tools. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study included patients diagnosed with high-risk or very high-risk prostate cancer (ie, prostate-specific antigen [PSA] level >20 ng/mL, Gleason score 8-10, and/or clinical stage T3-T4, without evidence of nodal or metastatic disease by conventional workup) from April 1995 to August 2018. This multinational study was conducted at 15 centers. Data were analyzed from December 2020 to March 2021. Exposures: Curative-intent radical prostatectomy (RP), external beam radiotherapy (EBRT), or EBRT plus brachytherapy (BT), with or without androgen deprivation therapy. Main Outcomes and Measures: PSMA upstage probability was calculated from a nomogram using the biopsy Gleason score, percentage positive systematic biopsy cores, clinical T category, and PSA level. Biochemical recurrence (BCR), distant metastasis (DM), prostate cancer-specific mortality (PCSM), and overall survival (OS) were analyzed using Fine-Gray and Cox regressions. Model performance was quantified with the concordance (C) index. Results: Of 5275 patients, the median (IQR) age was 66 (60-72) years; 2883 (55%) were treated with RP, 1669 (32%) with EBRT, and 723 (14%) with EBRT plus BT; median (IQR) PSA level was 10.5 (5.9-23.2) ng/mL; 3987 (76%) had Gleason grade 8 to 10 disease; and 750 (14%) had stage T3 to T4 disease. Median (IQR) follow-up was 5.1 (3.1-7.9) years; 1221 (23%) were followed up for at least 8 years. Overall, 1895 (36%) had BCR, 851 (16%) developed DM, and 242 (5%) died of prostate cancer. PSMA upstage probability was significantly prognostic of all clinical end points, with 8-year C indices of 0.63 (95% CI, 0.61-0.65) for BCR, 0.69 (95% CI, 0.66-0.71) for DM, 0.71 (95% CI, 0.67-0.75) for PCSM, and 0.60 (95% CI, 0.57-0.62) for PCSM (P < .001). The PSMA nomogram outperformed existing risk-stratification tools, except for similar performance to Staging Collaboration for Cancer of the Prostate (STAR-CAP) for PCSM (eg, DM: PSMA, 0.69 [95% CI, 0.66-0.71] vs STAR-CAP, 0.65 [95% CI, 0.62-0.68]; P < .001; Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center nomogram, 0.57 [95% CI, 0.54-0.60]; P < .001; Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment groups, 0.53 [95% CI, 0.51-0.56]; P < .001). Results were validated in secondary cohorts from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database and the National Cancer Database. Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that PSMA upstage probability is associated with long-term, clinically meaningful end points. Furthermore, PSMA upstaging had superior risk discrimination compared with existing tools. Formerly occult, PSMA PET/CT-detectable nonlocalized disease may be the main driver of outcomes in high-risk patients.

18F-Fluciclovine-Avid Pulmonary Hamartoma.

ABSTRACT: A 73-year-old man with history of grade group 1/Gleason 3 + 3 = 6 prostate adenocarcinoma status post prostatectomy had subsequent biochemical recurrence with serum prostate-specific antigen level of 2.4 ng/mL. He underwent an 18F-fluciclovine PET/CT scan that demonstrated a left prostate bed recurrence and an incidental 18F-fluciclovine-avid smooth-edged solitary lung nodule with internal fat attenuation. Such uptake of 18F-fluciclovine in a lung hamartoma could be mistaken for prostate cancer metastasis. Given the increasing use of advanced imaging for prostate cancer, there is need for the imaging specialist to know about pitfalls and how to interpret them.

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.

Patterns of Clinical Progression in Radiorecurrent High-risk Prostate Cancer.

The natural history of radiorecurrent high-risk prostate cancer (HRPCa) is not well-described. To better understand its clinical course, we evaluated rates of distant metastases (DM) and prostate cancer-specific mortality (PCSM) in a cohort of 978 men with radiorecurrent HRPCa who previously received either external beam radiation therapy (EBRT, n = 654, 67%) or EBRT + brachytherapy (EBRT + BT, n = 324, 33%) across 15 institutions from 1997 to 2015. In men who did not die, median follow-up after treatment was 8.9 yr and median follow-up after biochemical recurrence (BCR) was 3.7 yr. Local and systemic therapy salvage, respectively, were delivered to 21 and 390 men after EBRT, and eight and 103 men after EBRT + BT. Overall, 435 men developed DM, and 248 were detected within 1 yr of BCR. Measured from time of recurrence, 5-yr DM rates were 50% and 34% after EBRT and EBRT + BT, respectively. Measured from BCR, 5-yr PCSM rates were 27% and 29%, respectively. Interval to BCR was independently associated with DM (p < 0.001) and PCSM (p < 0.001). These data suggest that radiorecurrent HRPCa has an aggressive natural history and that DM is clinically evident early after BCR. These findings underscore the importance of further investigations into upfront risk assessment and prompt systemic evaluation upon recurrence in HRPCa. PATIENT SUMMARY: High-risk prostate cancer that recurs after radiation therapy is an aggressive disease entity and spreads to other parts of the body (metastases). Some 60% of metastases occur within 1 yr. Approximately 30% of these patients die from their prostate cancer.

Metastasis-directed Therapy Prolongs Efficacy of Systemic Therapy and Improves Clinical Outcomes in Oligoprogressive Castration-resistant Prostate Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Available therapies for castrate-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) confer minimal survival advantage; thus, there is interest in metastasis-directed therapy (MDT) for oligometastatic or oligoprogressive disease to improve outcomes. Here, we describe outcomes of oligoprogressive CRPC treated with stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR). OBJECTIVE: To report outcomes of oligoprogressive CRPC treated with MDT using SABR. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Patients with oligoprogressive CRPC were retrospectively evaluated, and outcomes following MDT were reported. Outcomes were additionally compared with oligoprogressive CRPC treated with change in systemic therapy alone. INTERVENTION: SABR to oligoprogressive lesions. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Outcomes of interest were time to prostate-specific antigen (PSA) failure, time to next intervention (TTNI), distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS), and overall survival. Survival analysis was performed using the Kaplan-Meier method, and univariable analysis and multivariable analysis (MVA) were performed. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: A total of 68 patients were included. After MDT, median time to PSA recurrence, TTNI, and DMFS were 9.7, 15.6, and 10.8 months, respectively. A total of 112 lesions were treated, and the cumulative incidences of local failure at 12 and 24 months were 2.1% and 13.8%, respectively. Factors associated with the risk of local recurrence on univariable analysis were age (hazard ratio [HR] 1.07, p = 0.03) and Gleason grade group (HR 2.20, p = 0.07). Compared with change in systemic therapy alone (n = 52), MDT (n = 31) was associated with improved median time to PSA failure (9.7 vs 4.2 months, p = 0.066)), TTNI (14.9 vs 8.8 months, p = 0.025), and DMFS (12.7 vs 8.9 months, p = 0.045), and remained associated with improved outcomes on MVA. CONCLUSIONS: In a retrospective cohort of oligoprogressive CRPC patients, MDT was associated with favorable outcomes and improved cancer control as compared with change in systemic treatment alone. Future prospective trials are needed to confirm these findings. PATIENT SUMMARY: In this report, we retrospectively analyzed outcomes of patients with oligoprogressive castrate-resistant prostate cancer treated with radiation therapy to progressing lesions. Our results suggest that treatment of these lesions with radiation therapy can result in sustained periods of disease-free survival and might add benefit in addition to systemic therapy at the time of progression. These results need to be verified in a prospective trial to identify the optimal integration of radiation therapy into metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer.

Patterns of Recurrence and Modes of Progression After Metastasis-Directed Therapy in Oligometastatic Castration-Sensitive Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSE: Metastasis-directed therapy (MDT) is increasingly used in castration-sensitive oligometastatic prostate cancer because it prolongs progression-free survival (PFS) and androgen deprivation free survival. Here we describe patterns of recurrence and identify modes of progression after MDT using SABR. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Two hundred fifty-eight patients with castration-sensitive oligometastatic prostate cancer (≤5 lesions at staging) were retrospectively identified from a multi-institutional database. Descriptive patterns of recurrence and modes of progression were reported. Other outcomes including median time to prostate-specific antigen (PSA) recurrence, time to next intervention, distant metastasis-free survival, overall survival, and biochemical PFS (bPFS) were reported. Survival analysis was performed using the Kaplan-Meier method, and multivariable analysis was performed. RESULTS: Median follow-up was 25.2 months, and 50.4% of patients received concurrent androgen deprivation. Median time to PSA recurrence was 15.7 months, time to next intervention was 28.6 months, distant metastasis-free survival was 19.1 months, and bPFS was 16.1 months. Two-year overall survival was 96.8%. On multivariable analysis, factors associated with bPFS included age (hazard ratio [HR], 1.03; P = .04), N1 disease at diagnosis (HR, 2.00; P = .02), M1 disease at diagnosis (HR, 0.44; P = .01), initial PSA at diagnosis (HR, 1.002; P = <.001), use of androgen deprivation therapy (HR, 0.41; P < .001), pre-SABR PSA (HR, 1.02; P = .01), and use of enhanced imaging for staging (HR, 2.81; P = .001). Patterns of progression favored an osseous component at recurrence; in patients initially treated to a bone lesion alone, the vast majority (86.5%) experienced a recurrence that included an osseous site. Patients treated initially to a nodal site alone tended to recur in a node only (64.5%); however, there was also a significant minority with an osseous component of recurrence at progression (32.3%). Modes of progressors were class I (patients with long term control [no recurrence ≥18 months after therapy]) occurring in 40.9%, class II (oligoprogressors [≤3 lesions at recurrence]) occurring in 36% (including 7.9% of patients with PSA recurrence but no metastatic disease), and class III (polyprogressors [>3 lesions]) occurring in 23.1% of patients. CONCLUSIONS: After MDT, the majority of patients have long-term control or oligoprogression (class I or II). Recurrence tended to occur in osseous sites. These findings, if validated, have implications for future integration of MDT and clinical trial design.

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.

A phase II randomized trial of RAdium-223 dichloride and SABR Versus SABR for oligomEtastatic prostate caNcerS (RAVENS).

BACKGROUND: Metastasis directed therapy (MDT) for patients with oligometastatic disease is associated with improvements in progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) compared to systemic therapy alone. Additionally, within a prostate-cancer-specific cohort, MDT is able to forestall initiation of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) in men with hormone-sensitive, oligometastatic prostate cancer (HSOPCa) compared to observation. While MDT appears to be safe and effective in HSOPCa, a large percentage of men will eventually have disease recurrence. Patterns of failure in HSOPCa demonstrate patients tend to have recurrence in the bone following MDT, raising the question of sub-clinically-apparent osseous disease. Radium-223 dichloride is a radiopharmaceutical with structural similarity to calcium, allowing it to be taken up by bone where it emits alpha particles, and therefore might have utility in the treatment of micrometastatic osseous disease. Therefore, the primary goal of the phase II RAVENS trial is to evaluate the efficacy of MDT + radium-223 dichloride in prolonging progression free survival in men with HSOPCa. METHODS: Patients with HSOPCa and 3 or less metastases with at least 1 bone metastasis will be randomized 1:1 to stereotactic ablative radiation (SABR, also known as stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT)) alone vs SABR + radium-223 dichloride with a minimization algorithm to balance assignment by institution, primary intervention, prior hormonal therapy, and PSA doubling time. SABR is delivered in one to five fractions and patients in the SABR + radium-223 dichloride arm will receive six infusions of radium-223 dichloride at four-week intervals. The primary end point is progression free survival. The secondary clinical endpoints include toxicity and quality of life assessments, local control at 12 months, locoregional progression, time to distant progression, time to new metastasis, and duration of response. DISCUSSION: The RAVENS trial will be the first described phase II, non-blinded, randomized study to compare SABR +/- radium-223 dichloride in patients with HSOPCa and 3 or less metastases with at least one bone metastasis. The primary hypothesis is that SABR + radium-223 dichloride will increase median progression-free survival from 10 months in the SABR arm to 20 months in the SABR + radium-223 dichloride arm. TRIAL REGISTRATIONS: Clinicaltrials.gov. Identifier: NCT04037358. Date of Registration: July 30, 2019. Date of First Participant Enrolled: August 9, 2019. Date of Last Approved Amendment: October 16, 2019. Protocol Version: Version 5.

Outcomes of Observation vs Stereotactic Ablative Radiation for Oligometastatic Prostate Cancer: The ORIOLE Phase 2 Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Complete metastatic ablation of oligometastatic prostate cancer may provide an alternative to early initiation of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). Objective: To determine if stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) improves oncologic outcomes in men with oligometastatic prostate cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants: The Observation vs Stereotactic Ablative Radiation for Oligometastatic Prostate Cancer (ORIOLE) phase 2 randomized study accrued participants from 3 US radiation treatment facilities affiliated with a university hospital from May 2016 to March 2018 with a data cutoff date of May 20, 2019, for analysis. Of 80 men screened, 54 men with recurrent hormone-sensitive prostate cancer and 1 to 3 metastases detectable by conventional imaging who had not received ADT within 6 months of enrollment or 3 or more years total were randomized. Interventions: Patients were randomized in a 2:1 ratio to receive SABR or observation. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was progression at 6 months by prostate-specific antigen level increase, progression detected by conventional imaging, symptomatic progression, ADT initiation for any reason, or death. Predefined secondary outcomes were toxic effects of SABR, local control at 6 months with SABR, progression-free survival, Brief Pain Inventory (Short Form)-measured quality of life, and concordance between conventional imaging and prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA)-targeted positron emission tomography in the identification of metastatic disease. Results: In the 54 men randomized, the median (range) age was 68 (61-70) years for patients allocated to SABR and 68 (64-76) years for those allocated to observation. Progression at 6 months occurred in 7 of 36 patients (19%) receiving SABR and 11 of 18 patients (61%) undergoing observation (P = .005). Treatment with SABR improved median progression-free survival (not reached vs 5.8 months; hazard ratio, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.11-0.81; P = .002). Total consolidation of PSMA radiotracer-avid disease decreased the risk of new lesions at 6 months (16% vs 63%; P = .006). No toxic effects of grade 3 or greater were observed. T-cell receptor sequencing identified significant increased clonotypic expansion following SABR and correlation between baseline clonality and progression with SABR only (0.082085 vs 0.026051; P = .03). Conclusions and Relevance: Treatment with SABR for oligometastatic prostate cancer improved outcomes and was enhanced by total consolidation of disease identified by PSMA-targeted positron emission tomography. SABR induced a systemic immune response, and baseline immune phenotype and tumor mutation status may predict the benefit from SABR. These results underline the importance of prospective randomized investigation of the oligometastatic state with integrated imaging and biological correlates. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02680587.

Prostate-only Versus Whole-pelvis Radiation with or Without a Brachytherapy Boost for Gleason Grade Group 5 Prostate Cancer: A Retrospective Analysis.

BACKGROUND: The role of elective whole-pelvis radiotherapy (WPRT) remains controversial. Few studies have investigated it in Gleason grade group (GG) 5 prostate cancer (PCa), known to have a high risk of nodal metastases. OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of WPRT on patients with GG 5 PCa treated with external-beam radiotherapy (EBRT) or EBRT with a brachytherapy boost (EBRT+BT). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We identified 1170 patients with biopsy-proven GG 5 PCa from 11 centers in the United States and one in Norway treated between 2000 and 2013 (734 with EBRT and 436 with EBRT+BT). OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Biochemical recurrence-free survival (bRFS), distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS), and prostate cancer-specific survival (PCSS) were compared using Cox proportional hazards models with propensity score adjustment. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: A total of 299 EBRT patients (41%) and 320 EBRT+BT patients (73%) received WPRT. The adjusted 5-yr bRFS rates with WPRT in the EBRT and EBRT+BT groups were 66% and 88%, respectively. Without WPRT, these rates for the EBRT and EBRT+BT groups were 58% and 78%, respectively. The median follow-up was 5.6yr. WPRT was associated with improved bRFS among patients treated with EBRT+BT (hazard ratio [HR] 0.5, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.2-0.9, p=0.02), but no evidence for improvement was found in those treated with EBRT (HR 0.8, 95% CI 0.6-1.2, p=0.4). WPRT was not significantly associated with improved DMFS or PCSS in the EBRT group (HR 1.1, 95% CI 0.7-1.7, p=0.8 for DMFS and HR 0.7, 95% CI 0.4-1.1, p=0.1 for PCSS), or in the EBRT+BT group (HR 0.6, 95% CI 0.3-1.4, p=0.2 for DMFS and HR 0.5 95% CI 0.2-1.2, p=0.1 for PCSS). CONCLUSIONS: WPRT was not associated with improved PCSS or DMFS in patients with GG 5 PCa who received either EBRT or EBRT+BT. However, WPRT was associated with a significant improvement in bRFS among patients receiving EBRT+BT. Strategies to optimize WPRT, potentially with the use of advanced imaging techniques to identify occult nodal disease, are warranted. PATIENT SUMMARY: When men with a high Gleason grade prostate cancer receive radiation with external radiation and brachytherapy, the addition of radiation to the pelvis results in a longer duration of prostate-specific antigen control. However, we did not find a difference in their survival from prostate cancer or in their survival without metastatic disease. We also did not find a benefit for radiation to the pelvis in men who received radiation without brachytherapy.