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 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 specifics, interventions and outcomes, participant baseline characteristics, and device characteristics. We grouped them by study type: randomized control trials (RCTs), non-randomized, and qualitative. 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 interventions were 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 home (48%) or 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, collect data, motivate behavior change, and predict clinical outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Investigations are using wearables to assess daily activity and monitor adherence to exercise interventions in PC survivors. Findings suggest they are feasible for use in this population. More research is needed to understand how to integrate wearables into routine care 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

Genomic Classifier Performance in Intermediate-Risk Prostate Cancer: Results From NRG Oncology/RTOG 0126 Randomized Phase 3 Trial.

PURPOSE: Intermediate-risk prostate cancer is a heterogeneous disease state with diverse treatment options. The 22-gene Decipher genomic classifier (GC) retrospectively has shown to improve risk stratification in these patients. We assessed the performance of the GC in men with intermediate-risk disease enrolled in NRG Oncology/RTOG 01-26 with updated follow-up. METHODS AND MATERIALS: After National Cancer Institute approval, biopsy slides were collected from NRG Oncology/RTOG 01-26, a randomized phase 3 trial of men with intermediate-risk prostate cancer randomized to 70.2 Gy versus 79.2 Gy of radiation therapy without androgen deprivation therapy. RNA was extracted from the highest-grade tumor foci to generate the locked 22-gene GC model. The primary endpoint for this ancillary project was disease progression (composite of biochemical failure, local failure, distant metastasis, prostate cancer-specific mortality, and use of salvage therapy). Individual endpoints were also assessed. Fine-Gray or cause-specific Cox multivariable models were constructed adjusting for randomization arm and trial stratification factors. RESULTS: Two-hundred fifteen patient samples passed quality control for analysis. The median follow-up was 12.8 years (range, 2.4-17.7). On multivariable analysis, the 22-gene GC (per 0.1 unit) was independently prognostic for disease progression (subdistribution hazard ratio [sHR], 1.12; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.00-1.26; P = .04), biochemical failure (sHR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.10-1.37; P < .001), distant metastasis (sHR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.06-1.55; P = .01), and prostate cancer-specific mortality (sHR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.20-1.76; P < .001). Ten-year distant metastasis in GC low-risk patients was 4% compared with 16% for GC high-risk patients. In patients with lower GC scores, the 10-year difference in metastasis-free survival rate between arms was -7%, compared with 21% for higher GC patients (P-interaction = .04). CONCLUSIONS: This study represents the first validation of a biopsy-based gene expression classifier, assessing both its prognostic and predictive value, using data from a randomized phase 3 trial of intermediate-risk prostate cancer. Decipher improves risk stratification and can aid in treatment decision-making in men with intermediate-risk disease.

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.

Dose-Escalated Radiation Alone or in Combination With Short-Term Total Androgen Suppression for Intermediate-Risk Prostate Cancer: Patient-Reported Outcomes From NRG/Radiation Therapy Oncology Group 0815 Randomized Trial.

PURPOSE: To report patient-reported outcomes (PROs) of a phase III trial evaluating total androgen suppression (TAS) combined with dose-escalated radiation therapy (RT) for patients with intermediate-risk prostate cancer. METHODS: Patients with intermediate-risk prostate cancer were randomly assigned to dose-escalated RT alone (arm 1) or RT plus TAS (arm 2) consisting of luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone agonist/antagonist with oral antiandrogen for 6 months. The primary PRO was the validated Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC-50). Secondary PROs included Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS)-fatigue and EuroQOL five-dimensions scale questionnaire (EQ-5D). PRO change scores, calculated for each patient as the follow-up score minus baseline score (at the end of RT and at 6, 12, and 60 months), were compared between treatment arms using a two-sample t test. An effect size of 0.50 standard deviation was considered clinically meaningful. RESULTS: For the primary PRO instrument (EPIC), the completion rates were ≥86% through the first year of follow-up and 70%-75% at 5 years. For the EPIC hormonal and sexual domains, there were clinically meaningful (P < .0001) deficits in the RT + TAS arm. However, there were no clinically meaningful differences by 1 year between arms. There were also no clinically meaningful differences at any time points between arms for PROMIS-fatigue, EQ-5D, and EPIC bowel/urinary scores. CONCLUSION: Compared with dose-escalated RT alone, adding TAS demonstrated clinically meaningful declines only in EPIC hormonal and sexual domains. However, even these PRO differences were transient, and there were no clinically meaningful differences between arms by 1 year.

Dose-Escalated Radiotherapy Alone or in Combination With Short-Term Androgen Deprivation for Intermediate-Risk Prostate Cancer: Results of a Phase III Multi-Institutional Trial.

PURPOSE: It remains unknown whether or not short-term androgen deprivation (STAD) improves survival among men with intermediate-risk prostate cancer (IRPC) treated with dose-escalated radiotherapy (RT). METHODS: The NRG Oncology/Radiation Therapy Oncology Group 0815 study randomly assigned 1,492 patients with stage T2b-T2c, Gleason score 7, or prostate-specific antigen (PSA) value >10 and ≤20 ng/mL to dose-escalated RT alone (arm 1) or with STAD (arm 2). STAD was 6 months of luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone agonist/antagonist therapy plus antiandrogen. RT modalities were external-beam RT alone to 79.2 Gy or external beam (45 Gy) with brachytherapy boost. The primary end point was overall survival (OS). Secondary end points included prostate cancer-specific mortality (PCSM), non-PCSM, distant metastases (DMs), PSA failure, and rates of salvage therapy. RESULTS: Median follow-up was 6.3 years. Two hundred nineteen deaths occurred, 119 in arm 1 and 100 in arm 2. Five-year OS estimates were 90% versus 91%, respectively (hazard ratio [HR], 0.85; 95% CI, 0.65 to 1.11]; P = .22). STAD resulted in reduced PSA failure (HR, 0.52; P <.001), DM (HR, 0.25; P <.001), PCSM (HR, 0.10; P = .007), and salvage therapy use (HR, 0.62; P = .025). Other-cause deaths were not significantly different (P = .56). Acute grade ≥3 adverse events (AEs) occurred in 2% of patients in arm 1 and in 12% for arm 2 (P <.001). Cumulative incidence of late grade ≥3 AEs was 14% in arm 1 and 15% in arm 2 (P = .29). CONCLUSION: STAD did not improve OS rates for men with IRPC treated with dose-escalated RT. Improvements in metastases rates, prostate cancer deaths, and PSA failures should be weighed against the risk of adverse events and the impact of STAD on quality of life.

Neighborhood Deprivation and Rurality Associated With Patient-Reported Outcomes and Survival in Men With Prostate Cancer in NRG Oncology RTOG 0415.

PURPOSE: Rurality and neighborhood deprivation can contribute to poor patient-reported outcomes, which have not been systematically evaluated in patients with specific cancers in national trials. Our objective was to examine the effect of rurality and neighborhood socioeconomic and environmental deprivation on patient-reported outcomes and survival in men with prostate cancer in NRG Oncology RTOG 0415. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Data from men with prostate cancer in trial NRG Oncology RTOG 0415 were analyzed; 1,092 men were randomized to receive conventional radiation therapy or hypofractionated radiation therapy. Rurality was categorized as urban or rural. Neighborhood deprivation was assessed using the area deprivation index and air pollution indicators (nitrogen dioxide and particulate matter with a diameter less than 2.5 micrometers) via patient ZIP codes. Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite measured cancer-specific quality of life. The Hopkins symptom checklist measured anxiety and depression. EuroQoL-5 Dimension assessed general health. RESULTS: We analyzed 751 patients in trial NRG Oncology RTOG 0415. At baseline, patients from the most deprived neighborhoods had worse bowel (P = .011), worse sexual (P = .042), and worse hormonal (P = .015) scores; patients from the most deprived areas had worse self-care (P = .04) and more pain (P = .047); and patients from rural areas had worse urinary (P = .03) and sexual (P = .003) scores versus patients from urban areas. Longitudinal analyses showed that the 25% most deprived areas (P = .004) and rural areas (P = .002) were associated with worse EuroQoL-5 Dimension visual analog scale score. Patients from urban areas (hazard ratio, 1.81; P = .033) and the 75% less-deprived neighborhoods (hazard ratio, 0.68; P = .053) showed relative decrease in risk of recurrence or death (disease-free survival). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with prostate cancer from the most deprived neighborhoods and rural areas had low quality of life at baseline, poor general health longitudinally, and worse disease-free survival. Interventions should screen populations from deprived neighborhoods and rural areas to improve patient access to supportive care services.

Recent Trends in Medicare Payments for Outpatient Cancer Care at the End of Life.

PURPOSE: Outpatient care for patients with cancer compromises 60% to 70% of health care costs during the last 6 months of life. Recent approvals for expensive biologics and growing support for lower-cost hypofractionated radiation therapy in the palliative management of advanced cancer have introduced offsetting spending effects on end-of-life care that may shift overall expenditures for this patient cohort. METHODS AND MATERIALS: In this descriptive retrospective cohort study, end-of-life care is defined as the aggregate of medical services and supplies, including drugs, furnished to patients with cancer in the outpatient setting during the last 6 months of life. A total of 84,744 Medicare beneficiaries with a cancer diagnosis were identified as having died between January 1, 2016, and December 31, 2019. Beneficiaries with Medicare Advantage were not included in this study. Medicare Standard Analytical Files were abstracted for all paid claims for these beneficiaries during the last 6 months of life, and provider payments were summed according to service or supply category and year of death. Comparisons of service and supply utilization and costs between patient groups were performed using the Pearson χ2 test. RESULTS: The average total Medicare Part B payments per treated beneficiary during the last 6 month of life increased by 12.0% between 2016 and 2019 (from $14,487 to $16,227), with the greatest absolute cost increase observed for the medical oncology category (from $7030 to $9436 [+34.2%]). Within the medical oncology category, drug utilization shifted away from less costly chemotherapy and hormone therapy agents and toward more expensive immunotherapy agents. The increase in immunotherapy utilization and drug costs alone accounted for 84% of the increase in total Part B payments for all categories during the period. CONCLUSIONS: Although costs related to end-of-life care for nearly all cost categories have remained relatively stable, oncology drug costs overall and immunotherapy costs specifically have accelerated and account almost entirely for the observed overall increase in outpatient cost burden for Medicare.

Analysis of a Biopsy-Based Genomic Classifier in High-Risk Prostate Cancer: Meta-Analysis of the NRG Oncology/Radiation Therapy Oncology Group 9202, 9413, and 9902 Phase 3 Randomized Trials.

PURPOSE: Decipher is a genomic classifier (GC) prospectively validated postprostatectomy. We validated the performance of the GC in pretreatment biopsy samples within the context of 3 randomized phase 3 high-risk definitive radiation therapy trials. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A prespecified analysis plan (NRG-GU-TS006) was approved to obtain formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissue from biopsy specimens from the NRG biobank from patients enrolled in the NRG/Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) 9202, 9413, and 9902 phase 3 randomized trials. After central review, the highest-grade tumors were profiled on clinical-grade whole-transcriptome arrays and GC scores were obtained. The primary objective was to validate the independent prognostic ability for the GC for distant metastases (DM), and secondary for prostate cancer-specific mortality (PCSM) and overall survival (OS) with Cox univariable and multivariable analyses. RESULTS: GC scores were obtained on 385 samples, of which 265 passed microarray quality control (69%) and had a median follow-up of 11 years (interquartile range, 9-13). In the pooled cohort, on univariable analysis, the GC was shown to be a prognostic factor for DM (per 0.1 unit; subdistribution hazard ratio [sHR], 1.29; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.18-1.41; P < .001), PCSM (sHR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.16-1.41; P < .001), and OS (hazard ratio [HR], 1.16; 95% CI, 1.08-1.22; P < .001). On multivariable analyses, the GC (per 0.1 unit) was independently associated with DM (sHR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.09-1.36), PCSM (sHR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.09-1.39), and OS (HR, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.05-1.20) after adjusting for age, Prostate Specific Antigen, Gleason score, cT stage, trial, and randomized treatment arm. GC had similar prognostic ability in patients receiving short-term or long-term androgen-deprivation therapy, but the absolute improvement in outcome varied by GC risk. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first validation of a gene expression biomarker on pretreatment prostate cancer biopsy samples from prospective randomized trials and demonstrates an independent association of GC score with DM, PCSM, and OS. High-risk prostate cancer is a heterogeneous disease state, and GC can improve risk stratification to help personalize shared decision making.