Horwitz, Eric M.

55 Background: To compare the predictive ability of health utility mapping algorithms derived using cross-sectional and longitudinal data specific to the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC). Methods: This mapping study utilized data from an international, multicenter, randomized controlled trial of patients with low-risk prostate cancer conducted by NRG Oncology (NCT00331773). Health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL) data were collected using EPIC, and health utilities were obtained using EuroQOL-5D (EQ5D) at baseline and 6, 12 and 24 months post-intervention. Data were split into an estimation sample (70%) and a validation sample (30%). Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) regression models were estimated using baseline cross-sectional data as well as pooled data from all assessment periods. Random effects (RE) specifications that explicitly model the longitudinal nature of the data were also estimated. Candidate models were selected based on root mean square error (RMSE). Results: A total of 196 (147) patients in the estimation sample had complete EQ5D and EPIC domain (subdomain) data at all time points. OLS models using combined data outperformed the counter-part RE models as well as OLS models using baseline data in the five-fold cross-validation. Addition of covariates to the models resulted in improved predictive ability. In the external validation, when only EPIC domain/ subdomain data are available, the OLS model using combined data predicted EQ5D utilities better than the counterpart RE model and OLS model using baseline data (RMSE=0.121108 & 0.111345). OLS model using baseline data outperformed other model types for algorithms with EPIC domains and demographics (RMSE=0.121757), while RE models outperformed the other two model types for algorithms with EPIC subdomains and demographic data, (0.112782) and for algorithms with EPIC domains/ subdomains, demographics, and clinical covariates (RMSE=0.123589 & 0.163093). Conclusions: While algorithms using pooled data outperformed other model types in internal validation, RE models showed better predictive ability in external validation for algorithms with covariates. Clinical trial information: NCT00331773.

208 Background: Treatment of high risk prostate cancer (HRPCa) with external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) plus brachytherapy (BT) boost (EBRT+BT) has been prospectively associated with lower rates of BCR, albeit potentially with increased toxicity, and retrospectively linked to decreased distant metastasis (DM) and PCa-specific mortality (PCSM) compared to EBRT alone. However, it is unclear whether patients who develop BCR following either approach have similar downstream oncologic outcomes. Methods: We identified 706 out of 3820 men with HRPCa treated at 13 institutions from 1998-2015 with EBRT (n=468/2134) or EBRT+BT (n=238/1686) who developed BCR. We compared rates of DM, PCSM, and all-cause mortality (ACM) after BCR between treatment groups using Fine-Gray competing risk regression. Models were adjusted for age, Gleason grade group, initial PSA (iPSA), clinical T stage, time-dependent use of systemic salvage, and interval to BCR using inverse probability of treatment weighting. Results: Median follow-up was 9.9 years from RT and 4.8 years from BCR. Groups were similar in age, iPSA, presence of ≥2 HR features, and median interval to BCR (3.3 years). Most men received neoadjuvant/concurrent androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), 92.5% and 91.0% for EBRT and EBRT+BT, respectively, though for a longer duration with EBRT (median 14.7 vs. 9.0 months, p=0.0012). Local and systemic salvage rates were 2.3% and 36.3% after EBRT, and 2.6% and 43.6% after EBRT+BT, respectively. Initial EBRT+BT was associated with significantly lower rates of DM after BCR (HR 0.48, 95% CI 0.36-0.64, p<0.001). Rates of PCSM and ACM did not significantly differ (HR 0.93, 95% CI 0.67-1.30, p=0.93, and HR 0.8, 95% CI 0.6-1.1, p=0.11, respectively). Conclusions: In this large retrospective series of radiorecurrent HRPCa, initial treatment with EBRT+BT was associated with significantly lower rates of DM after BCR compared with EBRT, despite shorter ADT use and a similar median interval to BCR. Local salvage was widely underutilized in both groups. In the absence of salvage for local failure after EBRT, upfront treatment intensification with BT may reduce DM, though not PCSM or ACM, even after development of BCR.

The NCCN Guidelines for Prostate Cancer include recommendations regarding diagnosis, risk stratification and workup, treatment options for localized disease, and management of recurrent and advanced disease for clinicians who treat patients with prostate cancer. The portions of the guidelines included herein focus on the roles of germline and somatic genetic testing, risk stratification with nomograms and tumor multigene molecular testing, androgen deprivation therapy, secondary hormonal therapy, chemotherapy, and immunotherapy in patients with prostate cancer.

Background In prostate cancer, end points that reliably portend prognosis and treatment benefit (surrogate end points) can accelerate therapy development. Although surrogate end point candidates have been evaluated in the context of radiotherapy and short-term androgen deprivation (AD), potential surrogates under long-term (24 month) AD, a proven therapy in high-risk localized disease, have not been investigated. Materials and Methods In the NRG/RTOG 9202 randomized trial (N = 1,520) of short-term AD (4 months) versus long-term AD (LTAD; 28 months), the time interval free of biochemical failure (IBF) was evaluated in relation to clinical end points of prostate cancer–specific survival (PCSS) and overall survival (OS). Survival modeling and landmark analysis methods were applied to evaluate LTAD benefit on IBF and clinical end points, association between IBF and clinical end points, and the mediating effect of IBF on LTAD clinical end point benefits. Results LTAD was superior to short-term AD for both biochemical failure (BF) and the clinical end points. Men remaining free of BF for 3 years had relative risk reductions of 39% for OS and 73% for PCSS. Accounting for 3-year IBF status reduced the LTAD OS benefit from 12% (hazard ratio [HR], 0.88; 95% CI, 0.79 to 0.98) to 6% (HR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.83 to 1.07). For PCSS, the LTAD benefit was reduced from 30% (HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.52 to 0.82) to 6% (HR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.72 to 1.22). Among men with BF, by 3 years, 50% of subsequent deaths were attributed to prostate cancer, compared with 19% among men free of BF through 3 years. Conclusion The IBF satisfied surrogacy criteria and identified the benefit of LTAD on disease-specific survival and OS. The IBF may serve as a valid end point in clinical trials and may also aid in risk monitoring after initial treatment.