Valicenti, Richard K.

PURPOSE Precision medicine has revolutionized oncology; however, tumor biomarkers are not reflective of the heterogeneous cancer population. We evaluated NRG Oncology prostate cancer (PCa) clinical trials for demographic differences among patients with optional biospecimen collection (BC) consent and biospecimen submission (BSub). METHODS Data from 19 NRG PCa clinical trials closed before 2015 were analyzed. Patients who consented to BC and completed BSub were evaluated by race, ethnicity, median income, area deprivation index (ADI; categorized as highest v lowest three quartiles), age at enrollment, site, and year of enrollment. T/chi-square tests were used for continuous/categorical variables, respectively, followed by logistic regression. RESULTS Of the 15,648 randomized patients eligible for BC, 11,796 (75%) had specimens submitted. In all, 4,598 (82.2%) of 5,597 eligible patients consented for optional BC in nine clinical trials with a separate BC consent process (consent rates by race/ethnicity: 74.1% Black, 72.8% Hispanic/Latino, 83.8% White). A smaller proportion of Black and Hispanic/Latino patients consented to optional BC compared with those who did not (12.1% v 19.5% Black, P < .0001; 3.5% v 5.8% Hispanic, P = .0006). In univariable logistic regression models, high ADI (more socioeconomic disadvantage) was associated with a decreased likelihood for optional BC consent (odds ratio [OR], 0.67 [95% CI, 0.55 to 0.82]; P = .02), but not a decreased likelihood for BSub (OR, 0.74 [95% CI, 0.53 to 1.04]; P = .08). Multivariable models demonstrated that Black/Hispanic/Latino patients were less likely to consent to optional BC, and Black patients were less likely to have BSub ( P < .05 for all). CONCLUSION White/non-Hispanic patients and those with less socioeconomic disadvantage were more likely to consent to optional BC, whereas Black patients were less likely to have BSub. Targeted solutions are needed to improve biorepository representation so that precision medicine approaches better reflect the cancer population.

The NCCN Guidelines for Prostate Cancer include recommendations for staging and risk assessment after a prostate cancer diagnosis and for the care of patients with localized, regional, recurrent, and metastatic disease. These NCCN Guidelines Insights summarize the panel’s discussions on select 2026 updates to the guidelines regarding nonmetastatic disease: the elimination of the very-low-risk group, updates to the Principles of Active Surveillance, and caution in the use of focal therapy in newly diagnosed patients.

The NCCN Guidelines for Prostate Cancer provide a framework on which to base decisions for patients with prostate cancer across the disease spectrum. The Guidelines sections included in this article focus on metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC), nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC), and metastatic CRPC (mCRPC). For patients with mCSPC, disease characteristics, such as whether metastases arose synchronously or metachronously and the degree of metastatic burden, impact therapy decisions, including how much treatment intensification is appropriate and when prostate-directed and/or metastasis-directed therapy should be considered. In the mCRPC setting, androgen deprivation therapy is continued with the sequential or concurrent addition of certain androgen receptor pathway inhibitors, chemotherapies, immunotherapies, radiopharmaceuticals, and/or targeted therapies. The NCCN Prostate Cancer Panel emphasizes a shared decision-making approach in all disease settings based on patient preferences, prior treatment exposures, biomarkers, the extent and location of metastases, symptoms, and potential side effects.

The NCCN Guidelines for Prostate Cancer include recommendations for staging and risk assessment after a prostate cancer diagnosis and for the care of patients with localized, regional, recurrent, and metastatic disease. These NCCN Guidelines Insights summarize the panel's discussions for the 2024 update to the guidelines with regard to initial risk stratification, initial management of very-low-risk disease, and the treatment of nonmetastatic recurrence.

The NCCN Guidelines for Prostate Cancer provide a framework on which to base decisions regarding the workup of patients with prostate cancer, risk stratification and management of localized disease, post-treatment monitoring, and treatment of recurrence and advanced disease. The Guidelines sections included in this article focus on the management of metastatic castration-sensitive disease, nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC), and metastatic CRPC (mCRPC). Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) with treatment intensification is strongly recommended for patients with metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer. For patients with nonmetastatic CRPC, ADT is continued with or without the addition of certain secondary hormone therapies depending on prostate-specific antigen doubling time. In the mCRPC setting, ADT is continued with the sequential addition of certain secondary hormone therapies, chemotherapies, immunotherapies, radiopharmaceuticals, and/or targeted therapies. The NCCN Prostate Cancer Panel emphasizes a shared decision-making approach in all disease settings based on patient preferences, prior treatment exposures, the presence or absence of visceral disease, symptoms, and potential side effects.

PURPOSE Total neoadjuvant therapy (TNT) is a newly established standard treatment for rectal adenocarcinoma. Current methods to communicate magnitudes of regression during TNT are subjective and imprecise. Magnetic resonance tumor regression grade (MR-TRG) is an existing, but rarely used, regression grading system. Prospective validation of MR-TRG correlation with pathologic response in patients undergoing TNT is lacking. Utility of adding diffusion-weighted imaging to MR-TRG is also unknown. METHODS We conducted a multi-institutional prospective imaging substudy within NRG-GI002 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02921256 ) examining the ability of MR-based imaging to predict pathologic complete response (pCR) and correlate MR-TRG with the pathologic neoadjuvant response score (NAR). Serial MRIs were needed from 110 patients. Three radiologists independently, then collectively, reviewed each MRI for complete response (mriCR), which was tested for positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), sensitivity, and specificity with pCR. MR-TRG was examined for association with the pathologic NAR score. All team members were blinded to pathologic data. RESULTS A total of 121 patients from 71 institutions met criteria: 28% were female (n = 34), 84% White (n = 101), and median age was 55 (24-78 years). Kappa scores for T- and N-stage after TNT were 0.38 and 0.88, reflecting fair agreement and near-perfect agreement, respectively. Calling an mriCR resulted in a kappa score of 0.82 after chemotherapy and 0.56 after TNT reflected near-perfect agreement and moderate agreement, respectively. MR-TRG scores were associated with pCR ( P < .01) and NAR ( P < .0001), PPV for pCR was 40% (95% CI, 26 to 53), and NPV was 84% (95% CI, 75 to 94). CONCLUSION MRI alone is a poor tool to distinguish pCR in rectal adenocarcinoma undergoing TNT. However, the MR-TRG score presents a now validated method, correlated with pathologic NAR, which can objectively measure regression magnitude during TNT.

Purpose An increasing serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level is the initial sign of recurrent prostate cancer among patients treated with radical prostatectomy. Salvage radiation therapy (SRT) may eradicate locally recurrent cancer, but studies to distinguish local from systemic recurrence lack adequate sensitivity and specificity. We developed a nomogram to predict the probability of cancer control at 6 years after SRT for PSA-defined recurrence. Patients and Methods Using multivariable Cox regression analysis, we constructed a model to predict the probability of disease progression after SRT in a multi-institutional cohort of 1,540 patients. Results The 6-year progression-free probability was 32% (95% CI, 28% to 35%) overall. Forty-eight percent (95% CI, 40% to 56%) of patients treated with SRT alone at PSA levels of 0.50 ng/mL or lower were disease free at 6 years, including 41% (95% CI, 31% to 51%) who also had a PSA doubling time of 10 months or less or poorly differentiated (Gleason grade 8 to 10) cancer. Significant variables in the model were PSA level before SRT (P < .001), prostatectomy Gleason grade (P < .001), PSA doubling time (P < .001), surgical margins (P < .001), androgen-deprivation therapy before or during SRT (P < .001), and lymph node metastasis (P = .019). The resultant nomogram was internally validated and had a concordance index of 0.69. Conclusion Nearly half of patients with recurrent prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy have a long-term PSA response to SRT when treatment is administered at the earliest sign of recurrence. The nomogram we developed predicts the outcome of SRT and should prove valuable for medical decision making for patients with a rising PSA level.