Roach, Mack

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 The sequencing of androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) with radiotherapy (RT) may affect outcomes for prostate cancer in an RT-field size-dependent manner. Herein, we investigate the impact of ADT sequencing for men receiving ADT with prostate-only RT (PORT) or whole-pelvis RT (WPRT). MATERIALS AND METHODS Individual patient data from 12 randomized trials that included patients receiving neoadjuvant/concurrent or concurrent/adjuvant short-term ADT (4-6 months) with RT for localized disease were obtained from the Meta-Analysis of Randomized trials in Cancer of the Prostate consortium. Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was performed with propensity scores derived from age, initial prostate-specific antigen, Gleason score, T stage, RT dose, and mid-trial enrollment year. Metastasis-free survival (primary end point) and overall survival (OS) were assessed by IPTW-adjusted Cox regression models, analyzed independently for men receiving PORT versus WPRT. IPTW-adjusted Fine and Gray competing risk models were built to evaluate distant metastasis (DM) and prostate cancer–specific mortality. RESULTS Overall, 7,409 patients were included (6,325 neoadjuvant/concurrent and 1,084 concurrent/adjuvant) with a median follow-up of 10.2 years (interquartile range, 7.2-14.9 years). A significant interaction between ADT sequencing and RT field size was observed for all end points ( P interaction < .02 for all) except OS. With PORT (n = 4,355), compared with neoadjuvant/concurrent ADT, concurrent/adjuvant ADT was associated with improved metastasis-free survival (10-year benefit 8.0%, hazard ratio [HR], 0.65; 95% CI, 0.54 to 0.79; P < .0001), DM (subdistribution HR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.33 to 0.82; P = .0046), prostate cancer–specific mortality (subdistribution HR, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.16 to 0.54; P < .0001), and OS (HR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.57 to 0.83; P = .0001). However, in patients receiving WPRT (n = 3,049), no significant difference in any end point was observed in regard to ADT sequencing except for worse DM (HR, 1.57; 95% CI, 1.20 to 2.05; P = .0009) with concurrent/adjuvant ADT. CONCLUSION ADT sequencing exhibits a significant impact on clinical outcomes with a significant interaction with field size. Concurrent/adjuvant ADT should be the standard of care where short-term ADT is indicated in combination with PORT.

277 Background: The prognostic importance of local failure (LF) after definitive radiotherapy (RT) in patients with NCCN intermediate- (IRPCa) and high-risk prostate cancer (HRPCa) remains unclear, particularly given the likelihood that occult distant metastases (DMs) at presentation may be the true driver of natural history. Here, we leverage individual patient data (IPD) from 18 randomized control trials (RCTs) to evaluate the prognostic impact of LF and the kinetics of DM after RT. Methods: IPD for 18 RCTs were obtained from the Meta-Analysis of Randomized trials in Cancer of the Prostate (MARCAP) Consortium, comprising a total of 12533 patients (6288 HRPCa & 6245 IRPCa). Multivariable Cox proportional hazards (PH) models were developed to evaluate the relationship between overall survival (OS), PCa-specific survival (PCSS), DM-free survival (DMFS) & LF as a time-dependent covariate, adjusted for clinicodemographic parameters. Markov PH models, defined via transitions between 4 states, were developed to evaluate the aforementioned relationship. Proportional hazards assumption was imposed and examined for both models. Time is from randomization. Results: Median follow-up was 9.1 years. There were 795 (13%) LF & 1288 (21%) DM events for patients with HRPCa; these numbers were 449 (7%) & 451 (7%) for IRPCa. For HRPCa & IRPCa, 81% and 81% of DMs developed from a clinically relapse-free state (cRFS), with a median time of 46 and 60 months, respectively (p < 0.0001). 39% & 13% of DM events occurred within 2 years after RT for HRPCa & IRPCa, respectively. At later time points, DM events were more likely to emerge after an LF event for both HRPCa (9% vs. 34% between 0-2 vs. 8-10 years post-RT, p = 0.001) and IRPCa (10% vs. 34% between 0-2 vs. 8-10 years post-RT, p = 0.008). LF was significantly associated with OS (hazard ratio [HR] 1.17, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.06–1.30), PCSS (HR 2.02, 95% CI 1.75-2.33) & DMFS (HR 1.94, 95% CI 1.75–2.15) (p < 0.01 for all) in patients with HRPCa. LF was also significantly associated with DMFS (HR 1.57, 95% CI 1.36–1.81) but not OS in patients with IRPCa. Patients who had not transitioned to the LF state had a significantly lower HR of transitioning to a PCa-specific death state than those who transitioned to the LF state (HR 0.32, 95% CI 0.21–0.50, p < 0.001). Conclusions: LF is an independent prognosticator of OS, PCSS & DMFS in HRPCa and of DMFS in IRPCa. The predominant mode of DM development is from the cRFS state, underscoring the importance of accurate upfront staging & systemic therapy. However, particularly at late time points, an increasing proportion of DM events originated after diagnosis of a LF, constituting a “second wave” of DM events. This suggests that optimizing local control is also important, though the majority of DM events appear prior to a clinically-detected LF.

The NCCN Guidelines for Prostate Cancer address staging and risk assessment after a prostate cancer diagnosis and include management options for localized, regional, and metastatic disease. Recommendations for disease monitoring and treatment of recurrent disease are also included. The NCCN Prostate Cancer Panel meets annually to reevaluate and update their recommendations based on new clinical data and input from within NCCN Member Institutions and from external entities. This article summarizes the panel’s discussions for the 2021 update of the guidelines with regard to systemic therapy for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer.

PURPOSEThere remains a lack of clarity regarding the influence of sequencing of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) and radiotherapy (RT) on outcomes in prostate cancer (PCa). Herein, we evaluate the optimal sequencing of ADT with prostate-directed RT in localized PCa.METHODSMEDLINE (1966-2018), Embase (1982-2018), ClinicalTrials.gov, and conference proceedings (1990-2018) were searched to identify randomized trials evaluating the sequencing, but not duration, of ADT with RT. Two randomized phase III trials were identified, and individual patient data were obtained: Ottawa 0101 and NRG Oncology's Radiation Therapy Oncology Group 9413. Ottawa 0101 randomly assigned patients to neoadjuvant or concurrent versus concurrent or adjuvant short-term ADT. Radiation Therapy Oncology Group 9413, a 2 × 2 factorial trial, included a random assignment of neoadjuvant or concurrent versus adjuvant short-term ADT. The neoadjuvant or concurrent ADT arms of both trials were combined into the neoadjuvant group, and the arms receiving adjuvant ADT were combined into the adjuvant group. The primary end point of this meta-analysis was progression-free survival (PFS).RESULTSThe median follow-up was 14.9 years. Overall, 1,065 patients were included (531 neoadjuvant and 534 adjuvant). PFS was significantly improved in the adjuvant group (15-year PFS, 29% v 36%, hazard ratio [HR], 1.25 [95% CI, 1.07 to 1.47], P = .01). Biochemical failure (subdistribution HR [sHR], 1.37 [95% CI, 1.12 to 1.68], P = .002), distant metastasis (sHR, 1.40 [95% CI, 1.00 to 1.95], P = .04), and metastasis-free survival (HR, 1.17 [95% CI, 1.00 to 1.37], P = .050) were all significantly improved in the adjuvant group. There were no differences in late grade ≥ 3 gastrointestinal (2% v 3%, P = .33) or genitourinary toxicity (5% v 5%, P = .76) between groups.CONCLUSIONThe sequencing of ADT with prostate-directed RT has significant association with long-term PFS and MFS in localized PCa. Our findings favor use of an adjuvant over a neoadjuvant approach, without any increase in long-term toxicity.