Steigler, Allison

Importance The ideal duration of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) for treating localized prostate cancer is unknown due to variable adherence and treatment durations tested in clinical trials. Objective To determine the ideal duration of ADT for patients with prostate cancer treated with radiotherapy. Data Sources This individual patient data meta-analysis of 13 randomized phase 3 clinical trials evaluated the use of radiotherapy alone or with ADT. It included patients with a median follow-up of 11.3 (IQR, 9.5-14.5) years and ADT duration of 0 to 36 months. Most patients (7392 [72%]) included had National Comprehensive Cancer Network high-risk or very high-risk disease. Study Selection For this meta-analysis, a systematic literature search from 1980 to 2020 was performed in trial registries (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and ClinicalTrials.gov), MEDLINE (1966-2020), Embase (1982-2020), Web of Science, and Scopus to identify trials. Data Extraction and Synthesis Intention-to-treat and as-treated analyses were performed. The number needed to treat to prevent 1 distant metastasis at 10 years was calculated based on prognostic risk group. The analyses were conducted from January 5 to August 15, 2023. Main Outcomes and Measures The primary end point for this study was overall survival, defined as time to death or last follow-up from randomization. Secondary end points included biochemical recurrence, distant metastasis (DM), prostate cancer–specific mortality, and other-cause mortality. Results The median (IQR) age among the 10 266 male patients was 70 (65-74) years. Longer durations of ADT were associated with nonlinear improvement in relative benefits of DM, prostate cancer–specific mortality, and overall survival, with reduced estimated benefits beyond 9 to 12 months of ADT based on the end point. There was a near-linear increase in other-cause mortality associated with long-term ADT use (hazard ratio, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.09-1.50; P = .002 for 28 vs 0 months of ADT). The optimal ADT duration based on 10-year DM was 0, 6, 12 months, and undefined for patients with 1 intermediate-risk factor, 2 or more intermediate-risk factors, and National Comprehensive Cancer Network high-risk and very high-risk disease, respectively. Conclusions and Relevance The results of this meta-analysis suggest that, for men with localized prostate cancer treated with definitive radiotherapy and ADT, there are relative and absolute benefits from increasing durations of ADT that help provide individualized risk estimates.

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.