Schipper, Matthew J.

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.

PURPOSE Metastasis-free survival (MFS), but not event-free survival, is a validated surrogate end point for overall survival (OS) in men treated for localized prostate cancer. It remains unknown if this holds true in biochemically recurrent disease after radical prostatectomy. Leveraging NRG/RTOG 9601, we aimed to determine the performance of intermediate clinical end points (ICEs) as surrogate end points for OS in recurrent prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS NRG/RTOG 9601 randomly assigned 760 men with recurrence after prostatectomy to salvage radiation therapy with 2 years of placebo versus bicalutamide 150 mg daily. ICEs assessed were biochemical failure (BF) per NRG/RTOG 9601 (prostate-specific antigen nadir + 0.3-0.5 ng/mL or initiation of salvage hormone therapy; [BF1]) and NRG/RTOG 0534 (prostate-specific antigen nadir+2 ng/mL; [BF2]), distant metastasis (DM), and MFS (DM or death). Surrogacy was assessed by the Prentice criteria and a two-stage meta-analytic approach (condition one assessed at the patient level with Kendall's τ and condition two assessed by randomly dividing the entire trial cohort into 10 pseudo trial centers and calculating the average R2 between treatment hazard ratios for ICE and OS). RESULTS BF1, BF2, DM, and MFS satisfied the four Prentice criteria. However, with the two-condition meta-analytic approach, there was strong correlation between MFS and OS (τ = 0.86), moderate correlation between DM and OS (τ = 0.66), and weaker correlation between BF1 (τ = 0.25) or BF2 (τ = 0.40) and OS. Similarly, for condition two, the treatment effect of antiandrogen therapy on MFS and OS were correlated ( R2 = 0.67), but this was not true for BF1 ( R2 = 0.09), BF2 ( R2 = 0.12), or DM ( R2 = 0.18) and OS. CONCLUSION MFS is also a strong surrogate for OS in men receiving salvage radiation therapy for recurrence after prostatectomy. Caution should be used when inferring survival benefit from effects on BF in biochemically recurrent prostate cancer. Lack of comorbidity data did not allow us to assess whether BF in men with no/minimal comorbidity could serve as a surrogate for OS.

In medical research, the Brier score (BS) and the area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves (AUC) are two common metrics used to evaluate prediction models of a binary outcome, such as using biomarkers to predict the risk of developing a disease in the future. The assessment of an existing prediction models using data with missing covariate values is challenging. In this article, we propose inverse probability weighted (IPW) and augmented inverse probability weighted (AIPW) estimates of AUC and BS to handle the missing data. An alternative approach uses multiple imputation (MI), which requires a model for the distribution of the missing variable. We evaluated the performance of IPW and AIPW in comparison with MI in simulation studies under missing completely at random, missing at random, and missing not at random scenarios. When there are missing observations in the data, MI and IPW can be used to obtain unbiased estimates of BS and AUC if the imputation model for the missing variable or the model for the missingness is correctly specified. MI is more efficient than IPW. Our simulation results suggest that AIPW can be more efficient than IPW, and also achieves double robustness from miss‐specification of either the missingness model or the imputation model. The outcome variable should be included in the model for the missing variable under all scenarios, while it only needs to be included in missingness model if the missingness depends on the outcome. We illustrate these methods using an example from prostate cancer.

5584 Background: The timing of systemic therapy in relation to radiotherapy (RT) is important in most malignancies. In contrast, androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) has largely been investigated in relation to its duration rather than its sequencing with RT. Herein, we conduct the first combined individual patient analysis of two phase III randomized trials to determine the optimal timing of ADT with RT in localized prostate cancer (PCa). Methods: Individual patient data was obtained from the Malone et al trial (JCO 2019), which randomized patients to receive neoadjuvant/concurrent or concurrent/adjuvant ADT for 6 months with prostate only RT. This was combined with the prostate only RT arms of RTOG 9413 that randomized patients to 4 months of neoadjuvant/concurrent or adjuvant ADT. The neoadjuvant/concurrent arms of both trials were combined into the “neoadjuvant” group, and the concurrent/adjuvant (Malone) and adjuvant arm (RTOG 9413) were combined in the “adjuvant” group. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). Cumulative incidence of distant metastasis (DM), PCa-specific mortality (PCSM) and biochemical failure (BF) were calculated using the Fine-Gray method with non-PCa deaths as competing events. Late genitourinary (GU) and gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity are also reported. Results: The median follow-up was 14.9 years (yrs) and 1065 patients were included (n=531 neoadjuvant, 534 adjuvant). Groups were well balanced for all baseline characteristics. Adjuvant ADT was superior to neoadjuvant ADT in terms of BF (15yr: 33% vs 43%, HR: 1.37 (95%CI: 1.12-1.68), p=0.002), DM (15yr: 12% vs 18%, HR: 1.40 (95%CI: 1.00-1.95), p=0.04), and PFS (15yr: 36% vs 29%, HR: 1.25 (95%CI: 1.07-1.47), p=0.01). Adjuvant ADT yielded lower PCSM (15yr: 15% vs 20%, HR: 1.29 (95%CI: 0.95-1.75), p=0.10), but did not reach statistical significance. This approached statistical significance in high risk PCa (HR 1.39 (95%CI 1.00-1.93), p=0.053). OS was not significantly different between arms (15yr: 39% vs 34%, HR: 1.11 (95%CI: 0.95-1.30), p=0.20). There was no significant difference in either late grade ≥3 GI (p=0.21) or GU (p=0.98) toxicity. Conclusions: We demonstrate for the first time that sequencing of ADT with RT significantly impacts long-term oncologic outcomes in localized PCa, favoring an adjuvant rather than neoadjuvant approach, without increasing late toxicity. This data has important implications to ongoing and future clinical trial design. Clinical trial information: NCT00769548 .

7 Background: Improved prognostic biomarkers are needed for localized prostate cancer. We undertook an unbiased large-scale analysis of genes associated with metastatic progression and validated the prognostic ability of the top candidate gene. Methods: Prostate cancer samples from prostatectomy patients were analyzed for gene expression using a clinical-grade, high-density Affymetrix GeneChip platform, encompassing >1 million genomic loci and assessed in a CLIA-certified laboratory. Nomination of prognostic candidate genes was performed on a discovery cohort (n=545) and validated on 3 independent cohorts (n=463). Multivariate analyses were performed for the primary endpoint of metastasis. The top prostate-specific gene was further evaluated in 208 additional tumor samples with a novel RNA in-situ hybridization (ISH) assay and in urine samples from 230 patients using PCR. Results: Of all known genes, the long noncoding RNA SChLAP1 ranked first for elevated expression in patients with metastatic progression by receiver-operator-curve analyses. Validation in three independent cohorts confirmed the prognostic value of SChLAP1. On multivariate modeling, SChLAP1 expression independently predicted metastasis within 10 years (odds ratio (OR) = 2.45, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.70 – 3.53), death within 10 years (OR = 1.93, 95% CI 1.31 – 2.85), and biochemical recurrence within 5 years (OR = 1.76, 95% CI 1.28 – 2.41) with ORs comparable to Gleason score. Evaluation of SChLAP1 expression by RNA ISH confirmed a significant association with disease recurrence (OR = 1.99, 95% CI 1.06 – 3.73). Evaluation of urine SChLAP1 levels demonstrated increased expression in patients at higher risk for disease progression. Conclusions: We perform the largest high-throughput, unbiased study of prostate cancer prognostic biomarkers to date and discover SChLAP1 as a top gene predictive of metastatic progression. We validate SChLAP1 extensively with a clinical-grade assay. We show feasibility of a RNA ISH assay and a non-invasive urine test for SChLAP1. Our results, spanning 1,446 patients from 6 independent patient cohorts, suggest that SChLAP1 represents a very promising biomarker for aggressive clinical course.