Kase, Adam M.

TPS1679 Background: Cancer care in the United States remains highly centralized, imposing substantial time, caregiver, and financial burdens on patients, particularly those residing in rural and medically underserved regions. While international experience supports the feasibility of home-based cancer therapy delivery, prospective U.S. clinical trial data are limited. The Cancer CARE Beyond Walls (CCBW) program was developed to address these gaps through a decentralized cancer care model integrating virtual oversight, remote monitoring, mobile clinical services, and community-based nursing partners. The study evaluates the feasibility, safety, and patient-centered impact of delivering cancer-directed therapy in patients’ homes or near-home mobile units in the Florida Panhandle, a region characterized by long travel distances to tertiary centers and limited oncology infrastructure. Methods: This is a phase 2, single-arm clinical trial evaluating the delivery of standard-of-care cancer-directed therapy outside of traditional infusion centers. Eligible adult patients (ECOG 0–3) with histologically confirmed malignancies receiving guideline-supported or FDA-approved systemic cancer therapy must demonstrate tolerability of at least one prior in-clinic treatment cycle. Following registration, patients transition to home-based or near-home mobile unit administration for a minimum of 12 weeks, with an option to continue up to 24 weeks. Care delivery is coordinated through a virtual command center providing real-time virtual oversight, remote monitoring, and escalation pathways. Treatment administration is performed by trained local home health nurses, medication shipping, and digital interaction with the electronic health record. A fully equipped mobile unit extends access to rural areas not covered by home health agencies. The primary endpoint is patient preference for treatment location at week 12. Secondary endpoints include safety, avoidable acute care utilization, patient-reported function and global health/quality of life, patient-reported symptoms, and satisfaction with care. Exploratory endpoints assess travel burden, patient perceptions of caregiver experience, and patient perceptions of home versus mobile unit care. Enrollment of 27 patients will provide 80% power to reject a 50% null rate (2-sided exact test, α=0.10), assuming 75% prefer decentralized care or express no preference. This investigator-initiated trial is open to accrual and is supported by a grant from the Florida Cancer Innovation Fund. Clinical trial information: NCT07285044 .

e17027 Background: Guidelines recommend active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer and definitive therapy for high-risk disease. We evaluated national patterns of risk-misaligned care and the survival consequences of undertreatment. Methods: National Cancer Database prostate cancer cases diagnosed from 2010–2022 were analyzed. Low-risk disease was defined as clinical T1–T2, Grade Group 1, and PSA < 10; overtreatment was definitive treatment vs active surveillance or no treatment. High-risk disease was defined as Grade Group ≥4, PSA ≥20, or clinical T3–T4; undertreatment was no definitive local therapy or incomplete definitive therapy. Multivariable logistic regression evaluated factors associated with misalignment. Overall survival (OS) among high-risk patients was assessed using multivariable Cox regression. Results: Among low-risk patients (N = 124,562), overtreatment occurred in 40% of cases. Overtreatment was more common among young men (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.982; p < 0.001) and less common at academic centers (aOR 0.414; p = 0.015). Compared with White men, odds of overtreatment were lower among Black men (aOR 0.946; p = 0.002) and Asian men (aOR 0.827; p < 0.001), with additional variation by education and region (all p < 0.001). Among high-risk patients (N = 318,532), undertreatment affected 27.3% of patients and was more common among older men (aOR 1.061; p < 0.001). Compared with White men, undertreatment was higher among Black men (aOR 1.479; p < 0.001) and lower among Asian patients (aOR 0.863; p < 0.001) (overall race p < 0.001). Compared with private insurance, undertreatment was higher in Medicaid (aOR 2.038; p < 0.001) and uninsured patients (aOR 2.649; p < 0.001), and slightly lower with Medicare (aOR 0.931; p < 0.001) (overall insurance p < 0.001). Multiple comorbidities were associated with higher undertreatment (≥2 vs 0: aOR 1.252; p < 0.001). Facility type was not independently associated (p = 0.490), while region remained significant (overall p < 0.001). In the survival cohort (high risk) (N = 338,919), undertreatment was associated with substantially worse OS (HR 2.745, 95% CI 2.706–2.784; p < 0.001), adjusted for age (HR 1.056; p < 0.001), race (p = 0.001), insurance (p < 0.001), comorbidity (p < 0.001), income (overall p < 0.001), education (overall p < 0.001), and facility region (overall p < 0.001). Conclusions: Low-risk overtreatment remains common nationwide and varies across patient and health-system factors. In high-risk disease, undertreatment affects over one-quarter of patients and disproportionately impacts Black men and those with Medicaid or no insurance. Undertreatment confers a nearly threefold mortality hazard (adjusted HR 2.75; p < 0.001), highlighting a major national quality gap and the urgent need for system-level interventions to ensure equitable, guideline-concordant delivery of definitive therapy.

e13611 Background: Decentralized cancer care models may reduce treatment burden for patients with advanced prostate cancer (CaP), particularly those facing mobility, transportation, of scheduling challenges. However, prospective patient-reported experience and quality-of-life data comparing home- versus clinic-based oncology care remain limited. Mayo Clinic Cancer CARE Beyond Walls (CCBW) is a patient-centered program designed to deliver selected standard-of-care cancer therapies in the home with virtual clinical oversight. This observational study evaluated patient-reported experience, feasibility, safety, and quality of life among men with advanced or metastatic CaP receiving care at home. Methods: Men with advanced/metastatic CaP receiving active standard-of-care therapy including hormone-based treatments, oral anticancer therapies, anti-bone resorptive agents, or intravenous chemotherapy who were participating in a CCBW randomized trial were enrolled into a companion observational study. After confirmation of treatment tolerance in clinic, patients received home-based care for 24 weeks (Arm A) or in-clinic care for 8 weeks followed by home-based care for 16 weeks (Arm B). Patient-reported outcomes were collected at baseline and Weeks 8, 16, and 24, using CAHPS-based measures and CCBW-specific surveys assessing overall cancer care experience, patient preference for site of care, comfort with home infusions, functional/symptom assessment and quality of life. Descriptive analyses were performed. Results: Eighteen participants were analyzed (Arm A n = 10; Arm B n = 8). Participants were medically stable, and predominantly insured by Medicare. Survey completion was 100% at baseline and 83% at all follow-up time points. At Weeks 16 and 24 when all respondents had received home-based care, 100% and 92% reported being “quite a bit” or “very much” comfortable receiving treatment at home. Communication with at-home and remote nursing teams was rated highly, and most respondents reported transition, scheduling, and equipment use easy or very easy. At Weeks 16 and 24, 45% and 40% of respondents reported improved quality of life from receiving home-based care, with no reports of worsening. No emergency department visits, hospitalizations, or urgent care visits occurred in either arm. Conclusions: In this prospective, observational study, home-based oncology care delivered through CCBW was feasible, safe, and associated with high patient satisfaction among men with advanced CaP receiving diverse systemic therapies. These findings support further evaluation and expansion of decentralized care integrating home-based treatment with virtual clinical oversight.

Abstract Background: Black men carry a disproportionate prostate cancer (CaP) burden and often experience significant psychosocial distress at the point of prostate cancer diagnosis (PPCD). Many report emotional shock, uncertainty, and limited access to culturally competent guidance, which can negatively affect treatment decisions and long-term survivorship. To address these needs, we developed the PPCD Virtual Reality Assistant (ViRA), an immersive, AI-enabled intervention co-designed with Black CaP survivors. ViRA delivers tailored psycho-oncology support, emotional guidance, and navigation of social determinants of health (SDOH) within virtual reality environments. This study evaluated the feasibility, acceptability, and usability of the PPCD ViRA (NCT06535802). Methods: ViRA was developed through a structured, seven-step co-design process with survivors, integrating mobile immersive technologies, SDOH navigation, and culturally grounded psycho-oncology content. Personalization was enabled through AI-driven predictive analytics and a recommendation engine. Alpha testing assessed initial usability and acceptability among 10 participants (seven team members and three Black CaP survivors). Beta testing with 24 Black men in Florida examined feasibility and preliminary efficacy. Results: A demonstration of ViRA is available (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1mI-HS5R6sk). Alpha testing indicated strong usability, positive emotional engagement, and clear promise for enhancing support at the PPCD. In Beta testing, participants varied in age; most were married (58.3%), held a bachelor’s degree (45.8%), were retired (45.8%), and had a family history of cancer (83.3%). ViRA use was associated with increased engagement and reduced distress across participants. Overall, 74% rated ViRA as “excellent,” while the remainder rated it as “good” or “very good.” More than 90% reported being “very satisfied,” with the rest indicating satisfaction. Conclusions: Findings demonstrate high feasibility, acceptability, and cultural relevance of the PPCD ViRA for supporting Black men at diagnosis. Lessons learned highlight the need for culturally embedded design, emotional timing, community co-creation, flexible delivery formats, and strong community partnerships to advance digital health equity. The refinement and larger-scale validation to establish clinical utility and readiness for implementation is ongoing (NCT07126548). Citation Format: Folakemi T. Odedina, Che Ngufor, Christopher Williams, Mary Ellen Young, Floyd Willis, Adam M. Kase, Arnold Merriweather, Emelina Asto-Flores, Dee M. Glaser-Boivin, Jada Melton, Monica L. Albertie, Michelle Fudge, Quincy Wimberly, Inclusive Cancer Care Research Equity (iCCaRE) Consortium, Prostate Cancer Transatlantic Consortium (CaPTC). Novel application of the iCCaRE consortium virtual reality assistant (ViRA) to support Black men at the point of prostate cancer diagnosis [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2026; Part 1 (Regular Abstracts); 2026 Apr 17-22; San Diego, CA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2026;86(7 Suppl):Abstract nr 6306.

98 Background: Circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) monitoring provides an additional clinical tool for assessing treatment response and emerging resistance. We evaluated the real-world (RW) use and results of FoundationOne Monitor (F1Monitor), a tissue-free ctDNA monitoring assay, in patients (pts) with prostate cancer (PCa). Methods: The clinical laboratory developed test, F1Monitor, was available to physicians in a limited pilot with full discretion of test eligibility, timing, and frequency. Therapy type was a non-mandatory field on the order form. CtDNA was detected and quantified by ctDNA tumor fraction (TF); variants were tracked with variant allele frequency (VAF), and the origin [tumor somatic (TS), germline, or clonal hematopoiesis (CH)] was predicted algorithmically. Results: F1Monitor was ordered by 28 physicians for 215 pts with PCa. Therapy data were known for 156 pts: ADT+ androgen receptor pathway inhibitor (ARPI, N = 69/156 pts, 44%), ADT alone (N = 32, 21%), ADT + chemotherapy (chemo, N = 20,13%), ADT + radioligand therapy (RLT, N = 17, 11%), and others (N = 18). Median follow-up was 188 days. Longitudinal testing (≥2 tests) occurred in 64 pts, often (N = 37) when the first test was ctDNA TF positive (+). Median cadence for serial testing (≥3 tests, N = 31) was 42 days (IQR: 35, 59). ctDNA TF was + at any timepoint in 50% (107/215) of pts overall and 53% (82/156) of pts known to be on therapy, trending higher in pts on ADT+chemo (80%) and ADT+RLT (65%). Median and maximum ctDNA TF values were 11% (IQR: 0.9,37.8%) and 89% respectively. Lowest ctDNA TF and reportable TS VAF quantified were 0.13% and 0.04%, respectively. ctDNA TF longitudinal changes were observed in 67% (43/64) of pts: 92% of pts on ADT+chemo, 69% on ADT+RLT, 59% on ADT+ARPI, and 38% of pts on ADT alone. Among pts with ≥2 tests, 39% (25/64) had ctDNA TF increase, including 6/27 (22%) pts that were ctDNA TF negative (-) on the first test. Of pts with ≥2 tests and any ctDNA TF+ result, 35% cleared ctDNA TF in later tests. 33% of pts were persistently ctDNA TF -. Each test reported an average of 5 alterations: ~2 TS short variants, copy number variants, or rearrangements, and ~2 predicted CH variants. HRR variants were detected in 37% (80/215) of pts (31 with ≥2 tests) : persistent in 20 pts, cleared in 7, and newly emerging in 14. At least 50% of alterations in CHEK2 and ATM were predicted CH. Alterations in PI3K pathway genes were detected in 20% (43/215) of pts: (16 with ≥2 tests) persistent in 6 pts, cleared in 5, and newly emerging in 5. Conclusions: In this RW pilot of tissue-free ctDNA monitoring in PCa, F1Monitor demonstrated high sensitivity in clinical practice, detecting ctDNA TF as low as 0.13% and TS VAF as low as 0.04% while distinguishing tumor-derived from predicted CH variants. Importantly, ctDNA TF was + in 53% of pts while on therapy with observed longitudinal changes for 67% of pts, supporting potential utility of ctDNA for monitoring treatment response and emerging resistance.

703 Background: The association of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) reduction with treatment response has been investigated across multiple malignancies. This study aims to assess the impact of ctDNA response on survival outcomes in patients receiving enfortumab-pembrolizumab (EV-P). Methods: We identified 32 patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma who received EV-P and had ≥2 ctDNA assessments with ≥1 detectable level. Deep molecular response was defined as >2-log reduction from highest ctDNA detection. Radiographic progression was determined from radiology reports documenting progression by RECIST criteria. Kaplan Meier analyses were performed to compute Hazard Ratios (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for radiographic progression free survival (rPFS), defined as time from treatment start to radiographic progression or death and overall survival (OS) defined as time from treatment start to death were computed. Log-rank tests were performed to compare PFS and OS in patients with deep molecular response to those without response. A p-value <0.05 indicated a statistically significant association with response. Results: Thirty-two patients were included (median age 71 years; range 39–90). Median follow-up was 10.6 months. At cutoff (10/1/2025), 26 patients were alive and 6 had died. Seventeen (53%) achieved a ≥2-log ctDNA reduction (responders), while 15 (47%) did not (non-responders). Progression-free survival was significantly longer in responders (log-rank P < 0.001); median PFS was 5.9 months (95% CI 2.4–NR) in non-responders and not reached in responders (HR 0.09, 95% CI 0.02–0.44; P = 0.0026). Median overall survival was 12.7 months (95% CI 10.0–NR) in non-responders versus not reached in responders (log-rank P = 0.011; HR 0.11, 95% CI 0.01–0.88; P = 0.037). At cutoff, 94% of responders and 67% of non-responders were alive. Conclusions: Achieving a >2-log decrease in ctDNA during EV + Pembrolizumab therapy was significantly associated with improved progression free and overall survival. These findings support ctDNA kinetics as a potential early biomarker of response warranting prospective validation. Clinical outcomes by >2-log ctDNA reduction status. Endpoint > 2-log drop (n = 17 ≤ 2-log drop (n = 15) Log-rank p Median (mo) ≤ 2-log > 2-log HR (95% CI) P C-index PFS 2 events (12%) 10 events (67%) 0.0002 5.9 (2.4–NA) NR 0.09 (0.02–0.44) 0.0026 0.77 OS 1 event (6%) 6 events (40%) 0.011 12.7 (10.0–NA) NR 0.11 (0.01–0.88) 0.037 0.73

27 Background: Validated homozygous loss detection is becoming increasingly important in clinical practice, with prostate NCCN guideline inclusion of BRCA1/2 loss (often portending durable PARP inhibitor benefit) and multi-tumor trials of PRMT5 and MAT2A inhibitors ongoing (biomarker: MTAP loss). Homozygous losses are challenging to detect and require intentional NGS assay design and validations. Using an FDA-approved NGS assay, we evaluated the most frequent losses identified in metastatic prostate cancer, evaluated prognostic associations on ARPI, and prevalence before and after ARPI treatments. Methods: This study used the nationwide (US-based) de-identified Flatiron Health-Foundation Medicine Prostate Cancer clinico-genomic database (FH-FMI CGDB), originating from approximately 280 US cancer clinics (~800 sites of care). Patients with metastatic prostate cancer and tissue tumor genomic testing by FoundationOne CDx were eligible for analysis. Alteration prevalence was compared between non-sequential groups of specimens obtained from patients naïve to ADT and ARPI, naïve to ARPI but not ADT, or exposed to any ARPI. Outcome analyses adjusted for: ECOG performance score, age, baseline PSA, and socioeconomic status. To limit immortal time confounding, outcome analyses were restricted to patients with specimens tested prior to initiation of ARPI. Results: 1990 specimens from 1984 unique patients met criteria for assessment. The most common losses and respective ADT & ARPI naïve vs ADT exposed & ARPI-naïve vs ARPI-exposed prevalence were PTEN (17.1% vs 24.8% vs. 33.5%, p < 0.001), FAS (2.4% vs 5.0% vs 5.8%, p = 0.003), BRCA2 (4.2% vs 3.2% vs. 2.8%, p = 0.36), RB1 (1.6% vs 3.0% vs 3.5%, p = 0.062), and TP53 (2.3% vs 2.3% vs 4.4%, p = 0.064). 227 patients had tissue specimens obtained and NGS results reported prior to initiation of ARPI. Sufficient patients with PTEN loss were present for nominal outcome associations, observing less favorable time to next treatment (HR: 1.81, 95%CI: 1.24 – 2.65, p = 0.002) and overall survival (HR: 1.65, 95%CI: 1.02 – 2.65, p = 0.040) from the initiation of ARPI. In the mHSPC (ADT and ARPI naïve) setting, 17.1% had PTEN loss, 32.8% had an HRR gene alteration, and 2.8% had both. Conclusions: Our results are consistent with homozygous losses of certain genes, notably PTEN , potentially being acquired resistance alterations to ARPI. Prostate cancer trials often do not specify timing of specimen acquisition relative to treatment initiation. For trials like IPATential-150 or CAPItello-280 that evaluate AKT inhibitors in post-ARPI setting, patients with PTEN status determined by archival tissue could be false negatives and reduce power of analysis in biomarker(+) group. Our results underscore the importance of clinical context, especially prior treatment exposures, when interpreting biomarker prevalence.

144 Background: Androgen receptor pathway inhibitors (abiraterone acetate [AAP], apalutamide [APA], enzalutamide [E], darolutamide [DARO] have become the cornerstone for pts with PCa due to survival benefits. Comparative data on fracture risk among ARPi are limited. This study quantified the risk of bone fractures with ARPi plus androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) and compared fracture risk across different ARPi agents. Methods: MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched from inception through September 1 st 2025 to identify positive phase III trials assessing ARPi in addition to ADT in pts with PCa (m0CRPC, mCSPC, mCRPC). Trials were included if they reported bone fractures in either arm. Pairwise, random-effects meta-analysis was conducted using Paul-Mendel approach. Sensitivity analyses using Hartung-Knapp (HK) adjustment was performed to assess robustness of results. To assess the comparative risk of bone fractures among different ARPi agents, mixed treatment comparisons were made using frequentist network meta-analysis. P-scores were computed to assess relative treatment rankings. Treatment effect was expressed as odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Results: This systematic review included 13 phase III trials with 15468 pts (8890 received ARPi+ADT, 6578 received ADT alone). A total of 596 (6.7%) bone fractures were observed with ARPi+ADT compared to 180 (2.74%) with ADT alone. Patients receiving ARPi+ADT were associated with an increased risk of bone fractures compared to those receiving ADT (OR: 2.40; 95% CI: 1.93-2.98). Sensitivity analyses with HK adjustment showed consistent results (2.40; 1.88-3.06). There was no statistically significant effect modification by PCa clinical setting (p: 0.27). Mixed treatment comparisons showed a statistically significant increased risk of bone fractures with AAP+ADT (2.35; 1.29-4.27), APA+ADT (2.04; 1.47-2.86), and E+ADT (3.13; 2.44-4.00) but not with DARO+ADT (1.30; 0.80-2.08) when compared to ADT alone. Among different ARPi agents, E+ADT was associated with an increased risk compared to APA+ADT (1.54; 1.01-2.33) and DARO+ADT (2.44; 1.41-4.17). Ranking analysis showed that E+ADT was ranked as potentially the least safe treatment (P score: 0.05) in terms of relative fracture risk followed by AAP+ADT (P score: 0.30), APA+ADT (P score: 0.43), DARO+ADT (P score: 0.76). Sensitivity analyses limiting to mCSPC trials only showed consistent results. Conclusions: The risk of bone fractures varies among different ARPi agents, with enzalutamide posing the highest relative risk and darolutamide the lowest. These differences may guide treatment selection, particularly in pts with mCSPC and bone metastases. Prospective studies adjusting for covariates are needed to evaluate bone-protective strategies to mitigate fracture risk particularly in mCSPC patients who are considering treatment with ARPi.

127 Background: Bone metastases affect up to 90 % of patients with metastatic hormone-resistant prostate cancer (mHRPC) and cause substantial morbidity from skeletal-related events (SREs) such as fracture, spinal-cord compression, and palliative interventions. Bone-modifying agents (BMAs) including bisphosphonates and denosumab reduce SRE risk and are NCCN-recommended, however, real-world use remains inconsistent. Methods: Patients with mHRPC treated from January 2017-September 2024 across Mayo Clinic sites were identified using SQL-based EHR queries confirmed by manual chart review. Bone Metastases were detected through keyword searchers of radiology reports and confirmed through manual chart review. SRE-prevention dosing was defined as zoledronic acid 4mg IV or denosumab 120mg SC; osteoporosis dosing was excluded. SREs were identified using diagnosis codes and text-pattern searches for radiotherapy, surgery, fracture, and spinal-cord compression. Descriptive statistics summarized BMA utilization and SRE incidence. Categorical variables were compared using Chi-square tests, and a risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals was calculated to evaluate association between early BMA initiation and SRE risk. Results: Among 778 patients with mHRPC, 685 (88 %) had bone metastases (mean age 70.5 years). Of these, 169 (24.7 %) had an SRE, and 261 (38.1 %) received BMAs at SRE-prevention doses (denosumab n = 157 [60 %]; zoledronic acid n = 104 [40 %]). Based on a chi-square test, combined SRE incidence did not differ significantly (No BMA 23 %, denosumab 23 %, zoledronic 33 %; p = 0.069). Bone pain at baseline was more common in patients who later received a BMA (136 [68 %]) than in those who did not (82 [41 %]; p < 0.001). Among 200 randomly sampled non-BMA patients, 83 had no recorded BMA discussion (66 also lacked bone pain), 38 lacked dental clearance, 32 had uncompleted plans and 18 declined therapy. Early BMA initiation (before first bone metastases) was associated with fewer SREs (16 % vs 29 %; RR 0.56, 95 % CI 0.33–0.96). Conclusions: Less than half of bone-metastatic mHRPC patients received BMAs. Non-initiation was often linked to modifiable factors such as delayed dental clearance or lack of treatment discussions, highlighting the need for system-level strategies to improve timely bone-directed care. SREs were common, affecting one quarter of patients. Small sample size precluded meaningful comparison of the impact of BMAs on SRE incidence however early BMA initiation may lower SREs. Incidence of SREs stratified by no BMA vs BMA treatment. SRE No BMA BMA Overall Pathological Fracture 6.4% (27/424) 4.9% (13/261) 5.8% (40/685) Radiotherapy to Bone 13.9% (59/424) 18.8% (49/261) 15.7% (108/685) Spinal Cord Compression 0.7% (3/424) 3.1% (8/261) 1.6% (11/685) Surgery to Bone 2.1% (9/424) 0.3% (1/261) 1.5% (10/685) Combined 23% (98/424) 27.2% (71/261) 24.7% (169/685)

TPS283 Background: Emerging evidence suggests that metastasis-directed therapy (MDT) with stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) can delay systemic therapy in oligometastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (omCSPC). However, the optimal timing of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) and androgen receptor pathway inhibitor (ARPI) initiation in this setting remains undefined. While deferred ADT following MDT may preserve quality of life, early short-course ADT/ARPI may eradicate micrometastatic disease and extend progression-free survival. Extracellular vesicles (EVs) carrying PSMA-positive prostate cancer (PC) signals and circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) may serve as real-time biomarkers of MRD and treatment response. Methods: DIVINE [NCT06378866] is an open-label, phase II, randomized trial enrolling men with omCSPC defined by 1–5 metastases (≥1 extrapelvic) on conventional imaging (CT/MRI and bone scan) and testosterone >100 ng/dL. PSMA PET may be obtained for correlative purposes but does not determine eligibility. Participants (N = 220) are randomized 1:1 to: Arm A (Early systemic): SBRT plus 6 months of ADT + ARPI. Arm B (Deferred systemic): SBRT alone with observation, reserving systemic therapy until radiographic progression not amenable to further SBRT (mrPD). SBRT is delivered per institutional standard; repeat SBRT is allowed until lesions become non-addressable. The primary endpoint, modified radiographic progression-free survival (mrPFS), is the time from randomization to death or radiographic progression not amenable to further MDT, defined by PCWG3 (bone) and modified RECIST 1.1 (soft tissue) criteria on conventional imaging. Soft-tissue progression requires ≥ 20% increase in measurable disease or a new lesion; bone progression requires ≥ 2 new confirmed lesions. Secondary endpoints include OS, biochemical PFS, time to local and distant progression, and grade 3–5 adverse events during systemic therapy. Exploratory endpoints evaluate EV and ctDNA kinetics as MRD markers, correlation of PSMA-positive EV burden with outcomes, and duration of response after short-course ADT/ARPI. Correlative analyses will longitudinally quantify PSMA-positive EVs and ctDNA at baseline, on treatment, and at progression to define MRD dynamics and resistance patterns. The trial uses Pocock–Simon dynamic allocation by EV strata and metastatic burden to ensure balance across arms. The trial is open and actively enrolling across all Mayo Clinic sites; as of October 2025, 35 of the planned 220 patients have been accrued. Clinical trial information: NCT06378866 .