Citations

PURPOSE The COSMIC-021 study assessed the safety and efficacy of cabozantinib plus atezolizumab in advanced solid tumors. Presented here are results from the expansion cohorts with advanced urothelial carcinoma (UC). METHODS This phase Ib study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03170960 ) enrolled patients with inoperable locally advanced/metastatic UC into four tumor cohorts: first-line cisplatin-eligible (cis-eligible), first-line cisplatin-ineligible (cis-ineligible), previous platinum-containing chemotherapy (previous chemotherapy-treated), and previous immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI)–treated. Patients received oral cabozantinib 40 mg once daily and intravenous atezolizumab 1,200 mg once every 3 weeks. The primary end point was objective response rate (ORR), as assessed by the investigator per RECIST v1.1 every 6 weeks for 12 months and every 12 weeks thereafter; the secondary end point was safety. RESULTS A total of 121 patients (previous ICI-treated cohort, n = 31, and each of the other cohorts, n = 30) received study treatment from March 2018 to November 2021. The ORR (95% CI) was 30% (15 to 49) for cis-eligible, 20% (8 to 39) for cis-ineligible, 27% (12 to 46) for previous chemotherapy-treated, and 10% (2 to 26) for previous ICI-treated cohorts. The median progression-free survival (95% CI) was 5.5 (1.6 to 11.6), 5.6 (3.1 to 11.1), 5.4 (1.6 to 7.6), and 3.0 (1.8 to 5.5) months, respectively. Grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) were experienced by 43%, 67%, 57%, and 45% of patients, respectively. TRAEs led to discontinuation of all treatment components in 17%, 13%, 3%, and 19%, respectively. No grade 5 TRAEs were reported in any cohort. CONCLUSION The novel combination of cabozantinib plus atezolizumab exhibited clinical activity in advanced UC that is cis-eligible, cis-ineligible, or previously treated with platinum-containing chemotherapy; clinical activity in previous ICI-treated UC was modest. The toxicity profile was consistent with that previously reported for the combination.

261 Background: Clinicians use next-generation sequencing (NGS) to tailor targeted treatments for PCa patients. However, the results are often available in unstructured formats and are saturated with technical jargon, making them inaccessible for patients. Therefore, we aimed to assess the efficacy of LLMs to accurately extract genomic characteristics from unstructured reports and generate patient-friendly summaries for ease of variant interpretation in PCa patients. Methods: This retrospective study included patients with PCa who underwent NGS from 2023-2024. The GPT4 model was utilized using structured zero-shot prompts to extract genomic characteristics from unstructured reports in a non-decomposed manner. Prompt development was conducted iteratively using a 2% random sample of the dataset. Genomic characteristics ascertained by LLM were assessed against held out vendor-curated test dataset for evaluation. Performance was assessed using weighted evaluation metrics (precision, recall, and F1-score). Additionally, the extracted variables were organized using rule-based criterion and presented as a separate prompt to GPT4 to generate summaries for interpretation at the level of each biologically relevant variant. Mean Flesch-Kincaid scores and Vocd-D statistic with standard deviations were computed to assess readability and lexical diversity of LLM-generated variant interpretation summaries. Results: A total of 331 patients (370 NGS reports) were included in the study. Evaluation on the held-out test dataset (Table) showed that the weighted average precision ranged from 80% for extracting tumor mutational burden to 100% for extracting the CtDNA fraction from unstructured reports. The weighted average recall ranged from 85% for extracting CtDNA tumor fraction to 99% for ascertaining variant/alteration. The weighted average F1-scores varied from 0.83 for extracting tumor mutational burden to 1.0 for extracting specimen site from NGS reports. The mean Flesch-Kincaid score was 8.29 ± 1 indicating average/standard readability ease. The mean Vocd-D statistic was 7.55 ± 1 indicating focused summaries, however, with limited lexical diversity. Conclusions: This study suggests that large language models can effectively extract genomic characteristics from unstructured reports and can potentially improve genomic literacy among prostate cancer patients by providing easy-to-interpret variant summaries. However, targeted prompting may be required to increase lexical diversity for improved engagement. Performance across different genomic characteristics. Category Precision Recall F1-Score Altered gene 0.86 0.97 0.89 Variant/alteration type 0.98 0.99 0.98 Variant allele fraction 0.96 0.96 0.96 Test name/type 1 0.99 1 Specimen site 1 0.99 1 Tumor mutational burden 0.8 0.93 0.83 CtDNA tumor fraction 1 0.85 0.92 MSI status 0.99 0.97 0.98

TPS272 Background: Prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA)-targeting positron emission tomography (PET) radiopharmaceuticals enable early detection of metastatic and recurrent prostate cancer (PCa). High urinary radioactivity of some PSMA-PET agents can affect interpretation of scans in the pelvic region (prostate/prostate bed [PB]; pelvic lymph nodes [PLN]). 18 F-Piflufolastat and 18 F-flotufolastat are FDA-approved, mainly renally cleared, diagnostic PSMA-PET agents; data suggest 18 F-flotufolastat has lower urinary radioactivity than 18 F-piflufolastat, but no clinical differences have been confirmed by head-to-head intra-patient studies. The present study will directly compare the urinary radioactivity of 18 F-piflufolastat with 18 F-flotufolastat in men with low prostate-specific antigen (PSA) biochemical recurrence (BCR) of PCa after radical prostatectomy (RP). Methods: This multicenter, prospective, intra-patient comparator study will include men (≥ 18 years old) with low PSA (≤ 0.5 ng/mL) BCR of PCa who have had RP ≥ 6 months before enrollment (with undetectable PSA post surgery) and are due to have routine 18 F-piflufolastat PET. Men who have had prior 18 F-piflufolastat PET or salvage therapy, or with conditions affecting urinary output, will be excluded. Eligible patients will undergo 18 F-piflufolastat PET followed by 18 F-flotufolastat PET ≥ 24 hours but ≤ 10 days later. No diuretic will be administered for scanning purposes. Each radiopharmaceutical will be administered as a single intravenous bolus per approved US prescribing information (USPI). Scanning (with the same scanner for both scans) will start 50–90 minutes post injection of 18 F-piflufolastat and 50–70 minutes post injection of 18 F-flotufolastat. Each patient will be their own control. The primary endpoint will be difference in mean standardized uptake value (SUV mean ) between 18 F-piflufolastat and 18 F-flotufolastat as assessed in volumes of interest drawn on the urinary bladder. Secondary endpoints for both agents will include detection rates: at the patient level (overall; by baseline PSA); for local recurrences in PB subregions; and for PLN lesions. For secondary endpoints, PET scans will be interpreted per product-specific USPI by 2 specially trained, blinded, central readers (a third reader will adjudicate disagreements). Safety will be monitored until 24 hours after the second scan. Around 60 men will be screened and ≥ 52 with evaluable PET scans for both agents will be included in the primary analysis. The primary endpoint will be assessed for normality and a difference in SUV mean will be tested using 2-sided paired tests (Wilcoxon signed-rank test [non-normal]; t-test [normal]). All further endpoints, including safety, will be summarized descriptively. The trial has been open for enrollment since 10/24. Clinical trial information: NCT06604442 .

202 Background: While several PARP inhibitors are approved in combination with hormonal therapies for metastatic castrate resistant prostate cancer (CRPC), their use in castrate sensitive prostate cancer (CSPC) is understudied. We previously reported that olaparib monotherapy (without ADT) shows significant clinical activity in BRCA2 -altered patients with biochemically recurrent (BCR) prostate cancer. Here, we explored prognostic and predictive PARP-related mRNA biomarkers derived from primary prostate tumors. Methods: We characterized the expression of 16 PARP transcripts using a cohort of 52,266 radical prostatectomy (RP) specimens (2016-2024) undergoing Decipher prostate genomic classifier testing (Veracyte Inc). Transcriptome-wide mRNA expression data as well as baseline clinical/pathologic factors were retrieved from the Decipher GRID database (NCT02609269). Associations between high PARP expression (top 25%), baseline factors, and gene signatures were examined using logistic regression. We assessed the association between PARP expression and distant metastases in 3 retrospective cohorts (n= 545, 855, and 325). Finally, we evaluated PARP expression in our prior phase II trial (NCT03047135, n=39) of olaparib monotherapy in the setting of BCR following RP. Results: Higher mRNA levels of PARP1 , 2 , 8 and 14 showed strong associations (all P <0.001) with known adverse prognostic factors such as very-high Decipher score (>0.85), high Gleason grade (GG5) and non-organ confined disease (EPE, SVI and LNI), while higher PARP6 and 7 expression were associated with more favorable disease characteristics. High PARP1 expression was positively correlated with DNA-repair deficiency (r=0.77) and tumor immune microenvironment (r=0.62) signatures. In 3 independent retrospective cohorts of intermediate-high risk PCa patients, higher PARP1 expression was strongly associated with development of distant metastases after RP (HR 1.70, 1.81, and 1.67 respectively; all P <0.05). Finally, in our phase II trial of patients with BCR who received olaparib monotherapy, PARP1 (but not PARP2 ) expression from RP was 1.5-fold higher in samples with BRCA2 mutations (median 0.416 vs 0.276, P =0.01) and was associated with overall improved PSA progression-free survival (continuous variable, HR 0.55, P =0.01) and longer time to next systemic treatment (continuous variable, HR 0.66, P =0.02). Conclusions: High PARP1 mRNA expression, measured at RP, is associated with aggressive disease biology and greater risk of metastasis. However, high PARP1 (but not PARP2 ) levels are associated with improved response to PARP inhibition in the setting of BCR prostate cancer. Future trials testing PARP (including PARP1-selective) inhibitors in the CSPC space should consider measuring PARP1 mRNA levels in addition to BRCA1/2 mutation status. Clinical trial information: NCT02609269 , NCT03047135 .

524 Background: Antiangiogenic tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) play a key role in treating renal cell carcinoma and other solid organ malignancies, but TKIs cause bothersome side effects that frequently necessitate dose reductions or treatment holds. Olanzapine has been useful for palliating symptoms from classical chemotherapies and advanced cancer, but its effect on TKI-related symptoms is largely unknown. This retrospective study aimed to estimate the efficacy of olanzapine for TKI-induced nausea, vomiting, anorexia, weight loss, and insomnia. Methods: All patients prescribed olanzapine with lenvatinib, cabozantinib, axitinib, or tivozanib at Mayo Clinic between January 1, 2018, and June 30, 2024 were assessed for inclusion. For baseline symptom assessment, clinical care team notes documenting the presence or absence of symptoms and indication(s) for starting olanzapine were reviewed. For response assessment, clinical notes and patient portal messages from the first three months after starting olanzapine were evaluated for qualitative descriptions of change in symptom burden. Relevant data were extracted as direct quotations, which were reviewed by the research team and categorized as “improved,” “worsened,” “stable,” or “missing data.” Each symptom domain was analyzed independently when olanzapine was prescribed for multiple interrelated symptoms. Results: A total of 60 patients who received olanzapine for the treatment of TKI-related adverse effects were included. The most common documented indication for olanzapine was nausea without vomiting (n=35), followed by anorexia (n=25), nausea with vomiting (n=16), weight loss (n=16), and insomnia (n=11). In 32 cases (53%), olanzapine was prescribed for multiple, simultaneous symptoms. Response rates for each symptom domain are shown in the table. In addition, prior to olanzapine, 34 patients (57%) had documented weight loss. Following olanzapine, 50% (n=17) gained weight (median increase: 6.1 kg; range: 2.0 - 10.7 kg), 26% (n=9) stabilized their weight (±1 kg), and 24% (n=8) continued to lose weight. Clinicians utilized a TKI dose reduction within one week of olanzapine initiation in 5 cases (8.3%), and 3 of these patients could resume the higher dose of TKI after starting olanzapine. Only 4 patients (7%) discontinued olanzapine within 3 months due to perceived side effects. Conclusions: Olanzapine appears to be effective in treating TKI-induced nausea, vomiting, anorexia, insomnia, and weight loss. Prospective randomized placebo-controlled studies are needed to confirm these findings. Improvedn (%) Worsened n (%) Stablen (%) Missing Datan (%) Nausea without emesis 32 (84) 3 (8) 1 (3) 2 (5) Nausea with emesis 13 (93) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (7) Anorexia 26 (74) 2 (6) 4 (11) 3 (9) Insomnia 11 (85) 0 (0) 2 (15) 0 (0)

745 Background: The combination of EV-P therapy has recently been approved as first-line (1L) therapy for patients with LA/mUC based on the results of the EV-302 trial. Herein, we report the updated results from a cohort of patients with LA/mUC who received EV-P in real world clinical setting. Methods: This retrospective study included patients with LA/mUC (07/2022-08/2024) at the Mayo Clinic who completed at least one cycle of EV-P. The best overall response (BOR) was evaluated using radiographic imaging and was adjudicated as complete response (CR), partial response (PR), stable disease (SD), mixed response (MR), or progressive disease (PD). The median progression-free survival (PFS), defined as the time from treatment initiation to disease progression or death, was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Patients who had not experienced disease progression by their last follow-up were censored for the PFS analysis. Results: A total of 120 patients were included; 79 (65.8%) were males, 41 (34.1%) females, 109 (91%) White, and 119 (99%) were non-Hispanic/Latino. The median age was 72 years (IQR: 65-77). Of these, only 22 (18.3%) had locally advanced disease while the remaining had mUC; 62 (51.6%) had lower tract urothelial carcinoma (LUTC), 36 (30%) had upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC). The median follow-up time was 7.1 months (IQR: 4.93-9.26). In terms of BOR, 56 patients (46.6%) experienced PR, 34 (28.3%) CR, 12 (10%) PD, 7 (5.8%) MR, and 8 (6.6%) experienced SD. 3 (2.5%) patients were not evaluable. The BOR across subgroups, LA and mUC, including LUTC and UTUC, is summarized in the table. Among the responders, the median number of treatment cycles to first response was 3 (IQR: 2.25–4). Within the follow-up, 28 patients (23.3%) experienced eventual radiographic disease progression; death was observed in 25 patients (20.8%). The median PFS was 12.7 months (95% CI: 9.8-NE), and OS was 25.1 months (16.3-NE). Conclusions: In real world setting, the combination of EV-P in LA/mUC demonstrated clinical efficacy compatible with the findings from the EV-302 trial. Our results showed comparable efficacy with EV-P in both UTUC and LUTC, highlighting it's broad therapeutic potential. However, clinical data at longer follow-up is required to fully evaluate overall survival and the durability of response. mUC LA Overall LUTC UTUC Total patients 98 62 36 22 BOR CR 23 (23.4%) 13 (20.9%) 10 (28.5%) 11 (50%) PR 49 (52.6%) 31 (50%) 18 (50%) 7 (31.8%) SD 6 (6.4%) 2 (3.2%) 4 (11.4%) 2 (9.0%) PD 10 (10.7%) 9 (15.5%) 1 (2.8%) 2 (9.0%) MR 7 (7.5%) 5 (8.6%) 2 (5.7%) 0 (0%)

309 Background: Standard of care (SOC) treatment options for HR-PCa include RT with long-term androgen deprivation (LT-ADT) or RP with selective use of post-operative RT +/- androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). The optimal treatment approach has been assessed in retrospective population-based and multi-center comparisons, which have yielded mixed results with substantial bias. Therefore, we conducted an emulated randomized comparison of RT vs RP in HR-PCa leveraging patients enrolled in RCTs. Methods: We searched Medline for RCTs in HR-PCa with a SOC arm of an RT- or RP-based regimen. Inclusion required similar experimental treatment and contemporaneous enrollment in the same country to reduce bias. This identified 2 trials, NRG/RTOG 0521 (RT+LT-ADT +/- 6 cycles docetaxel [doce]), and CALGB 90203 (RP +/- neoadjuvant 6 cycles doce and ADT). Due to inherent difference in the biochemical recurrence criteria after RT vs RP, we chose inverse probability of treatment weighted (IPTW) cumulative incidence of distant metastasis (DM) as the primary endpoint, considering deaths as competing events. Death after DM was measured to create a harmonized metric of deaths likely attributed to PCa. To assess potential residual selection bias, death without DM to capture non-cancer associated deaths was analyzed. Results: Overall, 1290 patients (RT n=557, RP n=733) were included, with similar median follow-up of 6.4 years. Prior to IPTW, RP patients were significantly younger with lower baseline PSA compared to RT patients. Adjuvant (18%) and salvage therapy (44%) was used in RP cohort. Cumulative incidence of DM was significantly lower in patients who underwent RT compared to RP (8-year DM: 16% vs 23%; p=0.01; subdistribution hazard ratio [sHR] 0.48 [95%CI 0.34-0.69], p<0.001). 8-year rates of death after DM were 10% vs 8% (p=0.72) in the RP and RT patients, respectively. RT patients had significantly greater risk of death without DM (HR 2.09 [1.01-4.34], p=0.048) with early differences measured. On a cross-arm comparison, 8-year cumulative incidence of DM when comparing SOC RT+LT-ADT group versus the doce+ADT+RP group was 18% vs 21%, respectively (sHR 0.75 [0.45-1.24], p=0.26). Conclusions: HR-PCa patients enrolled on RCTs had significantly lower incidence of DM with an RT-based strategy compared to an RP-based approach. Longer follow-up is needed to assess deaths attributed to PCa. Despite the strengths of the comparison (use of cooperative group RCT data, contemporaneous enrollment in the same country, patients fit enough for chemotherapy, and IPTW adjustments) there appears to be residual unmeasured bias, as expected, based on greater early deaths without DM in the RT arm. Utilization of post-operative radiotherapy and ADT+Doce may mitigate differences between RP and SOC RT+LT-ADT.

114 Background: Oncologists have traditionally relied upon serial assessments of PSA and periodic imaging (i.e., every 2 to 3 cycles) to monitor treatment response. Early identification of disease progression allows for faster transitions to alternative therapies that might be more effective. In this study, we evaluated the utility of post-treatment SPECT/CT for earlier detection of treatment failure in patients receiving Lutetium-177–PSMA-617 (LuPSMA). Methods: We queried an IRB-approved registry including all patients starting LuPSMA at Mayo Clinic, MN, in the interval of March 2022 to March 2023. Those receiving fewer than 2 cycles of treatment and missing SPECT/CT data were excluded. We reviewed clinical notes to document the date and reason(s) for treatment discontinuation. The assembled cohort consists of patients stopping LuPSMA for progressive disease ([PD], categorized as biochemical, radiographic, or both). Results of the prior SPECT/CT imaging reports were reviewed. At our institution SPECT/CT images are typically acquired on the day after each infusion. Metrics collected from the radiology reports included: new foci of PSMA localization since the prior PSMA PET or SPECT/CT, suspicion for new non-PSMA avid disease, and a visual determination of PSMA-avid tumor volume. Results: A total of 256 patients received an initial cycle of LuPSMA. SPECT/CT imaging data for at least 2 consecutive treatment cycles was available for 68 patients who developed PD after a median (IQR) of 3 (2-4) cycles. There were 55 patients (81%) with both biochemical and radiographic evidence of PD, 7 (10%) with biochemical only progression, and 6 (9%) with radiographic only progression. The most used imaging modality for response assessment was PSMA PET/CT (n=46, 67%), followed by conventional imaging (n=9, 13%), and choline PET/CT (n=5, 7%). The median time between most recent post-therapy SPECT/CT and determination of PD was 39 days. The prior SPECT/CT had detected new foci of PSMA avid disease in 12 (18%) cases and new non-PSMA avid disease in 5 (7%) cases. Two patients had both new PSMA-avid and non-PSMA avid lesions. The most common sites of new PSMA-avid disease on SPECT/CT were bone (n=10) and liver (n=2). A total of 20 (29%) patients had visually increased tumor volume on SPECT/CT, 9 (45%) of which had no new lesions. In total, 24 of 68 patients (35%) had early detection of treatment futility detected by SPECT/CT. At a median (IQR) follow-up time of 8 (6.4-12) mo, the median OS [95% CI] was similar for patients with PD detected on SPECT/CT (7.8 [6.6 – 9] mo) compared to those without clear evidence of PD on SPECT/CT(8.4 [6.4-10.3] mo, p=0.885). Conclusions: Post-treatment SPECT/CT imaging may complement traditional forms of response assessment and provide an earlier warning of treatment failure through identification of new PSMA-avid lesions, non-PSMA avid disease, and increased tumor volume.

112 Background: We now have more than a decade of experience using Androgen Receptor Pathway Inhibitors (ARPIs) across various disease states of prostate cancer, and the safety of their combination with Lutetium-177–PSMA-617 has been demonstrated in VISION and other large randomized clinical trials. However, real-world data on treatment patterns and outcomes involving combination therapies with 177 Lu-PSMA-617 remain limited. Methods: For this analysis, we utilized the Mayo Clinic Rochester radiopharmaceutical database, a prospectively maintained retrospective database containing all patients who received 177 Lu-PSMA-617 at our institution. We focused on patients who started treatment from March 2022 to March 2023. Patients receiving an ARPI (abiraterone acetate, enzalutamide, apalutamide, or darolutamide) during the course of 177 Lu-PSMA-617 treatment were identified, inclusive of patients who continued using an ARPI prescribed as a prior line of treatment and those who started (i.e., switched) to a new ARPI. Baseline clinicopathologic and imaging characteristics were abstracted and compared using the Mann-Whitney U and Chi-square tests. Best PSA response during treatment was reported as a percent decline from baseline. Survival was calculated from the date of the first cycle of 177 Lu-PSMA-617. PSA50 response and overall survival (OS) outcomes for the two groups (concurrent use of ARPI vs. 177 Lu-PSMA-617 alone) were compared using the Chi-square test and Kaplan-Meier method, respectively. A multivariate Cox regression analysis was performed, including established prognostic factors. Results: An ARPI was prescribed to 106 of the 256 patients (41.4%) starting 177 Lu-PSMA-617 in the interval of March 2022 to March 2023. With regards to baseline characteristics, those receiving an ARPI concurrently with 177 Lu-PSMA-617 had a lower PSA (3.4 vs 29.7 ng/mL, p < 0.001) and a lower frequency of bone (77.4% vs. 87.4%, p = 0.035) and visceral metastases (18.9 vs 34%, p = 0.008) at start of treatment. Median follow-up for the overall cohort (IQR) was 19.1 months (8.7 – 23.6). Patients receiving an ARPI plus 177 Lu-PSMA-617, as compared to 177 Lu-PSMA-617 alone, were more likely to complete all 6 planned doses of treatment (63.2% vs. 48.7%, p < 0.001), though the PSA50 response rate was similar (49.1% vs 47.3%, p = 0.786). Median OS [95% CI] for the overall cohort was 21.3 [16.7 – 25.9] months and significantly longer for those receiving ARPI with 177 Lu-PSMA-617 (NR [NE – NE]) as compared to 177 Lu-PSMA-617 alone (15.3 mo [11.6 – 19.1], p < 0.001). However, on multivariate analysis including known prognostic variables, use of ARPI was not independently associated with improved survival (HR = 1.03 [CI: 0.68 to 1.55], p = 0.891). Conclusions: Patients receiving an ARPI with 177 Lu-PSMA-617 were more likely to complete all 6 cycles of treatment, but no clear differences in survival were observed on multivariate analysis.

387 Background: Level 1 evidence supports treatment of high-risk and node positive PCa using 4-9 weeks of radiotherapy (RT) combined with 18-36 months of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) with or without abiraterone acetate plus prednisone (AAP). While effective, some cancers recur, and this prolonged treatment is associated with inconvenience and variable morbidity. We aimed to determine whether the biological synergy of stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) with a 6-month combination of ADT, AAP, and the PARP inhibitor niraparib, could enable a shorter intensified, yet safe and effective, therapeutic alternative. Methods: ASCLEPIuS (NCT04194554) is a multicenter investigator-initiated phase I/II trial in high-risk or node positive, homologous recombination unselected, PCa. Patients received 6 months of ADT, AAP, niraparib and SBRT to the prostate (37.5-40 Gy) +/- pelvic lymph nodes (25 Gy). Focal prostate/nodal boosting was permitted. The phase I primary endpoint was the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of niraparib using the time-to-event continuous reassessment method (3 dose levels: 100 mg and 200 mg held during SBRT, or 200 mg concurrent with SBRT). Dose limiting toxicities (DLT) were any persistent grade 4+ hematologic toxicity or any grade 3+ rectal/urinary toxicity at least possibly related to treatment as assessed by CTCAE v5.0. Patient reported quality of life (QOL) was assessed with the EPIC-26 short form. Linear mixed models were used to compare scores over time. Results: Accrual began in Nov. 2020 with a transition from phase I to phase II in May 2023 after enrolling 54 men. Median follow-up of the phase I cohort is 12.1 months (IQR 9.4-18.9), 80% (n=43) had Grade Group 4-5, median PSA was 17 ng/mL (range, 1-73), 15% (n=8) had cN+ disease, and 76% (n=41) received nodal RT. There were 0 DLTs to date, no grade 3+ rectal or urinary toxicities, and 5 serious adverse events at least possibly attributable to study treatment (anemia, non-rectal gastrointestinal, syncope, infection, musculoskeletal). The most common grade 3 toxicities were hypertension (n = 11, 21%) and leukopenia (n=6, 11%). Transient dose reductions or holds of AAP or niraparib occurred in 10 and 11 patients, respectively. There were no statistically significant declines in patient reported urinary QOL at 6- or 12-months post-treatment compared to baseline (all p >0.15). A transient decline in bowel QOL at 6-months occurred (p<0.01), which improved by 12-months (p=0.16). Conclusions: Our phase I findings support the short-term safety and tolerability of the combination of SBRT to the prostate and nodes, ADT, AAP, and niraparib at an MTD of 200 mg in men with high-risk or node positive PCa. Our trial completed phase II enrollment in May 2024, and longer-term safety, efficacy, and genomic correlations will be presented in the future. Clinical trial information: NCT04194554 .