Citations

352 Background: Glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP1) receptor expression in prostate cancer tissue has raised concerns that GLP1 receptor agonists (GLP1A) may influence tumor growth or progression. We compared prostate cancer severity at diagnosis among patients receiving GLP1A versus other glucose lowering therapies. Methods: A retrospective chart review identified patients who received GLP1A or alternative second-line glucose lowering agents (DPP4/SGLT2 inhibitors) and were subsequently diagnosed with prostate cancer. Patients receiving both drug classes were excluded. Baseline demographics (race, ethnicity, age), comorbidities (diabetes, myocardial infarction, peripheral vascular disease) concomitant medications (insulin, metformin, statins), appointments (within past year) and laboratory values (HbA1c, eGFR) at therapy initiation were recorded. Primary outcomes included Gleason grade group and metastatic presentation within three months of diagnosis. Propensity score matching balanced baseline characteristics between groups. Mann-Whitney U tests compared grade groups. Chi-square tests compared metastatic presentation, reporting odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Multivariable logistic regression identified predictors of grade group (low-grade: 1-2; high-grade: ≥3) and metastatic presentation, reporting OR with 95% CI. A p value <0.05 indicated a significant association. Results: Of 260 propensity-matched patients (GLP1A: 130, comparison: 130), 87% were White and 95% were Non-Hispanic/Non-Latino in each group. Median HbA1c was 7% (IQR: 6.4-8) in GLP1A group versus 7.5% (6.2-8.5) in comparison group. Median eGFR was 75mL/min/1.73m 2 (IQR: 61.5-90.0) in GLP1A group versus 60.0 (52.0-80.5) in comparison group. High-grade disease occurred in 33 (25%) GLP1A patients and 37 (29%) comparison patients. Among patients with available imaging (GLP1A: 40; comparison: 32), metastatic presentation occurred in 7 (18%) GLP1A group and 7 (22%) comparison group patients. No significant differences were observed in grade group (GLP1A median: 2; IQR: 1-2 vs. comparison median: 2; 1-3; p=0.44) or metastatic presentation (OR: 1.32; 95%CI: 0.41-4.25; p=0.64) between groups. In multivariable analysis, higher HbA1c was associated with high-grade disease in GLP1A group (OR: 1.83; 95%CI: 1.07-3.35; p=0.03) while higher eGFR was associated with low-grade disease in the comparison group (0.97; 0.93-0.99; p=0.04). Conclusions: GLP1A use was not associated with prostate cancer grade or metastatic presentation at diagnosis compared to alternative glucose-lowering agents. However, the association between elevated HbA1c and high-grade disease in GLP1A patients suggests a potential impact of poor glycemic control on tumor biology. Prospective studies are needed to elucidate the relationship between metabolic dysregulation and prostate cancer severity.

32 Background: PET-based radiopharmaceuticals targeting prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) have become the mainstay of prostate cancer imaging; however, high urinary radioactivity from these primarily renally cleared compounds may obscure tumors in the prostate and peri-ureteric regions. We conducted the first intra-patient comparator study to assess the urinary radioactivity of two 18 F-labelled PSMA-PET radiopharmaceuticals, 18 F-piflufolastat and 18 F-flotufolastat. Methods: This multicenter, prospective, intra-patient comparator study (NCT06604442) enrolled men ≥ 18 years with low PSA (≤ 0.5 ng/mL) biochemical recurrence of prostate cancer ≥ 6 months after radical prostatectomy with undetectable PSA post-surgery, scheduled for a standard-of-care (SoC) 18 F-piflufolastat PET. Patients had a SoC PET/CT after IV 18 F-piflufolastat (target dose 333 MBq), and a second PET/CT 1–10 days later after IV 18 F-flotufolastat (target dose 296 MBq), both scans started approximately 60 min after administration and used the same scanner. The primary endpoint was the difference in urinary bladder radioactivity (mean standardized uptake value [SUV mean ]) between 18 F-piflufolastat PET and 18 F-flotufolastat PET. Secondary endpoints included patient and region-level detection rates (DR) for each radiopharmaceutical. Images were interpreted by two blinded central readers, with a third to resolve disagreements, allowing majority read results. Results: Between Oct 2024 and Jun 2025, 55 patients (mean PSA, 0.28 [range 0.09–0.50] ng/mL) were included in the primary efficacy analysis. Median bladder SUV mean was significantly higher with 18 F-piflufolastat (29.0; interquartile range [IQR], 18.9–40.8) than 18 F-flotufolastat (10.9; IQR, 6.0–18.5) with a median difference of 15.1 (IQR, 8.5–27.0; p<0.001 [Wilcoxon signed-rank test]). The patient-level DR was 27.3% (15/55) for 18 F-piflufolastat and 45.5% (25/55) for 18 F-flotufolastat (majority read). Among the 21 patients with very low PSA levels (≤ 0.2 ng/mL), 38.1% had a positive 18 F-piflufolastat scan compared with 52.4% for 18 F-flotufolastat scans (majority read). Regional and sub-regional DRs are shown in the table. Conclusions: In this intra-patient study, 18 F-flotufolastat showed significantly lower urinary radioactivity, and a higher overall DR than 18 F-piflufolastat indicating it may offer improved image assessment in regions close to the bladder. Clinical trial information: NCT06604442 . Region 18 F-Piflufolastat DR* n (%)N=55 18 F-Flotufolastat DR*n (%)N=55 Prostate bed 6 (10.9) 10 (18.2) Vesicourethral anastomosis 1 (1.8) 4 (7.3) Retrovesical 2 (3.6) 2 (3.6) Remnant seminal vesicles/ lateral surgical margin 2 (3.6) 4 (7.3) Pelvic lymph nodes 8 (14.5) 9 (16.4) Majority read. *≥ 1 PET positive lesion.

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.

162 Background: Clinical trial conduct in advanced prostate cancer has changed dramatically with the continued development of new imaging approaches, molecular phenotypes and genetic subtypes, prognosis assessments, and effective therapies across a range of disease states. This created a need to redefine terminology and best practices for clinical trials. Methods: We convened PCWG4, an international expert committee of multidisciplinary working groups, between 2016 and 2025 to update and expand PCWG2-3 recommendations based on emerging evidence and clinical trial data in an innovative biomarker and imaging context to provide guidance for clinical trial design, eligibility, and endpoint assessments. Results: PCWG4 redefines terminology around disease states and prior therapies in a patient-centric context, considering imaging modalities, with a particular focus on PET-defined disease. New recommendations are provided for disease state terminology, defining eligibility criteria, imaging and non-imaging-based responses. We define delay/prevent endpoints including responses by pathology, ctDNA, circulating tumor cells, and PSA declines, and specify intervals for re-assessments including imaging, biomarker assessments, and patient reported outcomes. We propose new imaging-specific rPFS criteria including guidance with serial PSMA PET/CT imaging (Table). We provide recommendations in a biomarker-based context for the indication, reflective of patient benefit for specific interventions. We emphasize the need for development of validated PET imaging and molecular and phenotypic criteria as well as trial designs to appropriately risk stratify patients, predict and assess benefit, and measure post-treatment outcomes reliably in a trial framework. Conclusions: PCWG4 expands guidance on patient and tumor profiling, as well as therapy development, to include both androgen deprivation therapy sensitive and resistant settings, reflecting today’s more heterogeneous and diverse patient population to optimize outcomes. PCWG4-defined radiographic progression by imaging modality for patients with metastatic disease. Pretreatment Scan On-treatment Scan #1(≥week 8) On-treatment Scan #2 All Subsequent Scans Bone scintigraphy Comparator Comparator for subsequent scansPOD never called here POD:PCWG3 criteria (2+2 additional new lesions) POD:≤5 new lesions: PCWG3 criteria 2 new lesions confirmed≥6 new lesions CT/MRI Any measurable disease Comparator PCWG3/RECIST PCWG3/RECIST PCWG3/RECIST PSMA PET Bones, and lymph nodes and lung metastases (non-RECIST qualifying by + on PET only) Comparator POD:≤5 new lesions: 2 new lesions confirmed on a subsequent scan≥6 new lesions Same as prior Same as prior Liver and non-pulmonary viscera Comparator POD:Any single new lesion that represents disease Same as prior Same as prior

160 Background: To our knowledge, no tools are available to guide care in oligometastatic prostate cancer (omPC). Here, we leveraged individual patient-level data pooled from 8 randomized trials in the X-Met collaboration to construct CEREBRO, a tool for predicting patient-specific responses to various treatment scenarios. Methods: Patients with omPC from the STOMP, ORIOLE, SABR COMET, EXTEND continuous ADT, EXTEND intermittent ADT, ARTO, RADIOSA, and RAVENS trials were included. 6 patients (1%) with missing data were excluded. Treatment scenarios were defined as active surveillance (AS), metastasis-directed therapy (MDT), systemic therapy (ST), or MDT+ST. To account for varying baseline hazards, Weibull models were fit for overall survival (OS); progression-free survival (PFS); and castration-resistance free survival (CRFS) for patients with hormone-sensitive disease. Endpoint definitions were harmonized per X-Met framework. Results: Of 600 patients included (treatment scenarios: AS=50; MDT=153; ST=172; MDT+ST=225), 405 (67%) had hormone-sensitive omPC. With median follow-up of 38 months, median PFS, CRFS, and OS of all patients were 18, 70, and 84 months. In order of relative contribution, inputs for predicting outcomes were: treatment scenario, stage, prostate-specific antigen annotated by ADT status, metachronous vs synchronous presentation, imaging type, number of metastases, hormone sensitivity, and age. The model for each endpoint showed robust fit, calibration, superiority against the null model (per the likelihood ratio test), and risk stratification (Table). Median PFS times for model-defined low-, intermediate-, and high-risk strata were 46 months, 18 months, and 7 months ( p <0.0001). In addition, the PFS and OS models also showed strong discrimination via c index and a large interval of risk probabilities with additive clinical utility per decision-curve analysis (Table). A public webpage will be made available to facilitate prospective trial stratification, patient counseling for patient-specific outcome predictions for each potential treatment scenario, and forecasts comparing outcomes between treatment scenarios. Conclusions: CEREBRO is a high-performance tool, trained on robust prospective data from 8 randomized trials with routinely collected clinical variables, for predicting risk and treatment outcomes in omPC. Given the uncertainties in optimal timing of MDT and combination with ST, this tool has been built to facilitate current decision making. External validation is planned. Model summary. Endpoint C index (95% CI) Calibration Likelihood ratio p Risk strata p Net clinical utility observed between thresholds PFS 0.72 (0.70-0.75) 1.04 <0.0001 <0.0001 0.2-1.0 CRFS 0.63 (0.60-0.70) 1.01 0.02 0.004 0.2-0.5 OS 0.81 (0.76-0.86) 1.01 <0.0001 <0.0001 0.05-1.0

145 Background: Multiple trials have demonstrated addition of androgen-receptor pathway inhibitors (ARPIs) improve survival in patients with metastatic prostate cancer but there is a need to quantify cardiovascular toxicity. Understanding the nature and extent of ARPI-associated cardiovascular adverse events across disease states and toxicity grades is critical to inform treatment decisions and long-term patient safety. Methods: MEDLINE, and EMBASE were systematically searched from database inception through August 30, 2025, for phase III randomized controlled trials evaluating abiraterone, enzalutamide, apalutamide, darolutamide, orteronel in metastatic prostate cancer. Trials were included if they reported CVS toxicity. Meta-analysis using a random-effects model was performed to assess the difference of all-cause and treatment-emergent cardiovascular adverse events between ARPI+ADT and ADT alone. Summary effects were expressed as relative risk (RR) with associated 95% confidence intervals. Results: A total of 21 trials (45 references) with 25,576 patients (mCSPC: 12,537, mCRPC: 13,039) were included in this meta-analysis. Compared to ADT alone, ARPI+ADT significantly increased the risk of all cause, all grade hypertension in both mCSPC (RR 1.60, 1.22–2.10) and mCRPC (RR 1.61, 1.20–2.16) as well as grade ≥ 3 hypertension (RR 1.71, 1.17–2.48) in mCRPC setting. There was an increased risk of all-cause, all grade acute coronary syndrome (RR 2.21, 1.09–4.49) and AV nodal disease (RR 2.53, 1.18–5.43) with ARPI+ADT compared to ADT alone in mCSPC setting. There was increased risk of all cause, all grade, any cardiac events (RR 1.30, 1.10–1.54) as well as grade ≥ 3 any cardiac events (RR 1.70, 1.20–2.42) in mCRPC setting. Risk of all cause, all grade hot flashes (RR 1.47, 1.16–1.85) was also significantly increased with ARPI+ADT when compared to ADT alone. In terms of treatment-emergent adverse effects, a significant increase was observed only for pulmonary embolism with ARPI+ADT when compared to ADT alone (RR 1.66, 1.06–2.60) in mCRPC setting. Conclusions: Current evidence indicates potentially increased risk of hypertension, venous thromboembolic, and ischemic cardiac events with ARPI therapy in metastatic prostate cancer. Proactive CV risk assessment, particularly in patients with preexisting comorbidities or prolonged ARPI exposure, may optimize outcomes and minimize treatment interruptions. All cause adverse events. Adverse Event Disease State All Grade Grade ≥3 Any Cardiac Event mCSPC 0.81 (0.37–1.76) 0.88 (0.16–4.64) mCRPC 1.30 (1.10–1.54) 1.70 (1.20–2.42) Hypertension mCSPC 1.60 (1.22–2.10) 1.43 (0.82–2.52) mCRPC 1.61 (1.20–2.16) 1.71 (1.17–2.48) ACS mCSPC 2.21 (1.09–4.49) 1.77 (0.86–3.61) mCRPC – – Hot Flashes mCSPC – – mCRPC 1.47 (1.16–1.85) 1.46 (0.21–9.97)

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.

142 Background: LuPSMA is a life-prolonging radioligand therapy that is widely considered to have favorable tolerability. SPPADE symptoms (Sleep disturbance, Pain, Physical dysfunction, Anxiety, Depression, low Energy) are common in prostate cancer, yet data on patient-reported outcomes with LuPSMA in real-world settings remain limited. Methods: The E2C2 study (NCT03892967) evaluates the impact of a collaborative care intervention on patient-centered outcomes and healthcare utilization. This analysis includes mCRPC patients who initiated LuPSMA at Mayo Clinic (June 2022-July 2023) and completed at least one symptom survey within 6 weeks before or 2 weeks after the first LuPSMA treatment (baseline survey). SPPADE symptoms were rated on 0-10 scales; scores of 4-6 indicate moderate and 7-10 severe burden. A composite z-score was derived by standardizing each SPPADE domain to the cohort mean and averaging z-scores across domains per patient. Patients were stratified by composite symptom burden using cohort median and upper-tertile cutoffs. Associations with PSA50 response and overall survival (OS, from start of LuPSMA) were assessed using chi-square and Kaplan-Meier methods. In a longitudinal subgroup of patients completing a baseline survey plus at least one additional PRO survey while receiving LuPSMA (≥2 surveys), scores were compared from baseline to best during-treatment using Wilcoxon and Mann-Whitney U tests. Results: Of 373 patients starting LuPSMA, 51 patients met inclusion criteria. Median age was 71 years, 31% had visceral metastases, and median baseline PSA was 42.1 ng/mL. Overall, 85% of patients reported at least one moderate symptom and 46% at least one severe symptom. The most common moderate-to-severe symptoms were low energy (58%), pain (52%), and sleep disturbance (49%). Using an upper-tertile cutoff of the composite SPPADE score, 17 patients had high and 34 had low/moderate symptom burden prior to LuPSMA. PSA50 response was achieved in 17.6% of patients with high vs 47.1% with low/moderate composite symptom scores (p = 0.08). Median OS was 9.2 vs 16.7 months for high vs low symptom groups (p = 0.15, median split). The longitudinal subgroup included 24 patients with serial ePRO assessments while on LuPSMA. Composite SPPADE scores improved from baseline to the best during-treatment assessment in both PSA50 responders (n=10) and non-responders (n=14), with median composite z-score Δ of 0.35 vs 0.20, respectively (p = 0.68). Conclusions: Among patients with mCRPC receiving LuPSMA, baseline SPPADE symptom burden was high. Though not statistically significant in this underpowered cohort, PSA response and OS were numerically inferior in those with higher baseline burden. These findings suggest that ePRO-captured symptom burden may provide prognostic and patient-centered insights beyond traditional clinical variables. Clinical trial information: NCT03892967 .

129 Background: Androgen receptor pathway inhibitors (ARPIs) improve metastasis-free and overall survival in men with non-metastatic hormone-resistant prostate cancer (nmHRPC). Apalutamide and darolutamide were approved by the Federal Drug Administration in 2018 and 2019, respectively, based on pivotal clinical trials showing similar efficacy. However, no head-to-head comparisons exist in real-world settings. We compared prescription patterns and survival outcomes between apalutamide and darolutamide in men with nmHRPC using the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER)-Medicare data. Methods: We identified men aged ≥66 years with localized or locoregional prostate cancer between 2000 and 2021 using the SEER-Medicare linked database. Eligible patients initiated apalutamide or darolutamide between January 2019 and December 2021, defined by Medicare Part D claims. The index date was the first prescription of either agent. Men with distant metastases, prior malignancies and age ≤65 were excluded. Baseline demographics and clinical characteristics were compared using chi-square and Wilcoxon rank-sum tests. Survival was assessed using Kaplan-Meier analysis with log-rank tests. Cox proportional hazards regression was used to estimate adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) for mortality. Results: Among 582 men with nmHRPC, 435 (74.7%) received apalutamide and 147 (25.3%) received darolutamide. The mean age at diagnosis was 73.8 vs 74.1 years (p=0.95). Most patients were White (84.6% vs 81.0%, p=0.21) and resided in metropolitan areas (85.0% vs 88.4%, p=0.39). Darolutamide use was more frequent in the Northeast (42.9% vs 24.6%, p<0.001), while apalutamide was more common in the South (28.7% vs 15.6%, p<0.001). Patients receiving darolutamide had higher-grade tumors (68.0% grade III vs 51.3%, p=0.002) and a longer median time from diagnosis to prescription (93 vs 64 months, p<0.001). Kaplan-Meier curves and adjusted Cox models showed no significant difference in overall survival (HR 1.00; 95% CI 0.51–1.98; p=1.00). Age was independently associated with mortality (HR 1.05 per year; 95% CI 1.00–1.10; p=0.04). Conclusions: Apalutamide and darolutamide demonstrated comparable real-world survival outcomes in nmHRPC. Geographic and clinical factors influenced prescribing patterns, but survival did not differ between agents. Treatment choice may therefore be guided by patient comorbidities, tolerability, and clinician preference. Variable Comparison HR (95% CI) P-Value Treatment Darolutamide vs Apalutamide 1.00 (0.51,1.98) 1.00 Age at Diagnosis 1.05 (1.00, 1.10) 0.04* Race White vs Non-White 0.71 (0.28, 1.80) 0.47 Marital Status Married vs Unmarried 1.29 (0.60, 2.75) 0.51 Geographic Region -Midwest vs West 1.18 (0.34, 4.15) 0.79 -Northeast vs West 1.92 (0.92, 3.88) 0.07 -South vs West 1.01 (0.43, 2.36) 0.99

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)