Importance: Very high-risk (VHR) prostate cancer is an aggressive substratum of high-risk prostate cancer, characterized by high prostate-specific antigen levels, high Gleason score, and/or advanced T category. Contemporary management paradigms involve advanced molecular imaging and multimodal treatment with intensified prostate-directed or systemic treatment-resources more readily available at high-volume centers. Objective: To examine radiation facility case volume and overall survival (OS) in men with VHR prostate cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants: A retrospective cohort study was performed from November 11, 2022, to March 4, 2023, analyzing data from US facilities reporting to the National Cancer Database. Patients included men diagnosed with nonmetastatic VHR prostate cancer by National Comprehensive Cancer Network criteria (clinical T3b-T4 category, primary Gleason pattern 5, >4 cores with grade group 4-5, and/or 2-3 high-risk features) and treated with curative-intent radiotherapy and androgen deprivation therapy between January 1, 2004, to December 31, 2016. Exposures: Treatment at high- vs low-average cumulative facility volume (ACFV), defined as the total number of prostate radiotherapy cases at an individual patient's treatment facility from 2004 until the year of their diagnosis. The nonlinear association between a continuous ACFV and OS was examined through a Martingale residual plot; an optimal ACFV cutoff was identified that maximized the separation between high vs low ACFV via a bias-adjusted log rank test. Main Outcomes and Measures: Overall survival was assessed between high vs low ACFV using Kaplan-Meier analysis with and without inverse probability score weighted adjustment and multivariable Cox proportional hazards. Results: A total of 25 219 men (median age, 71 [IQR, 64-76] years; 78.7% White) with VHR prostate cancer were identified, 6438 (25.5%) of whom were treated at high ACFV facilities. Median follow-up was 57.4 (95% CI, 56.7-58.1) months. Median OS for patients treated at high ACFV centers was 123.4 (95% CI, 116.6-127.4) months vs 109.0 (95% CI, 106.5-111.2) months at low ACFV centers (P < .001). On multivariable analysis, treatment at a high ACFV center was associated with lower risk of death (hazard ratio, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.84-0.95; P < .001). These results were also significant after inverse probability score weighted-based adjustment. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study of patients with VHR prostate cancer who underwent definitive radiotherapy and androgen deprivation therapy, facility case volume was independently associated with longer OS. Further studies are needed to identify which factors unique to high-volume centers may be responsible for this benefit.

With limited high-level evidence, we carried out a comparative effectiveness study for the effect of proton beam therapy (PBT) on overall survival compared to external-beam radiotherapy (EBRT) and brachytherapy (BT) among patients with localized prostate cancer using a national database. PBT was associated with a significant overall survival benefit compared to EBRT and had a similar performance as BT. Background: There are few comparative outcomes data regarding the therapeutic delivery of proton beam therapy (PBT) versus the more widely used photon-based external-beam radiation (EBRT) and brachytherapy (BT). We evaluated the impact of PBT on overall survival (OS) compared to EBRT or BT on patients with localized prostate cancer. Patients and Methods: The National Cancer Data Base (NCDB) was queried for 2004–2015. Men with clinical stage T1–3, N0, M0 prostate cancer treated with radiation, without surgery or chemotherapy, were included. OS, the primary clinical outcome, was fit by Cox proportional hazard model. Propensity score matching was implemented for covariate balance. Results: There were 276,880 eligible patients with a median follow-up of 80.9 months. A total of 4900 (1.8%) received PBT, while 158,111 (57.1%) received EBRT and 113,869 (41.1%) BT. Compared to EBRT and BT, PBT patients were younger and were less likely to be in the high-risk group. On multivariable analysis, compared to PBT, men had worse OS after EBRT (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] = 1.72; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.51–1.96) or BT (adjusted HR = 1.38; 95% CI, 1.21–1.58). After propensity score matching, the OS benefit of PBT remained significant compared to EBRT (HR = 1.64; 95% CI, 1.32–2.04) but not BT (adjusted HR = 1.18; 95% CI, 0.93–1.48). The improvement in OS with PBT was most prominent in men ≤ 65 years old with low-risk disease compared to other subgroups (interaction P < .001). Conclusion: In this national data set, PBT was associated with a significant OS benefit compared to EBRT, and with outcomes similar to BT. These results remain to be validated by ongoing prospective trials.

Purpose: Treatment with long-term androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) and radiation therapy (RT) is the nonsurgical standard-of-care for patients with high- or very high-risk prostate cancer (HR-PC), but the optimal timing between ADT and RT initiation is unknown. We evaluate the influence of timing between ADT and RT on outcomes in patients with HR-PC using a large national cancer database. Methods and Materials: Data for patients with clinical T1-T4 N0, M0, National Cancer Comprehensive Network HR-PC who were treated with definitive external RT (≥60 Gy) and ADT starting either before or within 14 days after RT start were extracted from the National Cancer Database (2004-2015). Patients were grouped on the basis of ADT initiation: (1) >11 weeks before RT, (2) 8 to 11weeks before RT, and (3) <8 weeks before RT. Kaplan-Meier, propensity score matching, and multivariable Cox proportional hazards were performed to evaluate overall survival (OS). Results: With a median follow-up of 68.9 months, 37,606 patients with HR-PC were eligible for analysis: 13,346 (35.5%) with >11 weeks of neoadjuvant ADT, 11,456 (30.5%) with 8 to 11 weeks of neoadjuvant ADT; and 12,804 (34%) patients with <8 weeks of neoadjuvant ADT. The unadjusted 10-year OS rates for >11 weeks, 8 to 11 weeks, and <8 weeks neoadjuvant ADT groups were 49.9%, 51.2%, and 46.9%, respectively (P =.002). On multivariable and inverse probability of treatment weighting analyses, there was a significant OS advantage for patients in the 8 to 11 weeks neoadjuvant ADT group (adjusted hazard ratio 0.90; 95% confidence interval, 0.86-0.95; P <.001) but not the >11 weeks group. Conclusions: Neoadjuvant ADT initiation 8 to 11 weeks before RT is associated with significantly improved OS compared with shorter neoadjuvant ADT duration. Although prospective validation is warranted, this analysis is the largest retrospective study suggesting an influence of timing between ADT and RT initiation in HR-PC.

There are limited data on the role of local therapy for metastatic urothelial carcinoma of the bladder (mUC). In this retrospective cohort analysis, we queried the National Cancer Data Base for patients with newly diagnosed mUC (cT1-4 N0-3 M1). Overall survival (OS) was compared between treatment with chemotherapy (CT) alone (n = 4122) and CT plus bladder-directed radiation therapy (CT + RT; n = 337). Multivariable Cox proportional-hazards analyses and matching and landmark analyses were performed. CT + RT was independently associated with better OS (hazard ratio 0.70, 95% confidence interval 0.62-0.79; p < 0.0001) and this result persisted in matched and landmark analyses. These findings are hypothesis-generating and limited by inherent confounding factors; however, a prospective trial evaluating the impact of bladder RT in mUC is warranted. PATIENT SUMMARY: For patients with bladder cancer that has already spread to other parts of the body, it is unclear if radiation therapy directed at the primary bladder tumor would provide any improvement in survival. In this study, we found that aggressive radiation therapy directed at the bladder combined with chemotherapy may provide a survival benefit in some patients with metastatic bladder cancer compared to chemotherapy alone.

Background: Elderly patients diagnosed with high-risk prostate cancer (PCa) present a therapeutic dilemma of balancing treatment of a potentially lethal malignancy with overtreatment of a cancer that may not threaten life expectancy. Objective: To investigate treatment patterns and overall survival outcomes in this group of patients. Design, setting, and participants: A retrospective cohort study was conducted. We queried the National Cancer Database for high-risk PCa in patients aged 80 yr or older diagnosed during 2004–2016. Intervention: Eligible patients underwent no treatment following biopsy (ie, observation), androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) alone, radiation therapy (RT) alone, RT + ADT, or surgery. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: Kaplan-Meier, log rank, and multivariate Cox proportional hazard regression was performed to compare overall survival (OS). Results and limitations: A total of 19 920 men were eligible for analysis, and the most common treatment approach was RT + ADT (7401 patients; 37.2%). Observation and ADT alone declined over time (59.3% in 2004 vs 47.5% in 2016). There was no observed difference in OS between observation and ADT alone (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 1.04, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.99–1.09; p = 0.105). Definitive local treatment was associated with improved OS compared with ADT alone (RT alone, HR 0.54, 95% CI, 0.50–0.59, p < 0.0001; ADT + RT, HR 0.48, 95% CI, 0.46–0.50, p < 0.0001; surgery, HR 0.50, 95% CI, 0.42–0.59, p < 0.0001). Conclusions: This analysis demonstrates that the use of definitive local therapy, including surgery or RT ± ADT, is increasing and is associated with a 50% reduction in overall mortality compared with observation or ADT alone. While prospective validation is warranted, elderly men with high-risk disease eligible for definitive management should be counseled on the risks, including a possible compromise in OS, with deferring definitive management. Patient summary: Elderly men are more often diagnosed with higher-risk prostate cancer but are less likely to receive curative treatment options than younger men. Our analysis demonstrates that for men ≥80 yr of age with high-risk prostate cancer, definitive local therapy, including surgery or radiation therapy and/or androgen deprivation therapy, is associated with a 50% reduction in overall mortality compared with observation or androgen deprivation therapy alone. We therefore recommend that life expectancy (ie, physiologic age) be taken into account, over chronologic age, and that elderly men with good life expectancy (eg, >5 yr; minimal comorbidity) should be offered definitive, life-prolonging therapy.

Background: Molecular imaging is increasingly used to guide treatment decisions and planning in prostate cancer. We aimed to evaluate the role of 18F-fluciclovine-PET/CT in improving cancer control compared with conventional imaging (bone scan and either CT or MRI) alone for salvage postprostatectomy radiotherapy. Methods: In EMPIRE-1, a single-centre, open-label, phase 2/3 randomised controlled trial, patients with prostate cancer with detectable PSA after prostatectomy and negative conventional imaging (no extrapelvic or bone findings) were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to radiotherapy directed by conventional imaging alone or to conventional imaging plus 18F-fluciclovine-PET/CT. Computer-generated randomisation was stratified by PSA concentration, adverse pathology indicators, and androgen deprivation therapy intent. In the 18F-fluciclovine-PET/CT group, radiotherapy decisions were rigidly determined by PET findings, which were also used for target delineation. The primary endpoint was 3 year event-free survival, with events defined as biochemical or clinical recurrence or progression, or initiation of systemic therapy, using univariate and multivariable analyses in patients who received radiotherapy. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01666808 and is closed to new participants. Findings: From Sept 18, 2012, to March 4, 2019, 165 patients were randomly assigned, with median follow-up of 3·52 years (95% CI 2·98–3·95). PET findings resulted in four patients in the 18F-fluciclovine-PET/CT group having radiotherapy aborted; these patients were excluded from survival analyses. Median survival was not reached (95% CI 35·2–not reached; 33% of 81 patients had events) in the conventional imaging group compared with not reached (95% CI not reached–not reached; 20% of 76 patients) in the 18F-fluciclovine-PET/CT group, and 3 year event-free survival was 63·0% (95% CI 49·2–74·0) in the conventional imaging group versus 75·5% (95% CI 62·5–84·6) for 18F-fluciclovine-PET/CT (difference 12·5; 95% CI 4·3–20·8; p=0·0028). In adjusted analyses, study group (hazard ratio 2·04 [95% CI 1·06–3·93], p=0·0327) was significantly associated with event-free survival. Toxicity was similar in both study groups, with the most common adverse events being late urinary frequency or urgency (37 [46%] of 81 patients in the conventional imaging group and 31 [41%] of 76 in the PET group), and acute diarrhoea (11 [14%] in the conventional imaging group and 16 [21%] in the PET group). Interpretation: Inclusion of 18F-fluciclovine-PET into postprostatectomy radiotherapy decision making and planning significantly improved survival free from biochemical recurrence or persistence. Integration of novel PET radiotracers into radiotherapy decisions and planning for prostate cancer patients warrants further study. Funding: National Institutes of Health/National Cancer Institute, Blue Earth Diagnostics, and Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University.

Importance: Long-term control of node-positive (N1) prostate cancer, the incidence of which is increasing, is obtainable with aggressive treatment, and definitive external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) with long-term androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) is an increasingly preferred option. Caring for these patients is complex and may require resources more readily available at high-volume centers. Objective: To evaluate the association between radiation facility case volume and overall survival (OS) in men with N1 prostate cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study included 1899 men diagnosed with T1N1M0 to T4N1M0 prostate cancer treated with curative-intent EBRT and ADT between January 2004 and December 2016 at US facilities reporting to the National Cancer Database. Data analysis was performed from March to June 2020. Exposures: Treatment at a center with high vs low average cumulative facility volume (ACFV), defined as the total number of prostate radiation cases at an individual patient's treatment facility from 2004 until the year of that patient's diagnosis. Main Outcomes and Measures: OS was assessed between high- vs low-ACFV centers using the Kaplan-Meier method with and without propensity score-based weighted adjustment and multivariable Cox proportional hazards. The nonlinear association between continuous ACFV and OS was examined through a Martingale residual plot, and the optimal ACFV cutoff point that maximized the separation between high vs low ACFV was identified via a bias adjusted log rank test. Results: A total of 1899 men met inclusion criteria. The median (interquartile range) age was 66 (60-72) years, 1491 (78.5%) were White individuals, and 1145 (60.3%) were treated at nonacademic centers. The optimal ACFV cutoff point was 66.4 patients treated per year. The median OS for patients treated at high-ACFV vs low-ACFV centers was 111.1 (95% CI, 101.5-127.9) months and 92.3 (95% CI, 87.7-103.9) months, respectively (P =.01). On multivariable analysis, treatment at a low-ACFV center was associated with increased risk of death (HR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.02-1.46, P =.03) compared with treatment at a high-ACFV center. These results persisted after propensity score-based adjustment. Conclusions and Relevance: This cohort study found a significant association of facility case volume with long-term outcomes in men with N1 prostate cancer undergoing EBRT with ADT. Specifically, treatment at a facility with high radiation case volume was independently associated with longer OS. Further studies should focus on identifying which factors unique to high-volume centers may be responsible for this benefit..