Secondary analysis evaluates a novel risk stratification for abiraterone treatment in high-risk prostate cancer, suggesting improved patient selection.
5000 Background: Outcomes for some patients with ≥high-risk localized prostate cancer (HR-PCa) who receive radiation therapy (RT) remain poor. Current guidelines recommend intensification with abiraterone/prednisone (AAP) in select patients; however, the current guideline-defined candidate population may be suboptimal. Methods: This is a secondary analysis of available biopsy samples from NRG/RTOG 9202, 9413, 9902, and 0521. The primary objective was to determine if a specific subgroup of ≥HR-PCa patients had sufficiently poor prognoses to derive a clinically meaningful benefit from AAP intensification. The prognostic impact of the Decipher 22-gene genomic classifier (GC; Veracyte, San Diego, CA) was first evaluated for metastasis-free survival (MFS, primary), overall survival (OS), and distant metastases (DM). GC scores were analyzed using both continuous (per 0.1 GC units) and pre-specified categorical cutpoints: ≤ intermediate transcriptomic risk (IR-PCa, GC≤0.6), HR-PCa (GC:0.6-0.85), and very high risk (VHR-PCa, GC > 0.85). A tree-based model was then used to combine clinical and transcriptomic risk category. Results: This study characterized outcomes of 427 patients (64% NCCN HR-PCa; 36% NCCN VHR-PCa) with a median follow-up of 10.4 years. Continuous GC score was observed to discriminate risk when adjusted for age, PSA, grade, T-stage, and treatment received for the endpoints of MFS (HR GC :1.19 [95% CI:1.10-1.29], p < 0.001), DM (HR GC :1.31 [95% CI:1.13-1.51], p < 0.001), and OS (HR GC : 1.18 [95% CI: 1.09-1.28], p < 0.001). MFS and OS were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method by pre-specified GC subgroup within each NCCN risk group (HR-PCa, VHR-PCa). Based on outcomes by subgroup, a novel clinico-transcriptomic risk stratification system was constructed, where patients receive 1 point for NCCN/GC HR categorization and 2 points for NCCN/GC VHR categorization. The combined risk score ≥3 subgroup had a prognosis similar to the STAMPEDE M0 control arm, whereas the combined score ≤2 subgroup had a substantially better prognosis. Utilizing this system could enhance the specificity of AAP recommendations, increasing the candidate pool eligible for AAP intensification by approximately 20% and identifying approximately 25% of NCCN VHR in whom the therapeutic ratio of AAP may be less favorable. Conclusions: This study defines a novel clinico-transcriptomic risk stratification system to augment current clinical eligibility for AAP intensification. This system may increase the population who benefit from AAP by approximately 20% and simultaneously identify approximately 25% of NCCN VHR patients who may avoid AAP intensification. Acknowledgement: We would like to acknowledge Dr. Felix Feng for his contributions in his capacity as the former GU Committee Chair.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Patel et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: