PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
March 4, 2026Journal of Clinical Oncology0 citations

A clinical, evidence-based risk estimator for individualizing benefit and response in oligometastatic prostate cancer (CEREBRO): A tool from the X-Met collaboration.

View Full Paper
ASAlexander D. SherryPOP.I.E.T. OstHHHyunsoo Hwang

Key Points

  • This research aims to develop a tool for predicting patient-specific responses to treatments in oligometastatic prostate cancer.
  • Utilized data from 8 randomized trials in the X-Met collaboration
  • Constructed the CEREBRO tool for various treatment scenarios
  • Applied Weibull models to estimate overall survival, progression-free survival, and castration-resistance free survival
  • Included clinical variables and treatment inputs in model development
  • Included 600 patients with diverse treatment scenarios
  • Median progression-free survival was 18 months, with overall survival of 84 months
  • CEREBRO showed robust risk stratification and calibration across treatment scenarios
  • High discrimination ability demonstrated by c-index values for outcomes

Abstract

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

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Sherry et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/69a7cd2ad48f933b5eed93achttps://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2026.44.7_suppl.160
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper