Impact of PSMA PET staging on initial treatment in newly diagnosed prostate cancer: An emulated randomized controlled trial.

S Sean Ryan Miller (University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI) R Rachel Tucker Gonzalez (University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI) W William C. Jackson (University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI) M Megan Veresh Caram (Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Hematology/Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI) P Phoebe A. Tsao (Division of Hematology/Oncology, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, MI) K Kristian Stensland (University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI) Y Yashesh Shah (University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI) D Daniel Wale (University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI) D David Elliott (2Texas Tech Health Sciences Center El Paso, Paul Foster School of Medicine, El Paso, United States) K Ka Kit Wong B Benjamin Viglianti (Department of Nuclear Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI) T Tanner C. Caverly (Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI) T Timothy Hofer (Michigan Medicine, Ann Arbor, MI) S Sameer D Saini (Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI) M Michael D Green (University of Michigan Health Management Research Center, Ann Arbor, MI) M Matthew J. Schipper (University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI) R Robert Timothy Dess (University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI) A Alex K. Bryant

Abstract

350 Background: Prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) PET/CT has become a common initial staging modality for localized prostate cancer due to its increased sensitivity and specificity over conventional staging. However, the causal impact of widespread PSMA staging on initial prostate cancer treatments has not been described. Methods: We used electronic medical record data from a national, diverse health system (Veterans Health Administration) to emulate a randomized controlled trial in which patients with newly diagnosed conventionally localized unfavorable intermediate, high, and very high-risk prostate cancer were allocated to either upfront PSMA staging or conventional imaging with technetium-99 bone scan and pelvic CT or MRI. Primary outcomes included the use of any androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), advanced androgen receptor pathway inhibitors (ARPIs), radiotherapy, and radical prostatectomy assessed in the year after diagnosis. We used the cloning, censoring, and weighting technique to estimate the causal effect of PSMA staging, controlling for potential confounders. In exploratory analyses, we extracted radiographic stage from PSMA reports using a natural language processing algorithm and assessed the influence of PSMA findings (N0M0, N1M0, or M1) on treatment patterns. Results: 9,049 patients met criteria for inclusion in the emulated trial, of whom 35% underwent PSMA staging and 46% underwent bone scan. In the emulated trial, PSMA staging was associated with higher rates of any ADT usage relative to conventional staging (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.26, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.19-1.44), higher ARPI usage (aHR 1.52, 95% CI 1.33-1.78), lower prostatectomy usage (aHR 0.69, 95% CI 0.56-0.83), and no effect on radiotherapy usage (aHR 1.10, 95% CI 0.99-1.25). Compared to patients with PSMA N0M0, ARPI usage was higher in patients with N1M0 (aHR 6.87, 95% CI 5.41-8.73) and M1 (aHR 10.13, 95% CI 8.16-1.2.58). Patients with N1M0 or M1 disease were less likely to undergo prostatectomy compared to N0M0. Similar patterns were seen in subgroup analyses within risk groups. Conclusions: In this emulated randomized trial, PSMA staging of localized prostate cancer was associated with increased rates of any ADT and ARPI use and lower rates of prostatectomy relative to conventional staging. The implications of these treatment changes on oncologic outcomes require further study.

Article Details

Volume / Issue Vol. 43, Issue 5_suppl
Published February 10, 2025
Pages 350-350
ISSN 0732-183X
Publisher Lippincott Williams & Wilkins

Journal Info

Journal of Clinical Oncology

Lippincott Williams & Wilkins

ISSN: 0732-183X Health Sciences

Authors (18)

S

Sean Ryan Miller

University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI

R

Rachel Tucker Gonzalez

University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI

W

William C. Jackson

University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI

M

Megan Veresh Caram

Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Hematology/Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI

P

Phoebe A. Tsao

Division of Hematology/Oncology, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, MI

K

Kristian Stensland

University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI

Y

Yashesh Shah

University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI

D

Daniel Wale

University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI

D

David Elliott

2Texas Tech Health Sciences Center El Paso, Paul Foster School of Medicine, El Paso, United States

K

Ka Kit Wong

B

Benjamin Viglianti

Department of Nuclear Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI

T

Tanner C. Caverly

Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI

T

Timothy Hofer

Michigan Medicine, Ann Arbor, MI

S

Sameer D Saini

Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI

M

Michael D Green

University of Michigan Health Management Research Center, Ann Arbor, MI

M

Matthew J. Schipper

University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI

R

Robert Timothy Dess

University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI

A

Alex K. Bryant