Difficulties in Defining Oligometastatic Prostate Cancer: Implications for Clinical Trial Accrual and Community Practice Adoption of Metastasis-Directed Therapy Approaches

Abstract

Background: Metastasis-directed therapy is widely utilized for oligometastatic prostate cancer patients, but standard imaging does not always identify metastases definitively and, even with PSMA PET, there may be equivocal findings. Not all clinicians have access to detailed imaging review, particularly outside of academic cancer centers, and PET scan access is also limited. We sought to understand how imaging interpretation impacted recruitment to a clinical trial for oligometastatic prostate cancer. Methods: IRB approval was obtained to review medical records from all patients screened for the institutional IRB-approved clinical trial for men with oligometastatic prostate cancer involving androgen deprivation plus stereotactic radiation to all metastatic sites, as well as radium223 (NCT03361735). Clinical trial inclusion required at least one bone metastatic lesion and no more than five total sites of metastasis, including soft tissue sites. Tumor board discussion records were reviewed, along with results from additional radiology studies ordered or confirmatory biopsies performed. Clinical characteristics such as PSA level and Gleason score were studied for association with likelihood of oligometastatic disease confirmation. Results: At the time of data analysis, 18 subjects were deemed eligible and 20 were not eligible. The most common reasons for ineligibility were no confirmed bone metastasis in 16 patients (59%) and too many metastatic sites in 3 (11%). The median PSA of eligible subjects was 3.28 (range 0.4–45.5), whereas the median PSA of those found to be ineligible was 10.45 (range 3.7–26.3) when there were too many metastases identified, and 2.7 (range 0.2–34.5) when metastases were unconfirmed. PET imaging (PSMA or fluciclovine PET) increased the number of metastases, while MRI resulted in downstaging to non-metastatic disease. Conclusions: This research suggests that additional imaging (i.e., at least two independent imaging modalities of a possible metastatic lesion) or tumor board adjudication of imaging findings may be critical to correctly identify patients appropriate for enrollment in oligometastatic protocols. This should be considered as trials of metastasis-directed therapy for oligometastatic prostate cancer accrue and results are translated to broader oncology practice.