Variation in Androgen Deprivation Therapy Use Among Men With Intermediate-Risk Prostate Cancer: Results From a Statewide Radiation Oncology Quality Consortium.

PURPOSE: For men with intermediate-risk prostate cancer treated with definitive therapy, the addition of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) reduces the risk of distant metastasis and cancer-related mortality. However, the absolute benefit of ADT varies by baseline cancer risk. Estimates of prognosis have improved over time, and little is known about ADT decision making in the modern era. We sought to characterize variability and identify factors associated with intended ADT use within the Michigan Radiation Oncology Quality Consoritum (MROQC).

MATERIALS AND

METHODS

Patients with localized prostate cancer undergoing definitive radiation therapy were enrolled from June 9, 2020, to June 26, 2023 (n = 815). Prospective data were collected using standardized patient, physician, and physicist forms. Intended ADT use was prospectively defined and was the primary outcome. Associations with patient, tumor, and practice-related factors were tested with multivariable analyses. Random intercept modeling was used to estimate facility-level variability.

RESULTS

Five hundred seventy patients across 26 facilities were enrolled with intermediate-risk disease. ADT was intended for 46% of men (n = 262/570), which differed by National Comprehensive Cancer Network favorable intermediate-risk (23.5%, n = 38/172) versus unfavorable intermediate-risk disease (56.3%, n = 224/398; P < .001). After adjusting for the statewide case mix, the predicted probability of intended ADT use varied significantly across facilities, ranging from 15.4% (95% CI, 5.4%-37.0%) to 71.7% (95% CI, 57.0%-82.9%), with P < .01. Multivariable analyses showed that grade group 3 (OR, 4.60 [3.20-6.67]), ≥50% positive cores (OR, 2.15 [1.43-3.25]), and prostate-specific antigen 10 to 20 (OR, 1.87 [1.24-2.84]) were associated with ADT use. Area under the curve was improved when incorporating MRI adverse features (0.76) or radiation treatment variables (0.76), but there remained significant facility-level heterogeneity in all models evaluated (P < .05).

CONCLUSIONS

Within a state-wide consortium, there is substantial facility-level heterogeneity in intended ADT use for men with intermediate-risk prostate cancer. Future efforts are necessary to identify patients who will benefit most from ADT and to develop strategies to standardize appropriate use.