The NCI working group concluded that neither metastasis-directed therapy (MDT) nor systemic hormonal therapy should be required as a control arm in trials for biochemically recurrent (BCR) prostate cancer. This facilitates testing novel non-hormonal agents and reflects that surveillance is often a reasonable standard of care.
Traditional endpoints like progression-free survival (PFS) incentivize continuous treatment. The NCI group proposes "treatment-free survival," a novel metric that quantifies time spent *off* therapy. This endpoint better captures the patient experience and rewards treatments that provide durable responses after a finite course.
For biochemically recurrent (BCR) prostate cancer, which is often indolent, trials should not wait years to study treatment reduction. The NCI group universally agreed that de-escalation strategies—such as intermittent therapy—should be the default design from the outset, prioritizing quality of life and avoiding overtreatment.
The NCI Working Group argues against equating PSMA PET-positive biochemically recurrent (BCR) prostate cancer with traditional metastatic disease. They propose the term "PSMA positive BCR" to emphasize that traditional prognostic factors still apply and the natural history is distinct and often more indolent.
The term "oligometastatic" is problematic because it's "imaging agnostic," failing to distinguish between lesions found on highly sensitive PSMA PET versus conventional scans, which carry different prognoses. The working group advocates for the more precise term "PSMA-positive BCR" to define this specific disease state.
The NCI working group asserts that PSA doubling time, especially a rate under six months, remains the key indicator of high-risk biochemically recurrent (BCR) prostate cancer. This biological marker of aggressiveness is considered more prognostically significant than the presence of lesions on a highly sensitive PSMA PET scan.