Not One Size Fits All: Age, Fitness, and Choosing the Right Treatment for Metastatic Prostate Cancer
Why Age Matters When Treating Prostate Cancer | Cooking with Kathy Man
May 2026
A landmark meta-analysis, new trial data, and updated guidelines are reshaping how oncologists decide whether — and how aggressively — to treat older men with metastatic disease. The answer, it turns out, depends on far more than the calendar.
Informed Prostate Cancer Support Group Newsletter | Prepared for IPCSG Members | May 2026
For the past decade, the treatment of metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC) has been transformed by a powerful insight: doing more is better. Adding powerful new hormonal agents — and sometimes chemotherapy — to standard hormone therapy dramatically improved survival. The message to oncologists was clear: intensify treatment early. But a growing body of evidence is adding an essential qualifier: for whom?
A major meta-analysis published in the New England Journal of Medicine Evidence in October 2025, along with supporting data from several other trials and guideline updates through early 2026, reveals that age and overall health status substantially affect whether aggressive treatment extends life — or simply extends the burden of treatment. For some older men, a more cautious approach focused on quality of life may be equally valid, or even preferable.
This article explains what the new evidence means, what questions it raises, and what it should prompt you to discuss with your oncologist.
Background: The Rise of Treatment Intensification
When prostate cancer spreads to distant sites — bones, lymph nodes, occasionally organs — it is called metastatic disease. If it still responds to testosterone-lowering therapy, it is called metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer, or mHSPC. That is where the story begins.
Through the late 2000s and into the early 2010s, the standard treatment for mHSPC was androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) — drugs or injections that suppress testosterone production. This approach controlled the cancer, but for most men it was not curative, and progression was nearly inevitable.
Beginning around 2015, a series of large clinical trials changed the picture dramatically. Studies like CHAARTED, LATITUDE, STAMPEDE, ENZAMET, TITAN, and ARASENS demonstrated that adding a second or third agent to ADT — either a next-generation hormonal drug called an androgen receptor pathway inhibitor (ARPI), chemotherapy (docetaxel), or both — significantly improved how long men lived. Some of the benefit was striking: in certain combinations, the risk of death was reduced by 30–40% compared to ADT alone.
These successes established treatment intensification as the standard of care for mHSPC. Professional guidelines from the American Urological Association (AUA), the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN), and the European Association of Urology (EAU) all reflect this: ADT alone is no longer considered adequate for most men with mHSPC.
But there was a problem hiding in plain sight. Most of these trials enrolled men who were younger, in better overall health, and had fewer coexisting medical conditions (comorbidities) than the typical man with metastatic prostate cancer in the real world. The average man diagnosed with mHSPC is in his mid-to-late 70s. The average man enrolled in these pivotal trials was often a decade younger.
This matters enormously. An 80-year-old man with diabetes, heart disease, and moderate kidney impairment is a fundamentally different patient than a 62-year-old with no other health problems — even if both have the same cancer stage. Can we assume the 80-year-old will benefit the same way from aggressive treatment? Should we?
The Landmark Study: Age Changes the Benefit Equation
A research team led by Dr. Alicia K. Morgans of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Dr. Daniel E. Spratt of University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center (Case Western Reserve University) set out to answer this question systematically. Their study, published in the New England Journal of Medicine Evidence on October 28, 2025, is the most comprehensive analysis of age and treatment intensification in mHSPC to date.
What They Did
The researchers conducted a systematic search of the major medical literature databases to identify all randomized Phase 3 clinical trials in mHSPC that evaluated treatment intensification between 2010 and 2024. They found 11 eligible randomized comparisons, involving 13,648 patients in total — 8,324 younger men and 5,162 older men. For most trials, "older" was defined as age 70 or above; for one trial, the threshold was 75.
They then performed a meta-analysis (a statistical method that pools data from multiple studies to get more reliable estimates) and separately obtained individual patient-level data from three large trials — TITAN, ARASENS, and LATITUDE — to validate their findings.
The Core Finding: Treatment Helps Everyone, But More So in Younger Men
Overall, treatment intensification was associated with a meaningful survival benefit — a hazard ratio of 0.73, meaning roughly a 27% reduction in the risk of death compared to ADT alone. That's a real benefit, and it applies across all men.
But when the researchers looked specifically at the interaction between age and treatment benefit, they found a statistically significant difference (p-interaction <0.001):
- Younger men (<70): Hazard ratio 0.63 — a 37% reduction in death risk from treatment intensification. Substantial, consistent benefit.
- Older men (≥70): Hazard ratio 0.82 — an 18% reduction in death risk. Meaningful on average, but with important subgroup differences.
- Older men, high-volume disease: Adding an ARPI still improved survival (HR 0.83). Benefit present, though smaller than in younger men.
- Older men, low-volume disease: Adding an ARPI did NOT significantly improve overall survival (HR 0.89). The benefit was statistically indistinguishable from zero.
- 1 in 3 men with metastatic prostate cancer dies from causes other than prostate cancer — cardiovascular disease, other illnesses — particularly in older, frailer patients.
The final bullet deserves emphasis. When aggressive prostate cancer treatment carries real risks — cardiovascular strain from hormonal drugs, infection risk and fatigue from chemotherapy — and when the cancer itself may not be the disease that ends a man's life, the risk-benefit calculation shifts. Treating the cancer harder doesn't automatically translate into longer life if the treatment causes harm that outpaces the benefit.
"We should always strive to treat the whole patient, not just their cancer. In the case of older men with metastatic cancer whose disease hadn't spread far, that involves carefully balancing the side effects and benefits of more aggressive treatment." — Dr. Daniel E. Spratt, Chair of Radiation Oncology, University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center
A Critical Distinction: How Far Has the Cancer Spread?
One of the most important variables in interpreting these findings is the volume of metastatic disease — roughly, how many places in the body the cancer has reached.
In the major trials, high-volume disease is typically defined (using CHAARTED criteria) as cancer that has spread to four or more bone sites with at least one outside the spine or pelvis, or that has spread to internal organs (liver, lungs). Low-volume disease means fewer, more localized spread — often just a handful of bone lesions.
This distinction matters for all men with mHSPC, but it becomes especially critical for older men. The Morgans/Spratt meta-analysis found that:
- Older men with high-volume disease still derive meaningful survival benefit from adding an ARPI to ADT.
- Older men with low-volume disease, however, showed no statistically significant overall survival benefit from ARPI intensification in the meta-analysis.
For older men with low-volume, synchronous (newly diagnosed) disease, the authors point out that prostate radiotherapy — radiation directed at the primary tumor in the prostate — remains a standard component of treatment that has demonstrated survival benefit in this specific group, with generally low toxicity. Adding aggressive systemic intensification on top of that may not provide additional benefit for older men, while adding meaningful side effects.
The STOPCAP Meta-Analysis: Not All ARPIs Are Equal for Older Men
Adding nuance to this picture, a second major meta-analysis — the STOPCAP Collaboration, led by the MRC Clinical Trials Unit at University College London — presented results at the 2025 ASCO Genitourinary Cancers Symposium in February 2025 that point to a potentially important difference within the ARPI class.
The STOPCAP analysis pooled individual patient data from seven trials, involving 7,778 men, studying three ARPIs: abiraterone acetate (Zytiga), enzalutamide (Xtandi), and apalutamide (Erleada). These drugs all block androgen receptors, but they work through somewhat different mechanisms.
The key age-related findings:
- Abiraterone showed a statistically significant age interaction (HR 1.64 for men 75+ versus men under 65, p<0.001). In plain English: the older the patient, the less benefit abiraterone appears to provide in terms of progression-free survival. For men 75 and older, this is a meaningful concern.
- Enzalutamide and apalutamide (the "amide" class) showed no significant age interaction — suggesting that older men may benefit from these drugs at similar rates as younger men, at least in terms of controlling disease progression and overall survival.
- For men under 75, all three agents clearly delayed disease progression. After five years, approximately 60% of treated men were alive, compared to 44% receiving ADT alone.
The STOPCAP researchers were careful to note that these are exploratory findings and the data for older patients remains limited — fewer elderly men were enrolled in the underlying trials. But the signal suggesting that abiraterone may not be the preferred ARPI for men over 75 has begun influencing clinical thinking. Commentary at ASCO GU 2026 explicitly noted that "abiraterone may not be the preferred ARPI in older patients, particularly those over 75."
The ARASENS Age Subgroup: Darolutamide Looks Consistent Across Ages
Against this backdrop, data presented at the 2025 ASCO GU meeting offered a somewhat different view for one specific three-drug regimen. A post-hoc subgroup analysis of the ARASENS trial — which tested darolutamide (Nubeqa) combined with ADT and docetaxel chemotherapy — found that survival benefits were consistent in men both younger and older than 75.
In ARASENS, the triple-drug regimen reduced the overall risk of death by 32.5% compared to placebo plus ADT and docetaxel. When researchers split patients by age:
- Both age groups (<75 and ≥75) showed comparable improvements in overall survival, time to castration-resistant disease, and time to starting a subsequent treatment.
- More than 80% of patients in both age groups completed all six planned cycles of docetaxel chemotherapy, suggesting manageable tolerability.
- Side effect rates were slightly higher in older patients, as expected, but the difference between darolutamide and placebo groups was similar in both age categories.
Important caveat: only 219 of the 1,305 ARASENS patients (17%) were 75 or older. Subgroup analyses in small populations carry inherent uncertainty. This does not invalidate the finding, but it should be interpreted with appropriate humility.
| Analysis / Source | Population | Benefit in Older Men | Key Qualifier |
|---|---|---|---|
| Morgans/Spratt meta-analysis NEJM Evidence, Oct 2025 |
≥70 yrs; all mHSPC | Present (HR 0.82) overall | No benefit in low-volume synchronous disease (HR 0.89) |
| STOPCAP — abiraterone ASCO GU 2025 |
≥75 vs <65 yrs | Reduced with age (p<0.001) | Amide class (enzalutamide, apalutamide) did not show this age interaction |
| STOPCAP — amide ARPIs ASCO GU 2025 |
≥75 vs <65 yrs | Consistent across ages | Data still incomplete; more trials needed |
| ARASENS age subgroup ASCO GU 2025 |
<75 vs ≥75 yrs | Consistent across ages | Only 17% of patients were ≥75; small subgroup caveat |
| SEER-Medicare real-world Cancer Medicine, Sept 2025 |
≥67 yrs (mean 76.6) | 47% received ADT alone | Real-world older men still undertreated; 30.4% got no systemic therapy |
The Real World: Most Older Men Are Still Undertreated
While the clinical debate focuses on whether older men may be over-treated with aggressive intensification, real-world data reveal a parallel problem: many older men with mHSPC receive too little treatment altogether.
A 2025 study in Cancer Medicine (Zhou et al.) used the SEER-Medicare linked database to examine treatment patterns in 6,850 older men (average age 76.6 years) diagnosed with mHSPC between 2016 and 2019. The findings were striking:
- 30.4% received no systemic drug therapy at all within six months of their diagnosis.
- 47.1% received ADT alone — which is now considered inadequate for most men with mHSPC.
- Only 14.8% received ADT plus an ARPI, and just 5.9% received ADT plus chemotherapy.
In other words, nearly half of real-world older patients are receiving a treatment standard that clinical trials have shown to be inferior. The reasons are complex — physician uncertainty, patient preference, access to specialists, insurance barriers — but the pattern is clear. The message from new research should not become a blanket justification for undertreating older men who could genuinely benefit.
This is the tension at the heart of the current evidence: some older men are being over-intensified (treated aggressively when the benefit is marginal and the burden is high); others are being under-treated (receiving inadequate therapy out of excessive caution). The solution is personalization, not a retreat to ADT alone across the board.
The Missing Tool: Geriatric Assessment
If chronological age alone is an imprecise guide to treatment decisions, what should oncologists use instead? The answer, increasingly endorsed by professional societies around the world, is geriatric assessment — a structured, systematic evaluation of an older person's overall health, functional capacity, and vulnerability to treatment harm.
The G8 Screening Tool
The European Association of Urology (EAU) currently recommends that all men 70 and older with prostate cancer undergo screening with the Geriatric 8 (G8) tool before treatment decisions are made. The G8 is an eight-item questionnaire covering nutrition, mobility, medication use, neuropsychological status, self-rated health, and age. Scoring above 14 (out of 17) identifies men as "fit" — likely to benefit from standard treatment. Scores of 14 or below flag potential frailty and trigger a full comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA).
The EAU's current guidelines state that "healthy patients with a G8 score >14 or vulnerable patients with reversible impairment after resolution of their geriatric problems should receive the same treatment as younger patients. Frail patients with irreversible impairment should receive adapted treatment."
Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment (CGA) Makes a Difference
A 2025 study published in BMC Cancer (Bonneau et al.) from the Institut Universitaire du Cancer de Toulouse examined the real-world impact of geriatric assessment on treatment decisions in older prostate cancer patients. Among 140 patients who underwent a CGA before treatment:
- 86.4% had at least one competing comorbidity, and their average Charlson Comorbidity Index score was 11 — indicating a high burden of coexisting illness.
- More than 90% had a G8 score indicating that a full geriatric assessment was warranted.
- Following the CGA, 40.7% of patients received a different treatment than what had originally been planned — most often a less intensive approach.
- Importantly, this de-escalation did not reduce overall survival or event-free survival. The tailored approach achieved equivalent outcomes without the added treatment burden.
A 2026 review article in the ASCO Educational Book (Lee, Fitch, Efstathiou, Garg) summarized the state of the field: chronological age is a poor proxy for biological vulnerability, and structured geriatric assessment — including measures of frailty, functional status, cognition, nutrition, and social support — provides the best available guide to predicting who will tolerate aggressive treatment and who will not.
"Age is just a number. In assessing patients and determining the course of treatment, we also look at overall health, other medical conditions, how well patients can manage daily activities, and other factors." — Dr. Daniel E. Spratt, University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center
Guidelines in Evolution: What Are Experts Now Recommending?
Professional guidelines are beginning to reflect the emerging evidence, though they remain in a state of active updating.
The AUA/SUO Advanced Prostate Cancer Guideline (updated 2026) continues to recommend against ADT alone as the standard for most mHSPC patients, but emphasizes personalization and the importance of assessing the extent of metastatic disease. It specifically notes that prostate radiotherapy combined with ADT may be offered to selected mHSPC patients with low-volume disease.
The EAU Guidelines recommend geriatric assessment for men 70 and older and explicitly state that individual life expectancy, health status, frailty, and comorbidity — not age alone — should be central to clinical decision-making. They note that older men are often both under-screened and undertreated, cautioning against reflexive de-escalation without proper evaluation.
At ASCO GU 2026, the state-of-the-art treatment selection lecture called for the field to move beyond a "one-size-fits-all" approach toward biomarker-directed strategies. Emerging tools like the Decipher genomic classifier (originally developed for localized prostate cancer) are being explored as predictors of benefit from docetaxel chemotherapy, potentially allowing oncologists to identify which men with mHSPC specifically need chemotherapy and which do not — regardless of age.
At the EAU Annual Congress 2026 (March 2026), experts reviewed evidence that prostate radiotherapy remains underused in the real world, even in men with low-volume disease where it has demonstrated a survival benefit. Given its relatively low toxicity profile compared to systemic intensification, this may represent a particularly appropriate option for older men with limited metastatic spread.
- mHSPC
- Metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer — cancer that has spread to distant sites (bones, lymph nodes, etc.) but still responds to testosterone-lowering therapy.
- ADT
- Androgen deprivation therapy — drugs or injections (LHRH agonists/antagonists) that suppress testosterone production. The backbone of all mHSPC treatment.
- ARPI
- Androgen receptor pathway inhibitor — next-generation drugs that block testosterone's ability to stimulate cancer cell growth. Includes abiraterone (Zytiga), enzalutamide (Xtandi), apalutamide (Erleada), and darolutamide (Nubeqa).
- Docetaxel
- A chemotherapy drug (brand name Taxotere) used in mHSPC, typically given as six intravenous infusions three weeks apart.
- High-volume disease
- Per CHAARTED criteria: four or more bone metastases with at least one outside the spine/pelvis, OR spread to visceral organs (liver, lungs).
- Low-volume disease
- Fewer metastatic sites than the above threshold; often just a few bone lesions.
- Hazard ratio (HR)
- A statistical measure of relative risk. An HR of 0.70 means a 30% reduction in the risk of the event (e.g., death) compared to the control group. An HR of 1.00 means no difference.
- G8 screening tool
- An 8-item questionnaire used to identify older cancer patients who may be at risk from treatment and who need a full geriatric assessment. Score ≤14 (of 17) indicates need for further evaluation.
- CGA
- Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment — a detailed, multi-domain evaluation of an older person's functional status, cognitive ability, nutritional state, psychological health, social support, and comorbidities.
- Frailty
- A clinical syndrome of reduced physiologic reserve and resistance to stressors, distinct from disability or comorbidity, associated with greater vulnerability to treatment harm and worse outcomes.
What This Evidence Does — and Does Not — Mean
It is important to be precise about what the new evidence actually says, because misreading it in either direction leads to harm.
It does NOT mean older men should simply receive less treatment. Many men in their 70s and even 80s are in excellent health with few comorbidities, and they may derive the same benefit from intensified treatment as younger men. Blanket de-escalation based on age alone would deny effective therapy to men who would genuinely benefit.
It does NOT mean chemotherapy is off the table for older men. The ARASENS subgroup data suggest that fit older men can often complete a full course of darolutamide plus ADT and docetaxel with acceptable tolerability. Chemotherapy decisions should be based on functional status and geriatric assessment, not birth year.
It DOES mean that for older men with low-volume, newly-diagnosed metastatic disease, the survival benefit from adding ARPIs may be minimal. For these men — especially those with significant comorbidities — the combination of ADT plus prostate radiotherapy may represent a highly appropriate and effective option, with less systemic burden.
It DOES mean that abiraterone may be a less optimal choice for older men, particularly those 75 and above, based on the STOPCAP data. The amide class (enzalutamide, apalutamide, darolutamide) appears to have more consistent age-independent efficacy, though all of these drugs carry their own side effect profiles.
It DOES mean that geriatric assessment should be standard practice before making intensification decisions in men 70 and older — and currently, it largely is not. The BMC Cancer study showing that geriatric assessment changed treatment plans in 40% of cases, without worsening survival, is powerful evidence that this tool is being underused.
- What is my disease volume? Ask whether your metastatic spread qualifies as "low-volume" or "high-volume" using the CHAARTED criteria. This distinction now directly affects which treatments offer the clearest benefit.
- Has my overall health been formally assessed? If you are 70 or older, ask whether a G8 screening or comprehensive geriatric assessment has been performed or is appropriate. You should not receive a treatment plan based on cancer stage alone.
- Which ARPI is being recommended, and why? Given the STOPCAP findings, it is reasonable for older men (especially those 75+) to ask whether abiraterone or an amide-class drug (enzalutamide, apalutamide, darolutamide) is more appropriate for their situation.
- Is chemotherapy (docetaxel) appropriate for me? If it is being recommended, ask on what basis — high-volume disease is the clearest indication. Ask about expected side effects in the context of your overall health.
- Has prostate radiotherapy been discussed? For men with low-volume, newly diagnosed metastatic disease, radiation to the primary prostate tumor has demonstrated survival benefit with relatively low toxicity. Ask whether it is part of your treatment plan.
- What is the goal of treatment? Make sure you and your oncologist are aligned on whether the goal is to maximize survival, maintain quality of life, or both — and how aggressiveness of treatment reflects those goals given your health status.
- Consider a second opinion. If your treatment plan feels generic — not tailored to your specific health situation, comorbidities, and goals — a second opinion at a high-volume cancer center is always appropriate.
The Bottom Line
Prostate cancer medicine has been transformed by powerful new treatments. The question is no longer simply whether to fight the cancer hard — it is whether the right fight for each individual patient involves the full arsenal or a more selective deployment of it.
For younger, healthier men with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer, the evidence for aggressive treatment intensification remains strong and consistent. For older men — particularly those 70 and above with significant comorbidities and limited metastatic spread — the evidence is more nuanced. Treatment intensification provides a smaller survival advantage on average, and for some subgroups the benefit in terms of overall lifespan may be negligible, while the burden of treatment remains real.
What is clearly needed, and what the field is now moving toward, is a personalized assessment framework that goes beyond the cancer itself: one that accounts for a man's overall health, functional reserve, life goals, and the competing risks that may determine his fate as much as the prostate cancer does. Geriatric assessment tools exist to do exactly this — and they are underused.
Age is not destiny. But it is — when properly understood — one of the most important inputs into a wise and personalized treatment plan.
Sources and Formal Citations
- Morgans AK, Roy S, Jia AY, Barata P, Zaorsky NG, Garcia JA,
Brown JR, Rao S, Mendiratta P, Armstrong AJ, Hussain MH, Attard G, James
ND, Fizazi K, Sun Y, Spratt DE. "Age and Treatment Intensification in
Metastatic Hormone-Sensitive Prostate Cancer." NEJM Evidence. 2025 Nov;4(11):EVIDoa2500109. Epub 2025 Oct 28. doi: 10.1056/EVIDoa2500109. PubMed PMID: 41147826.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41147826/ - University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center. "Researchers Find
Age Should Be a Consideration in Metastatic Prostate Cancer Treatment
Plans." News Release, November 6, 2025.
https://news.uhhospitals.org/news-releases/articles/2025/11/nejm-evidence-age-and-prostate-cancer - Carthon BC. "Age Matters — Personalizing Treatment
Intensification in Metastatic Hormone-Sensitive Prostate Cancer"
[Editorial]. NEJM Evidence. 2025;4(11):EVIDe2500229. doi: 10.1056/EVIDe2500229.
https://evidence.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/EVIDe2500229 - Fisher DJ, et al. (STOPCAP Collaboration). "Which Patients with
mHSPC Benefit More from Androgen Receptor Pathway Inhibitors? STOPCAP
Meta-Analyses of Individual Participant Data." Presented at the 2025
ASCO Genitourinary Cancers Symposium, San Francisco, CA, February 13–15,
2025. Summary and conference report:
https://www.urotoday.com/conference-highlights/asco-gu-2025/ [STOPCAP report] - MRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL. "STOPCAP Study Finds That Most
Men with Advanced Prostate Cancer Benefit from New-Generation Hormone
Therapy Drugs." Press release, February 2025.
https://www.mrcctu.ucl.ac.uk/news/news-stories/2025/february/stopcap-study-results/ - Carles J, et al. "Age-Related Efficacy and Safety of
Darolutamide + ADT and Docetaxel in Patients with mHSPC: A Subgroup
Analysis of ARASENS." Presented at the 2025 ASCO Genitourinary Cancers
Symposium, San Francisco, CA, February 2025. Conference report:
https://www.urotoday.com/conference-highlights/asco-gu-2025/ [ARASENS age subgroup report] - Zhou B, Raval AD, Zhang Y, Korn MJ, Sambamoorthi N, Rasu R,
Littleton N, Constantinovici N, Sambamoorthi U. "Treatment Landscape for
Older Men with Metastatic Hormone-Sensitive Prostate Cancer in the
United States." Cancer Medicine. Published September 3, 2025. doi: 10.1002/cam4.71176.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12405968/ - Bonneau M, Steinmeyer Z, Morisseau M, Lozano S, et al. "Impact
of Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment on Treatment Decisions in Older
Prostate Cancer Patients." BMC Cancer. 2025;25:642. Published April 8, 2025. doi: 10.1186/s12885-025-13961-z.
https://bmccancer.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12885-025-13961-z - Lee PL, Fitch C, Efstathiou JA, Garg T. "Beyond Chronologic Age:
Frailty, Geriatric Assessment, and Personalized Care for Older Adults
With Genitourinary Cancer." American Society of Clinical Oncology Educational Book. 2026;46:e516010. doi: 10.1200/EDBK-26-516010.
https://ascopubs.org/doi/10.1200/EDBK-26-516010 - Sweeney C. "Making Sense of Many Options: Metastatic Hormone
Sensitive Prostate Cancer Treatment Selection." State-of-the-Art
Lecture, ASCO GU 2026, February 2026. Conference report:
https://www.urotoday.com/conference-highlights/asco-gu-2026/ [Treatment Selection lecture] - Bin Riaz I, et al. "Living Network Meta-Analysis Assessing
Survival in mHSPC by Volume and Timing of Metastasis." 2026. Referenced
in EAU 2026 State of the Art Lecture. Conference summary:
https://www.urotoday.com/conference-highlights/eau-2026/ [EAU 2026 State of the Art lecture] - Bossi A. "Radiotherapy to the Primary Tumor, What For?" EAU Annual Congress 2026, March 2026. Conference report:
https://www.urotoday.com/conference-highlights/eau-2026/ [RT to primary tumor lecture] - American Urological Association / Society of Urologic Oncology.
"Advanced Prostate Cancer: AUA/SUO Guideline (2026)." Updated 2026.
https://www.auanet.org/guidelines-and-quality/guidelines/advanced-prostate-cancer - European Association of Urology. "EAU Guidelines on Prostate
Cancer — Treatment." Chapter: Management of Older Patients. 2025/2026
edition.
https://uroweb.org/guidelines/prostate-cancer/chapter/treatment - Smith MR, et al. (ARASENS Trial). "Darolutamide and Survival in Metastatic, Hormone-Sensitive Prostate Cancer." N Engl J Med. 2022;386:1132-1142. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2119115. [Original ARASENS publication, foundational reference.]
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2119115
Comments
Post a Comment