Assessment of Different Castration Resistance Definitions and Staging Modalities in Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer.

: Progression to metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) is defined either biochemically, radiographically or both. Moreover, staging for mCRPC can be performed either conventionally or with molecular imaging such as prostate-specific membrane antigen computer tomography (PSMA-PET/CT). : We relied on the Frankfurt Metastatic Cancer Database of the Prostate (FRAMCAP) database to compare progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS) outcomes regarding the cause of castration resistance and the staging modality used. : Overall, 35% progressed to mCRPC biochemically vs. 23% radiographically vs. 42% biochemically + radiographically. The PSA nadir in mHSPC (1.4 vs. 0.4 vs. 0.8 ng/mL) and PSA level at mCRPC progression (15 vs. 2 vs. 21 ng/mL, both ≤ 0.01) were significantly higher for biochemical vs. radiographic vs. both progressed patients. In PFS and OS analyses, no significant differences were observed among all three compared groups. In the comparison of the staging used for progression to mCRPC, 67% received conventional vs. 33% PSMA-PET/CT, with higher metastatic burden in mHSPC and osseous lesions in mCRPC for conventionally staged patients (both < 0.01). In PFS (15.3 vs. 10.1 months, hazard ratio [HR]: 0.75) and OS analyses (52.6 vs. 34.3 months, HR: 0.61, both < 0.05), PSMA-PET/CT harbored better prognosis; however, this did not hold after multivariable adjustment. Similar results were observed for further analyses in second- and third-line mCRPC or patients with a PSA level of ≥2 ng/mL. : The cause of progression to mCRPC seems not to influence cancer-control outcomes, despite important baseline tumor characteristic differences. The PSMA-PET/CT staging modality might be associated with better PFS and OS outcomes, possibly due to its more sensitive detection of progression or new metastatic lesions.