PLATON

An aspect marked incomplete is a question the public commentary did not let us answer. We show it rather than hide it.

Screened window

Oct 31, 2018 → Oct 26, 2026

Cited window

Oct 31, 2018 → Oct 8, 2026

Retrieved

Oct 31, 2026

Title

A Randomized Phase III Trial of Local Ablative Therapy For Hormone Sensitive Oligometastatic Prostate Cancer [PLATON]

Registry

NCT03784755

Study IDs

PR20

Sponsor

Canadian Cancer Trials Group

Collaborators

Canadian Cancer Society (CCS)

Design

Not applicable · Interventional, randomized, parallel

Status

Active, not recruiting

Enrollment

409 actual

Registered

2018-12-24

Start

2019-11-15 actual

Primary completion

2032-12-31 estimated

Primary endpoint

Failure-free Survival

Interventions

2 registered

This report does not judge efficacy, estimate HCP prevalence or consensus or give treatment advice.

• –Discussion that does not name the trial may be missing from this edition.
• –The source search did not run to completion, so some matching discussion may be missing.
• –Not yet captured in this edition: a view on guideline-based preference for PSMA PET/CT over conventional imaging when available for metastatic work-up.
• –Not yet captured in this edition: a view on balancing lesion-directed treatment and androgen deprivation with occupational requirements.
• –Not yet captured in this edition: a view on oligometastatic eligibility and sequencing systemic treatment with local ablative therapy.
• –Not yet captured in this edition: a view on insurance denials obstructing both PET and subsequently recommended conventional imaging for treatment work-up.
• –Not yet captured in this edition: a view on PSMA-guided treatment selection and systemic therapy for PET-detected metastases despite negative conventional imaging.
• –Not yet captured in this edition: a question about clinical markers and imaging for selecting patients who might benefit from adding lutetium to stereotactic radiotherapy.
• –Not yet captured in this edition: a view on balancing metastasis-directed therapy and androgen deprivation with occupational needs and trial-dependent systemic intensification.
• –Not yet captured in this edition: a view on ARPI unsuitability without a stated reason for the assessment.
• –Not yet captured in this edition: a view on imaging access and funding in staging and treatment selection for oligometastatic prostate cancer.
• –Not yet captured in this edition: a view on how imaging funding and local access enable PET-first staging and inform treatment choices for occult metastases.
• –Not yet captured in this edition: a remark on imaging funding and local access conditions preceding treatment decisions for PET-only metastases.
• –Not yet captured in this edition: a view on lifelong systemic therapy versus metastasis-directed surgery or radiotherapy in hormone-sensitive oligometastatic prostate cancer.
• –Not yet captured in this edition: a view on retaining ADT as a systemic-treatment option when an ARPI is withheld.
• –Not yet captured in this edition: a question about focal versus regional nodal irradiation and local-treatment selection when bone metastases coexist.
• –Some passages in the sources used in this report were not fully assessed for clinician views, so a view there may be missing from this edition.
• –204 statements in the sources reviewed for this edition are about other patients or topics, or only mention the trial, and are not counted.
• –Further source limits: discussion that describes the trial without naming it may be incomplete; some discussion that describes the trial without naming it may be missing; sources about other trials are not included.
• –The sources reviewed for this edition do not represent all HCPs or all public discussion. Source totals, reposts and audience polls cannot establish the number of independent clinicians supporting a position or its prevalence.
• –Podcast and video versions contain overlapping discussion. Repeated words are not additional agreement, and several passages cannot confidently be assigned to a named speaker.
• –Discussion not naming PLATON, alternative spellings and other references may be missing. Some relevant passages were not fully assessed, particularly treatment-withholding exceptions, ARPI suitability and administration difficulties, imaging access, and selection or sequencing for lutetium with SBRT.
• –No separate PLATON protocol document or results publication was identified. Descriptions of its methods, completion and anticipated importance are attributed commentary, not reported efficacy or safety findings.
• –Evidence from other trials, pooled analyses, presentations and individual patients is not PLATON evidence. Differences in hormone sensitivity, recurrence timing, imaging, systemic treatment and endpoints limit transfer to PLATON's clinical question.
• –Some speakers' identities or clinical roles are not established in the sources used in this report; each statement is attributed only as far as its source shows.
• –The sources describe two speakers as involved in PLATON. Their views should be read with that source-described involvement, not counted as independent external assessments of the trial.
• –Versions of the recurrent-patient discussion differ in naming the comparison study as mBARC or EMBARK and in describing whether ADT plus darolutamide was funded. These differences prevent a single confident account of the study analogy or treatment access.
• –Enrollment numbers and expected timelines vary between statements. Relative completion dates, anticipated readouts and personal forecasts are preserved as expressed and should not be treated as a reconciled trial timeline.
• –Some brief remarks and treatment terms are unclear. They do not establish a specific regimen, complication treatment, clinical rationale or formal regulatory requirement.

How reports are built and checked: Methods.

Last checked for new commentary Nov 1, 2026. A new or changed finding gets a new version number; added evidence alone is a smaller update. No corrections.

Paste this into ChatGPT, Claude, Microsoft Copilot or your own agent. It previews this report through the free Erudio MCP server, tells you whether it answers your question, and orders it if you ask. Some agents ask you to confirm pasted instructions before acting; that is expected.

Help me decide whether to buy the Erudio report "PLATON" (NCT03784755), and buy it for me if I ask. Erudio reports cover what clinicians say in public about one clinical trial, with every verified statement linked to its source.

1. Use the free Erudio MCP server at https://mcp.erudio.com/free; it needs no sign-in. Nothing needs installing: if it is not connected in this app and you can make HTTP requests, call it directly with JSON-RPC POSTs to that URL (initialize, then tools/call), sending "Accept: application/json, text/event-stream". Call get_report_card with slug "platon-03784755". If you cannot make requests, read https://www.erudio.com/reports/platon-nct03784755.md instead.
2. In a few lines, tell me what the report covers: its findings, its verified statements and sources, its evidence window, what it leaves out, and the price of each product (offer). Then ask what I need it for, and say plainly whether this report answers it.
3. If I want it, ask for my work email and the product: the current edition, or 3, 6 or 12 months of weekly updates. Call create_order with report "NCT03784755", that product and email, then show me the quote and the checkout_url to pay by card. If you have a payment client for HTTP 402 payments and I agree, you can pay the pay_url instead. Nothing is charged until one is paid.
4. Once it is paid, call get_order with the status_url: it returns my license key. Then use the Erudio MCP server at https://mcp.erudio.com/mcp with the header "Authorization: Bearer <key>". Call read_report with report_id erudio-nct03784755 and sections ["all"], and summarize the findings for me with their sources. The full report is large (about 500 KB): save the response to a file and work from it rather than printing it. If you cannot, read sections ["narratives"] first, the executive summary and analysis.

When you tell me what clinicians said, give each view as theirs, with its source. Counts are the sources the report kept, not the share of clinicians who agree. Reports are not medical advice.
Keep the key private to my organization.

curl https://www.erudio.com/reports/platon-nct03784755.json
curl https://www.erudio.com/reports/platon-nct03784755.md

# MCP, no sign-in (https://mcp.erudio.com/free)
get_report_card({ "slug": "platon-03784755" })