VA STARPORT
oligometastatic prostate cancer; tests no drug
VA STARPORT asks whether adding PET-directed local treatment to systemic therapy delays castration resistance in Veterans with oligometastatic prostate cancer. In an X exchange, a poster challenges the preference for focal rather than elective nodal treatment. An X poster welcomes multicenter VA research, while an X poster questions endpoint interpretation. The incremental benefit of local treatment and the trial’s eventual influence on practice remain unresolved.
- NCT04787744 ↗
- v1.0.0 · edition 1
- updated Oct 29, 2026
- Focused
11 findings, and what sits behind each
01. The unresolved decision is whether local therapy adds to systemic care—not whether it can replace systemic care
20 statements · 15 passages · 6 sources · 8 named voices
Counterview: recorded · Limitations recorded: 2. Feeds the Medical Affairs question.
Draws on: The comparison, Design and conduct, Population and setting, Safety and tolerability.
02. Endpoint credibility is challenged by the possibility that MDT changes PSA without establishing broader disease control
7 statements · 6 passages · 5 sources · 4 named voices
Counterview: recorded · Limitations recorded: 2. Feeds the Medical Affairs question.
Draws on: Primary endpoint: Castration-resistant prostate cancer-free survival (CRPC-free survival), Secondary endpoints, Design and conduct.
03. Focal SBRT versus elective nodal treatment remains disputed, and VA STARPORT does not randomize that choice
14 statements · 14 passages · 1 sources · 6 named voices
Counterview: recorded · Limitations recorded: 2. Feeds the Medical Affairs question.
Draws on: The comparison, Design and conduct, Safety and tolerability.
04. Safety arguments depend on treatment volume and evidence type; focal nodal SBRT is not large-field five-fraction treatment
9 statements · 9 passages · 1 sources · 5 named voices
Counterview: recorded · Limitations recorded: 2. Feeds the Medical Affairs question.
Draws on: Safety and tolerability.
05. The prostate MDT question includes strong biological skepticism, but cross-cancer generalization is contested
18 statements · 19 passages · 1 sources · 12 named voices
Counterview: recorded · Limitations recorded: 2. Feeds the Medical Affairs question.
Draws on: The comparison.
06. Favorable intermittent-therapy and pooled-MDT interpretations remain distinct from VA STARPORT efficacy
13 statements · 14 passages · 6 sources · 5 named voices
Counterview: recorded · Limitations recorded: 3. Feeds the Medical Affairs question.
Draws on: The comparison, Population and setting, Design and conduct.
07. Imaging and molecular biology are proposed as better selection tools, but neither is established here as a replacement for counting metastases
11 statements · 12 passages · 6 sources · 8 named voices
Counterview: recorded · Limitations recorded: 2. Feeds the Medical Affairs question.
Draws on: Population and setting.
08. Recruitment difficulty is attributed to clinician preferences as well as labor, support and patient-care trade-offs
14 statements · 14 passages · 1 sources · 7 named voices
Counterview: recorded · Limitations recorded: 2. Feeds the Medical Affairs question.
Draws on: Design and conduct.
09. Recruitment wording is contested, with family conversations and shared decisions offered as safeguards
14 statements · 10 passages · 2 sources · 3 named voices
Counterview: recorded · Limitations recorded: 2. Feeds the Medical Affairs question.
Draws on: The comparison, Safety and tolerability, Design and conduct, Population and setting.
10. Trial access and multidisciplinary care are valued separately from any eventual MDT treatment effect
8 statements · 9 passages · 8 sources · 4 named voices
Counterview: none recorded · Limitations recorded: 2. Feeds the Medical Affairs question.
Draws on: Population and setting, Design and conduct.
11. Anticipation is emphatic, but speakers still condition clinical impact on mature results
7 statements · 7 passages · 2 sources · 4 named voices
Counterview: none recorded · Limitations recorded: 2. Feeds the Medical Affairs question.
Draws on: Design and conduct, Population and setting.
Counts overlap, since one statement can back several findings. They show what the report kept, not how many clinicians agree. The full report includes the interpretations and source links.
Select a finding to see what the full report holds for it: how many verified HCP statements and of what kind, the passages behind them, the sources and voices, and the counterview and limits it records. Select a part of the trial to see which findings draw on it.
- Finding 1 of 11
The unresolved decision is whether local therapy adds to systemic care—not whether it can replace systemic care
- statements
- 20
- passages
- 15
- sources
- 6
- named voices
- 8
What the statements areViews 9Questions and uncertainty 6Clinical experience 0Comparisons 0Restated results and context 5How passages are usedSupporting a statement 21Giving context 1Recorded with the finding- Counterview: recorded
- Limitations: 2
- Feeds the Medical Affairs question
- 4 posts and articles
- 1 podcast or video
- 1 registry
Draws on: The comparison, Design and conduct, Population and setting, Safety and tolerability.
In the full report: the interpretation in full, all 20 statements cited to source and date, and the 6 sources linked where public.
Thicker lines mean more shared statements. A finding without a line goes beyond the registered design. Counts overlap, since one statement can back several findings, and they show what the report kept, not how many clinicians agree.
The full VA STARPORT report gives each finding its interpretation, the attributed views behind it, counterviews, limits and the verified HCP statements, each linked to the original. Get a complete report free to see what you get.
How should teams explain uncertain incremental benefit and differing local-treatment choices without implying that one randomized group is already inferior?
Raised by the leading finding. The report shows what clinicians said and the sources behind it; it does not settle the question.
By the numbers
free- 47HCP commentary sources screened
- 26sources cited by verified HCP statements
- 37named in screened sources
- 36voices cited in the report
- 33cited voices matched to verified clinician profiles
Also in the sources: 1 organizational or shared account, not counted as people.
- 119verified statements, each linked to its source
- 72of them from speakers with a confirmed clinical role
- 11findings
Screened sources were retrieved for this trial. Cited sources back at least one verified statement and include primary sources used for context. No count estimates how many clinicians hold a view. Size (Focused) is set by the 119 verified statements. Statements from sponsors, hosts and organisations are labelled and count apart from identified clinicians. A confirmed clinical role is one verified by the NPI registry or by the person's own institution's staff page; a role a source only states is not counted.
What's inside
free| Section | Items | Access |
|---|---|---|
| Findings with interpretation, counterviews and limits | 11 | Titles free |
| Detailed analysis | 12 sections | Paid |
| Verified statements with short source quotes and links | 119 | Paid |
| Trial aspects mapped | 14 | Free |
| Sources with links | 26 | Counts free |
| Speaker attribution for cited voices | 36 | Paid |
Trial aspects
14 discussed · 0 no commentary · 0 incomplete| Aspect | Statements | Sources |
|---|---|---|
| Primary endpoint: Castration-resistant prostate cancer-free survival (CRPC-free survival) | 3 | 2 |
| Secondary endpoints | 2 | 1 |
| Population and setting | 8 | 5 |
| The comparison | 20 | 6 |
| Safety and tolerability | 12 | 2 |
| Design and conduct | 14 | 9 |
| Nodal treatment extent, adjacent recurrence and retreatment | 14 | 1 |
| PSMA PET, metastatic burden and molecular selection | 10 | 5 |
| Biological skepticism and cross-cancer extrapolation | 16 | 1 |
| SATURN, SOLAR, EXTEND, GU011 and WOLVERINE as evidence around the VA STARPORT question | 11 | 5 |
| Clinician equipoise, recruiter training and recruitment resources | 14 | 1 |
| Recruitment language, family counseling and shared treatment decisions | 14 | 2 |
| Veteran access, participating sites and multidisciplinary care | 8 | 8 |
| Anticipated practice impact, study size and data maturity | 7 | 2 |
An aspect marked incomplete is a question the public commentary did not let us answer. We show it rather than hide it.
Sources
free| Channel | Screened | Cited | |
|---|---|---|---|
| X threads | 46 | 24 | |
| YouTube | 1 | 1 | |
| Primary sources, cited for context, not screened | |||
| Registry | not screened | 1 | |
max 7 / quarter
- Screened window
- Nov 29, 2020 → Oct 8, 2026
- Cited window
- Nov 29, 2020 → Oct 8, 2026
- Retrieved
- Oct 29, 2026
The trial
from ClinicalTrials.gov- Title
- Veterans Affairs Seamless Phase II/III Randomized Trial of STAndard Systemic theRapy With or Without PET-directed Local Therapy for OligoRecurrenT Prostate Cancer (VA STARPORT)
- Also known as
- STARPORT
- Registry
- NCT04787744
- Study IDs
- ONCA-026-20S · 1I01CX002277-01 · CX002277-01 (VA Investigators, Scientific Review and Management)
- Sponsor
- VA Office of Research and Development
- Design
- Phase 2/Phase 3 · Interventional, randomized, parallel
- Status
- Active, not recruiting
- Enrollment
- 378 actual
- Registered
- 2021-03-09
- Start
- 2021-07-01 actual
- Primary completion
- 2026-10-02 actual
- Primary endpoint
- Castration-resistant prostate cancer-free survival (CRPC-free survival)
- Interventions
- 12 registered
Scope and limits
freeThis 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.
- Some clinician views in the sources used in this report are not yet captured as evidence in this edition.
- 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.
- 61 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 apply, so some matching discussion may be missing.
- No full VA STARPORT protocol or trial-specific results publication is included. Speakers’ explanations of planned conduct, possible adaptations and expected benefit should not be treated as completed analyses or confirmed treatment effects.
- Some potentially relevant passages were not fully assessed. Discussion that never named VA STARPORT, used alternative spellings or wording, or preceded registration may be underrepresented.
- The reviewed public discussion does not establish the prevalence of any view among HCPs. Reposts and repeated posts are not additional independent clinical opinions.
- 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.
- A speaker is described in the source as involved in VA STARPORT. The trial explanations and operational observations should not be counted as independent external validation.
- Statements about other trials preserve their own populations, regimens and outcomes. In particular, breast-cancer findings, intermittent-treatment PSA observations and mixed-castration-status pooled results are not VA STARPORT results.
- Source dates span 2020–2026. Site counts, enrollment observations, anticipated timelines and expectations of practice impact are dated statements, not confirmation of current status.
- No exact regulatory labels for several grouped systemic-treatment options were available in the reviewed material. The report does not establish label-specific eligibility or prescribing conclusions.
- Not yet captured in this edition: a view on metastasis-directed therapy in oligorecurrent prostate cancer and the need for stronger evidence across survival endpoints.
- Not yet captured in this edition: a view on restricted access to PSMA PET imaging for PET-directed treatment decisions.
How reports are built and checked: Methods.
Editions and corrections
freeShow the correction
None of these corrections changed a finding.
- Oct 29, 2026Corrected to match the delivered report: per-finding counts; the limitations; the sample findings. The trial is also known as STARPORT. The page names the trial's tested drugs (none) and indication (oligometastatic prostate cancer).
Last checked for new commentary Oct 29, 2026. A new or changed finding gets a new version number; added evidence alone is a smaller update.
Cite this report
Erudio Health. VA STARPORT (NCT04787744): HCP commentary report. Edition 1, v1.0.0. Accepted Oct 29, 2026. https://www.erudio.com/reports/va-starport-nct04787744
For your AI agent
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 "VA STARPORT" (NCT04787744), 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 "va-starport-04787744". If you cannot make requests, read https://www.erudio.com/reports/va-starport-nct04787744.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 "NCT04787744", 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-nct04787744 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.Or read the record directly: JSON, Markdown or MCP
curl https://www.erudio.com/reports/va-starport-nct04787744.json
curl https://www.erudio.com/reports/va-starport-nct04787744.md
# MCP, no sign-in (https://mcp.erudio.com/free)
get_report_card({ "slug": "va-starport-04787744" })release eded92fb63ec2baa9881259cbc369b83dafe21255694e467932655d1bfd24f00