Background: Recent approvals in management of high-volume mCSPC offer major improvements in patient outcomes. Triplet therapy combining androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) with docetaxel (D) and novel hormonal therapy (NHT) is the new standard of care in this patient population. Patients ineligible for triplet therapy should receive doublet therapy with ADT plus D or NHT based on category 1 evidence. Multiple retrospective datasets examining the “real-world” mCSPC treatment landscape note significant underutilization of therapies beyond ADT and discordance with treatment guidelines. Methods: A 15-question survey to assess management patterns was electronically distributed to various mCSPC providers in California and Washington. Results: A total of 40 responses were received, with 62.5% identifying as medical oncologists (MO), 20.0% as urologists, 5.0% as radiation oncologists, and 12.5% as advanced practitioners/other. Out of physician responders, 48.6% were academic and 51.4% were community-based. When treating newly diagnosed fit mCSPC patients, 20.0% would prescribe triplet therapy, 42.5% ADT/NHT, 5.0% ADT/D, 5.0% ADT/bicalutamide, 0% ADT alone, 10.0% other therapies, and 17.5% would refer out for therapies beyond ADT. When comparing academic versus community oncologists, 66.7% versus 0% would prescribe triplet therapy, while 22.2% versus 68.8% would prescribe ADT/NHT. Some perceived barriers to following mCSPC treatment guidelines included difficulty keeping up with rapidly evolving data/too many treatment options in 27.5%, insurance coverage concerns in 22.5%, difficulty obtaining early referrals for these therapies in 12.5%, patient factors in 10.0%, and toxicity concerns in 2.5%. When making referrals to MO, 37.5% of non-MO responders would do so at development of mCSPC and 6.3% at mCRPC. Conversely, 24.2% of MO perceived receiving referrals at development of mCSPC and 33.3% at mCRPC. Patterns of ordering genomic testing are listed, with biggest perceived barriers being cost, inadequate access to sequencing platforms and genetic counselors, lack of confidence in counseling about results, and patient refusal. Upon progression from mCSPC to mCRPC, ordering of repeat tumor biopsies would occur “sometimes” by 40.0% of providers, “rarely” by 20.0%, and “never” by 20.0%. Conclusions: Multiple provider disparities when managing mCSPC patients still exist. Our survey demonstrated higher compliance with treatment guidelines than in previous retrospective datasets, possibly due to higher proportion of academic providers. Increased provider awareness of genomic testing recommendations is also needed.