Background: The treatment of metastatic hormone sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC) has evolved over the past 7 years. Combination therapies with either [Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) + Docetaxel] or [ADT + androgen receptor signaling inhibitors (ARSi) such as abiraterone acetate/enzalutamide/apalutamide] have demonstrated overall survival (OS) benefit compared to ADT + placebo in mHSPC. Recently two trials (ARASENS and PEACE-1) also demonstrate an OS benefit from the addition of docetaxel to ADT + ARSi (abiraterone acetate or darolutamide) compared to ADT + docetaxel. Given these recent advances there is not a clear consensus on how to best manage patients with mHSPC as there are no head-to-head trials. In this study, we assess oncologists’ treatment preferences as it pertains to this subset of patients. Methods: An 8-item online survey was sent on September 6th, 2022 to medical oncologists in the United States. We described five different case scenarios and three demographic questionnaires. Cases consisted of patients with mHSPC both de novo and primary progressive with low and high volumes. Treatment options included ADT monotherapy, ADT + ARSi (doublet), or ADT + ARSi + docetaxel (triplet therapy). Respondents reported their practice setting, location, and years of clinical experience. Data was collected and analyzed via REDCap. Results: Surveys were completed by (n=83) medical oncologists across the US. 14.5% of respondents were from Kentucky; 51.8% have been in practice < 10 years, 20.5% 10-20 years, and 27.7%> 20 years. For patients with de novo high volume disease, 85.5% (71) preferred treatment with triplet therapy. For the same patient population, 94.4% (51) of university-based providers preferred triplet therapy vs 68.9% (20) of those in a non-academic setting. Preferences differed regarding patients with primary progressive high-volume disease in which 59.8% (49) preferred a triplet regimen while 37.8% (31) preferred a doublet regimen. Of those choosing triplet therapy, 53.7% (29) were from an academic institution while 71.4% (20) practiced in a nonacademic setting. Of those choosing doublet therapy, 42.6% (23) were from an academic institution versus 28.6% (8) in a nonacademic setting. For patients with de novo or primary progressive low volume disease, 81.5% of respondents preferred doublet therapy without a notable difference between academic and non-academic responders. Conclusions: We find a consensus in management of patients with de novo high volume mHSPC (prefer triplet) and de novo or primary progressive low volume disease (prefer doublet) regardless of practice setting, location, or practice duration. However, for patients with primary progressive high-volume disease, a higher percentage of non-academic providers prefer triplet therapy compared to their university counterparts.