The rates of septicemia in older adults with prostate cancer treated with abiraterone or enzalutamide: A population-based study.

INTRODUCTION: Prostate cancer (PCa) is the most common non-cutaneous tumor among American men. Androgen receptor signaling inhibitors such as abiraterone and enzalutamide have been approved for similar disease states among patients with advanced PCa. Existing data suggest using steroids is associated with an increased risk of infection. Because abiraterone is usually prescribed with prednisone, we sought to compare the risk of septicemia in patients using abiraterone vs. enzalutamide. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We utilized the SEER-Medicare-linked data and used negative binomial regression models to compare the changes in the rates of septicemia-related hospitalizations six months pre- and post-abiraterone and enzalutamide initiation. RESULTS: We found that the incidence of septicemia-related hospitalizations increased 2.77 fold within six months of initiating abiraterone (incidence rate ratio [IRR]: 2.77, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.17-3.53) 1.97 fold within six months of starting enzalutamide (IRR: 1.97, 95% CI: 1.43-2.72). However, the difference in the changes did not reach statistical significance (interaction IRR: 0.71, 95% CI: 0.48-1.06). DISCUSSION: The findings suggest that both abiraterone and enzalutamide are associated with an increased risk of septicemia-related hospitalizations. However, the difference in the increase of septicemia risk following the two treatments did not reach statistical significance. Further studies are warranted to understand the mechanisms at play.

Targeting genomic receptors in voided urine for confirmation of benign prostatic hyperplasia.

Objectives: The objective of this study is to validate a hypothesis that a non-invasive optical imaging assay targeting genomic VPAC receptors on malignant cells shed in voided urine will represent either benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) or prostatic cancer (PCa). Risk for BPH in men 50-70 years old is 50-70% and PCa is 17%. BPH and PCa can coexist in 20% of men with BPH. Most commonly practiced methods to diagnose BPH do not distinguish BPH from PCa. Patients or Materials and Methods: Males with BPH (N = 97, 60.8 ± 6.3 years, prostate-specific antigen 0.7 ± 0.4 ng/mL) and without oncologic disease (N = 35, 63.4 ± 5.8 years, prostate-specific antigen < 1.5 ng/mL) signed informed consent form and provided voided urine. Urine was cytocentrifuged, cells collected on glass slide, fixed, treated with VPAC specific fluorophore TP4303 (Kd 3.1 × 10-8M), washed, incubated with DAPI and observed using a fluorescence microscope. Cells with no VPAC did not fluoresce (BPH) and those with VPAC had red-orange fluorescence (PCa). Real-time polymerase chain reaction analyses for VPAC and NKX3.1 assay for cell origin were performed. Results: Eighty-seven subjects were negative for VPAC expression. Positive VPAC expression was noted in 10 subjects. Patient chart review for clinical data on these 10 VPAC positive subjects showed five had nephrolithiasis, three had renal cysts, one had prostatitis and one was being treated with finasteride. Real-time polymerase chain reaction analysis-VPAC expressions for 7 normal and 12 BPH subjects were 1.31 ± 1.26 and 0.94 ± 0.89, respectively (P = 0.46). NKX3.1 showed cells of prostate origin for finasteride-treated patient. Specificity for VPAC urine assay for excluding prostate cancer in this BPH cohort was 88.5%, positive predictive value 0.00% and negative predictive value 100%. Conclusion: VPAC assay may contribute extensively for BPH diagnosis and warrant continued investigation.

Addressing gaps in healthcare provider knowledge regarding germline testing for prostate cancer through development and testing of a virtual genetics board.

BACKGROUND: Germline testing is important in prostate cancer and evaluation can be complex. METHODS: We instituted a monthly multi-disciplinary virtual genetics tumor board (7/2021-3/2022). Participants and panelists were surveyed on usefulness and acceptability. RESULTS: 101 participants attended a session, and 77 follow-up surveys were completed. Over 90% participants and 100% panelists endorsed usefulness of the case discussions and usability of the technology. The majority felt it provided new information they will use. CONCLUSIONS: A multidisciplinary genetics board was successfully developed to address complexity in prostate cancer genetics. The virtual platform may enhance dissemination of expertise where there are regional gaps.

TARGET: A Randomized, Noninferiority Trial of a Pretest, Patient-Driven Genetic Education Webtool Versus Genetic Counseling for Prostate Cancer Germline Testing.

PURPOSE: Germline genetic testing (GT) is important for prostate cancer (PCA) management, clinical trial eligibility, and hereditary cancer risk. However, GT is underutilized and there is a shortage of genetic counselors. To address these gaps, a patient-driven, pretest genetic education webtool was designed and studied compared with traditional genetic counseling (GC) to inform strategies for expanding access to genetic services. METHODS: Technology-enhanced acceleration of germline evaluation for therapy (TARGET) was a multicenter, noninferiority, randomized trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04447703) comparing a nine-module patient-driven genetic education webtool versus pretest GC. Participants completed surveys measuring decisional conflict, satisfaction, and attitudes toward GT at baseline, after pretest education/counseling, and after GT result disclosure. The primary end point was noninferiority in reducing decisional conflict between webtool and GC using the validated Decisional Conflict Scale. Mixed-effects regression modeling was used to compare decisional conflict between groups. Participants opting for GT received a 51-gene panel, with results delivered to participants and their providers. RESULTS: The analytic data set includes primary outcome data from 315 participants (GC [n = 162] and webtool [n = 153]). Mean difference in decisional conflict score changes between groups was -0.04 (one-sided 95% CI, -∞ to 2.54; P = .01), suggesting the patient-driven webtool was noninferior to GC. Overall, 145 (89.5%) GC and 120 (78.4%) in the webtool arm underwent GT, with pathogenic variants in 15.8% (8.7% in PCA genes). Satisfaction did not differ significantly between arms; knowledge of cancer genetics was higher but attitudes toward GT were less favorable in the webtool arm. CONCLUSION: The results of the TARGET study support the use of patient-driven digital webtools for expanding access to pretest genetic education for PCA GT. Further studies to optimize patient experience and evaluate them in diverse patient populations are warranted.