Risk of cardiovascular events following intermittent and continuous androgen deprivation therapy in patients with nonmetastatic prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: Intermittent androgen deprivation therapy (iADT) alleviates some side effects of continuous (c) ADT in patients with prostate cancer (PC), but its relative impact on ADT-associated comorbidities is uncertain. We assessed real-world use of iADT and cADT and associated risk of cardiovascular and endocrine/metabolic events in patients with nonmetastatic (nm) PC. METHODS: This retrospective longitudinal cohort study included patients with nmPC initiating systemic ADT with gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists (goserelin, histrelin, leuprolide, and triptorelin) or antagonists (degarelix) in the US Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results-Medicare database (2010-2017), who had ≥ 36 months of continuous insurance coverage, unless death occurred, and did not receive chemotherapy or next-generation hormonal therapies during follow-up (through 2019). Risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE [myocardial infarction, stroke, cardiomyopathy/heart failure, pulmonary embolism, ischemic heart disease, all-cause mortality]) and endocrine/metabolic events (diabetes, hypercholesterolemia, bone fractures, and osteoporosis) were examined between cohorts. Inverse probability of treatment-weighted Cox regression models estimated adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) of the outcomes. RESULTS: Of 10,655 eligible patients, 2,095 (19.7%) received iADT and 8,560 (80.3%) cADT. Median follow-up was 43.9 and 48.4 months and median ADT duration (excluding iADT gaps) was 22.0 and 13.5 months for the iADT and cADT cohorts, respectively. Patients receiving cADT had a lower risk of MACE vs. iADT (HR 0.90; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.83-0.96). No difference in risk of endocrine/metabolic events was observed (HR 0.97; 95% CI 0.92-1.03). Subgroup analysis found that the difference in MACE was maintained in patients with a history of cardiovascular disease (HR 0.90; 95% CI 0.83-0.98) and eliminated in patients without (HR 0.94; 95% CI 0.82-1.08). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with nmPC who received cADT had a lower risk of MACE and similar risk of endocrine/metabolic events vs. those who received iADT. Further research assessing both regimens is needed to inform treatment decisions.

Social integration and long-term physical and psychosocial quality of life among prostate cancer survivors in the Health Professionals Follow-up Study.

PURPOSE: Prostate cancer survivors may benefit from a supportive social environment. We investigated associations of social integration and long-term physical and psychosocial quality of life among prostate cancer survivors who were participants in the Health Professionals Follow-up Study. METHODS: We included 1,428 individuals diagnosed with non-metastatic prostate cancer between 2008 and 2016. Social integration was measured by the Berkman-Syme Social Network Index (SNI) and marital status. We fit generalized linear mixed effect models for associations of SNI and marital status with patient reported outcome measures on physical and psychosocial quality of life captured between 2008 and 2020, adjusting for age, race, employment status, body mass index, comorbidities, smoking history, and clinical factors. RESULTS: Among those with baseline SNI (N = 1,362), 46.4% were socially integrated, 20.3% were moderately integrated, 27.4% were moderately isolated, and 5.9% were socially isolated. Among those reporting baseline marital status (N = 1,428), 89.5% were married. Socially integrated survivors (vs. socially isolated) reported fewer depressive signs and better psychosocial wellbeing. Physical quality of life did not differ by social integration. Married survivors (vs. not married) reported fewer urinary symptoms, but there were no differences in bowel, sexual, or vitality/hormonal symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: Among prostate cancer survivors, being socially integrated was associated with fewer depressive signs and better psychosocial wellbeing, and married prostate cancer survivors had fewer urinary symptoms. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: This study highlighted aspects of long-term physical and psychosocial quality of life that are more favorable among prostate cancer survivors with a supportive social environment.

Androgen Deprivation Therapy/Androgen Receptor Signaling Inhibitor Treatments for Prostate Cancer: Pathophysiology and Review of Effects on Cardiovascular Disease.

Androgen deprivation therapy is the cornerstone of systemic management for prostate cancer but is associated with multiple adverse effects that must be considered during treatment. These effects occur because of the profound hypogonadism that is induced from lack of testosterone or due to the medications used in the treatment or in combination with androgen receptor signaling inhibitors. This article critically reviews the associations between androgen deprivation therapy, androgen receptor signaling inhibitors, and cardiovascular complications such as prolonged QT interval, atrial fibrillation, heart failure, atherosclerosis, coronary heart disease, venous thromboembolism, and peripheral arterial occlusive disease. These unfavorable outcomes reinforce the need for regular cardiovascular screening of patients undergoing androgen deprivation for the management of prostate cancer.

Salivary toxicity from PSMA-targeted radiopharmaceuticals: What we have learned and where we are going.

Clinical trials of prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) targeted radiopharmaceuticals have shown encouraging results. Some agents, like lutetium-177 [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 ([177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617), are already approved for late line treatment of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). Projections are for continued growth of this treatment modality; [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 is being studied both in earlier stages of disease and in combination with other anti-cancer therapies. Further, the drug development pipeline is deep with variations of PSMA-targeting radionuclides, including higher energy alpha particles conjugated to PSMA-honing vectors. It is safe to assume that an increasing number of patients will be exposed to PSMA-targeted radiopharmaceuticals during the course of their cancer treatment. In this setting, it is important to better understand and mitigate the most commonly encountered toxicities. One particularly vexing side effect is xerostomia. In this review, we discuss the scope of the problem, inventories to better characterize and monitor this troublesome side effect, and approaches to preserve salivary function and effectively palliate symptoms. This article aims to serve as a useful reference for prescribers of PSMA-targeted radiopharmaceuticals, while also commenting on areas of missing data and opportunities for future research.

A Model-Informed Drug Development Approach to Design a Phase 3 Trial of Teverelix Drug Product in Advanced Prostate Cancer Patients with Increased Cardiovascular Risk.

Teverelix drug product (DP) is a parenteral gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist that has been successfully tested in phase 2 trials for hormone-sensitive advanced prostate cancer (APC) and benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). In previous APC trials, teverelix DP was administered as intramuscular (IM) and subcutaneous (SC) injections, using a loading dose and (in a single trial) a maintenance dose. Our objective was to derive an optimal dosing regimen for phase 3 clinical development, using a pharmacometrics modeling approach. Data from 9 phase 2 studies (229 patients) was utilized to develop a population pharmacokinetic (PK) model that described the concentration profile accommodating both IM and SC routes of administration. A 2-compartment model with sequential first-order absorption (slow and fast) and lag times best described the PK profiles of teverelix following SC and IM administration. An indirect response model with inhibition of production rate was fit to describe testosterone (T) concentrations based on physiological relevance. The final population PK-pharmacodynamic model was used to conduct simulations of various candidate dosing regimens to select the optimal dosing regimen to achieve clinical castration (T < 0.5 ng/mL by day 28) and to sustain clinical castration for 26 weeks. Model simulation showed that a loading dose of 360 mg SC and 180 mg IM with a maintenance dose of 360 mg SC 6-weekly (Q6W) starting at day 28 can achieve a ≥95% castration rate up to 52 weeks. This dose regimen was selected for phase 3 clinical development, which includes cardiovascular safety assessment in comparison to a GnRH agonist.

Expert Perspectives on Controversies in Castration-Sensitive Prostate Cancer Management: Narrative Review and Report of the First US Prostate Cancer Conference Part 1.

Purpose: Castration-sensitive prostate cancer (CSPC) is a complex and heterogeneous condition encompassing a range of clinical presentations. As new approaches have expanded management options, clinicians are left with myriad questions and controversies regarding the optimal individualized management of CSPC. Materials and Methods: The US Prostate Cancer Conference (USPCC) multidisciplinary panel was assembled to address the challenges of prostate cancer management. The first annual USPCC meeting included experts in urology, medical oncology, radiation oncology, and nuclear medicine. USPCC co-chairs and session moderators identified key areas of controversy and uncertainty in prostate cancer management and organized the sessions with multidisciplinary presentations and discussion. Throughout the meeting, experts responded to questions prepared by chairs and moderators to identify areas of agreement and controversy. Results: The USPCC panel discussion and question responses for CSPC-related topics are presented. Key advances in CSPC management endorsed by USPCC experts included the development and clinical utilization of gene expression classifiers and artificial intelligence (AI) models for risk stratification and treatment selection in specific patient populations, the use of advanced imaging modalities in patients with clinically localized unfavorable intermediate or high-risk disease and those with biochemical recurrence, recommendations of doublet or triplet therapy for metastatic CSPC (mCSPC), and consideration of prostate and/or metastasis-directed radiation therapy in select patients with mCSPC. Conclusions: CSPC is a diverse disease with many therapeutic options and the potential for adverse outcomes associated with either undertreatment or overtreatment. Future studies are needed to validate and clinically integrate novel technologies, including genomics, AI, and advanced imaging, to optimize outcomes among patients with CSPC.

Expert Perspectives on Controversies in Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer Management: Narrative Review and Report of the First US Prostate Cancer Conference Part 2.

Background: Management strategies for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) have rapidly shifted in recent years. As novel imaging and therapeutic approaches have made their way to the clinic, providers are encountering increasingly challenging clinical scenarios, with limited guidance from the current literature. Materials and Methods: The US Prostate Cancer Conference (USPCC) is a multidisciplinary meeting of prostate cancer experts intended to address the many challenges of prostate cancer management. At the first annual USPCC meeting, areas of controversy and consensus were identified during a 2-day meeting that included expert presentations, full-panel discussions, and postdiscussion responses to questions developed by the USPCC cochairs and session moderators. Results: This narrative review covers the USPCC expert discussion and perspectives relevant to mCRPC, including neuroendocrine/aggressive-variant prostate cancer (NEPC/AVPC). Areas of broad agreement identified among USPCC experts include the benefits of poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors for patients with BRCA1/2 mutations, the use of radioligand therapy in patients with prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA)-positive mCRPC, and the need for clinical trials that address real-world clinical questions, including the performance of novel therapies when compared with modern standard-of-care treatment. Ongoing areas of controversy and uncertainty included the appropriateness of PARP inhibitors in patients with non-BRCA1/2 mutations, the optimal definition of PSMA positivity, and systemic therapies for patients with NEPC/AVPC after progression on platinum-based therapies. Conclusions: The first annual USPCC meeting identified several areas of controversy in the management of mCRPC, highlighting the urgent need for clinical trials designed to facilitate treatment selection and sequencing in this heterogeneous disease state.

Within-trial hospitalization resource utilization and budget impact analysis for darolutamide in metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer using ARASENS.

BACKGROUND: ARASENS was a randomized, double-blind, phase 3 trial comparing darolutamide + docetaxel + androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) with placebo + docetaxel + ADT in patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC). OBJECTIVE: To use clinical trial data from ARASENS to understand whether the addition of darolutamide to docetaxel + ADT leads to increased hospitalizations and to estimate the budget impact on the US health care system. METHODS: We used mixed-effects negative binomial regression to estimate hospitalization and intensive care unit (ICU) admission rates and length of hospital stay (LoHS) counts. Hospitalization rates were estimated per treatment arm for the period during and after administration of docetaxel. Based on these estimates, a budget impact analysis evaluated the hospitalization costs (including ICU admissions) and standalone ICU hospitalization costs for the totality of the US population over a 5-year time horizon. The analysis compared a scenario without darolutamide vs one with darolutamide included in the US payer formulary. Hospitalization estimates were varied in a one-way sensitivity analysis. RESULTS: The first 4 months of treatment (when patients were receiving docetaxel) were associated with increased hospitalizations across both arms. The addition of darolutamide was associated with a numerical reduction in the rate of hospitalization (per year) due to any reason both during docetaxel treatment (1.01 visits per year [95% CI = 0.82-1.20] vs 1.18 visits per year [95% CI = 0.96-1.41]) and after docetaxel treatment (0.28 visits per year [95% CI = 0.23-0.34] vs 0.33 visits per year [95% CI = 0.27-0.40]). Darolutamide was associated with a marginally longer LoHS per hospitalization compared with placebo (+1.90 days per year) both during and after docetaxel treatment. ICU admissions were low in the ARASENS data; admission rates were assumed to be the same during and after docetaxel treatment. ICU admission rate estimates were equivalent across arms (0.02 visits per year [95% CI = 0.01-0.03]). The budget impact per treated member per month represents a cost-neutral option after Year 5 with a cumulative budget impact of -$9.71. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of darolutamide to docetaxel + ADT was associated with a numerically lower rate of hospitalization but marginally longer LoHS compared with docetaxel + ADT alone. Darolutamide represents a cost-neutral alternative per treated member per month compared with docetaxel + ADT with regard to hospitalizations at the end of a 5-year time horizon.

Patient-reported Quality of Life and Survival Outcomes in Prostate Cancer: Analysis of the ECOG-ACRIN E3805 Chemohormonal Androgen Ablation Randomized Trial (CHAARTED).

BACKGROUND: Chemohormonal therapy with androgen deprivation therapy and docetaxel (ADT + D) improves overall survival (OS) and quality of life (QOL) at 12 mo versus androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) alone in men with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC). However, the prognostic role of QOL is unknown in this population. OBJECTIVE: To study the relationship between QOL, disease characteristics, and OS in men with mHSPC. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: In this exploratory post hoc analysis, 790 patients with mHSPC completed the QOL instruments Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Prostate (FACT-P), Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue (FACIT-F), and Brief Pain Inventory (BPI). OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Log-rank test and Cox proportional hazard models tested the association between QOL and OS by clinical and disease characteristics. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Baseline higher FACT-P trended toward improved survival after accounting for clinical variables (hazard ratio [HR] 0.80 [0.62, 1.04], p = 0.09), while higher 3-mo FACT-P was independently associated with better survival (HR 0.76 [0.58, 1.0], p = 0.05). Patients with the poorest QOL (bottom quartile) at baseline and 3 mo had longer survival if they received ADT + D rather than ADT alone (median OS 45.2 vs 34.4 mo, HR 0.75 [0.53, 1.05], p = 0.09, and 48.3 vs 29.3 mo, HR 0.69 [0.48, 0.99], p = 0.05 respectively). In contrast, patients with the best QOL (top quartile) at baseline and 3 mo had comparable survival irrespective of whether or not docetaxel was added (median OS 72.1 vs 51.7 mo, HR 0.92 [0.63, 1.36], p = 0.69, and 69.9 vs 68.9 mo, HR 1.11 [0.73, 1.67], p = 0.63, respectively). Survival was linked with baseline FACIT-F (HR 0.76 [0.57, 1.0], p = 0.05), but not BPI (HR 0.98 [0.75, 1.28], p = 0.90). CONCLUSIONS: Three-month QOL had a stronger independent association with survival. The most symptomatic patients had longer survival with the addition of docetaxel; conversely, the least symptomatic patients did not appear to benefit. Consideration of QOL may enhance decision-making and patient selection when choosing chemohormonal treatment in mHSPC. PATIENT SUMMARY: Quality of life independently forecasted the survival of men with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer in the CHAARTED study. Close tracking of quality of life could help patients and clinicians make decisions about the appropriate treatment in this setting.

Enzalutamide: Understanding and Managing Drug Interactions to Improve Patient Safety and Drug Efficacy.

Enzalutamide is an oral androgen receptor signaling inhibitor utilized in the treatment of men with prostate cancer. It is a moderate inducer of the cytochrome P450 (CYP) enzymes CYP2C9 and CYP2C19, and a strong inducer of CYP3A4. It was also shown to be a mild inhibitor of the efflux transporter P-glycoprotein in patients with prostate cancer. Enzalutamide is primarily metabolized by CYP3A4 and CYP2C8. The risk of enzalutamide drug interactions arises primarily when it is coadministered with other drugs that interact with these CYPs, including CYP3A4. In this review, we begin by providing an overview of enzalutamide including its dosing, use in special populations, pharmacokinetics, changes to its prescribing information, and potential for interaction with coadministered drugs. Enzalutamide interactions with drugs from a wide range of medication classes commonly prescribed to patients with prostate cancer are described, including oral androgen deprivation therapy, agents used to treat a range of cardiovascular diseases, antidiabetic drugs, antidepressants, anti-seizure medications, common urology medications, analgesics, proton pump inhibitors, immunosuppressants, and antigout drugs. Enzalutamide interactions with common vitamins and supplements are also briefly discussed. This review provides a resource for healthcare practitioners and patients that will help provide a basis for the understanding and management of enzalutamide drug-drug interactions to inform decision making, improve patient safety, and optimize drug efficacy.

Enzalutamide is a drug that is used to treat various stages of advanced prostate cancer, a type of cancer that begins in the prostate and may spread beyond the prostate. Enzalutamide stops testosterone from stimulating prostate cancer growth. Like other drugs, enzalutamide enters the bloodstream, and then is processed and removed from the body. Sometimes, when a person takes multiple drugs, one drug can make it difficult for the body to process and remove one or more of the other drugs. This is referred to as a drug interaction. Enzalutamide drug interactions can cause the level of other drugs in the body to increase or decrease in an abnormal way. It is also possible for certain other drugs to alter the levels of enzalutamide. Drug interactions that cause the level of a drug to get too low can prevent that drug from working effectively, whereas drug interactions that cause the level of a drug to get too high can lead to side effects of that drug. People with prostate cancer are mostly aged 65 years or older and often take medications to treat a variety of diseases. Examples include medications to treat heart conditions, diabetes, high cholesterol, high blood pressure, and many other conditions. Here, we describe enzalutamide drug interactions with these types of medications. Our goal is to provide a resource to help healthcare providers and patients better understand enzalutamide drug interactions and how to manage them to improve patient safety and drug effectiveness.

Patient engagement in designing and publishing research in prostate cancer: a scoping review.

Patients with cancer have the unique ability of being able to offer valuable insights into how cancer therapeutics may impact the overall patient experience and improve clinical outcomes. Patient engagement could therefore contribute to tailoring treatment strategies and research design according to patient needs. This study evaluated patient engagement in prostate cancer research by identifying patient input in the prostate cancer literature. We performed a keyword cluster analysis of articles from multiple databases and congresses in which patients provided input on disease management or were involved in study design, manuscript authorship or presentation of results (patient voice). In total, 112 studies were included. Patients were involved in the design of 11 studies and were credited as authors in four studies. This review suggests a lack of meaningful patient involvement in prostate cancer research and publications.

Patients with cancer have first-hand knowledge of what does and does not work for their care. Therefore, their voice is valuable to help improve treatment and guide research. Our goal was to find prostate cancer articles with patient input. We searched databases using keywords related to patient voice. We looked for articles involving patients in designing, writing or presenting the study. Only four out of the 112 articles we identified were published in journals focused on involving patients. Eleven articles involved patients in designing the study. Four articles involved patients in writing the published work. Overall, we did not find many articles where patients had a meaningful role in the study. Prostate cancer treatment and research will likely benefit from more patient input.

First-line combination treatment with PARP and androgen receptor-signaling inhibitors in HRR-deficient mCRPC: Applying clinical study findings to clinical practice in the United States.

INTRODUCTION: Metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) remains incurable and develops from biochemically recurrent PC treated with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) following definitive therapy for localized PC, or from metastatic castration-sensitive PC (mCSPC). In the mCSPC setting, treatment intensification of ADT plus androgen receptor (AR)-signaling inhibitors (ARSIs), with or without chemotherapy, improves outcomes vs ADT alone. Despite multiple phase 3 trials demonstrating a survival benefit of treatment intensification in PC, there remains high use of ADT monotherapy in real-world clinical practice. Prior studies indicate that co-inhibition of AR and poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) may result in enhanced benefit in treating tumors regardless of alterations in DNA damage response genes involved either directly or indirectly in homologous recombination repair (HRR). Three recent phase 3 studies evaluated the combination of a PARP inhibitor (PARPi) with an ARSI as first-line treatment for mCRPC: TALAPRO-2, talazoparib plus enzalutamide; PROpel, olaparib plus abiraterone acetate and prednisone (AAP); and MAGNITUDE, niraparib plus AAP. Results from these studies have led to the recent approval in the United States of talazoparib plus enzalutamide for the treatment of mCRPC with any HRR alteration, and of both olaparib and niraparib indicated in combination with AAP for the treatment of mCRPC with BRCA alterations. SUMMARY: Here, we review the newly approved PARPi plus ARSI treatments within the context of the mCRPC treatment landscape, provide an overview of practical considerations for the combinations in clinical practice, highlight the importance of HRR testing, and discuss the benefits of treatment intensification for patients with mCRPC.

Implications of Delayed Testosterone Recovery in Patients with Prostate Cancer.

To assess the clinical impact of delayed testosterone recovery (TR) following the discontinuation of medical androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), a retrospective, longitudinal analysis was conducted in adult males with prostate cancer using the Optum® de-identified Electronic Health Record data set and Optum® Enriched Oncology Data (2010-2021). Of 3875 patients who initiated and discontinued ADT, 1553 received one or more testosterone-level tests within the 12 mo following discontinuation and were included in this study. These 1553 patients were categorized into two cohorts: 25% as TR (testosterone levels >280 ng/dl at any test within 12 mo following ADT discontinuation) and 75% as non-TR. At baseline, non-TR patients were older, had lower testosterone levels, and were more likely to have diabetes, hyperlipidemia, and hypertension, but less likely to have sexual dysfunction. After adjustment for baseline characteristics, the TR cohort had a lower risk of new-onset diabetes (hazard ratio [HR] 0.47; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.27-0.79), trended toward a lower risk of new-onset depression (HR 0.58; 95% CI 0.33-1.02), and had a higher likelihood of seeking treatment for sexual dysfunction (HR 1.33; 95% CI 0.99-1.78) versus the non-TR cohort. These findings support monitoring testosterone levels after ADT discontinuation to manage potential long-term comorbidities in patients with prostate cancer. Patient summary: This real-world analysis of males with prostate cancer who were treated with medical androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) found that most patients did not have their testosterone level checked in the 12 mo after stopping ADT. Of those who did, 75% did not achieve normal testosterone levels (>280 ng/dl), and these patients were more likely to experience new-onset diabetes than those who achieved normal testosterone levels. These results suggest that to ensure effective clinical decision-making, physicians should check patients' testosterone levels after stopping ADT.

Perspectives on the Cardiovascular and Metabolic Effects of Androgen Deprivation Therapy in Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the leading cause of non-cancer mortality in men with prostate cancer. This review summarizes the existing and emerging literature examining the cardiometabolic effects of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) in prostate cancer. RECENT FINDINGS: The evidence behind the metabolic effects of ADT is derived from older studies and has not been validated in modern cohorts. Most of the newer studies focus on the risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) with ADT. Recently published studies like the HERO and PRONOUNCE trials have once again sparked debate about the effects of different types and durations of ADT on cardiovascular outcomes. The link between ADT and CVD is inherently complex with a majority of the evidence collected from population-based or non-randomized trials without enriching for high-risk populations. Ongoing clinical trials may provide more informative data to guide the cardiovascular care of prostate cancer survivors.

Plant-based diet associated with better quality of life in prostate cancer survivors.

BACKGROUND: Plant-based diets have many health benefits, including a lower risk of fatal prostate cancer, and greater environmental sustainability. However, less is known regarding the impact of plant-based diets on quality of life among individuals diagnosed with prostate cancer. The authors' objective was to examine the relationship between plant-based diet indices postdiagnosis with quality of life. METHODS: This prospective cohort study included 3505 participants in the Health Professionals Follow-Up Study (1986-2016) with nonmetastatic prostate cancer. Food-frequency questionnaires were used to calculate overall and healthful plant-based diet indices. Quality-of-life scores were calculated using the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite. Generalized estimating equations were used to examine associations over time between plant-based diet indices and quality-of-life domains (sexual functioning, urinary irritation/obstruction, urinary incontinence, bowel functioning, hormonal/vitality), adjusted for demographics, oncologic history, body mass index, caloric intake, health-related behaviors, and comorbidities. RESULTS: The median age at prostate cancer diagnosis was 68 years; 48% of patients underwent radical prostatectomy, and 35% received radiation as primary therapy. The median time from diagnosis/treatment to first the quality-of-life questionnaire was 7.0 years. A higher plant-based diet index was associated with better scores for sexual function, urinary irritation/obstruction, urinary incontinence, and hormonal/vitality. Consuming more healthful plant-based foods was also associated with better sexual and bowel function, as well as urinary incontinence and hormonal/vitality scores in the age-adjusted analysis, but not in the multivariable analysis. CONCLUSIONS: This prospective study provides supportive evidence that greater consumption of healthful plant-based foods is associated with modestly higher scores in quality-of-life domains among patients with prostate cancer.

Cancer survivorship programs at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute.

PURPOSE: We sought to present the current status of survivorship programs at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute which include the David B. Perini, Jr. Quality of Life Clinic for survivors of childhood cancer, Stop and Shop Neuro-Oncology Outcomes Clinic for pediatric brain tumor survivors, and Adult Survivorship Program for adult cancer survivors including those diagnosed as adults (age 18 years and older) and adult survivors of childhood cancer, in an effort to share best practices as well as challenges. METHODS: Description of programs and discussion. RESULTS: Our institutional programs are detailed regarding their history and the multidisciplinary approach and both consultative and long-term care delivery models for pediatric and adult cancer survivors, with the goal of meeting the spectrum of survivorship care needs, from diagnosis and management of long-term effects of cancer-directed therapy and surveillance for subsequent cancer, to healthy lifestyle promotion and psychosocial support. Program investigators conduct research to understand the risks and unmet needs of cancer survivors, and to develop and test interventions to improve care delivery and medical and psychosocial outcomes. There are also educational initiatives detailed. CONCLUSIONS: Survivorship programs at Dana-Farber are designed to optimize care and outcomes for cancer survivors including conducting quality improvement initiatives and research to further understand and meet the clinical needs of the large, heterogenous, and growing population cancer survivors into the future. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: Programs like ours as well as those ongoing and planned aim to improve the comprehensive care of diverse cancer survivors.

Functional Outcomes After Localized Prostate Cancer Treatment.

Importance: Adverse outcomes associated with treatments for localized prostate cancer remain unclear. Objective: To compare rates of adverse functional outcomes between specific treatments for localized prostate cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants: An observational cohort study using data from 5 US Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program registries. Participants were treated for localized prostate cancer between 2011 and 2012. At baseline, 1877 had favorable-prognosis prostate cancer (defined as cT1-cT2bN0M0, prostate-specific antigen level <20 ng/mL, and grade group 1-2) and 568 had unfavorable-prognosis prostate cancer (defined as cT2cN0M0, prostate-specific antigen level of 20-50 ng/mL, or grade group 3-5). Follow-up data were collected by questionnaire through February 1, 2022. Exposures: Radical prostatectomy (n = 1043), external beam radiotherapy (n = 359), brachytherapy (n = 96), or active surveillance (n = 379) for favorable-prognosis disease and radical prostatectomy (n = 362) or external beam radiotherapy with androgen deprivation therapy (n = 206) for unfavorable-prognosis disease. Main Outcomes and Measures: Outcomes were patient-reported sexual, urinary, bowel, and hormone function measured using the 26-item Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (range, 0-100; 100 = best). Associations of specific therapies with each outcome were estimated and compared at 10 years after treatment, adjusting for corresponding baseline scores, and patient and tumor characteristics. Minimum clinically important differences were 10 to 12 for sexual function, 6 to 9 for urinary incontinence, 5 to 7 for urinary irritation, and 4 to 6 for bowel and hormone function. Results: A total of 2445 patients with localized prostate cancer (median age, 64 years; 14% Black, 8% Hispanic) were included and followed up for a median of 9.5 years. Among 1877 patients with favorable prognosis, radical prostatectomy was associated with worse urinary incontinence (adjusted mean difference, -12.1 [95% CI, -16.2 to -8.0]), but not worse sexual function (adjusted mean difference, -7.2 [95% CI, -12.3 to -2.0]), compared with active surveillance. Among 568 patients with unfavorable prognosis, radical prostatectomy was associated with worse urinary incontinence (adjusted mean difference, -26.6 [95% CI, -35.0 to -18.2]), but not worse sexual function (adjusted mean difference, -1.4 [95% CI, -11.1 to 8.3), compared with external beam radiotherapy with androgen deprivation therapy. Among patients with unfavorable prognosis, external beam radiotherapy with androgen deprivation therapy was associated with worse bowel (adjusted mean difference, -4.9 [95% CI, -9.2 to -0.7]) and hormone (adjusted mean difference, -4.9 [95% CI, -9.5 to -0.3]) function compared with radical prostatectomy. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients treated for localized prostate cancer, radical prostatectomy was associated with worse urinary incontinence but not worse sexual function at 10-year follow-up compared with radiotherapy or surveillance among people with more favorable prognosis and compared with radiotherapy for those with unfavorable prognosis. Among men with unfavorable-prognosis disease, external beam radiotherapy with androgen deprivation therapy was associated with worse bowel and hormone function at 10-year follow-up compared with radical prostatectomy.

PROMISE Registry: A prostate cancer registry of outcomes and germline mutations for improved survival and treatment effectiveness.

BACKGROUND: Recently approved treatments and updates to genetic testing recommendations for prostate cancer have created a need for correlated analyses of patient outcomes data via germline genetic mutation status. Genetic registries address these gaps by identifying candidates for recently approved targeted treatments, expanding clinical trial data examining specific gene mutations, and understanding effects of targeted treatments in the real-world setting. METHODS: The PROMISE Registry is a 20-year (5-year recruitment, 15-year follow-up), US-wide, prospective genetic registry for prostate cancer patients. Five thousand patients will be screened through an online at-home germline testing to identify and enroll 500 patients with germline mutations, including: pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants and variants of uncertain significance in genes of interest. Patients will be followed for 15 years and clinical data with real time patient reported outcomes will be collected. Eligible patients will enter long-term follow-up (6-month PRO surveys and medical record retrieval). As a virtual study with patient self-enrollment, the PROMISE Registry may fill gaps in genetics services in underserved areas and for patients within sufficient insurance coverage. RESULTS: The PROMISE Registry opened in May 2021. 2114 patients have enrolled to date across 48 US states and 23 recruiting sites. 202 patients have met criteria for long-term follow-up. PROMISE is on target with the study's goal of 5000 patients screened and 500 patients eligible for long-term follow-up by 2026. CONCLUSIONS: The PROMISE Registry is a novel, prospective, germline registry that will collect long-term patient outcomes data to address current gaps in understanding resulting from recently FDA-approved treatments and updates to genetic testing recommendations for prostate cancer. Through inclusion of a broad nationwide sample, including underserved patients and those unaffiliated with major academic centers, the PROMISE Registry aims to provide access to germline genetic testing and to collect data to understand disease characteristics and treatment responses across the disease spectrum for prostate cancer with rare germline genetic variants.