Real-world prevalence of adverse events with first-line systemic therapies among patients with metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: The current guidelines for treating metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC) recommend treatment intensification of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) with the addition of an androgen receptor pathway inhibitor (ARPI), with or without docetaxel. However, the adoption of these treatment options has been slow, leading to therapeutic inertia. This real-world study was conducted to investigate the occurrence of adverse events (AEs) among treated patients diagnosed with mCSPC in the United States. METHODS: This retrospective claim review estimated the occurrence of AEs among patients with mCSPC from January 2014 to June 2021 in the PharMetrics® Plus data set. The study focused on 10 common AEs (fatigue/asthenia, gastrointestinal [GI] AEs, skin/nail/hair AEs, immunodeficiency/thrombocytopenia, hot flash, sexual function AEs, anemia, hypertension, pain, and edema) known to occur in ≥10% of patients and ≥2% more prevalent than those treated with ADT alone as selected from the US Food and Drug Administration prescribing information and published results from clinical trials. Proportions of patients experiencing these AEs at Day 90, 180, and then every 180 days until month 30 during the follow-up period were estimated using cumulative hazard plots. Results were adjusted using inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) across four treatment groups: ADT alone, ADT + nonsteroidal anti-androgen (NSAA) (bicalutamide, nilutamide, or flutamide), ADT + docetaxel, and ADT + ARPIs (abiraterone, apalutamide, or enzalutamide). ADT-alone cohort was the reference group for all comparisons. RESULTS: A total of 4145 patients were included (ADT alone: 2318, ADT + NSAA: 632, ADT + docetaxel: 471, ADT + ARPIs: 724). At baseline, median (interquartile range [IQR]) age was 64.3 (60.1-73.1) years; most common sites of metastasis were bone only (n = 1886, 45.5%) and node only (n = 1237, 29.8%); most used medications were pain medications (n = 2182, 52.6%) and corticosteroids (n = 1213, 29.3%). Median (IQR) duration of follow-up 10.2 (6.1-16.6) months in ADT alone, 6.7 (4.1-11.5) months in ADT + NSAA, 5.1 (4.3-5.9) months in ADT + docetaxel, and 11.0 (6.6-17.0) months in ADT + ARPI cohort. The reported AEs increased over time for all assessed AEs, across all treatment groups. Compared with ADT alone, no statistically significant difference in the proportion of patients with AEs was seen in the ADT + ARPI or ADT + NSAA cohorts at months 3 and 12; a significantly higher proportion of patients in the ADT + docetaxel cohort experienced 6 of the 10 assessed AEs at month 3 (fatigue/asthenia, GI AEs, skin/nail/hair AEs, immunodeficiency/thrombocytopenia, hot flash, anemia). During the follow-up period, on IPTW analysis, compared with ADT alone, a significantly higher proportion of patients experienced AEs with seven AEs in the ADT + docetaxel group (fatigue/asthenia, GI AEs, skin/nail/hair AEs, immunodeficiency/thrombocytopenia, hot flash, anemia, edema; p < 0.001 for all seven), three AEs in the ADT + ARPI group (hot flash, p = 0.05; anemia, p = 0.01; edema, p = 0.019), and one AE in the ADT + NSAA group (anemia, p = 0.029). The proportion of patients with sexual function AE did not significantly differ between the treatment groups and ADT alone. CONCLUSION: Results of this large, real-world study demonstrated that all treatment groups experienced an increase in the rates of AEs over time, including ADT alone. Most AE rates with ADT + ARPIs were comparable with ADT + NSAA and not significantly different from ADT alone. ADT + docetaxel cohort was associated with significantly higher rates for all AEs over time except hypertension, sexual dysfunction, and pain. This study provides real-world evidence on AEs, beyond controlled clinical trials, and may assist healthcare providers to make better-informed decisions about disease management among patients with mCSPC.

Treatment patterns and outcomes in patients with nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer in the United States.

Aim: Androgen receptor pathway inhibitors (ARPIs) prolong metastasis-free survival and overall survival in patients with nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC). This study aimed to evaluate real-world treatment patterns, utilization and survival outcomes in patients with nmCRPC. Patients & methods: This retrospective cohort study used Optum database electronic health records of patients with nmCRPC from 1 January 2007 to 31 December 2020 in the US. Results: Of 1955 patients, >80% received androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) alone or ADT + first-generation nonsteroidal antiandrogen (NSAA) as first-line treatment, while only 8.24% received ADT + ARPI. ADT + ARPI remained underutilized even among those with high-risk nmCRPC. Further, ADT + NSAA had no survival benefit compared with ADT alone. Conclusion: Practice-improvement strategies are needed for treatment intensification with ARPIs for patients with nmCRPC.

Prostate cancer cells often use hormones called androgens to grow and survive. Hormone therapy is a treatment that lowers the amount of these hormones in the body to slow down the cancer's growth. It includes androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT), which can either be used alone or along with nonsteroidal antiandrogens (NSAAs) or with androgen receptor pathway inhibitors (ARPIs). Nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC) is defined as prostate cancer that has not spread to other parts of the body but exhibits rising levels of serum prostate-specific antigen despite surgery or ADT to reduce androgens. Research shows that ARPIs can improve survival in patients with nmCRPC, but more data on its use are needed. This study looked at the electronic health records of patients with nmCRPC to review the treatment they had received and their survival. Between 2008 and 2020, most patients received ADT alone or with NSAA. Even though the number of patients receiving ADT with ARPI increased during this period, it remained underused, even in patients with a high risk of cancer spreading to other body parts. Post-2018, even after 2 years of these drugs being available, only about one in five patients received ADT with ARPI. Also, people who received ADT with NSAA did not have a longer survival than patients treated with ADT alone. The study indicates that ARPIs, which could improve survival of patients with nmCRPC, are not being utilized optimally. Strategies that promote early use of ARPIs are needed to improve survival of patients with nmCRPC.

The Role of Physician Specialty in the Underutilization of Standard-of-Care Treatment Intensification in Patients With Metastatic Castration-sensitive Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSE: We evaluate utilization of treatment intensification of androgen deprivation therapy with androgen receptor pathway inhibitor/docetaxel for metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer patients across physician specialties. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective study identified patients with metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer in the Optum Research Database between 2014 and 2019. Adult men with ≥1 claim for metastatic disease within 90 days before or any time after the first prostate cancer claim who received androgen deprivation therapy were included. Physician specialty, determined from medical/pharmacy claims during each line of therapy, was categorized as urologist only, oncologist only, both (urologists and oncologists), or other (other specialties). Treatment intensification and patient characteristics were analyzed descriptively. RESULTS: Of 4,675 patients, 16% were treated by urologists only, 20% by oncologists only, 63% by both, and 1.1% by others. The most frequent first line of therapy was androgen deprivation therapy ± first-generation nonsteroidal antiandrogens (>50%). Androgen deprivation therapy + docetaxel use declined over time, while androgen deprivation therapy + androgen receptor pathway inhibitor use increased. Patients seen by oncologists or both were younger, had fewer comorbidities, and were likelier to receive treatment intensification compared to those treated by urologists. By 2019, however, treatment intensification remained <40% from oncologists only or both, and <15% from urologists only. In the second and third lines of therapy, androgen deprivation therapy + androgen receptor pathway inhibitor was the most prescribed regimen across specialties (>50%). CONCLUSIONS: Treatment intensification was underused in first lines of therapy across urology and oncology specialties despite evidence of improved survival. In subsequent lines, androgen deprivation therapy + androgen receptor pathway inhibitor was prescribed more frequently across specialties. These results underscore the need for earlier treatment intensification by urologists and oncologists.

Plain language summary: Does the amount of time it takes for prostate-specific antigen to double affect how long men with nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer live and their healthcare costs?

WHAT IS THIS SUMMARY ABOUT?: This is a plain language summary of a research article originally published in Clinical Genitourinary Cancer. The original article described the effect of rapidly rising prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels on how long men with a type of advanced prostate cancer live and their healthcare costs. The prostate is a part of the male body that helps make semen. PSA is a protein produced by the prostate that can show how advanced prostate cancer has become. One measure of prostate cancer growth is assessing how quickly a patient's PSA level doubles. This is known as the PSA doubling time (PSADT). People with a shorter PSADT usually have faster-growing prostate cancer compared with people who have a longer PSADT of more than 12 months (long PSADT). Researchers wanted to know if PSADT can predict cancer spread (known as metastasis) or death for people with a type of advanced prostate cancer called non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC). Researchers also wanted to know if PSADT can predict healthcare costs. This could help doctors choose the right treatment for their patients with nmCRPC. This was a real-world study, not a clinical trial. This means that researchers looked at what happened when men received the treatments prescribed by their own doctor as part of their usual healthcare treatment. In this study, researchers used insurance claim information. WHAT WERE THE RESULTS?: Researchers looked at information for 2800 men with nmCRPC. Six out of every 10 men (60%) had a long PSADT of more than 12 months. Researchers found that it took longer for the cancer to spread to other parts of the body in men with a longer PSADT than men with PSADT of 12 months or less. Researchers also found that men with a longer PSADT lived longer than men with PSADT of 12 months or less. The long PSADT group had fewer healthcare visits overall than men with PSADT of 10 months or less. Over time, it cost less to treat men with a long PSADT than men with PSADT of 10 months or less. Generally, if PSADT was shorter, patients tended to do worse. WHAT DO THE RESULTS OF THE STUDY MEAN?: In this real-world study, researchers found that men with nmCRPC lived longer and had lower healthcare costs if they had a long PSADT of more than 12 months compared with men who had a shorter PSADT. Men with nmCRPC and a shorter PSADT may benefit from approved treatments that slow cancer spread and help them live longer. However, these treatments may have side effects and cost more than standard treatment. Doctors take all these things into account when choosing treatments for their patients. Most men in this study had a long PSADT of more than 12 months. Standard treatment may be the right choice for them because they are more likely to have better outcomes than men with a shorter PSADT.

The impact of enzalutamide on quality of life in men with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer based on prior therapy, risk, and symptom subgroups.

BACKGROUND: Enzalutamide plus androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) improved radiographic progression-free survival versus ADT alone in patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC) in ARCHES (NCT02677896). While health-related quality of life (HRQoL) was generally maintained in the intent-to-treat population, we further analyzed patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in defined subgroups. METHODS: ARCHES was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study. Patients with mHSPC received enzalutamide (160 mg/day) plus ADT (n = 574) or placebo plus ADT (n = 576). Questionnaires, including the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Prostate, Brief Pain Inventory-Short Form, and EuroQol 5-Dimension, 5-Level (EQ-5D-5L), were completed at baseline, Week 13, and every 12 weeks until disease progression. PRO endpoints were time to first confirmed clinically meaningful deterioration (TTFCD) in HRQoL or pain. Subgroups included prognostic risk, pain/HRQoL, prior docetaxel, and local therapy (radical prostatectomy [RP] and/or radiotherapy [RT]). RESULTS: There were several between-treatment differences in TTFCD for pain and functioning/HRQoL PROs. Enzalutamide plus ADT delayed TTFCD for worst pain in the prior RT group (not reached vs. 14.06 months; hazard ratio [HR]: 0.56 [95% confidence interval: 0.34-0.94]) and pain interference in low-baseline-HRQoL group (19.32 vs. 11.20 months; HR: 0.64 [0.44-0.94]) versus placebo plus ADT. In prior/no prior RP, prior RT, prior local therapy, no prior docetaxel, mild baseline pain, and low-risk subgroups, TTFCD was delayed for the EQ-5D-5L visual analog scale. CONCLUSION: Enzalutamide plus ADT provides clinical benefits in defined patient subgroups versus ADT alone, while maintaining lack of pain and high HRQoL, with delayed deterioration in several HRQoL measures.

Does race make a difference in how long men with advanced prostate cancer live when treated with abiraterone or enzalutamide?

WHAT IS THIS SUMMARY ABOUT?: This is a summary of a research article originally published in Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases. There were few Black men in the clinical trials that led to the approval of the medications abiraterone and enzalutamide. Abiraterone and enzalutamide are the two most commonly used drugs to treat men with advanced prostate cancer that has progressed on traditional hormonal therapy. This type of prostate cancer is called metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). Overall, Black men have a higher likelihood of dying from prostate cancer than White men. Researchers wanted to find out if Black men and White men with mCRPC benefitted differently when treated with either abiraterone or enzalutamide. To do this, researchers looked at medical information from the Veterans Health Administration (VHA). The VHA is a large healthcare system for veterans in the US where everyone has equal access to treatment. This was a real-world study, not a clinical trial. This means that researchers looked at what happened when men received the treatments prescribed by their healthcare practitioners. WHAT WERE THE RESULTS?: After accounting for differences in the men's age and health conditions, researchers found that, on average, Black men with mCRPC actually lived 8 months longer than White men with mCRPC. WHAT DO THE RESULTS OF THE STUDY MEAN?: This real-world, US study of men with mCRPC treated with abiraterone or enzalutamide found that Black men lived longer than White men. All men in this study had equal access to healthcare and were treated with either abiraterone or enzalutamide. More research is needed to understand the reasons for this. Understanding these reasons could guide treatment to help men with mCRPC live longer.

An empirical investigation of time-varying cost-effectiveness across the product life cycle.

Cost-effectiveness is traditionally treated as a static estimate driven by clinical trial efficacy and drug price at launch. Prior studies suggest that cost-effectiveness varies over the drug's lifetime. We examined the impact of "learning by doing," one of the least studied drivers of changes in cost-effectiveness across the product life cycle. We combined time-series trends in effectiveness over time by cancer regimen using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare database. We estimated the time-varying effects of treatments in colorectal and pancreatic cancer over their life cycle, including FOLFOX (leucovorin, 5-fluorouracil, and oxaliplatin) and gemcitabine, on survival of patients. Mean prices over time by strength and dosage form were calculated using historical wholesale acquisition costs. We found consistent downward trends in the mortality hazard ratios, which suggest that effectiveness improves over time. In the case of first-line FOLFOX for colorectal cancer, the implied incremental cost-effectiveness ratio based on the observational data fell from $610,000 per life year gained in 2004 to $27,000 per life year gained in 2011. Cost-effectiveness estimated at launch is unlikely to be representative of cost-effectiveness over the drug's lifetime. In the drugs studied, the impact of time-varying clinical effectiveness dominated the impact of changing prices overtime.

Patient-reported outcomes following enzalutamide or placebo in men with non-metastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer (PROSPER): a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: In the PROSPER trial, enzalutamide significantly improved metastasis-free survival in patients with non-metastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer. Here, we report the results of patient-reported outcomes of this study. METHODS: In the randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 PROSPER trial, done at 254 study sites worldwide, patients aged 18 years or older with non-metastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer and a prostate-specific antigen doubling time of up to 10 months were randomly assigned (2:1) via an interactive voice web recognition system to receive oral enzalutamide (160 mg per day) or placebo. Randomisation was stratified by prostate-specific antigen doubling time and baseline use of a bone-targeting agent. The primary endpoint was metastasis-free survival, reported elsewhere. Secondary efficacy endpoints, reported here, were pain progression (assessed by the Brief Pain Inventory Short Form [BPI-SF] questionnaire) and health-related quality of life (assessed with the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire [EORTC QLQ-PR25], the EuroQoL 5-Dimensions 5-Levels health questionnaire visual analogue scale [EQ-5D-FL, EQ-VAS], and the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Prostate [FACT-P] questionnaires). Patients completed questionnaires at baseline, week 17, and every 16 weeks thereafter until treatment discontinuation. We used predefined questionnaire thresholds to identify clinically meaningful changes. Enrolment for PROSPER is complete and follow-up continues. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02003924. FINDINGS: Between Nov 26, 2013, and June 28, 2017, 1401 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive enzalutamide (n=933) or placebo (n=468). Median follow-up was 18·5 months (IQR 10·7-29·2) in the enzalutamide group and 15·1 months (7·4-25·9) in the placebo group. Patient-reported outcome scores at baseline were similar between groups. Changes in least squares mean from baseline to week 97 favoured enzalutamide versus placebo for FACT-P social and family wellbeing (0·30 [95% CI -0·25 to 0·85] vs -0·64 [-1·51 to 0·24]; difference 0·94 [95% CI 0·02 to 1·85]; p=0·045) and disfavoured enzalutamide versus placebo for EORTC QLQ-PR25 hormonal treatment-related symptoms (1·55 [0·26 to 2·83) vs -1·83 [-3·86 to 0·20]; difference 3·38 [1·24 to 5·51]; p=0·0020); neither of these changes were clinically meaningful. No significant differences were observed between treatments for changes from baseline to week 97 in any other patient-reported outcome score. Time to clinically meaningful pain progression as assessed by BPI-SF pain severity was longer with enzalutamide than with placebo (median 36·83 months, [95% CI 34·69 to not reached [NR] vs NR; hazard ratio [HR] 0·75 [95% CI 0·57 to 0·97]; p=0·028); there was no significant difference for BPI-SF item 3 or pain interference. Time to clinically meaningful symptom worsening was longer with enzalutamide than with placebo for EORTC QLQ-PR25 urinary symptoms (median 36·86 months [95% CI 33·35 to NR] vs 25·86 [18·53 to 29·47]; HR 0·58 [95% CI 0·46 to 0·72]; p<0·0001) and bowel symptoms (33·15 [29·50 to NR] vs 25·89 [18·43 to 29·67]; 0·72 [0·59 to 0·89]; p=0·0018), and clinically meaningful health-related quality of life as assessed by FACT-P total score (22·11 [18·63 to 25·86] vs 18·43 [14·85-19·35]; 0·83 [0·69 to 0·99]; p=0·037), emotional wellbeing (36·73 [33·12 to 38·21] vs 29·47 [22·18 to 33·15]; 0·69 [0·55 to 0·86]; p=0·0008), and prostate cancer subscale (18·43 [14·85 to 18·66] vs 14·69 [11·07 to 16·20]; 0·79 [0·67 to 0·93]; p=0·0042), although there was no significant difference for other FACT-P scores. Time to clinically meaningful deterioration in EORTC QLQ-PR25 hormonal treatment-related symptoms was shorter with enzalutamide than with placebo (median 33·15 months [95% CI 29·60 to NR] vs 36·83 [29·47 to NR]; HR 1·29 [95% CI 1·02 to 1·63]; p=0·035). Time to deterioration of EQ-VAS was significantly longer for enzalutamide than for placebo (median 22·11 months [95% CI 18·46 to 25·66] vs 14·75 [11·07 to 18·17]; HR 0·75 [95% CI 0·63 to 0·90]; p=0·0013). INTERPRETATION: Patients with non-metastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer receiving enzalutamide had longer metastasis-free survival than did those who received placebo, while maintaining low pain levels and prostate cancer symptom burden and high health-related quality of life. Enzalutamide showed a clinical benefit by delaying pain progression, symptom worsening, and decrease in functional status, compared with placebo. These findings suggest that enzalutamide is a treatment option that should be discussed with patients presenting with high-risk, non- metastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer. FUNDING: Astellas Pharma Inc, Medivation LLC (a Pfizer Company).

Adjuvant Sunitinib in High-Risk Renal-Cell Carcinoma after Nephrectomy.

BACKGROUND: Sunitinib, a vascular endothelial growth factor pathway inhibitor, is an effective treatment for metastatic renal-cell carcinoma. We sought to determine the efficacy and safety of sunitinib in patients with locoregional renal-cell carcinoma at high risk for tumor recurrence after nephrectomy. METHODS: In this randomized, double-blind, phase 3 trial, we assigned 615 patients with locoregional, high-risk clear-cell renal-cell carcinoma to receive either sunitinib (50 mg per day) or placebo on a 4-weeks-on, 2-weeks-off schedule for 1 year or until disease recurrence, unacceptable toxicity, or consent withdrawal. The primary end point was disease-free survival, according to blinded independent central review. Secondary end points included investigator-assessed disease-free survival, overall survival, and safety. RESULTS: The median duration of disease-free survival was 6.8 years (95% confidence interval [CI], 5.8 to not reached) in the sunitinib group and 5.6 years (95% CI, 3.8 to 6.6) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.59 to 0.98; P=0.03). Overall survival data were not mature at the time of data cutoff. Dose reductions because of adverse events were more frequent in the sunitinib group than in the placebo group (34.3% vs. 2%), as were dose interruptions (46.4% vs. 13.2%) and discontinuations (28.1% vs. 5.6%). Grade 3 or 4 adverse events were more frequent in the sunitinib group (48.4% for grade 3 events and 12.1% for grade 4 events) than in the placebo group (15.8% and 3.6%, respectively). There was a similar incidence of serious adverse events in the two groups (21.9% for sunitinib vs. 17.1% for placebo); no deaths were attributed to toxic effects. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with locoregional clear-cell renal-cell carcinoma at high risk for tumor recurrence after nephrectomy, the median duration of disease-free survival was significantly longer in the sunitinib group than in the placebo group, at a cost of a higher rate of toxic events. (Funded by Pfizer; S-TRAC ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00375674 .).

Safety and effectiveness of classical and alternative sunitinib dosing schedules for metastatic renal cell carcinoma: a meta-analysis.

The optimal dosing schedule to maintain the effectiveness of sunitinib for metastatic renal cell carcinoma - while reducing toxicity - remains an important clinical question. A meta-analysis of randomized trials and observational studies assessed the relative treatment effects of 4/2, 2/1 and transitional-2/1 schedules on outcomes and adverse events using Bayesian network meta-analysis methods. Treatment with 2/1 reduced the risk of disease progression or death by 25% and had lower odds of hand-and-foot syndrome compared with the 4/2. A numerical but not 'statistical' benefit in progression-free survival was observed with the transitional-2/1 compared with 4/2. Alternative schedules with the 2/1 and transitional-2/1 may be more clinically beneficial in metastatic renal cell carcinoma than the 4/2 schedule.

Axitinib, cabozantinib, or everolimus in the treatment of prior sunitinib-treated patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma: results of matching-adjusted indirect comparison analyses.

BACKGROUND: In the absence of head-to-head trials comparing axitinib with cabozantinib or everolimus, the aim of this study was to conduct an indirect comparison of their relative efficacy in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC), using data from the AXIS and METEOR trials. METHODS: Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in prior sunitinib-treated patients with mRCC were compared by conducting matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) analyses, including base-case and sensitivity analyses. Individual patient-level data from prior sunitinib-treated patients who received axitinib in AXIS were weighted to match published baseline characteristics of prior sunitinib-treated patients who received either cabozantinib or everolimus in METEOR. RESULTS: There was no statistically significant difference in PFS (aHR [adjusted hazard ratio] = 1.15 [CI: 0.82-1.63]) and OS (aHR = 1.00 [CI: 0.69-1.46]) between axitinib versus cabozantinib in the base-case analysis. In the sensitivity analysis, PFS (aHR = 1.39 [CI: 1.00-1.92]) and OS (aHR = 1.35 [CI: 0.95-1.92]) were shorter for axitinib compared with cabozantinib; however, the OS difference was not statistically significant. Axitinib was associated with significantly longer PFS compared with everolimus in the base-case (aHR = 0.53 [CI: 0.36-0.80]) and sensitivity analyses (aHR = 0.63 [CI: 0.45-0.88]), respectively. Results suggested an OS benefit for axitinib versus everolimus in base-case analyses (aHR = 0.63 [CI: 0.42-0.96]); however, the difference in OS in the sensitivity analysis was not statistically significant (aHR = 0.84 [CI: 0.59-1.18]). CONCLUSIONS: MAIC analyses suggest PFS and OS for axitinib and cabozantinib are dependent on the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center definition used; in the base-case analysis, there was no significant difference in PFS and OS between axitinib and cabozantinib. In the sensitivity analysis, PFS in favour of cabozantinib was significant; however, the trend for prolonged OS with cabozantinib was not significant. For axitinib and everolimus, MAIC analyses indicate patients treated with axitinib may have an improved PFS and OS benefit when compared to everolimus. Disparities between the base-case and sensitivity analyses in this study underscore the importance of adjusting for the differences in baseline characteristics and that naïve indirect comparisons are not appropriate.

Important Group Differences on the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Kidney Symptom Index Disease-Related Symptoms in Patients with Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: The Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Kidney Symptom Index Disease-Related Symptoms (FKSI-DRS) is important to gauge clinical benefit in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). OBJECTIVES: To estimate important difference (ID) in FKSI-DRS scores that is considered to be meaningful when comparing treatment effect between groups, using mRCC trial data. METHODS: Data were derived from two pivotal phase III mRCC trials comparing sunitinib versus interferon alfa (N = 750) in first-line mRCC, and axitinib versus sorafenib (N = 723) in second-line mRCC. The change from baseline in FKSI-DRS score was examined as a function of a set of anchors using the repeated-measures model. Several anchors were evaluated: FKSI item "I am bothered by side effects of treatment," EuroQol five-dimensional questionnaire utility score, and adverse events. RESULTS: When the "I am bothered by side effects of treatment" score was used as an anchor, the ID ranged between 1.2 and 1.3 points. When change in the EuroQol five-dimensional questionnaire utility score was used as an anchor, the FKSI-DRS ID ranged between 0.62 and 0.63 points. Selecting the adverse events that corresponded to a maximum worsening in the FKSI-DRS score in either trial, the ID ranged between 0.62 and 0.74 points. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients undergoing treatment for mRCC, between-group differences in FKSI-DRS scores as low as 1 point might be meaningful.

Real-world chart review study of adverse events management in patients taking tyrosine kinase inhibitors to treat metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

PURPOSE: The purpose is to describe management of adverse events of special interest across tyrosine kinase inhibitors approved for metastatic renal cell carcinoma. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective chart review in metastatic renal cell carcinoma patients initiating tyrosine kinase inhibitor monotherapy between 15 November 2010 and 15 November 2013, and experiencing ≥ 1 adverse events of special interest (diarrhea, fatigue, hand-foot syndrome, hypertension, or stomatitis/mucositis) within 3 months of initiation. Demographics, medical history, treatment regimens, and adverse events of special interest management data for 3.5 months postonset were collected. RESULTS: In 220 charts from 27 centers, tyrosine kinase inhibitors prescribed included sunitinib (55%), pazopanib (27%), axitinib (9%), and sorafenib (8%). During the study period, patients experienced 376 adverse events of special interest (13% serious). Fatigue was most common (62% of patients), followed by hypertension (37%), diarrhea (30%), stomatitis/mucositis (29%), and hand-foot syndrome (12%). Over half (56%) the adverse events of special interest were resolved or resolving. Treatment discontinuation due to adverse events of special interest occurred in 15% of patients. Prophylaxis was rarely provided (8%), whereas 59% of patients received adverse events of special interest treatment (pharmacologic (55%) and/or nonpharmacologic (7%)), 27% received tyrosine kinase inhibitor dose management, 23% received both adverse events of special interest treatment and dose management, and 31% received neither. Hypertension was the most treated (72% of all events), and fatigue was the least treated (9%); only 4% of patients received pharmacologic treatment for fatigue. CONCLUSIONS: Most adverse events of special interest were nonserious and more than half of the patients received pharmacologic and/or nonpharmacologic treatment. Fatigue was the most common yet least frequently treated adverse event of special interest, and few patients received prophylaxis or nonpharmacologic treatment. More emphasis on treatment and prophylaxis options for bothersome adverse events is warranted.

Real-world overall survival with abiraterone acetate versus enzalutamide in chemotherapy-naïve patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: There are no large head-to-head phase 3 clinical trials comparing overall survival (OS) for abiraterone and enzalutamide. This study used Medicare claims data to compare OS in patients with chemotherapy-naïve metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) who initiated abiraterone or enzalutamide. METHODS: This retrospective analysis of the Medicare database (2009-2020) included adult men with ≥1 claim for prostate cancer, metastatic diagnosis, and no prior chemotherapy or novel hormone therapy who initiated first-line (1L) abiraterone or enzalutamide in the index period (September 10, 2014 to May 31, 2017). Cox proportional-hazards models with inverse probability treatment-weighting (IPTW) were used to compare OS between abiraterone- and enzalutamide-treated patients, adjusting for baseline characteristics. Subgroup analyses by baseline characteristics were also conducted. RESULTS: Overall, 5506 patients who received 1L abiraterone (n = 2911) or enzalutamide (n = 2595) were included. Median follow-up was comparable in both cohorts (abiraterone, 19.1 months; enzalutamide, 20.3 months). IPTW-adjusted median OS (95% CI) was 20.6 months (19.7‒21.4) for abiraterone and 22.5 months (21.2‒23.8) for enzalutamide, with an IPTW-adjusted hazard ratio (95% CI) of 1.10 (1.04-1.16). Median OS was significantly shorter for abiraterone versus enzalutamide in patients ≥75 years old; White patients; patients with baseline diabetes, cardiovascular disease, both diabetes and cardiovascular disease, and renal disease; and across all socioeconomic strata. CONCLUSIONS: In the Medicare chemotherapy-naïve mCRPC population, 1L abiraterone was associated with worse OS versus enzalutamide in the overall population and among subgroups with older age and comorbidities, supporting findings from previous real-world studies and demonstrating a disparity in outcomes.

Real-world outcomes following biochemical recurrence after definitive therapy with a short prostate-specific antigen doubling time: potential role of early secondary treatment.

BACKGROUND: The natural history of biochemical recurrence (BCR) managed with delayed hormonal therapy is well documented by data from Johns Hopkins. However, as many patients receive treatment prior to metastasis, we evaluated the natural history and role of prostate-specific antigen doubling time (PSADT) in a more contemporary cohort of BCR patients with nonmetastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (nmCSPC). METHODS: Patients in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA; 01/01/06 to 06/22/20) with nmCSPC and BCR were divided into rapid ( ≤9 months) and less rapid ( >9 to ≤15 months) PSADT cohorts. Patients with PSADT >15 months were excluded as outcomes, even with delayed treatment, are excellent. Outcomes included time to first antineoplastic therapy after BCR, metastasis, metastasis-free survival (MFS), and overall survival (OS). Cox models adjusted for baseline demographics and clinical characteristics. RESULTS: Overall, 781 patients with BCR were identified (502 rapid; 279 less rapid PSADT). Rapid PSADT was associated with shorter time to first systemic antineoplastic therapy (median 11.4 vs. 28.3 months, adjusted hazard ratio [95% confidence interval] 2.17 [1.83-2.57]), metastasis (102.4 months vs. not reached, 1.79 [1.33-2.40]), MFS (76.1 vs. 106.3 months, 1.73 [1.33-2.24]), and OS (120.5 vs. 140.5 months, 1.76 [1.22-2.54]) versus less rapid PSADT. CONCLUSION: Most patients with rapid PSADT underwent secondary treatment within 1 year after BCR. More contemporary patients treated with early secondary treatment had better outcomes than historical data from patients who had delayed treatment. Whether these results reflect the benefits of early secondary treatment or overall improvements in prostate cancer outcomes over time requires further study.

Emerging racial disparities among Medicare beneficiaries and Veterans with metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies have shown that Black men receive worse prostate cancer care than White men. This has not been explored in metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC) in the current treatment era. METHODS: We evaluated treatment intensification (TI) and overall survival (OS) in Medicare (2015-2018) and Veterans Health Administration (VHA; 2015-2019) patients with mCSPC, classifying first-line mCSPC treatment as androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) + novel hormonal therapy; ADT + docetaxel; ADT + first-generation nonsteroidal antiandrogen; or ADT alone. RESULTS: We analyzed 2226 Black and 16,071 White Medicare, and 1020 Black and 2364 White VHA patients. TI was significantly lower for Black vs White Medicare patients overall (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 0.68; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.58-0.81) and without Medicaid (adjusted OR 0.70; 95% CI 0.57-0.87). Medicaid patients had less TI irrespective of race. OS was worse for Black vs White Medicare patients overall (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 1.20; 95% CI 1.09-1.31) and without Medicaid (adjusted HR 1.13; 95% CI 1.01-1.27). OS was worse in Medicaid vs without Medicaid, with no significant OS difference between races. TI was significantly lower for Black vs White VHA patients (adjusted OR 0.75; 95% CI 0.61-0.92), with no significant OS difference between races. CONCLUSIONS: Guideline-recommended TI was low for all patients with mCSPC, with less TI in Black patients in both Medicare and the VHA. Black race was associated with worse OS in Medicare but not the VHA. Medicaid patients had less TI and worse OS than those without Medicaid, suggesting poverty and race are associated with care and outcomes.

R-SIM: A Database of Binding Affinities for RNA-small Molecule Interactions.

Ribonucleic acids (RNAs) are involved in a multitude of crucial cellular functions by acting as a central conduit for information transfer. Due to their essential and versatile functional roles in the cell, RNAs have also been implicated in multiple disease conditions of therapeutic relevance including cancers, bacterial and viral infections and neurodegenerative disorders. Recently, several approaches have emerged to tap into the potentially unexplored regions of the druggable genome, which refers to the genes and gene products that are focused during drug development. For example, considering RNAs as viable alternative therapeutic targets for drug development can potentially expand the range of therapeutic targets. Consequently, the availability of adequate binding affinity measurements for RNA-small molecule interactions is essential to understand target selectivity and design more potent RNA-targeting drug-like molecules. To facilitate this growing need, we have curated a database of experimentally validated RNA-small molecule interactions, called RNA-Small molecule Interaction Miner (R-SIM). Each entry in R-SIM provides comprehensive information on sequence, structure and classification of the RNA target, various physicochemical properties of the small molecule, binding affinity value and corresponding experimental conditions, three-dimensional structure (experimental or modelled) of the RNA-small molecule complex, and the literature source for the data. It also provides a user-friendly web interface with several options for search, display, sorting, visualization, download and upload of the data. R-SIM is freely available at: https://web.iitm.ac.in/bioinfo2/R_SIM/index.html. We envisage that R-SIM has several potential applications in understanding and accelerating the development of novel RNA-targeted small molecule therapeutics.

Prostate-specific antigen response and clinical progression-free survival in Black and White men with chemotherapy-naïve metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer treated with enzalutamide in a real-world setting.

BACKGROUND: In the United States, Black men have a higher incidence of prostate cancer (PC)-related mortality than men of other races. Several real-world studies in advanced PC suggest, however, that Black men respond better to novel hormonal therapies than White men. Data on treatment responses to enzalutamide by race are limited. We assessed real-world prostate-specific antigen (PSA) response and clinical progression-free survival (cPFS) of Black vs. White men with chemotherapy-naïve PC treated with enzalutamide. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included patients with PC who initiated enzalutamide treatment from 2014 to 2018 in the IntrinsiQ Specialty Solutions™ database, a collection of electronic medical records from community urology practices. Index date was the date of the first prescription for enzalutamide, used as a proxy for metastatic castration-resistant PC (mCRPC). Patients who had undergone chemotherapy and/or abiraterone therapy were excluded. Kaplan-Meier and Cox models adjusted for baseline characteristics were used to estimate PSA response and cPFS by race. RESULTS: The study included 214 Black and 1332 White men with chemotherapy-naïve PC presumed to have mCRPC based on the enzalutamide indication during the study period. Black men were younger and had higher baseline median PSA levels than White men. Enzalutamide therapy duration, follow-up time, and number of post-index PSA tests were similar between races. In multivariable analyses, the risk of patients achieving a ≥ 50% PSA decline was similar, whereas a numerically higher trend of ≥90% PSA decline was observed in Black men (HR 1.23; 95% CI 0.93-1.62 [P = 0.14]). In the multivariable analysis, Black men had significantly better cPFS (HR 0.82; 95% CI 0.68-0.98 [P = 0.03]). CONCLUSIONS: Black and White men with presumed chemotherapy-naïve mCRPC had similar PSA responses when treated with enzalutamide, but Black men had better cPFS than White men. Further research is warranted to validate these findings.

Survival and Economic Impact of Rapid Prostate-Specific Antigen Doubling Time in Patients With Nonmetastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer.

INTRODUCTION: In patients with nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC), prostate-specific antigen doubling time (PSADT) is associated with risk of metastasis and survival. This study evaluated the association of PSADT with clinical and economic outcomes in a real-world setting among patients with nmCRPC not receiving novel hormonal therapy (NHT), using 2-month PSADT thresholds. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We retrospectively identified Veterans Health Administration patients with nonmetastatic prostate cancer and ≥2 PSA increases after medical/surgical castration (2012-2016). The third measurement was the index (CRPC) date. Patients with ≥3 postindex PSA measurements, including index, were followed until death or ≥12 months until disenrollment, study end, or death, and grouped into 2-month cohorts based on postindex PSADT. Cox regression models assessed association between PSADT, time to metastasis, and death. Healthcare resource utilization and costs were evaluated. RESULTS: Among 2800 evaluable patients, median follow-up was 30 months and median PSADT was 17 months. Relative to the reference cohort (PSADT >12 months), all cohorts had significantly higher metastasis risk. PSADT ≤10-month cohorts had significantly greater mortality risk than the reference; hazard ratios (95% confidence intervals) ranged from 12.3 (9.2, 16.4) in the PSADT ≤2-month cohort to 1.3 (0.9, 2.0) in the >10 to ≤12-month cohort. Total costs were significantly higher for cohorts up to and including the PSADT >8 to ≤10-month cohort, than for the reference cohort. Mean per patient per month all-cause medical plus pharmacy costs were $6623, $4768, and $4049 in the PSADT ≤2-month, >2 to ≤4-month cohort, and >4 to ≤6-month cohorts, respectively, versus $1911 in the PSADT >12-month cohort (P <0.05). CONCLUSION: Most patients with nmCRPC have PSADT >12 months and a long natural history. For those with shorter PSADT, the risk of metastasis, death, and costs increased. These data can help select patients for NHT and conversely those who can safely delay NHT for nmCRPC.

Nonfatal myocardial infarction and long-term outcomes in coronary artery disease.

BACKGROUND: Therapies may reduce short-term rates of nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI) without a detectable effect on mortality. We sought to estimate the long-term clinical implications of nonfatal MI occurring within the first 3 and 6 months after initial cardiac catheterization. METHODS: We included consecutive patients with significant coronary artery disease (≥75% stenosis in ≥1 epicardial segments) undergoing diagnostic catheterization between January 1, 1999, and September 30, 2006. Landmark analyses were performed for patients surviving at 3- and 6-month follow-up. At these times, patients were divided into groups based upon occurrence of a nonfatal MI subsequent to catheterization. RESULTS: Among 14,890 patients alive at 3 months (669 with MI and 14,221 without an MI), having an MI during the initial 3-month period was a significant predictor of reduced 4-year survival (77.1% vs 83.5%, hazard ratio 1.40, 95% CI 1.21-1.63, P < .001), survival free of MI (68.4% vs 78.5%, hazard ratio 1.50, 95% CI 1.32-1.71, P < .001), and survival free of MI or revascularization (59.7% vs 68.5%, hazard ratio 1.34, 95% CI 1.19-1.51, P < .001). Adjusted hazard ratios were similar for patients surviving to 6 months (804 with MI and 13,842 without an MI). CONCLUSIONS: Nonfatal MIs occurring within the first 3 and 6 months after diagnostic catheterization are associated with a significant increase in the risk for subsequent clinical events. Clinical studies with limited follow-up periods may underestimate the long-term value of therapies that reduce early MI rates as downstream benefits continue to accrue over time.