Association between RCT methodology and disease indication with mineralocorticoid-related toxicity for patients receiving abiraterone acetate for advanced prostate cancer: A meta-analysis of RCTs.

INTRODUCTION: While abiraterone acetate (AA) has demonstrated survival benefit in advanced prostate cancer (APC), meaningful cardiotoxicity is observed. It is unclear whether the magnitude differs based on disease indication and concurrent steroid administration. METHODS: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of phase II/III RCTs of AA in APC published as of August 11, 2020. Primary outcomes examined were all- and high-grade (grade ≥ 3) hypokalemia and fluid retention, and secondary outcomes included hypertension and cardiac events. We performed random effects meta-analysis comparing intervention (AA + steroid) and control (placebo ± steroid), stratified by treatment indication and whether patients received steroids. RESULTS: Among 2,739 abstracts, we included 6 relevant studies encompassing 5901 patients. Hypokalemia and fluid retention were observed more frequently among patients receiving AA (odds ratio [OR] 3.10 [95% CI 1.69-5.67] and 1.41 [95% CI 1.19-1.66]). This was modified by whether patients in the control received steroids: trials where control patients did not demonstrated a larger association between AA and hypokalemia (OR 6.88 [95% CI 1.48-2.36] versus OR 1.86 [95% CI 4.97-9.54], P < .0001) and hypertension (OR 2.53 [95% CI 1.91-3.36] vs. OR 1.55 [95% CI 1.17-2.04], P = .1) than those where steroids were administered. We observed heterogeneity due to indication: there were greater effects on hypokalemia (P < 0001), hypertension (P = .03), and cardiac disorders (P = .01) among patients treated for mHSPC than mCRPC. CONCLUSIONS: The magnitude of cardiotoxicity with AA differs based on trial design and disease indication. These data are valuable in treatment decisions and highlight utilization of appropriate data for counseling.

Sequential intravesical gemcitabine-docetaxel vs. bacillus Calmette-Guerin (BCG) in the treatment of non-muscle invasive bladder cancer: A preliminary cost-effectiveness analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Treatment naïve patients with high-risk non-muscle invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) are treated with bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) therapy as the standard of care. Recently, intravesical sequential gemcitabine-docetaxel in the BCG-naïve setting was shown to be well-tolerated and effective, raising the possibility of a new first line intravesical therapy. Cost effectiveness of this intervention remains unknown; therefore, we designed a cost effectiveness study evaluating BCG vs. sequential gemcitabine-docetaxel in patients with high risk NMIBC. METHODS: Using TreeAgePro 2019 software, we developed a Markov model to evaluate BCG vs. gemcitabine-docetaxel from the U.S. Medicare perspective with a 2-year time horizon. Model probabilities and utilities were derived from published literature. Direct costs were obtained from Medicare cost databases. Our primary outcomes were effectiveness (measured in quality adjusted life years [QALYs]), cost and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio with a willingness to pay threshold of $100,000. RESULTS: Our results indicate that while both treatments resulted in similar QALYs of 1.76, the mean costs per patient at 2 years were $12,363 and $7,090 for BCG and gemcitabine-docetaxel, respectively. Therefore, the BCG strategy was dominated by the gemcitabine-docetaxel strategy as it was equally effective and less costly. One way sensitivity analyses were completed and gemcitabine-docetaxel remained a cost-effective strategy. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this preliminary cost-effectiveness analysis are novel in that they highlight a well tolerated, efficacious drug that is less expensive than the traditional gold standard therapy. In modern medicine, we are more often challenged by agents with marginally increased efficacy but at significantly higher costs; gemcitabine-docetaxel represents a rare entity which is a success for both patients and healthcare systems alike.

Cost of Bladder Cancer Care: A Single-center Comparison of Radical Cystectomy and Trimodal Therapy.

INTRODUCTION: Radical cystectomy and trimodal therapy are both accepted options in the management of muscle-invasive bladder cancer. As such, we sought to evaluate the micro-level costs associated with both modalities. METHODS: All patients undergoing trimodal therapy or radical cystectomy for primary treatment of urothelial muscle-invasive bladder cancer at a single academic center between 2008 and 2012 were included. Direct costs associated with each phase of a patient's clinical course were collected from the hospital's financial department, and physician costs were calculated based on the provincial fee schedule. Costs of radiation treatments were derived from previously published literature. RESULTS: A total of 137 patients were included. The mean (±SD) patient age was 69 (±12) years. Overall, 89 (65%) patients underwent radical cystectomy and 48 (35%) were treated with trimodal therapy. The radical cystectomy group had higher rates of cT3/T4 compared to those in the trimodal therapy group (51% vs 26%, P < .001). The median cost in the treatment phase for radical cystectomy was $30,577 (IQR: $23,908-$38,837) vs $18,979 ($17,271-$23,519) for trimodal therapy (P < .001). There was no significant difference between treatment groups with respect to cost of diagnosis or workup. However, the cost of follow-up care was numerically higher for patients undergoing trimodal therapy compared to radical cystectomy ($3,096/y vs $1,974/y, P = .09). CONCLUSIONS: In appropriately selected patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer trimodal therapy costs are not prohibitive and are lower than in radical cystectomy. With increasing follow-up time after primary treatment, the cost difference between modalities may be mitigated by the need for bladder surveillance and salvage therapy in the trimodal therapy cohort.

The role of cytoreductive nephrectomy in the immuno-oncological therapy era.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Cytoreductive nephrectomy has had a variable role in the management of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC) through the different systemic therapy eras. Initially felt to be beneficial with interferon, the utility of cytoreductive nephrectomy was called into question in the tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) era. However, with the advent of immunotherapy for metastatic RCC, the role of cytoreductive nephrectomy continues to be debated. This study sought to evaluate the recent literature and discuss cytoreductive nephrectomy within the context of an improved systemic therapy era. RECENT FINDINGS: The literature that exists on the use of cytoreductive nephrectomy with immunotherapy is retrospective in nature and largely derived from large, institutional databases. Although smaller, single-institution articles exist and provide more granular data, issues concerning selection bias and unmeasured confounders persist. Overall, the available studies demonstrate that patient selection is paramount, and cytoreductive nephrectomy should be reserved for patients with no more than one risk factor, those requiring palliation of local symptoms and for those patients with stable, low volume disease or with a complete response following systemic therapy exposure. SUMMARY: The optimal use of cytoreductive nephrectomy in metastatic RCC remains unclear, but certain subgroups of patients, on evaluation of post hoc and retrospective data, seem to benefit from surgical intervention.

Association of Surgeon-Patient Sex Concordance With Postoperative Outcomes.

Importance: Surgeon sex is associated with differential postoperative outcomes, though the mechanism remains unclear. Sex concordance of surgeons and patients may represent a potential mechanism, given prior associations with physician-patient relationships. Objective: To examine the association between surgeon-patient sex discordance and postoperative outcomes. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this population-based, retrospective cohort study, adult patients 18 years and older undergoing one of 21 common elective or emergent surgical procedures in Ontario, Canada, from 2007 to 2019 were analyzed. Data were analyzed from November 2020 to March 2021. Exposures: Surgeon-patient sex concordance (male surgeon with male patient, female surgeon with female patient) or discordance (male surgeon with female patient, female surgeon with male patient), operationalized as a binary (discordant vs concordant) and 4-level categorical variable. Main Outcomes and Measures: Adverse postoperative outcome, defined as death, readmission, or complication within 30-day following surgery. Secondary outcomes assessed each of these metrics individually. Generalized estimating equations with clustering at the level of the surgical procedure were used to account for differences between procedures, and subgroup analyses were performed according to procedure, patient, surgeon, and hospital characteristics. Results: Among 1 320 108 patients treated by 2937 surgeons, 602 560 patients were sex concordant with their surgeon (male surgeon with male patient, 509 634; female surgeon with female patient, 92 926) while 717 548 were sex discordant (male surgeon with female patient, 667 279; female surgeon with male patient, 50 269). A total of 189 390 patients (14.9%) experienced 1 or more adverse postoperative outcomes. Sex discordance between surgeon and patient was associated with a significant increased likelihood of composite adverse postoperative outcomes (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.07; 95% CI, 1.04-1.09), as well as death (aOR, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.02-1.13), and complications (aOR, 1.09; 95% CI, 1.07-1.11) but not readmission (aOR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.98-1.07). While associations were consistent across most subgroups, patient sex significantly modified this association, with worse outcomes for female patients treated by male surgeons (compared with female patients treated by female surgeons: aOR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.10-1.20) but not male patients treated by female surgeons (compared with male patients treated by male surgeons: aOR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.95-1.03) (P for interaction = .004). Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, sex discordance between surgeons and patients negatively affected outcomes following common procedures. Subgroup analyses demonstrate that this is driven by worse outcomes among female patients treated by male surgeons. Further work should seek to understand the underlying mechanism.

Assessment of gender representation in clinical trials leading to FDA approval for oncology therapeutics between 2014 and 2019: A systematic review-based cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Ensuring representative data accrual in clinical trials is important to safeguard the generalizability of results and to minimize disparities in care. This study's goal was to evaluate differences in gender representation in trials leading to US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) cancer drug approvals. METHODS: An observational study was conducted from January 2014 to April 2019 using PubMed and the National Institutes of Health trials registry for primary trial reports. The National Cancer Institute's Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program and US Census were consulted for national cancer incidence. The outcome was an enrollment incidence disparity (EID), which was calculated as the difference between male and female trial enrollment and national incidence, with positive values representing male overrepresentation. RESULTS: There were 149 clinical trials with 59,988 participants-60.3% and 39.7% were male and female, respectively-leading to 127 oncology drug approvals. The US incidence rates were 55.4% for men versus 44.6% for women. Gender representation varied by specific tumor type. Most notably, women were underrepresented in thyroid cancer (EID, +27.4%), whereas men were underrepresented in soft tissue cancer (EID, -26.1%). Overall, women were underrepresented when compared with expected incidence (EID, +4.9%; 42% of trials). CONCLUSIONS: For many specific tumor types, women are underrepresented in clinical trials leading to FDA oncology drug approvals. It is critical to better align clinical trial cohort demographics and the populations to which these data will be extrapolated. LAY SUMMARY: This study assesses whether gender disparities exist in clinical trials leading to US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) cancer drug approvals. From January 2014 to April 2019, 149 clinical trials leading to FDA oncology drug approvals showed 60.3% and 39.7% of the enrollees were male and female, respectively. Gender representation varied by specific tumor when compared with the expected incidence rate of cancer in the United States, although women were more often underrepresented. Increased efforts are needed with regard to ensuring equitable representation in oncology clinical trials.

Women as Authors of Randomized Controlled Trials of Minimally Invasive Surgery: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of 3 Decades of Trials.

BACKGROUND: Female authorship opportunities have lagged behind those of their male counterparts, with gender disparities most prominent in surgical specialties. Our objective was to determine trends of female first, last, and first or last authorships across time and surgical specialties and whether female first or last authorship was associated with journal impact factor. STUDY DESIGN: A systematic review of EMBASE (OvidSP), MEDLINE (OvidSP), and Cochrane (Wiley) databases from inception to December 22, 2017 was performed to identify all randomized controlled trials evaluating minimally invasive surgery vs classical surgical techniques. The primary end point was female first, last, and first or last authorship, with gender determined via an online search strategy and verified via Genderize.io. Secondary end point was journal impact factor, recorded from Clarivate Analytics InCites. RESULTS: There were 9,321 articles identified and 489 met our inclusion/exclusion criteria. Sixty-eight (13.9%) first and 60 (12.3%) last female authors were identified. A positive linear trend for female first (R2 = 0.35, Cochran-Armitage test for trend, p < 0.001), last (R2 = 0.30, p < 0.001), and first or last authorships (R2 = 0.40, p < 0.001) over time was identified. This trend was observed across surgical specialties except for orthopaedics. The highest calculated percentages of female first, last, and first or last authorships by the year 2017 were seen in obstetrics and gynecology (33.8%, 32.0%, and 43.8%, respectively), all significantly lower than the corresponding percentage of the female obstetrics and gynecology workforce in 2017 (57.0%). Neither female first nor last authorship positions were associated with journal impact factor. CONCLUSIONS: A significant increase in female first and last authorship in randomized controlled trials of minimally invasive surgical techniques in the last 3 decades has been observed, but continued efforts to bridge this gender gap are sorely needed.

Neoadjuvant Versus Adjuvant Chemotherapy for Upper Tract Urothelial Carcinoma: A Microsimulation Model.

BACKGROUND: Upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC) is clinically understudied, and there are no definitive recommendations regarding timing of perioperative chemotherapy. The objective of this study was to compare 3 treatment pathways in UTUC: nephroureterectomy (NU) alone, neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC), and adjuvant chemotherapy (AC) using a microsimulation model. PATIENTS AND METHODS: An individual-level state transition model was constructed using TreeAgePro software to compare treatment strategies for patients with newly diagnosed UTUC. The base case was that of a 70-year-old patient with a radiographically localized upper tract tumor. Primary outcome was quality-adjusted life expectancy. Secondary outcomes included crude overall survival, rates of adverse events, and bladder cancer diagnoses. RESULTS: A total of 100,000 patients were simulated. NAC was preferred, with an estimated quality-adjusted life expectancy of 7.50 years versus 6.79 years with NU alone and 7.23 years with AC. Median crude overall survival was 123 months with NAC, 96 months with NU only, and 111 months with AC. Overall, 40.0% of patients in the AC group with invasive pathology completed chemotherapy. In the NAC group, 83.3% of patients completed chemotherapy. In the NAC group, 37.5% of patients experienced an adverse chemotherapy event compared to 15.1% of patients in the AC group. Bladder cancer recurrence rates were 64.9%, 65.9%, and 67.4% over the patient's lifetime for the NU, NAC, and AC strategies, respectively. CONCLUSION: This study supports the increased use of NAC in UTUC until robust randomized trials are completed. The ultimate choice should be based on patient and tumor factors.

Assessment of Secondary Sarcomas Among Patients With Cancer of the Abdomen or Pelvis Who Received Combinations of Surgery, Radiation, and Chemotherapy vs Surgery Alone.

Importance: The association of radiation and chemotherapy with the development of secondary sarcoma is known, but the contemporary risk has not been well characterized for patients with cancers of the abdomen and pelvis. Objective: To compare the risk of secondary sarcoma among patients treated with combinations of surgery, radiation, or chemotherapy with patients treated with surgery alone and the general population. Design, Setting, and Participants: This population-based cohort study included 173 580 patients in Ontario, Canada, with nonmetastatic cancer of the prostate, bladder, colon, rectum or anus, cervix, uterus, or testis. Patients were enrolled from January 1, 2002, to January 31, 2017. Data analysis was conducted from March 1, 2019, to January 31, 2020. Exposures: Treatment combinations of radiation, chemotherapy, and surgery. Main Outcome and Measures: Diagnosis of sarcoma based on histologic codes from the Ontario Cancer Registry. Time to sarcoma was compared using a cause-specific proportional hazard model. Results: Of 173 580 patients, most were men (125 080 [72.1%]), and the largest group was aged between 60 and 69 years (58 346 [33.6%]). Most patients had genitourinary cancer (86 235 [51.4%]) or colorectal cancer (69 241 [39.9%]). Overall, 64 301 (37.1%) received surgery alone, 51 220 (29.5%) received radiation alone, 15 624 (9.0%) were treated with radiation and chemotherapy, 15 252 (8.8%) received radiation with surgery, and 11 822 (6.8%) received all 3 treatments. A total of 332 patients (0.2%) had sarcomas develop during a median (interquartile range) follow-up of 5.7 (2.2-8.9) years. The incidence of sarcoma was 0.3% among those who underwent radiation alone (138 of 51 220) and radiation with chemotherapy (40 of 15 624), 0.2% among those who received radiation and surgery (36 of 15 252) and all 3 modalities (25 of 11 822), and 0.1% among those who received surgery with chemotherapy (13 of 14 861) and surgery alone (80 of 64 801). Compared with a reference group of patients who had surgery alone, the greatest risk of sarcoma was found among patients who underwent a combination of radiation and chemotherapy (cause-specific relative hazard [csRH], 4.07; 95% CI, 2.75-6.01; P < .001), followed by patients who had radiation alone (csRH, 2.35; 95% CI, 1.77-3.12; P < .001), radiation with surgery (csRH, 2.33; 95% CI, 1.57-3.46; P < .001), and all 3 modalities (csRH, 2.27; 95% CI, 1.44-3.58; P < .001). In the general population, 7987 events occurred during 46 554 803 person-years (17.2 events per 100 000 person-years). The standardized incidence ratio for sarcoma among patients treated with radiation compared with the general population was 2.41 (95% CI, 1.57-3.69; 41.3 events per 100 000 person-years). The annual number of cases of sarcoma increased from 2009 (15 per 100 000 persons) to 2016 (32 per 100 000 persons), but the annual rate did not change during the study period. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, patients treated with radiation or chemotherapy for abdominopelvic cancers had an increased rate of sarcoma. Although the absolute rate is low, patients and physicians should be aware of this increased risk of developing sarcoma.

A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis of Novel Androgen Receptor Inhibitors in Non-metastatic Castration-resistant Prostate Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Among men with high-risk non-metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC), we used network meta-analysis to compare non-steroidal anti-androgens (NSAAs) and stratified class-level meta-analysis to identify subgroups with particular benefit from NSAAs with androgen deprivation therapy versus androgen deprivation therapy alone. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a systematic review of phase III parallel-group randomized controlled trials in adult men with nmCRPC. Primary outcome was metastasis-free survival (MFS). Secondary outcomes included overall survival (OS), prostate-specific antigen (PSA) progression-free survival (PFS), and rates of grade 3 to 4 adverse events (AEs). We assessed class-level effects using random effects models; effect modification owing to subgroup effects using random-effects models to pool study-level differences; and comparative outcomes between agents using fixed-effect network models in a Bayesian framework. RESULTS: Three randomized controlled trials were identified. Pooled MFS, PSA-PFS, and OS were significantly greater with NSAA versus placebo (hazard ratio [HR], 0.32; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.25-0.41; HR, 0.08; 95% CI, 0.05-0.13; and HR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.61-0.90, respectively). Subgroup analysis demonstrated a greater benefit with NSAAs in men with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0 (HR, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.24-0.38) versus 1 (HR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.36-0.56; P = .005), but no difference owing to PSA doubling time (P = .43) or use of osteoclast targeting therapy (P = .77). Bayesian analysis showed apalutamide and enzalutamide had a 56% and 44% likelihood of maximizing MFS, respectively, with subgroup analysis demonstrating these agents were preferred regardless of PSA doubling time and performance status. There was a 44%, 41%, and 15% likelihood that apalutamide, darolutamide and enzalutamide offered the greatest OS benefit, respectively. Grade 3 to 4 AEs were more common with NSAAs (odds ratio [OR], 1.47; 95% CI, 1.27-1.71) and there was a 61% chance that darolutamide was preferred. CONCLUSIONS: NSAAs improve survival in high-risk nmCRPC. Apalutamide and enzalutamide may result in improved oncologic outcomes. Darolutamide may result in fewer AEs. Phase IV data are needed to validate these findings.

Abiraterone vs. docetaxel for metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer: A microsimulation model.

INTRODUCTION: Our aim was to determine whether androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) with abiraterone acetate (AA) or ADT with docetaxel chemotherapy (DC) resulted in improved quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) among men with de novo metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC) and the cost effectiveness of the preferred strategy using decision analytic techniques. METHODS: A microsimulation model with a lifetime time horizon was constructed. Our primary outcome was QALYs. Secondary outcomes included cost, incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER), unadjusted overall survival (OS), rates of second- and third-line therapy, and adverse events. A systematic literature review was used to generate probabilities and utilities to populate the model. The base case was a 65-year-old patient with de novo mCSPC. RESULTS: A total of 100 000 microsimulations were generated. Initial AA resulted in a gain of 0.45 QALYs compared to DC (3.36 vs. 2.91 QALYs) with an ICER of $276 251.82 per QALY gained with initial AA therapy. Median crude OS was 51 months with AA and 48 months with DC. Overall, 46.6% and 42.6% of patients received second-line therapy and 8.7% and 7.9% patients received third-line therapy in the AA and DC groups, respectively. Grade 3/4 adverse events were experienced in 17.6% of patients receiving initial AA and 22.3% of patients receiving initial DC. CONCLUSIONS: Although ADT with AA results in a gain in QALYs and crude OS compared to DC, AA therapy is not a cost-effective treatment strategy to apply uniformly to all patients. The availability of AA as a generic medication may help to close this gap. The ultimate choice should be based on patient and tumor factors.

Androgen deprivation therapy: indications, methods of utilization, side effects and their management.

Our objective is to provide an up-to-date summary of current literature on the indications for androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), ways in which ADT is used, and the main side effects associated with its use. MEDLINE (Pubmed) was searched for relevant papers published from database inception to May 1, 2019 for studies evaluating the use of ADT and its associated adverse events. ADT is a mainstay in the treatment of prostate cancer and is used throughout the disease course. While predominantly used in the metastatic setting, ADT has a role in the treatment of localized disease and in the management of recurrent cancer. Intermittent ADT has an application for a certain subset of men with recurrent and metastatic disease who have significant side effects. Associated side effects of ADT are wide ranging and include osteoporosis with an associated increased fracture risk, elevated rates of diabetes, metabolic syndrome, cardiovascular risk, sexual dysfunction and hot flashes. As ADT has a variety of associated side effects, care for men receiving ADT is best managed in a multidisciplinary setting with active participation between the treating physician (urologist, radiation oncologist) and their primary care physician.