Trends and Disparities in Next-Generation Sequencing in Metastatic Prostate and Urothelial Cancers.

Importance: Targeted therapies based on underlying tumor genomic susceptible alterations have been approved for patients with metastatic prostate cancer (mPC) and advanced urothelial carcinoma (aUC). Objective: To assess trends and disparities in next-generation sequencing (NGS) testing among patients with mPC and aUC. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study used an electronic health record-derived database to extract deidentified data of patients receiving care from US physician practices, hospital-affiliated clinics, and academic practices. Patients diagnosed with mPC or aUC between March 1, 2015, and December 31, 2022, were included. Exposures: Social determinants of health evaluated by race and ethnicity, socioeconomic status (SES), region, insurance type, and sex (for aUC). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcomes were (1) NGS testing rate by year of mPC and aUC diagnosis using Clopper-Pearson 2-sided 95% CIs and (2) time to NGS testing, which considered death as a competing risk. Cumulative incidence functions were estimated for time to NGS testing. Disparities in subdistributional incidence of NGS testing were assessed by race and ethnicity, SES, region, insurance type, and sex (for aUC) using the Fine-Gray modified Cox proportional hazards model, assuming different subdistribution baseline hazards by year of mPC and aUC diagnosis. Results: A total of 11 927 male patients with mPC (167 Asian [1.6%], 1236 Black [11.6%], 687 Hispanic or Latino [6.4%], 7037 White [66.0%], and 1535 other [14.4%] among 10 662 with known race and ethnicity) and 6490 patients with aUC (4765 male [73.4%]; 80 Asian [1.4%], 283 Black [4.8%], 257 Hispanic or Latino [4.4%], 4376 White [74.9%], and 845 other [14.5%] among 5841 with known race and ethnicity) were eligible and included. Both cohorts had a median age of 73 years (IQR, 66-80 years), and most underwent NGS testing before first-line treatment in the mPC cohort (1502 [43.0%]) and before second-line treatment in the aUC cohort (1067 [51.3%]). In the mPC cohort, the rates of NGS testing increased from 19.0% in 2015 to 27.1% in 2022, but Black patients (hazard ratio [HR], 0.75; 95% CI, 0.67-0.84) and Hispanic or Latino patients (HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.60-0.82) were less likely to undergo NGS testing. Patients with mPC who had low SES (quintile 1: HR, 0.74 [95% CI, 0.66-0.83]; quintile 2: HR, 0.89 [95% CI, 0.80-0.99]), had Medicaid (HR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.38-0.74) or Medicare or other government insurance (HR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.82-0.98), or lived in the West (HR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.70-0.94) also were less likely to undergo testing. In the aUC cohort, the NGS rate increased from 14.1% in 2015 to 46.6% in 2022, but Black patients (HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.61-0.96) and those with low SES (quintile 1: HR 0.77 [95% CI, 0.66-0.89]; quintile 2: HR, 0.87 [95% CI, 0.76-1.00]) or Medicaid (HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.53-0.97) or Medicare or other government insurance (HR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.78-0.99) were less likely to undergo NGS testing. Patients with aUC living in the South were more likely to undergo testing (HR, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.12-1.49). Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that although NGS tumor testing rates improved over time, the majority of patients still did not undergo testing. These data may help with understanding current disparities associated with NGS testing and improving access to standard-of-care health care services.

Bone Pain and Survival Among Patients With Metastatic, Hormone-Sensitive Prostate Cancer: A Secondary Analysis of the SWOG-1216 Trial.

Importance: The presence of bone pain is significantly associated with worse overall survival (OS) in patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer. However, there are few data regarding bone pain and survival outcomes in the context of metastatic, hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (MHSPC). Objective: To compare survival outcomes among patients with MHSPC by presence or absence of baseline bone pain at diagnosis. Design, Setting, and Participants: This post hoc secondary analysis, conducted from September 1 to December 31, 2023, used patient-level data from SWOG-1216, a phase 3, prospective randomized clinical trial that enrolled patients with newly diagnosed MHSPC from 248 academic and community centers across the US from March 1, 2013, to July 15, 2017. All patients in the intention-to-treat population who had available bone pain status were eligible and included in this secondary analysis. Interventions: In the SWOG-1216 trial, patients were randomized (1:1) to receive either androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) with orteronel, 300 mg orally twice daily (experimental group), or ADT with bicalutamide, 50 mg orally daily (control group), until disease progression, unacceptable toxic effects, or patient withdrawal. Main Outcomes and Measures: Overall survival was the primary end point; progression-free survival (PFS) and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) response were secondary end points. Cox proportional hazards regression models were used for both univariable and multivariable analyses adjusting for age, treatment type, Gleason score, disease volume, Zubrod performance status, and PSA level. Results: Of the 1279 male study participants, 301 (23.5%) had baseline bone pain at MHSPC diagnosis and 896 (70.1%) did not. Bone pain status was unavailable in 82 patients (6.4%). The median age of the 1197 patients eligible and included in this secondary analysis was 67.6 years (IQR, 61.8-73.6 years). Compared with patients who did not experience bone pain, those with baseline bone pain were younger (median age, 66.0 [IQR, 60.1-73.4] years vs 68.2 [IQR, 62.4-73.7] years; P = .02) and had a higher incidence of high-volume disease (212 [70.4%] vs 373 [41.6%]; P < .001). After adjustment, bone pain was associated with shorter PFS and OS. At a median follow-up of 4.0 years (IQR, 2.5-5.4 years), patients with bone pain had median PFS of 1.3 years (95% CI, 1.1-1.7 years) vs 3.7 years (95% CI, 3.3-4.2 years) in patients without initial bone pain (adjusted hazard ratio [AHR], 1.46; 95% CI, 1.22-1.74; P < .001) and OS of 3.9 years (95% CI, 3.3-4.8 years) vs not reached (NR) (95% CI, 6.6 years to NR) in patients without initial bone pain (AHR, 1.66; 95% CI, 1.34-2.05; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: In this post hoc secondary analysis of the SWOG-1216 randomized clinical trial, patients with baseline bone pain at MHSPC diagnosis had worse survival outcomes than those without bone pain. These data suggest prioritizing these patients for enrollment in clinical trials, may aid patient counseling, and indicate that the inclusion of bone pain in prognostic models of MHSPC may be warranted. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01809691.

Treatment Patterns and Attrition With Lines of Therapy for Advanced Urothelial Carcinoma in the US.

Importance: The treatment paradigm for advanced urothelial carcinoma (aUC) has undergone substantial transformation due to the introduction of effective, novel therapeutic agents. However, outcomes remain poor, and little is known about current treatment approaches and attrition rates for patients with aUC. Objectives: To delineate evolving treatment patterns and attrition rates in patients with aUC using a US-based patient-level sample. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study used patient-level data from the nationwide deidentified electronic health record database Flatiron Health, originating from approximately 280 oncology clinics across the US. Patients included in the analysis received treatment for metastatic or local aUC at a participating site from January 1, 2011, to January 31, 2023. Patients receiving treatment for 2 or more different types of cancer or participating in clinical trials were excluded from the analysis. Main Outcomes and Measures: Frequencies and percentages were used to summarize the (1) treatment received in each line (cisplatin-based regimens, carboplatin-based regimens, programmed cell death 1 and/or programmed cell death ligand 1 [PD-1/PD-L1] inhibitors, single-agent nonplatinum chemotherapy, enfortumab vedotin, erdafitinib, sacituzumab govitecan, or others) and (2) attrition of patients with each line of therapy, defined as the percentage of patients not progressing to the next line. Results: Of the 12 157 patients within the dataset, 7260 met the eligibility criteria and were included in the analysis (5364 [73.9%] men; median age at the start of first-line treatment, 73 [IQR, 66-80] years). All patients commenced first-line treatment; of these, only 2714 (37.4%) progressed to receive second-line treatment, and 857 (11.8%) advanced to third-line treatment. The primary regimens used as first-line treatment contained carboplatin (2241 [30.9%]), followed by PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors (2174 [29.9%]). The PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors emerged as the predominant choice in the second- and third-line (1412 of 2714 [52.0%] and 258 of 857 [30.1%], respectively) treatments. From 2019 onward, novel therapeutic agents were increasingly used in second- and third-line treatments, including enfortumab vedotin (219 of 2714 [8.1%] and 159 of 857 [18.6%], respectively), erdafitinib (39 of 2714 [1.4%] and 28 of 857 [3.3%], respectively), and sacituzumab govitecan (14 of 2714 [0.5%] and 34 of 857 [4.0%], respectively). Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this cohort study suggest that approximately two-thirds of patients with aUC did not receive second-line treatment. Most first-line treatments do not include cisplatin-based regimens and instead incorporate carboplatin- or PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor-based therapies. These data warrant the provision of more effective and tolerable first-line treatments for patients with aUC.

Cabozantinib with immune checkpoint inhibitor versus cabozantinib monotherapy in patients with metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma progressing after prior immune checkpoint inhibitor.

INTRODUCTION: Rechallenge with antibodies targeting programmed cell death protein-1 or its ligand (PD-1/L1) after discontinuation or disease progression in solid tumors following a prior PD-1/L1 treatment is often practiced in clinic. This study aimed to investigate if adding PD-1/L1 inhibitors to cabozantinib, the most used second-line treatment in real-world patients with metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma (mccRCC), offers additional benefits. METHODS: Using de-identified patient-level data from a large real-world US-based database, patients diagnosed with mccRCC, who received any PD-1/L1-based combination in first-line (1L) setting, followed by second-line (2L) therapy with either cabozantinib alone or in combination with PD-1/L1 inhibitors were included. Patients given a cabozantinib-containing regimen in 1L were excluded. The study end points were real-world time to next therapy (rwTTNT) and real-world overall survival (rwOS) by 2L. RESULTS: Of 12,285 patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma in the data set, 348 patients met eligibility and were included in the analysis. After propensity score matching weighting, cabozantinib with PD-1/L1 inhibitors versus cabozantinib (ref.) had similar rwTTNT and rwOS in the 2L setting. Hazard ratios and 95% confidence interval (CI) for rwTTNT and rwOS are 0.74 (95% CI, 0.49-1.12) and 1.15 (95% CI, 0.73-1.79), respectively. CONCLUSION: In this study, the results align with the phase 3 CONTACT-03 trial results, which showed no additional benefit of adding PD-L1 inhibitor to cabozantinib compared to cabozantinib alone in 2L following PD-1/L1-based therapies in 1L. These results from real-world patients strengthen the evidence regarding the futility of rechallenge with PD-1/L1 inhibitors.

Natural course of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer in the era of intensified androgen deprivation therapy in the hormone-sensitive setting.

BACKGROUND: Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) intensification (ADTi) (i.e., ADT with androgen receptor pathway inhibitor or docetaxel, or both) has significantly improved survival outcomes of patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC). However, the impact of prior ADTi in the mHSPC setting on the disease presentation and survival outcomes in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) is not well characterized. In this study, our objective was to compare the disease characteristics and survival outcomes of patients with new mCRPC with respect to receipt of intensified or nonintensified ADT in the mHSPC setting. METHODS: In this institutional review board-approved retrospective study, eligibility criteria were as follows: patients diagnosed with mCRPC, treated with an approved first-line mCRPC therapy, and who received either intensified or nonintensified ADT in the mHSPC setting. Progression-free survival (PFS) was defined from the start of first-line therapy for mCRPC to progression per Prostate Cancer Working Group 2 criteria or death, and overall survival (OS) was defined from the start of first-line therapy for mCRPC to death or censored at the last follow-up. A multivariable analysis using the Cox proportional hazards model was used, adjusting for potential confounders. RESULTS: Patients (n = 387) treated between March 20, 2008, and August 18, 2022, were eligible and included: 283 received nonintensified ADT, whereas 104 were treated with ADTi. At mCRPC diagnosis, patients in the ADTi group were significantly younger, had more visceral metastasis, lower baseline prostate-specific antigen (all p < 0.01), and lower hemoglobin (p = 0.027). Furthermore, they had significantly shorter PFS (median 4.8 vs. 8.4 months, adjusted hazard ratio [HR]: 1.46, 95% confidence interval [95% CI]: 1.07-2, p = 0.017) and OS (median 21.3 vs. 33.1 months, adjusted HR: 1.53, 95% CI: 1.06-2.21, p = 0.022) compared to patients in the nonintensified ADT group. CONCLUSION: Patients treated with ADTi in the mHSPC setting and experiencing disease progression to mCRPC had more aggressive disease features of mCRPC (characterized by a higher number of poor prognostic factors at mCRPC presentation). They also had shorter PFS on first-line mCRPC treatment and shorter OS after the onset of mCRPC compared to those not receiving ADTi in the mHSPC setting. Upon external validation, these findings may impact patient counseling, prognostication, treatment selection, and design of future clinical trials in the mCRPC setting. There remains an unmet need to develop novel life-prolonging therapies with new mechanisms of action to improve mCRPC prognosis in the current era.

PARP Inhibitors in Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer: Unraveling the Therapeutic Landscape.

The treatment landscape of metastatic prostate cancer (mPCa) is rapidly evolving with the recent approvals of poly-ADP ribose polymerase inhibitors (PARPis) as monotherapy or as part of combination therapy with androgen receptor pathway inhibitors in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). Already part of the therapeutic armamentarium in different types of advanced cancers, these molecules have shaped a new era in mPCa by targeting genomic pathways altered in these patients, leading to promising responses. These agents act by inhibiting poly-ADP ribose polymerase (PARP) enzymes involved in repairing single-strand breaks in the DNA. Based on the PROfound and TRITON3 trials, olaparib and rucaparib were respectively approved as monotherapy in pretreated patients with mCRPC and alterations in prespecified genes. The combinations of olaparib with abiraterone (PROpel) and niraparib with abiraterone (MAGNITUDE) were approved as first-line options in patients with mCRPC and alterations in BRCA1/2, whereas the combination of talazoparib with enzalutamide (TALAPRO-2) was approved in the same setting in patients with alterations in any of the HRR genes, which are found in around a quarter of patients with advanced prostate cancer. Additional trials are already underway to assess these agents in an earlier hormone-sensitive setting. Future directions will include refining the treatment sequencing in patients with mCRPC in the clinic while taking into account the financial toxicity as well as the potential side effects encountered with these therapies and elucidating their mechanism of action in patients with non-altered HRR genes. Herein, we review the biological rationale behind using PARPis in mCRPC and the key aforementioned clinical trials that paved the way for these approvals.

A Systematic Review of Crohn's Disease Case Definitions in Administrative or Claims Databases.

BACKGROUND: We sought to review Crohn's disease (CD) case definitions that use diagnosis, procedure, and medication claims. METHODS: We searched PubMed and Embase from inception through January 31, 2022, using terms related to CD, inflammatory bowel disease, administrative claims, or validity. Each article was scrutinized by 2 authors independently screening and abstracting data. Collected data included participant characteristics, case definition characteristics, and case definition validity. When diagnostic accuracy was provided for multiple case definitions, we extracted the case definition selected by the authors. All diagnostic accuracy characteristics were captured. RESULTS: We identified 30 studies that evaluated a case definition using claims data to identify CD patients. The most common case definition included counts of diagnosis codes (57%) followed by a combination of diagnosis codes and medications (20%). All but 1 study validated the case definition with a medical chart review. In 2 studies, the patient's primary care provider completed a survey to confirm disease status. The positive predictive value of the case definitions ranged from 18% (≥1 code at a single U.S. health plan) to 100% (≥1 code plus a relevant prescription at a U.S. hospital). More complex case definitions (eg, ≥1 code + prescription or ≥2 codes) had lower variability in positive predictive value (≥80%) and specificity (≥85%) than the ≥1 code requirement. CONCLUSIONS: Health services researchers should validate case definitions in their research cohorts. When such validation cannot be performed, we recommend using a more complex case definition. Studies without a validated CD case definition should use sensitivity analyses to confirm the robustness of their results.

This systematic review of Crohn's disease (CD) case definitions identified that complex case definitions such as ≥1 diagnosis code + ≥1 prescription had desirable diagnostic accuracy properties.