[Geriatric assessment - What should be done and considered before starting therapy of mHSPC and mCRPC?] / Geriatrisches Assessment ­ Was sollte vor Therapiebeginn des mHSPC und des mCRPC gemacht und bedacht werden?

The systemic treatment of prostate cancer nowadays is predominantly carried out with combination therapies. A range of aspects should be respected in older and comorbid patients, in order to avoid toxicities and to achieve a successful therapy alongside good quality of life. The definition of geriatric patients is not primarily based on chronological age but rather on the overall health condition and life expectancy. Comorbid patients > 70 years should undergo a three-step geriatric screening before treatment initiation. If the G8 screening and/or mini-COG shows abnormalities (taking into account nutrition, comorbidity/medication, mobility, and cognition), a simplified geriatric assessment is recommended. Patients can then be stratified into three groups (fit, vulnerable, frail). Only a few cases warrant a complete geriatric assessment. Treatable deficits in the above mentioned domains should be improved if possible. When choosing a systemic therapy, fit patients can be treated the same as non-geriatric patients. Vulnerable and frail patients are under a higher risk for toxicities, so special care should be taken. While the diverse substances of hormonal therapy are usually well tolerated (even though some substance-specific toxicities can occur), haematotoxic substances such as taxanes or olaparib can only be recommended in select cases. As falls - especially under hormonal therapy - are a common problem, osteoprotective therapy should especially be considered. Upon progression of the tumour disease, there should not be a reflex to simply switch to the next line of treatment, but an individual concept should be established together with the patient and his relatives, taking into account aspects of palliative care and patient needs and focussing on quality of life and also setting therapy limitations.

Using 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT for Therapy Response Assessment in Patients with Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer: Application of EAU/EANM Recommendations in Clinical Practice.

For patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC), no reliable biomarkers for predicting therapeutic response or assisting in treatment selection and sequencing are currently available. Using the recent European Association of Urology and European Association of Nuclear Medicine recommendations, we aimed to compare response assessment between prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) PET/CT and conventional imaging in mCRPC patients starting first-line treatment with a novel hormonal agent (NHA) and to perform a sequential comparative analysis of PSMA PET/CT-derived parameters after 4 and 12 wk of therapy. Methods: Data from 18 mCRPC patients who started NHA treatment and underwent 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT before therapy initiation (baseline), at week 4 (W4), and at week 12 (W12) in addition to conventional imaging (bone scintigraphy, CT) at baseline and W12 were retrospectively included. PET/CT images were quantitatively analyzed for maximum and mean SUV and total PSMA ligand-positive lesions. Comparative analysis of PET/CT-derived parameters was performed, and patients were classified as having nonprogressive disease or progressive disease (PD) according to 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT, prostate-specific antigen, and conventional imaging criteria. Results: Treatment response was evaluable by 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT in 16 of 18 patients (89%) and by conventional imaging in 11 of 18 patients (61%). Five of 16 patients classified as having PD by 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT at W12 had already met progression criteria at W4, and substantial agreement was observed between W4 and W12 (κ, 0.74) 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT results. Nonetheless, 2 of 16 patients (13%) were incorrectly classified as having PD because of a flare phenomenon on PSMA PET/CT that disappeared at W12. Conclusion: Volumetric assessments of 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT imaging can improve response evaluation in NHA-treated patients with mCRPC. Although early response assessments at W4 need to be approached with caution because of flare, 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT imaging at W4 and W12 revealed substantial agreement in therapy response assessments; these findings warrant further investigation to distinguish PD from flare at W4 and help improve the understanding of resistance to therapy.

Efficacy of systemic therapies in men with metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer harboring germline ATM versus BRCA2 mutations.

BACKGROUND: Among men with metastatic prostate cancer, about 10% have germline alterations in DNA damage response genes. Most studies have examined BRCA2 alone or an aggregate of BRCA1/2 and ATM. Emerging data suggest that ATM mutations may have distinct biology and warrant individual evaluation. The objective of this study is to determine whether response to prostate cancer systemic therapies differs between men with germline mutations in ATM (gATM) and BRCA2 (gBRCA2). METHODS: This is an international multicenter retrospective matched cohort study of men with prostate cancer harboring gATM or gBRCA2. PSA50 response (≥50% decline in prostate-specific antigen) was compared using Fisher's exact test. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: The study included 45 gATM and 45 gBRCA2 patients, matched on stage and year of germline testing. Patients with gATM and gBRCA2 had similar age, Gleason grade, and PSA at diagnosis. We did not observe differences in PSA50 responses to abiraterone, enzalutamide, or docetaxel in metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer between the two groups; however, 0/7 with gATM and 12/14 with gBRCA2 achieved PSA50 response to PARPi (p < .001). Median (95% confidence interval) overall survival from diagnosis to death was 10.9 years (9.5-not reached) versus 9.9 years (7.1-not reached, p = .07) for the gATM and gBRCA2 cohorts, respectively. Limitations include the retrospective design and lack of mutation zygosity data. CONCLUSIONS: Conventional therapies can be effective in gATM carriers and should be considered before PARPi, which shows limited efficacy in this group. Men with gATM mutations warrant prioritization for novel treatment strategies.

Management of Patients with Metastatic Castration-Sensitive Prostate Cancer in the Real-World Setting in the United States.

PURPOSE: This study provides a contemporary assessment of the treatment patterns, health care resource utilization (HRU) and costs among metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC) patients in the U.S. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Adults with mCSPC were selected from Optum's de-identified Clinformatics® Data Mart Database (Commercial insurance/Medicare Advantage [COM/MA]; January 1, 2014-July 31, 2019) or Medicare Fee-for-Service (FFS; January 1, 2014-December 31, 2017). The index date was the first metastatic disease diagnosis date on/after the first prostate cancer diagnosis (without prior evidence of castration resistance). Patients were observed for 12 months pre-index (baseline) through their mCSPC period (from index until castration resistance or followup end). First-line (1L) mCSPC therapy was assessed during the mCSPC period; all-cause HRU and health plan-paid costs per-patient-per-year (PPPY) were measured during baseline and mCSPC periods. RESULTS: Among 6,517 COM/MA and 13,324 Medicare-FFS mCSPC patients over ∼10 months (median mCSPC period), 38% and 48% remained untreated/deferred treatment, and 45% and 46% received 1L androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) monotherapy, respectively. 1L abiraterone acetate and docetaxel were used among 7% and 6% of COM/MA and 1% and 2% of Medicare-FFS patients, respectively. HRU increased from baseline to mCSPC period, resulting in increased health plan-paid costs from $21,201 to $108,767 in COM/MA and from $16,819 to $69,639 PPPY in Medicare-FFS. CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights the limited use of newer therapies that improve survival in men with mCSPC in the U.S. HRU and costs increased substantially after onset of metastasis. Given the emergence of newer effective mCSPC therapies, further evaluation of future real-world mCSPC treatment patterns and outcomes is warranted.

Molecular imaging and biochemical response assessment after a single cycle of [225Ac]Ac-PSMA-617/[177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 tandem therapy in mCRPC patients who have progressed on [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 monotherapy.

Rationale: Despite the promising results of prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA)-targeted 177Lu radioligand therapy in metastatic castration-resistant prostate carcinoma (mCRPC), some patients do not respond and other patients with initially good response develop resistance to this treatment. In this study, we investigated molecular imaging and biochemical responses after a single cycle of [225Ac]Ac-PSMA-617/[177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 tandem therapy in patients who had progressed on [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 monotherapy. Methods: Seventeen patients with mCRPC were included in a retrospective, monocenter study. Molecular imaging-based response was assessed by modified PERCIST criteria using the whole-body total lesion PSMA (TLP) and molecular tumour volume (MTV) derived from [68Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT. Biochemical response was evaluated according to PCWG3 criteria using the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) serum value. Concordance and correlation statistics as well as survival analyses were performed. Results: Based on the molecular imaging-based response assessment, 5 (29.4%) patients showed partial remission and 7 (41.2%) had stable disease. The remaining 5 (29.4%) patients had further progression, four with an increase in TLP/MTV of >30% and one with stable TLP/MTV but appearance of new metastases. Based on the biochemical response assessment, 5 (29.4%), 8 (47.1%), and 4 (23.5%) patients showed partial remission, stable disease, and progressive disease, respectively. A comparison of the response assessment methods showed a concordance of 100% (17/17) between TLP and MTV and 70.6% (12/17) between TLP/MTV and PSA. Patients with partial remission, independently assessed by each method, had better overall survival (OS) than patients with either stable or progressive disease. The difference in OS was statistically significant for the molecular imaging response assessment (median OS not reached vs. 8.3 m, p = 0.044), but not for the biochemical response assessment (median OS 18.1 m vs. 9.4 m, p = 0.468). Conclusion: Based on both assessment methods, [225Ac]Ac-PSMA-617/[177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 tandem therapy is an effective treatment for the highly challenging cohort of patients with mCRPC who have progressed on [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 monotherapy. Molecular imaging response and biochemical PSA response were mostly concordant, though a considerable number of cases (29.4%) were discordant. Molecular imaging response reflecting the change in total viable tumour burden appears to be superior to PSA change in estimating survival outcome after tandem therapy.

Time spent in hormone-sensitive and castration-resistant disease states in men with advanced prostate cancer, and its health economic impact: registry-based study in Sweden.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate time spent in hormone-sensitive and castration-resistant disease states in men with advanced prostate cancer in Sweden, and the associated health economic impact. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Registry study (NCT03619980) of the Prostate Cancer data Base Sweden with data from the National Prostate Cancer Register, including the Patient-overview Prostate Cancer (PPC) and other national healthcare registries. The primary endpoint was time in each disease state. Secondary endpoints were co-medications, comorbidities and healthcare resource utilization (HRU) and cost in each disease state. RESULTS: In total, 1,869 men with advanced prostate cancer registered in PPC between 2014 and 2016, with data on the start of androgen deprivation therapy, were identified. Median time to progression and median survival were 4 and 11 years, respectively, for men with non-metastatic (nm) hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (HSPC); 1 and 7 years for men with metastatic (m) HSPC; and 1 and 8.5 years for men with nm castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC). Median survival for men with mCRPC was 4 years. Total annual mean costs for HRU per patient increased with increasing severity of disease, from 41,064 Swedish krona (SEK) for nmHSPC to 288,242 SEK for mCRPC. CONCLUSION: Progression time from mHSPC and nmCRPC to the mCRPC state was short and survival in the mCRPC state was approximately 4 years. Survival times were longer than expected, likely due to the selection of long-term survivors among prevalent cases. Healthcare costs were high for men with mCRPC. Further studies are needed to confirm our pilot study findings.

Survival of African-American and Caucasian men after sipuleucel-T immunotherapy: outcomes from the PROCEED registry.

PURPOSE: African Americans experience greater prostate cancer risk and mortality than do Caucasians. An analysis of pooled phase III data suggested differences in overall survival (OS) between African American and Caucasian men receiving sipuleucel-T. We explored this in PROCEED (NCT01306890), an FDA-requested registry in over 1900 patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) treated with sipuleucel-T. PATIENTS AND METHODS: OS for patients who received ≥1 sipuleucel-T infusion was compared between African American and Caucasian men using an all patient set and a baseline prostate-specific antigen (PSA)-matched set (two Caucasians to every one African American with baseline PSAs within 10% of each other). Univariable and multivariable analyses were conducted. Survival data were examined using Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional hazard methodologies. RESULTS: Median follow-up was 46.6 months. Overall survival differed between African American and Caucasian men with hazard ratios (HR) of 0.81 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.68-0.97, P = 0.03) in the all patient set and 0.70 (95% CI: 0.57-0.86, P < 0.001) in the PSA-matched set. Median OS was longer in African Americans than in Caucasian men for both analysis sets, e.g., 35.3 and 25.8 months, respectively, in the PSA-matched set. Similar results were observed in the all patient set. Differences were larger when treatment began at lower baseline PSA; curves were more similar among patients with higher baseline PSA. In patients with baseline PSA below the median, the HR was 0.52 (95% CI: 0.37-0.72, P < 0.001), with median OS of 54.3 versus 33.4 months. Known prognostic factors and African American race (multivariable analyses; HR: 0.60, 95% CI: 0.48-0.74, P < 0.001) were independently associated with OS. Use of post-sipuleucel-T anticancer interventions was balanced between races. CONCLUSION: In this exploratory analysis of a registry including nearly 12% African American men with mCRPC, OS was significantly different between African Americans and Caucasians, indicating further research is warranted.

Assessment of Factors Predicting Disease Progression in Japanese Patients With Non-Metastatic Castration-resistant Prostate Cancer.

BACKGROUND/AIM: Despite recent introduction of several novel agents, limited data exist regarding parameters that help predict the progression of non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC). The objective of this study was to identify prognostic predictors in nmCRPC patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This study included 127 consecutive Japanese nmCRPC patients treated in routine clinical practice. Prognostic outcomes in these patients were analyzed to evaluate the impact of several parameters on prostate-specific antigen progression-free survival (PSA PFS) and metastasis-free survival (MFS). RESULTS: When the 127 patients were diagnosed with nmCRPC, the PSA and PSA doubling time (PSADT) were 13.5 ng/ml and 17.9 months, respectively. Of these, 77 (60.6%) and 50 (39.4%) were treated with first-generation anti-androgen (FGA) and novel androgen-receptor-axis-targeted agent (ARATA), respectively, as first-line therapy for nmCRPC. The median PSA PFS and MFS after the diagnosis of nmCRPC in these patients were 29.5 months and not reached, respectively. Multivariate analyses identified the following independent prognostic factors: PSA at nmCRPC, PSADT and first-line therapy for nmCRPC for PSA PFS, and PSA at nmCRPC and PSADT for MFS. CONCLUSION: nmCRPC patients with higher PSA and/or shorter PSADT should be treated with ARATA rather than FGA.

Utilization and Outcomes of Surgical Castration in Comparison to Medical Castration in Metastatic Prostate Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) is the gold standard for metastatic prostate cancer, which can be achieved either by surgical or medical castration. In this study, we evaluated the trends of utilization of surgical castration and also assess the survival differences of patients who underwent surgical castration when compared with those who underwent medical castration. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The National Cancer Database was used to identify patients with metastatic prostate cancer from 2004 to 2014. Cochran-Armitage tests were used to assess temporal trends in the proportion of patients receiving surgical castration relative to medical castration. Logistic and Cox regression models were utilized to estimate the odds of utilization of surgical castration and the effect of castration on overall survival (OS). RESULTS: A total of 33,585 patients with metastatic prostate cancer were identified; 31,600 (94.1%) had medical castration, and 1985 (5.9%) underwent surgical castration. There was significant decline in the trend of utilization of surgical castration from 8.6% in 2004 to 3.1% in 2014. On multivariable analysis, being of a non-Caucasian race, having lower median income levels, having non-private insurance, and earlier years of diagnosis were found to be associated with increased odds of choosing surgical castration over medical castration. Notably, the odds of surgical castration were lower at academic centers. On univariable analysis, a survival difference between castration modality was evidenced (P < .01); 5-year OS for medical castration and surgical castration were 24.3% and 18.2%, respectively. However, on multivariable analysis, there was no OS difference between surgical castration and medical castration (P = .13). CONCLUSIONS: In this large contemporary analysis, the utilization of surgical castration has declined over time, with no OS difference when compared with medical castration. Increasing the utilization of surgical castration could help reduce health care expenditures. With rising health care costs, patients and physicians need to be aware of treatment options and their financial implications.

Management of patients with high-risk and advanced prostate cancer in the Middle East: resource-stratified consensus recommendations.

PURPOSE: Prostate cancer care in the Middle East is highly variable and access to specialist multidisciplinary management is limited. Academic tertiary referral centers offer cutting-edge diagnosis and treatment; however, in many parts of the region, patients are managed by non-specialists with limited resources. Due to many factors including lack of awareness and lack of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening, a high percentage of men present with locally advanced and metastatic prostate cancer at diagnosis. The aim of these recommendations is to assist clinicians in managing patients with different levels of access to diagnostic and treatment modalities. METHODS: The first Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) satellite meeting for the Middle East was held in Beirut, Lebanon, November 2017. During this meeting a consortium of urologists, medical oncologists, radiation oncologist and imaging specialists practicing in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia voted on a selection of consensus questions. An additional workshop to formulate resource-stratified consensus recommendations was held in March 2019. RESULTS: Variations in practice based on available resources have been proposed to form resource-stratified recommendations for imaging at diagnosis, initial management of localized prostate cancer requiring therapy, treatment of castration-sensitive/naïve advanced prostate cancer and treatment of castration-resistant prostate cancer. CONCLUSION: This is the first regional consensus on prostate cancer management from the Middle East. The following recommendations will be useful to urologists and oncologists practicing in all areas with limited access to specialist multi-disciplinary teams, diagnostic modalities and treatment resources.

Response assessment using [68 Ga]Ga-PSMA ligand PET in patients undergoing systemic therapy for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: To assess which parameters of [68 Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 positron emission tomography (PSMA-PET) predict response to systemic therapies in metastatic (m) castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC). In addition, to investigate which of these factors are associated with overall survival (OS). METHODS: We retrospectively assessed the following PSMA-PET parameters in 43 patients before and after systemic therapies for mCRPC: PSMA total tumor volume (TTV), mean standardized uptake value (SUVmean), SUVmax, and SUVpeak. prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels and PSMA-PET/CT(magnetic resonance imaging [MRI]) imaging were both performed within 8 weeks before and 6 weeks after systemic therapy. PSMA-PET and CT (MRI) images were reviewed according to the modified PET Response Criteria in Solid Tumors (PERCIST) and Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) 1.1. Results were compared to PSA response. Univariable survival analyses were performed. RESULTS: Overall, 43 patients undergoing 67 systemic therapies were included (9 patients radium-223, 12 cabazitaxel, 22 docetaxel, 6 abiraterone, and 18 enzalutamide). Median serum PSA level before any therapy was 11.3 ng/mL (interquartile range [IQR] = 3.3, 30.1). Delta (d) PSA after systemic therapies was -41%, dTTV 10.5%, dSUVmean -7.5%, dSUVmax -13.3%, dSUVpeak -12%, and dRECIST -13.3%. Overall, 31 patients had dPSA response (46.3%), 12 stable disease (17.9%), and 24 progressive disease (35.8%). All observed PET parameters, as well as the RECIST evaluation, were significantly associated with PSA response (dTTV P = .003, dSUVmean P = .003, dSUVmax P = .011, dSUVpeak P < 0001, dRECIST P = .012), while RECIST assessment was applicable in 37 out of 67 patients (55.2%). Within a median follow-up of 33 months (IQR = 26, 38), 10 patients (23.3%) died of PC. On univariable survival analyses, neither the investigated PET parameters nor PSA level or RECIST criteria were associated with OS. CONCLUSION: PSMA-PET provides reliable parameters for prediction of response to systemic therapies for mCRPC. These parameters, if confirmed, could enhance RECIST criteria, specifically concerning its limitations for sclerotic bone lesions.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of metformin with enzalutamide in the metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer setting.

INTRODUCTION: Enzalutamide (Enza) is an effective treatment for metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer (mCPRC). However, Enza is not cost-effective (CE) at willingness to pay (WTP) thresholds from $0-$125 000/quality adjusted life years (QALYs) and is therefore a strain on valuable health care dollars. Metformin (Met) is inexpensive (~$8.00/month) and is thought to improve prostate cancer specific and overall survival compared to those not taking Met. We hypothesized that there must be an added effect Met could provide that would make Enza CE thereby alleviating this financial strain on government health care budgets. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We constructed a Markov model and performed a threshold analysis to narrow in on the added effect needed to make such a combination therapy cost-effective at various WTP thresholds. RESULTS: At a WTP threshold of $50 000/QALY Enza + Met is unlikely to be CE unless it increases Enza's efficacy by more than 30%. At a WTP threshold of $100 000, Enza + Met could be CE barring Met adds 18.73% to the efficacy of Enza. CONCLUSIONS: Enza + Met is unlikely to be CE at WTP thresholds less than $100 000/QALY; these results make sense because a therapy that is not CE at these WTP thresholds by itself is unlikely to be CE with an adjuvant therapy that keep a patient on such a treatment for even longer. Finally, our model suggests that the mCRPC setting is not the optimal place to trial adding Met as the relative costs are high and utility values low.

Management of patients with metastatic prostate cancer (mPC) in a rural part of North Norway with a scattered population: does living near the department of oncology translate into a different pattern of care and survival?

The goal of the Norwegian Ministry of Health and Care Services is to offer an equal health-care service with the same outcomes wherever people are living within the country. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether this was true for patients diagnosed with metastatic prostate cancer (mPC) and living in Nordland County, a region with a challenging geography and climate and having, several small and remote communities and only 1 department of oncology. The latter is located in the main city, Bodø. We also compared a subgroup living in communities having lower average annual income (less than NOK 240,000 (equivalent to USD 28,600)) with patients living in Bodø (NOK 285,000 (USD 33,900)). Overall 288 patients were included and stratified into 3 subgroups (favourable distance and income, unfavourable distance and income, and unfavourable distance and favourable income). No statistically significant differences were observed regarding patient characteristics. There was no indication towards under-treatment among patients from the distant regions or the lower income region. Given that disparities were not observed, it was not surprising to see comparable survival outcomes (p=0.35). In conclusion, these results suggest that the health-care system in Nordland County successfully delivers state-of-the-art oncology care to patients with mPC.

Clinical characteristics, treatment pattern, and medical costs associated with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer in Chinese tertiary care hospital settings.

Objectives: To describe the clinical characteristics, treatment pattern, and medical costs associated with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) in Chinese patients. Methods: This retrospective study identified a group of patients with newly-developed mCRPC from 2012 to 2016 to extract information from their medical and billing records in two tertiary care hospitals. Descriptive statistical methods were used to summarize patient clinical characteristics, treatment pattern, and monthly medical costs. Conventional regression analyses explored the predictors for the utilization of chemotherapy and monthly medical costs. Results: Seventy-eight identified mCRPC patients were characterized with a high proportion of stage IV tumors at diagnosis of prostate cancer (75.0%) and high prevalence of bone metastasis (91.0%). Sixty-six percent of the identified patients only received one treatment episode. Among the patients receiving the first treatment episode, hormone therapy, chemotherapy, and best supportive care (BSC) accounted for 75.7%, 21.4%, and 2.9%, respectively; the previous orchiectomy was significantly associated with chemotherapy (odds ratio = 5.325, p = 0.034); and chemotherapy was associated with comparable drug costs and higher non-drug costs (coefficient = 0.657, p = 0.056) when compared to hormone therapy after the adjustment of patient characteristics. Conclusions: Chinese mCRPC patients were characterized with delayed diagnosis of prostate cancer and high prevalence of bone metastasis. The treatment options for mCRPC were limited in Chinese patients as the conventional hormone therapy was still heavily used after the development of mCRPC. The medical costs associated with mCRPC were mainly driven by chemotherapy in Chinese patients.

Evaluation of Treatment Patterns and Costs in Patients with Prostate Cancer and Bone Metastases.

BACKGROUND: There are a lack of guideline recommendations for patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) undergoing treatment progression and sequencing. Understanding treatment patterns and associated utilization and costs may help inform stakeholders and guide decision making. OBJECTIVE: To describe treatment patterns and health care costs in prostate cancer (PC) patients with bone metastases treated with agents approved by the FDA for mCRPC. METHODS: 2 large integrated claims databases (MarketScan and PharMetrics) were used to identify males aged ≥ 18 years who were diagnosed and treated for PC (ICD-9-CM code 185.xx or 233.4) with bone metastases (ICD-9-CM code 198.5) from June 2013 to September 2014. Patients were required to be continuously enrolled for ≥ 6 months before and after initiation of treatment with abiraterone, cabazitaxel, docetaxel, enzalutamide, mitoxantrone, radium-223, sipuleucel-T, or other chemotherapy. Study endpoints included lines of therapy, health care resource utilization per patient per month (PPPM), PPPM costs, and mortality rate. Descriptive analysis was completed for the study sample, and survival function was calculated via Kaplan-Meier estimates. RESULTS: There were 953 patients meeting all inclusion criteria in the MarketScan database and 565 patients in the PharMetrics database. The median follow-up time was 18 months (interquartile range [IQR] = 14-23) for MarketScan and 14 months (IQR = 11-18) for PharMetrics. Mean age (SD) was 71 (± 10.7) and 66 (± 9.3) years, respectively. Before mCRPC treatment initiation, patients received palliative radiation therapy and bone antiresorptive therapy. For MarketScan and PharMetrics, respectively, 14.0% and 18.2% of patients received radiation therapy, 36.1% and 40.0% received denosumab; 16.5% and 16.8% received zoledronic acid; and 0.2% and 0.8% received pamidronate. Across both databases, abiraterone was the most commonly received bone metastasis treatment agent across all lines of therapy, except fourth line. Radium-223, cabazitaxel, and mitoxantrone were the least utilized therapies. The median cost PPPM during the post-index period was $10,916 (IQR=$5,334-$13,457) in MarketScan and $10,292 (IQR = $7,245-$14,699) in PharMetrics. The cost PPPM during the 6-month pre-index period was $2,643 (IQR = $850-$4,357) in MarketScan and $2,742 (IQR = $1,484-$4,730) in PharMetrics. CONCLUSIONS: Patients were treated mainly with abiraterone across most lines of care, with radium-223, cabazitaxel, and mitoxantrone as the least utilized therapies. Median costs PPPM increased by approximately $8,900 after initiation of FDA-approved agents for mCRPC, with the largest increase in cost stemming from oral medications. DISCLOSURES: Funding for this study was provided by Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals. All authors were employees at Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals at the time this study was conducted. This study was presented as a poster at the 2017 American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Genitourinary Cancers Symposium; February 16-18, 2017; Orlando, FL.

Are clinical guidelines designed according to guidelines? Cross-sectional assessment of quality and transparency of clinical guidelines in urology.

PURPOSE: Guidelines and recommendations become increasingly important in clinical urologic practice. This study aims to inform clinicians using guidelines on how to evaluate the quality of the methodology and transparency of these documents. METHODS: The guidelines on management of castration-resistant prostate cancer of the American Urology Association, European Association of Urology, National Comprehensive Cancer Network, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, European Society of Medical Oncology were reviewed using the AGREE-II tool (Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation). We reported and compared the domain scores for the domains 1 scope and purpose, 2 stakeholder involvement, 3 rigor of development, 4 clarity of presentation, 5 applicability, and 6 editorial independence (100% indicates highest-best quality score). RESULTS: The domains evaluated highest and with lowest variability were 'editorial independence' (92% {88-95%}) and 'clarity of presentation' (83% {72-90%}), while the domains with the lowest scores and most variability were 'stakeholder involvement' (56% {36-79%}) and 'applicability' (40% {30-63%}). Length and extent of detail of guidelines vary considerably, each with its own strengths and limitations and adapted to target users. Standard external review using AGREE criteria may be preferable. A formal search strategy was not performed. Findings may be outdated by guidelines' updates. CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians using practice guidelines need to be aware of the different domains of methodology and transparency used to assess the quality of guidelines contents and recommendations. Urologists increasingly use guidelines for support in evidence-based recommendations in clinical practice. It is very important to know how to assess these documents. This study applies standard criteria to compare the design and background of different available guidelines on prostate cancer no longer responding to hormonal treatment.

Validating the total illness burden index for prostate cancer (TIBI-CaP) in men with castration-resistant prostate cancer: data from TRUMPET.

AIM: To validate the total illness burden index for prostate cancer (TIBI-CaP) in castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) patients. PATIENTS & METHODS: Baseline comorbidity scores collected using the TIBI-CaP were compared with the baseline patient-reported health-related quality of life using the SF-12v2 and FACT-P questionnaires in 302 patients enrolled in the Treatment Registry for Outcomes in CRPC Patients (TRUMPET). RESULTS: Baseline TIBI-CaP scores were negatively correlated with all baseline SF-12v2 domain/composite (p < 0.001) and FACT-P subscale/total (p < 0.020) scores. There was a significant decreasing linear trend in SF12v2 and FACT-P scores over the categories based on TIBI-CaP quartiles of comorbidity burden (from 'least' to 'severe'). CONCLUSION: The TIBI-CaP is a valid measure of comorbidity burden in patients with CRPC in the real world.

Comparison of Timed Automata with Discrete Event Simulation for Modeling of Biomarker-Based Treatment Decisions: An Illustration for Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer.

BACKGROUND: With the advent of personalized medicine, the field of health economic modeling is being challenged and the use of patient-level dynamic modeling techniques might be required. OBJECTIVES: To illustrate the usability of two such techniques, timed automata (TA) and discrete event simulation (DES), for modeling personalized treatment decisions. METHODS: An early health technology assessment on the use of circulating tumor cells, compared with prostate-specific antigen and bone scintigraphy, to inform treatment decisions in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer was performed. Both modeling techniques were assessed quantitatively, in terms of intermediate outcomes (e.g., overtreatment) and health economic outcomes (e.g., net monetary benefit). Qualitatively, among others, model structure, agent interactions, data management (i.e., importing and exporting data), and model transparency were assessed. RESULTS: Both models yielded realistic and similar intermediate and health economic outcomes. Overtreatment was reduced by 6.99 and 7.02 weeks by applying circulating tumor cell as a response marker at a net monetary benefit of -€1033 and -€1104 for the TA model and the DES model, respectively. Software-specific differences were observed regarding data management features and the support for statistical distributions, which were considered better for the DES software. Regarding method-specific differences, interactions were modeled more straightforward using TA, benefiting from its compositional model structure. CONCLUSIONS: Both techniques prove suitable for modeling personalized treatment decisions, although DES would be preferred given the current software-specific limitations of TA. When these limitations are resolved, TA would be an interesting modeling alternative if interactions are key or its compositional structure is useful to manage multi-agent complex problems.

Treatments for Metastatic Prostate Cancer (mPC): A Review of Costing Evidence.

BACKGROUND: Prostate cancer (PC) is the most common cancer in Western countries. More than one third of PC patients develop metastatic disease, and the 5-year expected survival in distant disease is about 35%. During the last few years, new treatments have been launched for metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). OBJECTIVES: We aimed to review the current literature on health economic analysis on the treatment of metastatic prostate cancer (mPC), compare the studies, summarize the findings and make the results available to administrators and decision makers. METHODS: A systematic literature search was done for economic evaluations (cost-minimization, cost-effectiveness, cost-utility, cost-of-illness, cost-of-drug, and cost-benefit analyses). We employed the PubMed® search engine and searched for publications published between 2012 and 2016. The terms used were "prostate cancer", "metastatic" and "cost". An initial screening of all headlines was performed, selected abstracts were analysed, and finally the full papers investigated. Study characteristics, treatment and comparator, country, type of evaluation, perspective, year of value, time horizon, efficacy data, discount rate, total costs and sensitivity analysis were analysed. The quality was assessed using the Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) instrument. RESULTS: A total of 227 publications were detected and screened, 58 selected for full-text assessment and 31 included in the final analyses. Despite the significant international literature on the treatment of mCRPC, there were only 15 studies focusing on cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA). Medical treatment constituted two thirds of the selected studies. Significant costs in the treatment of mCRPC were disclosed. In the pre-docetaxel setting, both abiraterone acetate (AA) and enzalutamide were concluded beyond accepted cost/quality-adjusted life year limits. In the docetaxel refractory setting, most studies concluded that enzalutamide was cost-effective and superior to AA. In most studies, cabazitaxel was not recommended, because of high cost. Looking at bone-targeting drugs, generic zoledronic acid (ZA) was recommended. External beam radiotherapy (EBRT) was analysed in three studies, and single fraction radiotherapy was concluded to be cost saving. Radium-223 was documented as beneficial, but costly. The quality of the studies was generally good, but sensitivity analyses, discounting and the measurement of health outcomes were present in less than two thirds of the selected studies. CONCLUSIONS: The treatment of mCRPC was associated with significant cost. In the post-docetaxel setting, single fraction radiotherapy and enzalutamide were considered cost-effective in most studies. Generic ZA was the recommended bone-targeting therapy.