Multi-Institutional Analysis of Cancer Patient Exposure, Perceptions, and Trust in Information Sources Regarding Complementary and Alternative Medicine.

PURPOSE: Complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) use during cancer treatment is controversial. We aim to evaluate contemporary CAM use, patient perceptions and attitudes, and trust in various sources of information regarding CAM. METHODS: A multi-institutional questionnaire was distributed to patients receiving cancer treatment. Collected information included respondents' clinical and demographic characteristics, rates of CAM exposure/use, information sources regarding CAM, and trust in each information source. Comparisons between CAM users and nonusers were performed with chi-squared tests and one-way analysis of variance. Multivariable logistic regression models for trust in physician and nonphysician sources of information regarding CAM were evaluated. RESULTS: Among 749 respondents, the most common goals of CAM use were management of symptoms (42.2%) and treatment of cancer (30.4%). Most CAM users learned of CAM from nonphysician sources. Of CAM users, 27% reported not discussing CAM with their treating oncologists. Overall trust in physicians was high in both CAM users and nonusers. The only predictor of trust in physician sources of information was income >$100,000 in US dollars per year. Likelihood of trust in nonphysician sources of information was higher in females and lower in those with graduate degrees. CONCLUSION: A large proportion of patients with cancer are using CAM, some with the goal of treating their cancer. Although patients are primarily exposed to CAM through nonphysician sources of information, trust in physicians remains high. More research is needed to improve patient-clinician communication regarding CAM use.

External Beam Radiation Therapy With or Without Brachytherapy Boost in Men With Very-High-Risk Prostate Cancer: A Large Multicenter International Consortium Analysis.

PURPOSE: Very-high-risk (VHR) prostate cancer (PC) is an aggressive subgroup with high risk of distant disease progression. Systemic treatment intensification with abiraterone or docetaxel reduces PC-specific mortality (PCSM) and distant metastasis (DM) in men receiving external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). Whether prostate-directed treatment intensification with the addition of brachytherapy (BT) boost to EBRT with ADT improves outcomes in this group is unclear. METHODS AND MATERIALS: This cohort study from 16 centers across 4 countries included men with VHR PC treated with either dose-escalated EBRT with ≥24 months of ADT or EBRT + BT boost with ≥12 months of ADT. VHR was defined by National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) criteria (clinical T3b-4, primary Gleason pattern 5, or ≥2 NCCN high-risk features), and results were corroborated in a subgroup of men who met Systemic Therapy in Advancing or Metastatic Prostate Cancer: Evaluation of Drug Efficacy (STAMPEDE) trials inclusion criteria (≥2 of the following: clinical T3-4, Gleason 8-10, or PSA ≥40 ng/mL). PCSM and DM between EBRT and EBRT + BT were compared using inverse probability of treatment weight-adjusted Fine-Gray competing risk regression. RESULTS: Among the entire cohort, 270 underwent EBRT and 101 EBRT + BT. After a median follow-up of 7.8 years, 6.7% and 5.9% of men died of PC and 16.3% and 9.9% had DM after EBRT and EBRT + BT, respectively. There was no significant difference in PCSM (sHR, 1.47 [95% CI, 0.57-3.75]; P = .42) or DM (sHR, 0.72, [95% CI, 0.30-1.71]; P = .45) between EBRT + BT and EBRT. Results were similar within the STAMPEDE-defined VHR subgroup (PCSM: sHR, 1.67 [95% CI, 0.48-5.81]; P = .42; DM: sHR, 0.56 [95% CI, 0.15-2.04]; P = .38). CONCLUSIONS: In this VHR PC cohort, no difference in clinically meaningful outcomes was observed between EBRT alone with ≥24 months of ADT compared with EBRT + BT with ≥12 months of ADT. Comparative analyses in men treated with intensified systemic therapy are warranted.

Clinical Germline Testing Results of Men With Prostate Cancer: Patient-Level Factors and Implications of NCCN Guideline Expansion.

Germline likely pathogenic or pathogenic variants (PVs) have been identified in up to 17% of men with prostate cancer (PC) and may drive disease severity or be targetable by novel therapies. National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines encouraging germline testing in metastatic PC were recently expanded to include all men with high-risk, very high-risk, or regional PC. Our aim was to assess the impact of expanded NCCN guidelines on the detection rate of germline PVs and to determine patient-level factors associated with a PV germline testing result. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Men with PC underwent multigene germline genetic testing for PVs from June 2016 to December 2018, and trends were compared. The association of patient-level factors with a PV germline testing result, where ≥ 1 PV was identified, was assessed using analysis of variance and univariate logistic regression. Sensitivity analyses were limited to clinically actionable variants and those associated with disease severity or progression (BRCA1/2 and ATM). RESULTS: Of 408 men undergoing germline testing, 42 (10.3%) men had PVs and 366 (89.7%) men did not have PVs identified. The proportion of men identified with a germline PV remained stable following testing criteria expansion (9.4% v 10.6%, P = .73). No patient-level factors were significantly associated with increased odds of a PV germline testing result, including age at diagnosis, race, pretreatment prostate-specific antigen, Gleason grade group, NCCN risk group, and family history of cancer (breast and/or ovarian, prostate, or any cancer). CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated a stable PV detection rate in men with PC using expanded criteria aligned to the updated NCCN testing guidelines. However, we did not find strong evidence to suggest that patient-level factors are associated with PV germline testing results. These findings support the recent expansion of NCCN germline testing guidelines in PC.

The Stage at Presentation and Oncologic Outcomes for Agent Orange Exposed and Non-Exposed United States Veterans Diagnosed With Prostate Cancer.

INTRODUCTION: It is unknown if Agent Orange (AO)-exposed veterans have worse outcomes than unexposed Veterans after prostate cancer treatment. We evaluated oncologic outcomes based on AO exposure history, accounting for known prognostic covariates not previously studied. METHODS: US military Veterans diagnosed with prostate adenocarcinoma born between 1930 and 1956 were identified from our prospectively gathered institutional database. Evaluable patients had to have known AO exposure status, age, National Comprehensive Cancer Network risk group, Charlson comorbidity score, smoking status, and type of initial therapy. The risk of death, metastasis, and progression stratified by initial therapy was analyzed using Cox regression. RESULTS: Seventy AO-exposed and 561 non-exposed Veterans were identified (median follow-up, 10.0 years). AO-exposed veterans (AOeV) were slightly younger (64.0 vs 65.7 years; P = .013) at diagnosis and presented at more advanced stages (stage 4: 14.3% vs 2.5%) than non-AOeV. There was no difference for overall survival (hazard ratio [HR], 0.86; P = .576; metastasis-free survival (HR, 1.5; P = .212), or progression-free survival (HR, 0.67; P = .060) between AOeV vs non-AOeV in analyses stratified by treatment received accounting for other prognostic covariates. Cigarette smoking was associated with a 2- to 3-fold increased risk of death over those who quit or never smoked. CONCLUSION: Although AOeV do present at a younger age and higher clinical stages than non-AOeV, the oncologic outcomes after accounting for treatments received and other prognostic covariates are similar.

Personalizing Localized Prostate Cancer: Validation of a Combined Clinical Cell-cycle Risk (CCR) Score Threshold for Prognosticating Benefit From Multimodality Therapy.

INTRODUCTION: The combined clinical cell-cycle risk (CCR) score is a validated model that combines the cell-cycle progression (CCP) score with the University of California San Francisco Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment (CAPRA) score. This score determines the risk of progressive disease for men with prostate cancer. Here, we further validate the prognostic ability of the CCR score and evaluate its ability to help determine which patients may safely forgo multimodality therapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We evaluated the CCR and a CCR-based multimodality threshold (2.112) in a retrospective, multi-institutional cohort of men with National Comprehensive Cancer Network intermediate- or high-risk localized disease (N = 718). These men received single or multimodality therapy (androgen deprivation with radiation [RT], or surgery with adjuvant RT or hormones). RESULTS: CCR score prognosticated metastasis for single-modality therapy, as a continuous variable (hazard ratio, 3.97; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.61-6.06) and when dichotomized at the threshold (hazard ratio, 15.90; 95% CI, 5.43-46.52). The 10-year Kaplan-Meier risk for those receiving single-modality (RT or surgical) therapy with CCR scores below and above the threshold for single-modality treatment was 4.3% (95% CI, 1.0%-17.1%) and 20.4% (95% CI, 13.2%-30.7%), respectively. Using the threshold, 27% of men with newly diagnosed high-risk and 73% with unfavorable intermediate-risk disease could avoid multimodality therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with CCR scores below the multimodality threshold (2.112) may safely forgo multimodality therapy. The CCR score can be used as a decision aid to counsel men whether or not single-modality therapy would be sufficient for their intermediate- or high-risk prostate cancer.

Metastasis, Mortality, and Quality of Life for Men With NCCN High and Very High Risk Localized Prostate Cancer After Surgical and/or Combined Modality Radiotherapy.

PURPOSE: To compare metastasis-free survival, overall survival, and patient-reported quality of life (QOL) of men with National Comprehensive Cancer Network high or very high risk prostate cancer after definitive surgery and/or multimodal radiotherapy (RT). PATIENTS AND METHODS: We studied a retrospective cohort study of 586 patients treated between the years 2000 and 2017 receiving radical prostatectomy with or without postoperative RT, external-beam RT (EBRT) with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), or EBRT plus brachytherapy (Brachy) boost + ADT. Patient-reported QOL for urinary, bowel, sexual, and overall physical and mental functioning was assessed using the American Urological Association symptom scale, the Sexual Health Inventory in Men, the Rectal-Function Assessment Scale, the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite, and the Veterans RAND 12-Item Health Survey. RESULTS: Median follow-up for survival was 5 years. No significant differences between the treatments were observed for overall survival or metastasis-free survival at the P < .05 threshold. The propensity-adjusted 5-year metastasis-free survival estimates for EBRT + ADT, EBRT + Brachy + ADT, and surgery were 74.6%, 94.8%, and 83.1%, respectively. The EBRT + Brachy + ADT and surgery cohorts had significantly worse mean American Urological Association symptom scores at 6 months than the EBRT + ADT cohort, which resolved by 1 year. Surgical patients had better rectal function scores than EBRT + ADT patients at years 1 to 3, but similar function thereafter. Adjuvant or salvage RT resulted in significant declines in various Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite urinary, sexual, and bowel domains, and Veterans RAND 12-Item Health Survey physical but not mental domains. CONCLUSION: Men with very and/or high-risk localized prostate cancer are likely to require multimodal therapy. The overall differences in survival and long-term QOL are similar for men choosing surgical versus RT pathways.

Factors influencing prostate cancer patterns of care: An analysis of treatment variation using the SEER database.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study is to describe the trends and factors that influence the initial treatment of men with localized prostate cancer (PC) in the United States between 2004 and 2014. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The National Cancer Institute's Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results database was used to identify patients with primary prostate adenocarcinoma between 2004 and 2014. Patients were staged in accordance with the American Joint Committee on Cancer 7th edition criteria and stratified according to the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines risk group classification. Descriptive statistics describing treatment patterns by year of diagnosis, age, risk group, insurance status, and region were performed. RESULTS: A total of 460,311 male patients were identified with sufficient information to be categorized into National Comprehensive Cancer Network risk groups. Overall, 30.9% of patients had low-risk disease, 38.1% were intermediate risk, 20.2% were high risk, 4.4% were very high risk, 1.6% were node-positive, and 4.7% had metastatic disease. During the study period, there was a 60% decrease in brachytherapy monotherapy utilization for patients with PC, and no definitive treatment increased from 20.3% in 2004 to 26.3% in 2014. There were regional treatment variations and discrepancies in treatment by age. Radical prostatectomy was performed on a greater proportion of insured patients than patients with Medicaid or those who were uninsured, but radiation therapy and no definitive treatment was administered to a greater proportion of uninsured and Medicaid patients. CONCLUSIONS: PC treatment shows declining trends in brachytherapy utilization, increases in conservative management, and stability of surgical procedures over time. There is wide variation by geographical region, age, and insurance status.

Survival and recurrence in nonmycosis fungoides primary cutaneous lymphoma.

PURPOSE: To evaluate overall and relapse-free survival (RFS) in patients with nonmycosis fungoides (non-MF) primary cutaneous lymphoma (PCL). METHODS: Thirty-eight patients with PCL excluding cases of MF treated between 1993 and 2006 were analyzed retrospectively. Survival statistics were estimated by the methods of Kaplan and Meier, and univariate and multivariate significance testing were performed by Cox regression analysis. RESULTS: The median follow-up was 34.6 months (range, 2-138.3 months). The overall survival for the entire study population, at 5 and 10 years, was 97% and 78%, respectively. The RFS for the entire study population, at 5 and 10 years, was 30% and 22%, respectively. For those who received radiotherapy (RT) as a component of their initial therapy, the RFS at 5 and 10 years was 48% and 36%, respectively. Among those receiving RT who relapsed, the site of relapse was out-of-field in 82% of the cases. In our multivariate analysis, only RT as a component of the initial therapy and the absence of bulky disease had a statistically significant improvement in RFS (P = 0.01 and <0.01, respectively). CONCLUSION: RT improves the local control and RFS of patients with non-MF PCL.