Influential Factors Impacting Treatment Decision-making and Decision Regret in Patients with Localized or Locally Advanced Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Literature Review.

CONTEXT: Treatment decision-making (TDM) for patients with localized (LPC) or locally advanced (LAPC) prostate cancer is complex, and post-treatment decision regret (DR) is common. The factors driving TDM or predicting DR remain understudied. OBJECTIVE: Two systematic literature reviews were conducted to explore the factors associated with TDM and DR. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: Three online databases, select congress proceedings, and gray literature were searched (September 2022). Publications on TDM and DR in LPC/LAPC were prioritized based on the following: 2012 onward, ≥100 patients, journal article, and quantitative data. The Preferred Reporting Items Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines were followed. Influential factors were those with p < 0.05; for TDM, factors described as "a decision driver", "associated", "influential", or "significant" were also included. The key factors were determined by number of studies, consistency of evidence, and study quality. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Seventy-five publications (68 studies) reported TDM. Patient participation in TDM was reported in 34 publications; overall, patients preferred an active/shared role. Of 39 influential TDM factors, age, ethnicity, external factors (physician recommendation most common), and treatment characteristics/toxicity were key. Forty-nine publications reported DR. The proportion of patients experiencing DR varied by treatment type: 7-43% (active surveillance), 12-57% (radical prostatectomy), 1-49% (radiotherapy), 28-49% (androgen-deprivation therapy), and 21-47% (combination therapy). Of 42 significant DR factors, treatment toxicity (sexual/urinary/bowel dysfunction), patient role in TDM, and treatment type were key. CONCLUSIONS: The key factors impacting TDM were physician recommendation, age, ethnicity, and treatment characteristics. Treatment toxicity and TDM approach were the key factors influencing DR. To help patients navigate factors influencing TDM and to limit DR, a shared, consensual TDM approach between patients, caregivers, and physicians is needed. PATIENT SUMMARY: We looked at factors influencing treatment decision-making (TDM) and decision regret (DR) in patients with localized or locally advanced prostate cancer. The key factors influencing TDM were doctor's recommendation, patient age/ethnicity, and treatment side effects. A shared, consensual TDM approach between patients and doctors was found to limit DR.

Apalutamide efficacy, safety and wellbeing in older patients with advanced prostate cancer from Phase 3 randomised clinical studies TITAN and SPARTAN.

BACKGROUND: Apalutamide plus androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) improved outcomes in metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC) and non-metastatic castration-resistant PC (nmCRPC) in the Phase 3 randomised TITAN and SPARTAN studies, respectively, and maintained health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Apalutamide treatment effect by patient age requires assessment. METHODS: Post-hoc analysis assessed patients receiving 240 mg/day apalutamide (525 TITAN and 806 SPARTAN) or placebo (527 TITAN and 401 SPARTAN) with ongoing ADT, stratified by age groups. Prostate-specific antigen declines, radiographic progression-free survival, metastasis-free survival, overall survival (OS), HRQoL and safety were assessed using descriptive statistics, Kaplan-Meier method, Cox proportional-hazards model and mixed-effects model for repeated measures. RESULTS: Hazard ratios (95% confidence intervals) generally favoured apalutamide plus ADT versus ADT alone across all endpoints regardless of age; e.g., OS values were 0.57 (0.40-0.80), 0.70 (0.54-0.91) and 0.74 (0.40-1.39) (TITAN) and 0.39 (0.19-0.78), 0.89 (0.69-1.16) and 0.81 (0.58-1.15) (SPARTAN) in patients aged <65, 65-79 and ≥80 years. Regardless of age, apalutamide also maintained HRQoL and was tolerated well with a potential trend in rates of adverse events increasing with age. Limitations include post-hoc nature and variability in sample size of age groups. CONCLUSIONS: Apalutamide plus ADT was an effective and well-tolerated option maintaining HRQoL in patients with mCSPC and nmCRPC regardless of age. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: TITAN (NCT02489318); SPARTAN (NCT01946204).

Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) decline with apalutamide therapy is associated with longer survival and improved outcomes in individuals with metastatic prostate cancer: a plain language summary of the TITAN study.

WHAT IS THIS SUMMARY ABOUT?: This summary describes the results from an additional (or post hoc) analysis of the TITAN study. The TITAN study looked at whether the prostate cancer treatment apalutamide could be used to treat individuals with metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (or mCSPC). A total of 1052 participants with mCSPC were included in the TITAN study. Treatment with apalutamide was compared with treatment with placebo. All participants received androgen deprivation therapy (or ADT), which is a type of hormone therapy that has been part of the main treatment for mCSPC for many years. The results showed that apalutamide plus ADT increased the length of time that participants remained alive compared with placebo plus ADT. Apalutamide plus ADT also controlled the growth of the cancer for a longer length of time compared with placebo plus ADT. Additionally, participants who received apalutamide plus ADT experienced a greater reduction in the blood levels of prostate-specific antigen (or PSA), called a deep PSA decline, compared with those who received placebo plus ADT. An additional (or post hoc) analysis was carried out to understand whether a decrease in blood PSA levels, in response to treatment, was associated with improved outcomes, including longer survival time. WHAT WERE THE RESULTS OF THE ADDITIONAL ANALYSIS?: In participants who received apalutamide plus ADT, a deep PSA decline in response to treatment was associated with longer survival time and improved outcomes. WHAT DO THESE RESULTS MEAN FOR INDIVIDUALS WITH MCSPC?: These results demonstrate that individuals with mCSPC can benefit from treatment with apalutamide plus ADT. The association seen between deep PSA decline and the longer survival time and improved outcomes highlights how PSA measurements can be used to help monitor cancer disease evolution in response to treatment. Monitoring PSA levels will assist doctors and other healthcare professionals to understand how effectively a treatment is working for a patient and to tailor their treatment approach to improve PSA decline.

Post Hoc Analysis of Rapid and Deep Prostate-specific Antigen Decline and Patient-reported Health-related Quality of Life in SPARTAN and TITAN Patients with Advanced Prostate Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Adding apalutamide to androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) resulted in a rapid (at 3- and 6-mo treatment) and deep prostate-specific antigen (PSA) decline (to ≤0.2 ng/ml or ≥90% from baseline), improved overall survival, reduced risk of disease progression, and prolonged health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC) in SPARTAN and metastatic castration-sensitive PC (mCSPC) in TITAN. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the association of a rapid, deep PSA decline at 3 and 6 mo achieved with the addition of apalutamide to ADT with patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in SPARTAN and TITAN. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A post hoc analysis of SPARTAN and TITAN PRO data was performed. INTERVENTION: Apalutamide versus placebo plus concurrent ADT. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: PROs were assessed using Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Prostate (FACT-P; SPARTAN and TITAN), Brief Pain Inventory-Short Form (BPI-SF; TITAN), and Brief Fatigue Inventory (BFI; TITAN) at baseline, prespecified cycles during treatment, and after progression for ≤1 yr. The association between a deep PSA decline at landmark 3 or 6 mo of apalutamide and the time to worsening of PROs was assessed using the Kaplan-Meier methodology and Cox proportional-hazard modeling. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Among 806 SPARTAN and 525 TITAN apalutamide-treated patients, the median treatment duration was 32.9 and 39.3 mo, respectively. Patients achieving a deep PSA decline at 3 mo had longer time to worsening in FACT-P total, FACT-P physical well-being, BPI-SF worst pain intensity, or BFI worst fatigue intensity. The 6-mo PSA decline results were similar. Limitations of patient characteristics in clinical studies should be considered. CONCLUSIONS: Attaining a deep and rapid PSA decline at 3 mo with apalutamide plus ADT was associated with longer preservation of overall HRQoL and physical well-being in nmCRPC and mCSPC. PATIENT SUMMARY: Quality of life is maintained in individuals with advanced prostate cancer who achieve a deep prostate-specific antigen decline at 3 mo of apalutamide plus drugs that lower male sex hormones.

Apalutamide plus androgen deprivation therapy in clinical subgroups of patients with metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer: A subgroup analysis of the randomised clinical TITAN study.

BACKGROUND: Whether disease burden in patients with metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC) predicts treatment outcomes is unknown. We assessed apalutamide treatment effect in TITAN patients with mCSPC by disease volume, metastasis number and timing of metastasis presentation. METHODS: These protocol-defined and post hoc analyses of the phase III randomised TITAN study evaluated clinical outcomes in patients receiving 240 mg/day apalutamide (n = 525) or placebo (n = 527) plus androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT). Subgroups were defined by volume (high: visceral and ≥1 bone metastases or ≥4 bone lesions with ≥1 beyond vertebral column/pelvis), development of metastases per conventional imaging (synchronous: at initial diagnosis; metachronous: after localised disease) and oligometastases (≤5 bone-only metastases) or polymetastases (>5 in bone ± other locations or ≤5 in bone plus other locations). Overall survival (OS), radiographic or second progression-free survival, and time to prostate-specific antigen progression or castration resistance were assessed using Cox proportional hazards models. RESULTS: Of 1052 patients, 63%, 81%, 54%, 27%, 5.7%, and 8.0% had high-volume, synchronous, synchronous/high-volume, synchronous/low-volume, metachronous/high-volume, and metachronous/low-volume disease, respectively. The OS benefit favoured apalutamide plus ADT versus ADT alone in synchronous/high-volume (hazard ratio = 0.68 [95% confidence interval: 0.53-0.87]; p = 0.002), synchronous/low-volume (0.65 [0.40-1.05]; p = 0.08), metachronous/high-volume (0.69 [0.33-1.44]; p = 0.32) and metachronous/low-volume (0.22 [0.09-0.55]; p = 0.001) subgroups. Apalutamide improved other clinical outcomes regardless of subgroup, with similar safety profiles. Most favourable outcomes were observed in oligometastatic disease. CONCLUSION: TITAN patients derived a robust benefit with apalutamide plus ADT regardless of disease volume and timing of metastasis presentation without differences in safety, supporting early apalutamide intensification in mCSPC. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02489318.

Apalutamide for metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer: final analysis of the Asian subpopulation in the TITAN trial.

The final analysis of the phase 3 Targeted Investigational Treatment Analysis of Novel Anti-androgen (TITAN) trial showed improvement in overall survival (OS) and other efficacy endpoints with apalutamide plus androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) versus ADT alone in patients with metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC). As ethnicity and regional differences may affect treatment outcomes in advanced prostate cancer, a post hoc final analysis was conducted to assess the efficacy and safety of apalutamide in the Asian subpopulation. Event-driven endpoints were OS, and time from randomization to initiation of castration resistance, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) progression, and second progression-free survival (PFS2) on first subsequent therapy or death. Efficacy endpoints were assessed using the Kaplan-Meier method and Cox proportional-hazards models without formal statistical testing and adjustment for multiplicity. Participating Asian patients received once-daily apalutamide 240 mg ( n = 111) or placebo ( n = 110) plus ADT. After a median follow-up of 42.5 months and despite crossover of 47 placebo recipients to open-label apalutamide, apalutamide reduced the risk of death by 32% (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.68; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.42-1.13), risk of castration resistance by 69% (HR: 0.31; 95% CI: 0.21-0.46), PSA progression by 79% (HR: 0.21; 95% CI: 0.13-0.35) and PFS2 by 24% (HR: 0.76; 95% CI: 0.44-1.29) relative to placebo. The outcomes were comparable between subgroups with low- and high-volume disease at baseline. No new safety issues were identified. Apalutamide provides valuable clinical benefits to Asian patients with mCSPC, with an efficacy and safety profile consistent with that in the overall patient population.

Breast cancer knowledge & information seeking among African American women below screening age.

OBJECTIVES: African American women below screening age disproportionately face greater mortality from breast cancer relative to peers of other races and African American women of screening age. The current study examines breast cancer knowledge and health information seeking of African American women below screening age. METHODS: We collected survey data from 99 African American women below screening age on their breast cancer knowledge and health information seeking behaviors. As secondary analysis, we harmonized data from a previous study to compare breast cancer knowledge between African American women below and of (N = 209) screening age. RESULTS: The average woman below screening age correctly answered 2.84 (SD=1.08) of six breast cancer knowledge items, 2.67 (SD=1.01) of five mammogram items, 1.44 (SD=0.86) of three treatment items, and had lower knowledge (p < .001) in each area relative to screening age women. Women below screening age sought information primarily from medical providers and the internet. CONCLUSIONS: A strategy for eliminating early-onset breast cancer disparities impacting African American women is addressing the limited breast cancer knowledge in this age group. Practice Implications In addition to age-appropriate information for this group, guidance for medical providers would be beneficial, as providers are this group's most common source of health information.

Barriers and Enablers to Implementing Peer Specialists in Veterans Health Administration Primary Care: a Qualitative Study.

BACKGROUND: Peer specialists (PSs) are increasingly deployed in a variety of settings to provide patient-centered care. In the Veterans Health Administration (VHA), efforts are underway to integrate PSs into primary care settings. Little is known about the barriers and enablers to implementing PS services in primary care. OBJECTIVE: To characterize barriers and enablers to implementing PSs in primary care. DESIGN: Qualitative study using semi-structured interviews. PARTICIPANTS: PSs and their supervisors from 25 VHA primary care settings. APPROACH: PSs and supervisors were interviewed about their experiences integrating PSs in primary care. Rapid analysis was conducted to identify barriers and enablers to PS integration, as well as to examine the role of external facilitation in implementation experiences. KEY RESULTS: Fifty-two interviews were completed (25 PSs from 19 sites and 27 supervisors from 24 sites). Barriers and enablers to PS integration in VHA primary care settings included PS role clarity and constraints, provider buy-in, supervision, leadership support, and primary care culture. The barriers and enablers were consistent across both external facilitation and control sites. CONCLUSIONS: Results describe how the characteristics of the innovation, the recipients, and the context impact successful implementation of PSs in primary care settings. The identification of barriers and enablers holds promise for improving future efforts to embed PSs in primary care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This project is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov with number NCT02732600 (URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02732600 ).

Randomized, Open-Label Phase 2 Study of Apalutamide plus Androgen Deprivation Therapy versus Apalutamide Monotherapy versus Androgen Deprivation Monotherapy in Patients with Biochemically Recurrent Prostate Cancer.

Purpose: This randomized phase 2 study sought to assess the treatment effect of a finite duration of apalutamide with and without androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) in biochemically recurrent prostate cancer (BCR PC). Materials and Methods. Patients with BCR PC after primary definitive therapy and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) doubling time ≤12 months were randomized to open-label apalutamide (240 mg/d) alone, apalutamide plus ADT, or ADT alone (1 : 1:1 ratio) for 12 months followed by a 12-month observation period (NCT01790126). Mean changes from baseline in Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Prostate (FACT-P) at 12 months (primary endpoint) and other prespecified assessments of health-related quality of life (HRQoL), PSA nadir, time to PSA progression, time to testosterone recovery, recovered testosterone >150 ng/dL without PSA progression at 24 months, and molecular markers were evaluated. Results: In 90 enrolled patients (apalutamide plus ADT (n = 31), apalutamide (n = 29), ADT (n = 30)), FACT-P at 12 months was not significantly different between apalutamide, ADT and apalutamide, and ADT groups. Addition of apalutamide to ADT prolonged time to PSA progression but this change did not reach statistical significance (hazard ratio (HR): 0.56, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.23-1.36, P=0.196); time to testosterone recovery was similar in the ADT-containing groups. In apalutamide plus ADT, apalutamide, and ADT groups, 37.9%, 37.0%, and 19.2% of patients, respectively, had testosterone >150 ng/dL at 24 months without confirmed PSA progression. Of the few biomarkers expressed in blood, EPHA3 was significantly associated with shorter time to PSA progression (P=0.02) in the overall population. Conclusions: HRQoL was similar in patients treated with apalutamide alone, ADT alone, or their combination, although apalutamide plus ADT did not demonstrate statistically significant noninferiority in change from baseline in overall HRQoL. The aggregated efficacy and safety outcomes support further evaluation of apalutamide plus ADT in BCR PC.

Current State of Funded National Cancer Institute Grants That Include Economic Analyses.

BACKGROUND: Health economics research is an integral part of the transdisciplinary research supported by the National Cancer Institute (NCI). To better understand NCI activities in this area, we conducted a portfolio analysis of funded NCI grants including health economics research. METHODS: We examined all competitive grants funded by NCI from fiscal years 2015 to 2020 that included economic analyses or outcomes. Grant titles, abstracts, and specific aims were independently reviewed by 2 study team members; content of included grants was then coded for analysis. RESULTS: A total 212 grants were identified from searches; 146 of these included economic analyses and were included in the portfolio analysis. These 146 grants represent approximately 0.9% of all NCI competitively funded grants awarded 2015-2020. Of these grants, 100 were R01 awards, representing approximately 2.4% of all NCI R01 grants funded 2015-2020. The most common study type was interventional randomized controlled-trial, followed by simulation or model. Screening and prevention were the most frequent grant cancer continuum topic; survivorship was included in only 16 grants (11.0%). Cost-effectiveness analysis was the most frequently listed economic outcome (97 grants, 66.4%), whereas policy impact (20 grants, 13.7%) and financial hardship (15 grants, 10.3%) were less-frequently included economic outcomes. However, economic outcomes differed by cancer control continuum topic, with financial hardship being included in a greater proportion of treatment and survivorship grants. CONCLUSIONS: Although relatively small, the NCI portfolio of funded grants including economic analyses is diverse, covering a range of cancer types, methods, and economic outcomes, and increasing over time.

Peer specialists deliver cognitive behavioral social skills training compared to social skills training and treatment as usual to veterans with serious mental illness: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Serious mental illness (SMI) affects 4.6% of the American population. While treatments are available, adherence to specific regimens is often suboptimal. Multiple organizations, such as the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), have called for more options that improve accessibility and engagement to treatment among individuals with SMI. This study protocol answers such calls by testing the effectiveness of peer specialists-individuals with SMI trained to use their experience to help others with SMI-in delivering social skills training (SST) and cognitive behavioral social skills training (CBSST), evidence-based treatments effective at engaging individuals with SMI to make behavioral and cognitive changes. Peer specialists have been shown to be adept at engaging those with SMI in treatment; however, their ability to deliver these structured treatments is unknown. METHODS: This study is a randomized, hybrid 1, research assistant-blinded, superiority trial. A total of 252 veterans with SMI will be recruited and randomized to one of three arms: CBSST-Peer vs. SST-Peer vs. treatment as usual. Participants randomized to CBSST-Peer or SST-Peer will participate in a 20-week group-based intervention that meets weekly for a 60-min class. All participants will complete 4 study assessments at baseline, 10 weeks, 20 weeks, and 32 weeks. A multidimensional battery of functional outcomes will be used with the Independent Living Skills Survey (ILSS) as the primary outcome measure. Post-study completion, veterans who participated in the CBSST-Peer or SST-Peer arms will randomly be invited to participate in focus groups, and peer specialists will complete interviews to further assess the effectiveness of each intervention. DISCUSSION: Improving care and outcomes for individuals with SMI is a national priority. To improve care, it is imperative to think about new ways to improve engagement and accessibility to care. This study provides an innovative solution to this problem by evaluating how two different types of treatment, delivered by peer specialists, compare to usual care. The results of the study will allow for the expansion of treatment options that improve access and engagement among veterans with SMI.

Efficacy and safety exposure-response relationships of apalutamide in patients with metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer: results from the phase 3 TITAN study.

PURPOSE: Apalutamide plus androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) has been approved for treatment of patients with metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC) based on data from phase 3 TITAN study. This analysis was conducted to describe pharmacokinetics of apalutamide and N-desmethyl-apalutamide and explore relationships between apalutamide exposure and selected clinical efficacy and safety observations. METHODS: 1052 patients were randomized to apalutamide + ADT (n = 525) or placebo + ADT (n = 527). A previously developed population pharmacokinetic model was applied. Cox regression analysis investigated the relationships between apalutamide exposure and overall survival (OS; n = 1004) and radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS; n = 1003). Logistic regression analysis assessed the relationships between apalutamide exposure and selected clinically relevant adverse events (n = 1051). RESULTS: Apalutamide + ADT treatment was efficacious in extending rPFS and OS versus placebo + ADT. Within a relatively narrow apalutamide exposure range (coefficient of variation: 22%), no statistical association was detected between rPFS, OS and apalutamide exposure quartiles. Incidence of skin rash and pruritus increased significantly with increasing apalutamide exposure. CONCLUSIONS: Differences in apalutamide exposure were not associated with clinically relevant differences in rPFS or OS in patients with mCSPC. Patients with increased apalutamide exposure are more likely to develop skin rash and pruritus. Dose reductions may improve these adverse events, based on an individual risk-benefit approach.

Safety and efficacy of apalutamide in Japanese patients with metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer receiving androgen deprivation therapy: Final report for the Japanese subpopulation analysis of the randomized, placebo-controlled, phase III TITAN study.

OBJECTIVES: The TITAN study is a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multinational trial that evaluated apalutamide with androgen deprivation therapy in patients with metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer. At the first interim analysis in the Japanese subpopulation (median follow-up 25.7 months), there was an improvement in overall survival and radiological progression-free survival with apalutamide versus placebo. Here, we report the final analysis results for the Japanese subpopulation. METHODS: Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive apalutamide 240 mg or placebo. After the first interim analysis, protocol treatment was unblinded, and crossover was allowed. Efficacy and safety were evaluated in the preplanned, event-driven final analysis. RESULTS: Fifty-one patients were Japanese (apalutamide n = 28; placebo n = 23). After a median follow-up of 46.0 months, the median overall survival was not reached neither in the apalutamide nor the placebo group; the hazard ratio was 0.45, favoring apalutamide, which was consistent with the overall population. Hazard ratios for time to cytotoxic chemotherapy (0.39), time to pain progression (0.87), and time to chronic opioid use (0.82) also favored apalutamide and were comparable with those of the overall population. Time to prostate-specific antigen progression and progression-free survival 2, respectively, was favored in the apalutamide group (0.21 and 0.44). Apalutamide was associated with higher incidences of rash and fracture in the Japanese subpopulation compared with the overall population. CONCLUSIONS: The efficacy of apalutamide with androgen deprivation therapy in Japanese patients was consistent with efficacy demonstrated in the overall population. No new safety concerns emerged with long-term follow-up.

Concomitant use of oral anticoagulants in patients with advanced prostate cancer receiving apalutamide: A post-hoc analysis of TITAN and SPARTAN studies.

Apalutamide, an androgen receptor signaling inhibitor, in combination with androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT), is approved for treatment of patients with nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer and metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer, based on the data from the phase 3 SPARTAN and TITAN studies respectively. Apalutamide is an inducer of cytochrome P450 enzymes and P-glycoprotein, which are involved in the metabolism of oral anticoagulants (OACs) and may thus have potential drug-drug interactions when co-administered with OACs. Concomitant use of certain OACs such as apixaban, rivaroxaban, edoxaban, dabigatran, and warfarin was allowed in the SPARTAN and TITAN studies. A post-hoc analysis was conducted to evaluate the incidence of treatment-emergent thrombotic and embolic adverse events (AEs) in patients receiving concomitant OACs with apalutamide + ADT or placebo + ADT in both the studies. Anticoagulants were identified by WHO Drug Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical level 4 classifications. Thrombotic and embolic AEs were coded using the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities Version 22.1. Data were analyzed from patients receiving concurrent OACs among all treated patients in SPARTAN (apalutamide + ADT: 95/803 [11.8%]; placebo + ADT: 48/398 [12.1%]) and TITAN (apalutamide + ADT: 31/524 [5.9%]; placebo + ADT: 28/527 [5.3%]). No consequential differences were observed in the occurrence of thrombotic and embolic events between apalutamide + ADT and placebo + ADT groups receiving concomitant OACs in SPARTAN (11.6% vs 12.5%) or TITAN (19.4% vs 21.4%). Grade 3/4 thrombotic and embolic AEs observed in patients receiving concomitant OACs with apalutamide + ADT or placebo + ADT were 6 (6.3%) vs 5 (10.4%) in SPARTAN and 3 (9.7%) vs 1 (3.6%) in TITAN. This analysis suggests that when necessary, concomitant OACs can be used with apalutamide with appropriate monitoring.

Tracking the randomized rollout of a Veterans Affairs opioid risk management tool: A multi-method implementation evaluation using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR).

Background: The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) developed the Stratification Tool for Opioid Risk Mitigation (STORM) dashboard to assist in identifying Veterans at risk for adverse opioid overdose or suicide-related events. In 2018, a policy was implemented requiring VHA facilities to complete case reviews of Veterans identified by STORM as very high risk for adverse events. Nationally, facilities were randomized in STORM implementation to four arms based on required oversight and by the timing of an increase in the number of required case reviews. To help evaluate this policy intervention, we aimed to (1) identify barriers and facilitators to implementing case reviews; (2) assess variation across the four arms; and (3) evaluate associations between facility characteristics and implementation barriers and facilitators. Method: Using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), we developed a semi-structured interview guide to examine barriers to and facilitators of implementing the STORM policy. A total of 78 staff from 39 purposefully selected facilities were invited to participate in telephone interviews. Interview transcripts were coded and then organized into memos, which were rated using the -2 to + 2 CFIR rating system. Descriptive statistics were used to evaluate the mean ratings on each CFIR construct, the associations between ratings and study arm, and three facility characteristics (size, rurality, and academic detailing) associated with CFIR ratings. We used the mean CFIR rating for each site to determine which constructs differed between the sites with highest and lowest overall CFIR scores, and these constructs were described in detail. Results: Two important CFIR constructs emerged as barriers to implementation: Access to knowledge and information and Evaluating and reflecting. Little time to complete the CASE reviews was a pervasive barrier. Sites with higher overall CFIR scores showed three important facilitators: Leadership engagement, Engaging, and Implementation climate. CFIR ratings were not significantly different between the four study arms, nor associated with facility characteristics.Plain Language Summary: The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) created a tool called the Stratification Tool for Opioid Risk Mitigation dashboard. This dashboard shows Veterans at risk for opioid overdose or suicide-related events. In 2018, a national policy required all VHA facilities to complete case reviews for Veterans who were at high risk for these events. To evaluate this policy implementation, 78 staff from 39 facilities were interviewed. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) implementation framework was used to create the interview. Interview transcripts were coded and organized into site memos. The site memos were rated using CFIR's -2 to +2 rating system. Ratings did not differ for four study arms related to oversight and timing. Ratings were not associated with facility characteristics. Leadership, engagement and implementation climate were the strongest facilitators for implementation. Lack of time, knowledge, and feedback were important barriers.

Apalutamide for patients with metastatic castrationsensitive prostate cancer in East Asia: a subgroup analysis of the TITAN trial.

Ethnicity might be associated with treatment outcomes in advanced prostate cancer. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) combined with apalutamide in East Asians with metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC). The original phase 3 Targeted Investigational Treatment Analysis of Novel Anti-androgen (TITAN) trial was conducted at 260 sites in 23 countries. This subgroup analysis included patients enrolled in 62 participating centers in China, Japan, and Korea. Radiographic progression-free survival (PFS), time to prostate-specific antigen (PSA) progression, and PSA changes from baseline were compared between groups in the East Asian population. The intent-to-treat East Asian population included 111 and 110 participants in the apalutamide and placebo groups, respectively. The 24-month radiographic PFS rates were 76.1% and 52.3% in the apalutamide and placebo groups, respectively (apalutamide vs placebo: hazard ratio [HR] = 0.506; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.302-0.849; P = 0.009). Median time to PSA progression was more favorable with apalutamide than placebo (HR = 0.210; 95% CI, 0.124-0.357; P < 0.001). Median maximum percentages of PSA decline from baseline were 99.0% and 73.9% in the apalutamide and placebo groups, respectively. The most common adverse event (AE) was rash in the apalutamide group, with a higher rate than that in the placebo group (37.3% vs 9.1%). The most common grade 3 or 4 AEs were rash (12 [10.9%]) and hypertension (12 [10.9%]) for apalutamide. The efficacy and safety of apalutamide in the East Asian subgroup of the TITAN trial are consistent with the global results.

Apalutamide plus abiraterone acetate and prednisone versus placebo plus abiraterone and prednisone in metastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer (ACIS): a randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind, multinational, phase 3 study.

BACKGROUND: The majority of patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) will have disease progression of a uniformly fatal disease. mCRPC is driven by both activated androgen receptors and elevated intratumoural androgens; however, the current standard of care is therapy that targets a single androgen signalling mechanism. We aimed to investigate the combination treatment using apalutamide plus abiraterone acetate, each of which suppresses the androgen signalling axis in a different way, versus standard care in mCRPC. METHODS: ACIS was a randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind, phase 3 study done at 167 hospitals in 17 countries in the USA, Canada, Mexico, Europe, the Asia-Pacific region, Africa, and South America. We included chemotherapy-naive men (aged ≥18 years) with mCRPC who had not been previously treated with androgen biosynthesis signalling inhibitors and were receiving ongoing androgen deprivation therapy, with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0 or 1, and a Brief Pain Inventory-Short Form question 3 (ie, worst pain in the past 24 h) score of 3 or lower. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) via a centralised interactive web response system with a permuted block randomisation scheme (block size 4) to oral apalutamide 240 mg once daily plus oral abiraterone acetate 1000 mg once daily and oral prednisone 5 mg twice daily (apalutamide plus abiraterone-prednisone group) or placebo plus abiraterone acetate and prednisone (abiraterone-prednisone group), in 28-day treatment cycles. Randomisation was stratified by presence or absence of visceral metastases, ECOG performance status, and geographical region. Patients, the investigators, study team, and the sponsor were masked to group assignments. An independent data-monitoring committee continually monitored data to ensure ongoing patient safety, and reviewed efficacy data. The primary endpoint was radiographic progression-free survival assessed in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was reported for all patients who received at least one dose of study drug. This study is completed and no longer recruiting and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02257736. FINDINGS: 982 men were enrolled and randomly assigned from Dec 10, 2014 to Aug 30, 2016 (492 to apalutamide plus abiraterone-prednisone; 490 to abiraterone-prednisone). At the primary analysis (median follow-up 25·7 months [IQR 23·0-28·9]), median radiographic progression-free survival was 22·6 months (95% CI 19·4-27·4) in the apalutamide plus abiraterone-prednisone group versus 16·6 months (13·9-19·3) in the abiraterone-prednisone group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·69, 95% CI 0·58-0·83; p<0·0001). At the updated analysis (final analysis for overall survival; median follow-up 54·8 months [IQR 51·5-58·4]), median radiographic progression-free survival was 24·0 months (95% CI 19·7-27·5) versus 16·6 months (13·9-19·3; HR 0·70, 95% CI 0·60-0·83; p<0·0001). The most common grade 3-4 treatment-emergent adverse event was hypertension (82 [17%] of 490 patients receiving apalutamide plus abiraterone-prednisone and 49 [10%] of 489 receiving abiraterone-prednisone). Serious treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 195 (40%) patients receiving apalutamide plus abiraterone-prednisone and 181 (37%) patients receiving abiraterone-prednisone. Drug-related treatment-emergent adverse events with fatal outcomes occurred in three (1%) patients in the apalutamide plus abiraterone-prednisone group (2 pulmonary embolism, 1 cardiac failure) and five (1%) patients in the abiraterone-prednisone group (1 cardiac failure and 1 cardiac arrest, 1 mesenteric arterial occlusion, 1 seizure, and 1 sudden death). INTERPRETATION: Despite the use of an active and established therapy as the comparator, apalutamide plus abiraterone-prednisone improved radiographic progression-free survival. Additional studies to identify subgroups of patients who might benefit the most from combination therapy are needed to further refine the treatment of mCRPC. FUNDING: Janssen Research & Development.

Opportunities for Cancer Health Care Disparities and Care Delivery Research: An Analysis of the NCI Health Care Delivery Research Program Portfolio.

Cancer health care disparities are complex, involve patient, clinician and health care system factors, and are defined as adverse differences in cancer outcomes. This analysis describes NCI's Healthcare Delivery Research Program's (HDRP) portfolio of disparities-focused research and identifies future research opportunities. Grants through HDRP (fiscal years 2012 to 2016) focused on detecting, understanding, and/or intervening on disparities in or among health disparity populations were reviewed by co-authors. Forty-eight funded grants were identified, coded, and characterized. Descriptive analyses are reported. Most studies focused on racial/ethnic minorities and socioeconomically disadvantaged groups. Colorectal, breast, and cervical cancers were most frequently examined. Almost 40% of studies addressed the intervening phase of the disparities research continuum. Few studies focused on clinician-level factors or involved the community in the research design. A sustained disparities research emphasis is essential to addressing the determinants of and cancer burden among health disparity populations across the cancer care continuum.