Prostate Radiotherapy in Low-volume Metastatic Hormone-sensitive Prostate Cancer: A Network Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The utility of prostate radiotherapy (RT) is unclear in men with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC) receiving intensified systemic therapy with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) and androgen receptor pathway inhibitors (ARPIs). We performed a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to investigate the role of prostate RT in low-volume mHSPC. METHODS: Bibliographic databases and conference proceedings were searched through July 2023 for RCTs evaluating the addition of ARPIs or prostate RT to standard of care (SOC) systemic therapy, defined as ADT or ADT plus docetaxel, for the initial treatment of mHSPC. We focused exclusively on aggregate data from the low-volume mHSPC subpopulation in these trials. We pooled the treatment arms into four groups: SOC, SOC plus ARPI, SOC plus RT, and SOC plus ARPI plus RT. The primary outcome was overall survival (OS). To compare treatment strategies, a fixed-effects Bayesian network meta-analysis was undertaken, while a Bayesian network meta-regression was performed to account for across-trial differences in docetaxel use as part of SOC and in proportions of patients with de novo presentation. KEY FINDINGS AND LIMITATIONS: Ten RCTs comprising 4423 patients were eligible. The Surface Under the Cumulative Ranking Curve scores were 0.0006, 0.45, 0.62, and 0.94 for SOC, SOC plus RT, SOC plus ARPI, and SOC plus ARPI plus RT, respectively. On a meta-regression, in a population with de novo mHSPC and no docetaxel use, we did not find sufficient evidence of a difference in OS between SOC plus ARPI plus RT versus SOC plus ARPI (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.76; 95% credible interval: 0.51-1.16) and SOC plus RT versus SOC plus ARPI (HR: 1.10; 95% credible interval: 0.92-1.42). CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: There was some evidence that SOC plus ARPI plus RT reduced mortality compared with the next best strategy of SOC plus ARPI in patients with low-volume de novo mHSPC. A meta-analysis with individual patient data or an RCT is needed to confirm these findings.

Effect of Concomitant Medications on Treatment Response and Survival in De Novo Metastatic Prostate Cancer: Secondary Analysis of the LATITUDE Study.

PURPOSE: It is unclear whether exposure to commonly prescribed medications influences survival and treatment response in patients with de novo high-risk metastatic prostate cancer (mPCa) treated with androgen receptor pathway inhibitors (ARPIs). METHODS: We performed a secondary analysis of the LATITUDE trial to determine whether receipt of concomitant medications influenced the effect of abiraterone acetate and prednisone, in addition to androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), on overall survival (OS) and prostate cancer-specific mortality (PCSM) in patients with de novo mPCa. We focused on 7 commonly prescribed classes of medications: metformin, statins, proton pump inhibitors (PPIs), cyclooxygenase 2 (COX-2) inhibitors, aspirin, acetaminophen, and NSAIDs (nonselective COX inhibitors). To account for multiple testing, a two-sided p < 0.0024 was set as the threshold for statistical significance. RESULTS: Overall, 1135 patients were eligible. There was some evidence of a differential treatment effect from abiraterone among patients who received concomitant NSAIDs (hazard ratio [HR] for OS: 0.54; 95% CI: 0.42-0.70) versus those who did not (HR: 0.74; 95% CI: 0.60-0.91), though this did not reach significance (interaction p = 0.05). A similar non-significant finding of heterogeneity of effect from abiraterone was noted among patients who received concomitant aspirin (HR for OS: 0.93 [0.63-1.36]) versus those who did not (HR: 0.61 [0.51-0.73]) (interaction p = 0.04). Receipt of NSAIDs was independently associated with a significantly inferior OS (HR: 1.37 [1.15-1.62]; p < 0.001) and higher relative incidence of PCSM (sHR: 1.47 [1.21-1.78]; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: This exploratory analysis did not find statistically significant evidence of differences in treatment effects from ADT plus abiraterone in de novo high-risk mPCa based on the receipt of concurrent medications. The receipt of NSAIDs was independently associated with increased PCSM and inferior OS.

Radiation Therapy Summary of the AUA/ASTRO Guideline on Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSE: Our purpose was to develop a summary of recommendations regarding the management of patients with clinically localized prostate cancer based on the American Urologic Association/ ASTRO Guideline on Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer. METHODS: The American Urologic Association and ASTRO convened a multidisciplinary, expert panel to develop recommendations based on a systematic literature review using an a priori defined consensus-building methodology. The topics covered were risk assessment, staging, risk-based management, principles of management including active surveillance, surgery, radiation, and follow-up after treatment. Presented are recommendations from the guideline most pertinent to radiation oncologists with an additional statement on health equity, diversity, and inclusion related to guideline panel composition and the topic of clinically localized prostate cancer. SUMMARY: Staging, risk assessment, and management options in prostate cancer have advanced over the last decade and significantly affect shared decision-making for treatment management. Current advancements and controversies discussed to guide staging, risk assessment, and treatment recommendations include the use of advanced imaging and tumor genomic profiling. An essential active surveillance strategy includes prostate-specific antigen monitoring and periodic digital rectal examination with changes triggering magnetic resonance imaging and possible biopsy thereafter and histologic progression or greater tumor volume prompting consideration of definitive local treatment. The panel recommends against routine use of adjuvant radiation therapy (RT) for patients with prostate cancer after prostatectomy with negative nodes and an undetectable prostate-specific antigen, while acknowledging that patients at highest risk of recurrence were relatively poorly represented in the 3 largest randomized trials comparing adjuvant RT to early salvage and that a role may exist for adjuvant RT in selected patients at highest risk. RT for clinically localized prostate cancer has evolved rapidly, with new trial results, therapeutic combinations, and technological advances. The recommendation of moderately hypofractionated RT has not changed, and the updated guideline incorporates a conditional recommendation for the use of ultrahypofractionated treatment. Health disparities and inequities exist in the management of clinically localized prostate cancer across the continuum of care that can influence guideline concordance.

Effect of Pelvic External Beam Radiation Therapy on Bone Mineral Density: A Secondary Analysis of a Phase 3 Randomized Controlled Trial.

PURPOSE: Pelvic radiation therapy may lead to decreased bone mineral density (BMD) and increased risk of fracture that could be of particular concern in patients with prostate cancer who also receive androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). We performed an exploratory analysis of a randomized, double-masked, placebo-controlled trial to determine whether exposure to prior pelvic external beam radiation therapy (XRT) affects BMD and risk of fracture in patients with prostate cancer treated with ADT. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Patients with nonmetastatic prostate cancer aged ≥70 years or <70 years with low BMD (T-score < -1) or osteoporotic fracture who had been receiving ADT for ≥12 months were randomly assigned to receive densoumab or placebo every 6 months for 3 years. BMD was measured at baseline and at months 1, 3, 6, 12, 24, and 36. We applied multivariable linear mixed-effects models with an interaction term between the treatment arm and exposure to prior pelvic XRT to evaluate differential XRT effect on percent BMD change between the 2 treatment arms. RESULTS: Among 1407 eligible patients, 31% (n = 447) received prior pelvic XRT. There was no significant difference in any clinical fractures among patients with (5.8%, 26 of 447) or without (5.2%, 50 of 960) prior pelvic XRT (P = .42). Prior pelvic XRT was associated with a significant (0.54%) improvement in BMD (95% CI, 0.05-1.02) in the placebo group and a nonsignificant (0.04%) decline in BMD (95% CI, -0.47 to -0.35) in the denosumab group (interaction P = .007). There was no significant difference in pelvic XRT effect on percent BMD change in the lumbar spine (P = .65) or total hip (P = .39) between the 2 treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: We did not find sufficient evidence to suggest any detrimental effect of pelvic XRT on the treatment effect from denosumab on percent BMD change, with only an approximately 5% incidence of clinical fractures.

Association of PSA kinetics after testosterone recovery with subsequent recurrence: secondary analysis of a phase III randomized controlled trial.

PURPOSE: After cessation of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), testosterone gradually recovers to supracastrate levels (> 50 ng/dL). After this, rises in prostate-specific antigen (PSA) are often seen. However, it remains unknown whether early PSA kinetics after testosterone recovery are associated with subsequent biochemical recurrence (BCR). METHODS: We performed a secondary analysis of a phase III randomized controlled trial in which newly diagnosed localized prostate cancer patients were randomly allocated to ADT for 6 months starting 4 months prior to or simultaneously with prostate RT. We calculated the PSA doubling time (PSADT) based on PSA values up to 18 months after supracastrate testosterone recovery. Competing risk regression was used to evaluate the association of PSADT with relative incidence of BCR, considering deaths as competing events. RESULTS: Overall, 313 patients were eligible. Median PSADT was 8 months. Cumulative incidence of BCR at 10 years from supracastrate testosterone recovery was 19% and 11% in patients with PSADT < 8 months and ≥ 8 months (p = 0.03). Compared to patients with PSADT of < 4 months, patients with higher PSADT (sHR for PSADT 4 to < 8 months: 0.36 [95% CI 0.16-0.82]; 8 to < 12 months: 0.26 [0.08-0.91]; ≥ 12 months: 0.20 [0.07-0.56]) had lower risk of relative incidence of BCR. CONCLUSIONS: Early PSA kinetics, within 18 months of recovery of testosterone to a supracastrate level, can predict for subsequent BCR. Taking account of early changes in PSA after testosterone recovery may allow for recognition of potential failures earlier in the disease course and thereby permit superior personalization of treatment.

Prognostic Role of Dynamic Changes in Serological Markers in Metastatic Hormone Naïve Prostate Cancer.

We investigated whether inter-patient variation in the dynamic trajectory of hemoglobin (Hb), neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio (NLR), platelet to lymphocyte ratio (PLR), lymphocyte to monocyte ratio (LMR), and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) can prognosticate overall survival (OS) in de novo mHSPC. This is a secondary analysis of the LATITUDE trial in which high-risk de novo mHSPC patients were randomly assigned to receive either androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) plus abiraterone or ADT plus placebo. We used a five-fold cross-validated joint model approach to determine the association of temporal changes in the serological markers with OS. Decision curve analysis was applied to determine the net benefit. When dynamic changes in Hb, LMR, NLR, PLR, and PSA were included in a multivariate joint model, an increase in the log of the current value of PSA (HR: 1.24 [1.20-1.28]) was associated with inferior OS. A multivariate joint model that captured dynamic trajectory of Hb, NLR, PLR, LMR, and PSA up to 24 months, showed a net benefit over the "treat all" strategy at a threshold of probability of approximately ≥30% while no net benefit was seen when dynamic change in PSA was omitted. Our joint model could be used for designing future adaptive trials investigating sequential treatment personalization.

Implications of metastatic stage at presentation in docetaxel naïve metastatic castrate resistant prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: We performed a secondary analysis of ACIS study to determine if synchronous versus metachronous metastatic presentation has any association with survival and treatment response to dual androgen receptor axis-targeted therapy (ARAT) in docetaxel naïve metastatic castrate resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). METHODOLOGY: In this phase III randomized controlled trial, docetaxel naïve mCRPC patients were randomized to either apalutamide or placebo combined with abiraterone and prednisone. Multivariable Cox regression models were applied to determine the adjusted association of M-stage with radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) and overall survival (OS). To determine the heterogeneity of treatment effect based on metastatic stage (M-stage) at presentation, Cox regression was applied with interaction terms between M-stage and treatment. RESULTS: Among 972 patients, 432 had M0, 334 had M1, while M-stage at presentation was unknown in 206. There was no association of M-stage at presentation with rPFS in patients with prior local therapy (LT) (hazard ratio for M1-stage: 1.22 [95% confidence interval: 0.82-1.82]; unknown: 1.03 [0.77-1.38]) or without prior LT (M1-stage: 0.87 [0.64-1.19]; unknown: 1.15 [0.77-1.72]) with no significant heterogeneity. Similarly, there was no association of M-stage with OS in patients with prior LT (M1-stage: 1.04 [0.81-1.33]; unknown: 0.98 [0.79-1.21]) or without prior LT (M1-stage: 0.95 [0.70-1.29]; unknown: 1.17 [0.80-1.71]) with no significant heterogeneity. Based on M-stage at presentation, we did not find any significant heterogeneity in treatment effect on rPFS (interaction p = 0.13), and OS (interaction p = 0.87). CONCLUSION: M-stage at presentation had no association with survival in chemotherapy-naïve mCRPC. We did not find any statistically significant heterogeneity in efficacy of dual ARAT based on synchronous versus metachronous presentation.

Effect of Prior Local Therapy on Response to First-line Androgen Receptor Axis Targeted Therapy in Metastatic Castrate-resistant Prostate Cancer: A Secondary Analysis of the COU-AA-302 Trial.

BACKGROUND: Men with localized prostate cancer are often treated with local therapy (LT). However, a proportion of these patients will eventually develop recurrence and progression requiring systemic therapy. Whether primary LT affects the response to this subsequent systemic treatment is unclear. OBJECTIVE: We investigated whether the receipt of prior prostate-directed LT influenced the response to first-line systemic therapy and survival in docetaxel-naïve metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) patients. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This is an exploratory analysis of the COU-AA-302 trial, a multicentric double-blinded phase 3 randomized controlled trial in which mCRPC patients with no to mild symptoms were randomized to receive abiraterone plus prednisone or placebo plus prednisone. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: We compared the time-varying effects of first-line abiraterone in patients with and without prior LT using a Cox proportional hazard model. The cut points were chosen using grid search, and were 6 and 36 mo for radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) and overall survival (OS), respectively. We also investigated whether there was any difference in treatment effect on score change (relative to baseline) in various patient-reported outcomes (measured by Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Prostate [FACT-P]) over time depending on the receipt of prior LT. The adjusted association of prior LT with survival was determined using weighted Cox regression models. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Among 1053 eligible patients, 64% (n = 669) received prior LT. We did not find any statistically significant heterogeneity of time-dependent treatment effect from abiraterone on rPFS in patients with (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.36 [95% confidence interval: 0.27-0.49] at ≤6 mo; 0.64 [0.49-0.83] at >6 mo) or without (HR: 0.37 [0.26-0.55] at ≤6 mo; 0.72 [0.50-1.03] at >6 mo) prior LT. Similarly, there was no significant heterogeneity in time-dependent treatment effect on OS with (HR: 0.88 [0.71-1.10] at ≤36 mo; 0.76 [0.52-1.11] at >36 mo) or without (0.78 [0.60-1.01] at ≤36 mo; 0.55 [0.30-0.99] at >36 mo) prior LT. We did not find sufficient evidence of a difference in treatment effect from abiraterone on score change over time in prostate cancer subscale (interaction p = 0.4), trial outcome index (interaction p = 0.8), and FACT-P total score (interaction p = 0.6) depending on the receipt of prior LT. Receipt of prior LT was associated with a significant improvement in OS (average HR: 0.72 [0.59-0.89]). CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that the efficacy of first-line abiraterone and prednisone in docetaxel-naïve mCRPC do not vary significantly based on the receipt of prior prostate-directed LT. Further studies are needed to explore the plausible mechanisms of the association of prior LT with superior OS. PATIENT SUMMARY: This secondary analysis of the COU-AA-302 trial suggests that survival benefits and temporal changes in quality of life with first-line abiraterone in docetaxel-naïve mCRPC do not differ significantly among patients who received versus those who did not receive prior prostate-directed local therapy.

Implementation of a Web-Based Communication System for Primary Care Providers and Cancer Specialists.

Healthcare providers have reported challenges with coordinating care for patients with cancer. Digital technology tools have brought new possibilities for improving care coordination. A web- and text-based asynchronous system (eOncoNote) was implemented in Ottawa, Canada for cancer specialists and primary care providers (PCPs). This study aimed to examine PCPs' experiences of implementing eOncoNote and how access to the system influenced communication between PCPs and cancer specialists. As part of a larger study, we collected and analyzed system usage data and administered an end-of-discussion survey to understand the perceived value of using eOncoNote. eOncoNote data were analyzed for 76 shared patients (33 patients receiving treatment and 43 patients in the survivorship phase). Thirty-nine percent of the PCPs responded to the cancer specialist's initial eOncoNote message and nearly all of those sent only one message. Forty-five percent of the PCPs completed the survey. Most PCPs reported no additional benefits of using eOncoNote and emphasized the need for electronic medical record (EMR) integration. Over half of the PCPs indicated that eOncoNote could be a helpful service if they had questions about a patient. Future research should examine opportunities for EMR integration and whether additional interventions could support communication between PCPs and cancer specialists.

Web-Based Asynchronous Tool to Facilitate Communication Between Primary Care Providers and Cancer Specialists: Pragmatic Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Cancer poses a significant global health burden. With advances in screening and treatment, there are now a growing number of cancer survivors with complex needs, requiring the involvement of multiple health care providers. Previous studies have identified problems related to communication and care coordination between primary care providers (PCPs) and cancer specialists. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to examine whether a web- and text-based asynchronous system (eOncoNote) could facilitate communication between PCPs and cancer specialists (oncologists and oncology nurses) to improve patient-reported continuity of care among patients receiving treatment or posttreatment survivorship care. METHODS: In this pragmatic randomized controlled trial, a total of 173 patients were randomly assigned to either the intervention group (eOncoNote plus usual methods of communication between PCPs and cancer specialists) or a control group (usual communication only), including 104 (60.1%) patients in the survivorship phase (breast and colorectal cancer) and 69 (39.9%) patients in the treatment phase (breast and prostate cancer). The primary outcome was patient-reported team and cross-boundary continuity (Nijmegen Continuity Questionnaire). Secondary outcome measures included the Generalized Anxiety Disorder Screener (GAD-7), Patient Health Questionnaire on Major Depression, and Picker Patient Experience Questionnaire. Patients completed the questionnaires at baseline and at 2 points following randomization. Patients in the treatment phase completed follow-up questionnaires at 1 month and at either 4 months (patients with prostate cancer) or 6 months following randomization (patients with breast cancer). Patients in the survivorship phase completed follow-up questionnaires at 6 months and at 12 months following randomization. RESULTS: The results did not show an intervention effect on the primary outcome of team and cross-boundary continuity of care or on the secondary outcomes of depression and patient experience with their health care. However, there was an intervention effect on anxiety. In the treatment phase, there was a statistically significant difference in the change score from baseline to the 1-month follow-up for GAD-7 (mean difference -2.3; P=.03). In the survivorship phase, there was a statistically significant difference in the change score for GAD-7 between baseline and the 6-month follow-up (mean difference -1.7; P=.03) and between baseline and the 12-month follow-up (mean difference -2.4; P=.004). CONCLUSIONS: PCPs' and cancer specialists' access to eOncoNote is not significantly associated with patient-reported continuity of care. However, PCPs' and cancer specialists' access to the eOncoNote intervention may be a factor in reducing patient anxiety. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03333785; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03333785.

Development and validation of a multivariable prognostic model in de novo metastatic castrate sensitive prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: Metastatic castrate sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC) is a heterogeneous disease state with variable prognosis. Although several life-prolonging systemic agents are available, there is no robust multivariable model to predict prognosis and improve risk stratification in mCSPC. The objective of this study was to build and validate a multivariable prognostic model to predict overall survival (OS) in mCSPC. METHODS: We used data from LATITUDE, a phase III randomized controlled trial in which men with de novo mCSPC were randomly allocated to either ADT plus abiraterone or ADT with placebo. Patients with non-missing data (n = 1,058) were randomly split in a 70:30 ratio to training (n = 743) and testing (n = 315) sets. Elastic net regression was used for variable selection. A multivariable Cox regression model for OS was then fitted using the selected variables. The predictive accuracy of the model was assessed on the testing set using the time-dependent area under curve (tAUC) with bootstrapped confidence intervals [CI] primarily for OS and secondarily for radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS). RESULTS: The 11 prognostic variables in the final model were performance status, number of skeletal metastases, Gleason score, presence of liver metastasis, worst pain score, albumin, lactate dehydrogenase, prostate-specific antigen, hemoglobin, and treatment regimen. The tAUC for predicting OS at 2- and 3-years was 0.74 (95% CI, 0.67-0.80) and 0.72 (95% CI, 0.65-0.77), respectively. The tAUC for rPFS at 2- and 3-years was 0.72 (95% CI, 0.65-0.77) and 0.77 (95% CI, 0.70-0.82), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: A prognostic model for men with de novo mCSPC was developed and validated in an independent testing set. Our model had high accuracy for predicting OS and rPFS. The model includes commonly used clinical and laboratory parameters and can guide risk stratification of these patients for participation in future trials.

Real-world utilization and outcomes of docetaxel among older men with metastatic prostate cancer: a retrospective population-based cohort study in Canada.

BACKGROUND: The adoption of docetaxel for systemic treatment of metastatic prostate cancer (PCa), in both castration-sensitive (mCSPC) and castration-resistant (mCRPC) settings, is poorly understood. This study examined the real-world utilization of docetaxel in these patients and their outcomes. METHODS: A retrospective population-based study used administrative data from Ontario, Canada, to identify men aged ≥66 years who were diagnosed with de novo mCSPC or mCRPC between 2014 and 2019 and received docetaxel. The study assessed treatment tolerability and toxicity, and survival in both cohorts. Descriptive and comparative statistical analysis were conducted. RESULTS: The study identified 11.2% (399/3556) and 13.2% (203/1534) patients diagnosed with de novo mCSPC and with mCRPC who received docetaxel respectively. The median age in both cohorts was 72 years (IQR: 68-76). Overall, 43.9% (n = 175) patients with de novo mCSPC and 52.1% (n = 85) with mCRPC completed ≥6 cycles of docetaxel. Over two-fifth also needed dose adjustments in both cohorts. Hospitalization or emergency department visit for febrile neutropenia were noted in 15.8% (n = 63) of de novo mCSPC patients and similarly in 19% (n = 31) of mCRPC cohort. The median survival of PCa patients who completed ≥6 cycles of docetaxel was significantly longer relative to those who completed <4 cycles: 32.7 vs. 23.5 months (p < 0.001) for mCSPC and 20.5 vs. 10.7 (p = 0.012) for mCRPC respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In this population-based study of elderly patients with metastatic PCa, treatment with docetaxel was associated with poor tolerability and higher toxicity compared with clinical trials. Receipt of limited cycles and reduced overall dose of docetaxel were associated with inferior overall survival.

Association of dynamic change in patient-reported pain with survival in metastatic castrate sensitive prostate cancer-exploratory analysis of LATITUDE study.

BACKGROUND: Pain is an important dimension of quality-of-life in patients with metastatic castrate-sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC). However, it is unclear if dynamic change in pain over time can predict for overall survival (OS) or progression-free survival (PFS) in these patients. METHODS: This is an exploratory analysis of LATITUDE, a phase III randomized study, in which men with de novo mCSPC were randomized to receive either ADT plus abiraterone versus ADT alone. Information was collected on patient-reported worst pain score (WPS) and pain-interference score (PIS) from the Brief Pain Inventory-Short Form. A Bayesian joint modelling approach was used determine the association of dynamic change in WPS and PIS with OS and PFS. RESULTS: Overall, 1125 patients with at least 3 measurements on pain scores were eligible. On Cox multivariable regression, increase in baseline WPS was associated with inferior OS (hazard ratio [HR] 1.049 [95% confidence intervals [CI] 1.015-1.085]; time dependent area under curve [tAUC] 0.64) and PFS (HR 1.045 [1.011-1.080]; tAUC: 0.64). Increase in baseline PIS was associated with inferior OS (HR 1.062 [1.020-1.105]; tAUC: 0.63) but not with PFS (HR 1.038 [0.996-1.08]). On independent joint models, an increase in the current value of WPS by 1-unit was associated with inferior OS (HR 1.316 [1.258-1.376]; tAUC 0.74) and PFS (HR 1.319 [1.260-1.382]; tAUC 0.70). Similar association was seen for increase in the current value of PIS with OS (HR 1.319 [1.261-1.381]; tAUC 0.73) and PFS (HR 1.282 [1.224-1.344]; tAUC 0.73). CONCLUSIONS: The above findings highlight the potential dynamic interplay between patient-reported pain with OS and PFS in mCSPC. Compared to baseline pain, such dynamic assessment of pain was found to have superior predictive ability and thus has the potential to tailor subsequent treatment based on response to initial therapy beyond its role as a very important dimension of quality-of-life.

Patient and Healthcare Provider Perspectives on the Implementation of a Web-Based Clinical Communication System for Cancer: A Qualitative Study.

Previous research has identified communication and care coordination problems for patients with cancer. Healthcare providers (HCPs) have reported communication issues due to the incompatibility of electronic medical records (EMR) software and not being consistently copied on patient reports. We evaluated an asynchronous web-based communication system ("eOncoNote") for primary care providers and cancer specialists to improve cancer care coordination. The objectives were to examine patients' perceptions of the role of eOncoNote in their healthcare, and HCPs' experiences of implementing eOncoNote. Qualitative interviews were conducted with patients with breast and prostate cancer, primary care providers, and cancer specialists. Eighteen patients and fourteen HCPs participated. Six themes were identified from the patient interviews focusing on HCP and patient roles related to care coordination and patient awareness of communication among their HCPs. Four themes were identified from HCP interviews related to the context of care coordination and experience with eOncoNote. Both patients and HCPs described the important role patients and caregivers play in care coordination. The results show that patients were often unaware of the communication between their HCPs and assumed they were communicating. HCPs encountered challenges incorporating eOncoNote into their workflow.

5-year outcomes after stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy for primary renal cell carcinoma: an individual patient data meta-analysis from IROCK (the International Radiosurgery Consortium of the Kidney).

BACKGROUND: Stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy (SABR) is a non-invasive treatment option for primary renal cell carcinoma, for which long-term data are awaited. The primary aim of this study was to report on long-term efficacy and safety of SABR for localised renal cell carcinoma. METHODS: This study was an individual patient data meta-analysis, for which patients undergoing SABR for primary renal cell carcinoma across 12 institutions in five countries (Australia, Canada, Germany, Japan, and the USA) were eligible. Eligible patients had at least 2 years of follow-up, were aged 18 years or older, had any performance status, and had no previous local therapy. Patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma or upper-tract urothelial carcinoma were excluded. SABR was delivered as a single or multiple fractions of greater than 5 Gy. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed local failure per the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours version 1.1, and was evaluated using cumulative incidence functions. FINDINGS: 190 patients received SABR between March 23, 2007, and Sept 20, 2018. Single-fraction SABR was delivered in 81 (43%) patients and multifraction SABR was delivered in 109 (57%) patients. Median follow-up was 5·0 years (IQR 3·4-6·8). 139 (73%) patients were men, and 51 (27%) were women. Median age was 73·6 years (IQR 66·2-82·0). Median tumour diameter was 4·0 cm (IQR 2·8-4·9). 96 (75%) of 128 patients with available operability details were deemed inoperable by the referring urologist. 56 (29%) of 190 patients had a solitary kidney. Median baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) was 60·0 mL/min per 1·73 m2 (IQR 42·0-76·0) and decreased by 14·2 mL/min per 1·73 m2 (IQR 5·4-22·5) by 5 years post-SABR. Seven (4%) patients required dialysis post-SABR. The cumulative incidence of local failure at 5 years was 5·5% (95% CI 2·8-9·5) overall, with single-fraction SABR yielding fewer local failures than multifraction (Gray's p=0·020). There were no grade 3 toxic effects or treatment-related deaths. One (1%) patient developed an acute grade 4 duodenal ulcer and late grade 4 gastritis. INTERPRETATION: SABR is effective and safe in the long term for patients with primary renal cell carcinoma. Single-fraction SABR might yield less local failure than multifraction, but further evidence from randomised trials is needed to elucidate optimal treatment schedules. These mature data lend further support for renal SABR as a treatment option for patients unwilling or unfit to undergo surgery. FUNDING: None.

Patterns of care for non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: A population-based study.

Objectives: To describe patterns of practice of PSA testing and imaging for Ontario men receiving continuous ADT for the treatment of non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC). Patients and Methods: This was a retrospective, longitudinal, population-based study of administrative health data from 2008 to 2019. Men 65 years and older receiving continuous androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) with documented CRPC were included. An administrative proxy definition was applied to capture patients with nmCRPC and excluded those with metastatic disease. Patients were indexed upon progression to CRPC and were followed until death or end of study period to assess frequency of monitoring with PSA tests and conventional imaging. A 2-year look-back window was used to assess patterns of care leading up to CRPC as well as baseline covariates. Results: At a median follow-up of 40.1 months, 944 patients with nmCRPC were identified. Their median time from initiation of continuous ADT to CRPC was 26.0 months. 60.7% of patients had their PSA measured twice or fewer in the year prior to index, and 70.7% patients did not receive any imaging in the year following progression to CRPC. Throughout the study period, 921/944 (97.6%) patients with CRPC progressed to high-risk (HR-CRPC) with PSA doubling time ≤ 10 months, of which more than half received fewer than three PSA tests in the year prior to developing HR-CRPC, and 30.9% received no imaging in the subsequent year. Conclusion: PSA testing and imaging studies are underutilized in a real-world setting for the management of nmCRPC, including those at high risk of developing metastatic disease. Infrequent monitoring impedes proper risk stratification, disease staging and detection of treatment failure and/or metastases, thereby delaying the necessary treatment intensification with life-prolonging therapies. Adherence to guideline recommendations and the importance of timely staging should be reinforced to optimize patient outcomes.

Addition of Docetaxel to Androgen Receptor Axis-targeted Therapy and Androgen Deprivation Therapy in Metastatic Hormone-sensitive Prostate Cancer: A Network Meta-analysis.

CONTEXT: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have shown that addition of docetaxel or androgen receptor axis-targeted therapy (ARAT) to androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) or addition of ARAT to ADT and docetaxel improves overall survival (OS) in metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC). However, it is unknown whether docetaxel, when given as part of triplet therapy, has an independent OS benefit. OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy of ADT plus ARAT with the triplet of ADT, ARAT, and docetaxel through a network meta-analysis (NMA) of RCTs in mHSPC. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: Bibliographic databases and conference proceedings were searched in March 2022 for RCTs that evaluated the addition of docetaxel, ARAT, or both to ADT in mHSPC. The primary endpoint was OS. Standard random-effect NMA and Bayesian analyses were performed to compare ADT plus ARAT with triplet therapy. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Eleven RCTs (n = 11 546) were eligible. Compared with ADT plus ARAT, the triplet had a nonsignificant OS benefit (hazard ratio [HR] 0.89, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.68-1.16), while ADT plus docetaxel (HR 1.16 [0.94-1.43]) and ADT alone (HR 1.46 [1.30-1.64]) had an increased risk of death. By P-score ordering, the triplet was the most effective treatment strategy (P score = 0.936) followed by ADT plus ARAT (P score = 0.704). The triplet had a 77% likelihood of being the best treatment strategy compared with a 23% likelihood for ADT plus ARAT. CONCLUSIONS: The triplet of ADT, ARAT, and docetaxel was the highest ranked treatment strategy, but it did not confer a statistically significant OS benefit over ADT plus ARAT. This NMA provides the highest-level comparative evidence for these treatment approaches in the initial management of mHSPC. PATIENT SUMMARY: We synthesized the available evidence from clinical trials conducted in newly diagnosed metastatic prostate cancer to compare the survival of patients receiving triplet therapy (androgen receptor axis-targeted therapy [ARAT], androgen deprivation therapy [ADT], and docetaxel) with those receiving only ARAT and ADT. We conclude that the triplet is a somewhat more effective treatment approach.

Real-world use of systemic therapies in men with metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) in Canada.

BACKGROUND: Management of advanced prostate cancer has evolved rapidly with the availability of multiple systemic treatments such as androgen-receptor axis-targeted therapies (ARATs), taxane-based chemotherapy, radium-223, and other approaches. However, limited data exists on real-world treatment selection and clinical outcomes. This study examines the utilization and survival impact of these therapies in men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) in the real-world setting of Ontario, Canada. METHODS: This study was a retrospective, longitudinal, population-based study of administrative claims data between January 2016 and April 2020. Men ≥ 66 years with mCRPC receiving advanced treatment were included. Patients were indexed on the day they initiated mCRPC treatment and followed up until death or end of study period to assess treatment and survival. Multinomial regression was used to model the association between baseline covariates, treatment and survival. RESULTS: Median age was 75 years among the 944 mCRPC patients who received life-prolonging therapies during this time period. Over 90% of patients used an ARAT as a first-line therapy, and 71.5% received only first-line therapy before death or censoring. Of patients that received two or more lines, over 80% received subsequent therapy with a different mechanism of action. Median overall survival was 18.9 months. CONCLUSIONS: ARATs have become the predominant first-line systemic treatment option for mCRPC patients in recent years. Notably, the majority of patients received only a single line of life-prolonging therapy after developing mCRPC. In keeping with the recognized efficacy-effectiveness gap, real-world outcomes in this cohort appear poorer than in clinical trials.