The Patient Perspective on Colectomy for Recurrent Diverticulitis: A Qualitative Study.

OBJECTIVE: Understand the patient's decision-making process regarding colectomy for recurrent diverticulitis. BACKGROUND: The decision to pursue elective colectomy for recurrent diverticulitis is highly preference-sensitive. Little is known about the patient's perspective in this decision-making process. METHODS: We performed a qualitative study utilizing focus groups of patients with recurrent diverticulitis at 3 centers across the United States. Using an iterative inductive/deductive approach, we developed a conceptual framework to capture the major themes identified in the coded data. RESULTS: From March 2019 to July 2020, 39 patients were enrolled across 3 sites and participated in 6 focus groups. After coding the transcripts using a hierarchical coding system, a conceptual framework was developed. Major themes identified included participants' beliefs about surgery, such as normative beliefs (eg, subjective, value placed on surgery), control beliefs (eg, self-efficacy, stage of change), and anticipated outcomes (eg, expectations, anticipated regret); the role of behavioral management strategies (eg, fiber, eliminate bad habits); emotional experiences (eg, depression, embarrassment); current symptoms (eg, severity, timing); and quality of life (eg, cognitive load, psychosocial factors). Three sets of moderating factors influencing patient choice were identified: clinical history (eg, source of diagnosis, multiple surgeries), clinical protocols (eg, pre-op and post-op education), and provider-specific factors (eg, specialty, choice of surgeon). CONCLUSIONS: Patients view the decision to undergo colectomy through 3 major themes: their beliefs about surgery, their psychosocial context, and moderating factors that influence participant choice to undergo surgery. This knowledge is essential both for clinicians counseling patients who are considering colectomy and for researchers studying the process to optimize care for recurrent diverticulitis.

What is cancer? A focus on Grade Group 1 prostate cancer.

Since the widespread adoption of prostate-specific antigen-based screening for prostate cancer, the prevalence of Grade Group 1 (GG1) prostate cancer has risen. Historically, these patients were subjected to overtreatment of this otherwise indolent disease process, leading to significant quality-of-life detriments. Active surveillance as a primary management strategy has allowed for a focus on early detection while minimising morbidity from unnecessary intervention. Here we provide a comprehensive overview of the characteristics of GG1 prostatic adenocarcinoma, including its histological features, genomic differentiators, clinical progression, and implications for treatment guidelines, all supporting the movement to reclassify GG1 disease as a non-cancerous entity.

Functional Outcomes After Localized Prostate Cancer Treatment.

Importance: Adverse outcomes associated with treatments for localized prostate cancer remain unclear. Objective: To compare rates of adverse functional outcomes between specific treatments for localized prostate cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants: An observational cohort study using data from 5 US Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program registries. Participants were treated for localized prostate cancer between 2011 and 2012. At baseline, 1877 had favorable-prognosis prostate cancer (defined as cT1-cT2bN0M0, prostate-specific antigen level <20 ng/mL, and grade group 1-2) and 568 had unfavorable-prognosis prostate cancer (defined as cT2cN0M0, prostate-specific antigen level of 20-50 ng/mL, or grade group 3-5). Follow-up data were collected by questionnaire through February 1, 2022. Exposures: Radical prostatectomy (n = 1043), external beam radiotherapy (n = 359), brachytherapy (n = 96), or active surveillance (n = 379) for favorable-prognosis disease and radical prostatectomy (n = 362) or external beam radiotherapy with androgen deprivation therapy (n = 206) for unfavorable-prognosis disease. Main Outcomes and Measures: Outcomes were patient-reported sexual, urinary, bowel, and hormone function measured using the 26-item Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (range, 0-100; 100 = best). Associations of specific therapies with each outcome were estimated and compared at 10 years after treatment, adjusting for corresponding baseline scores, and patient and tumor characteristics. Minimum clinically important differences were 10 to 12 for sexual function, 6 to 9 for urinary incontinence, 5 to 7 for urinary irritation, and 4 to 6 for bowel and hormone function. Results: A total of 2445 patients with localized prostate cancer (median age, 64 years; 14% Black, 8% Hispanic) were included and followed up for a median of 9.5 years. Among 1877 patients with favorable prognosis, radical prostatectomy was associated with worse urinary incontinence (adjusted mean difference, -12.1 [95% CI, -16.2 to -8.0]), but not worse sexual function (adjusted mean difference, -7.2 [95% CI, -12.3 to -2.0]), compared with active surveillance. Among 568 patients with unfavorable prognosis, radical prostatectomy was associated with worse urinary incontinence (adjusted mean difference, -26.6 [95% CI, -35.0 to -18.2]), but not worse sexual function (adjusted mean difference, -1.4 [95% CI, -11.1 to 8.3), compared with external beam radiotherapy with androgen deprivation therapy. Among patients with unfavorable prognosis, external beam radiotherapy with androgen deprivation therapy was associated with worse bowel (adjusted mean difference, -4.9 [95% CI, -9.2 to -0.7]) and hormone (adjusted mean difference, -4.9 [95% CI, -9.5 to -0.3]) function compared with radical prostatectomy. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients treated for localized prostate cancer, radical prostatectomy was associated with worse urinary incontinence but not worse sexual function at 10-year follow-up compared with radiotherapy or surveillance among people with more favorable prognosis and compared with radiotherapy for those with unfavorable prognosis. Among men with unfavorable-prognosis disease, external beam radiotherapy with androgen deprivation therapy was associated with worse bowel and hormone function at 10-year follow-up compared with radical prostatectomy.

Health System Perspective on Cost for Delivering a Decision Aid for Prostate Cancer Using Time-driven Activity-based Costing.

BACKGROUND: Previsit decision aids (DAs) have promising outcomes in improving decisional quality, however, the cost to deploy a DA is not well defined, presenting a possible barrier to health system adoption. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to define the cost from a health system perspective of delivery of a DA. RESEARCH DESIGN: Observational cohort. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We interviewed or observed relevant personnel at 3 institutions with implemented DA distribution programs targeting men with prostate cancer. We then created process maps for DA delivery based on interview data. Cost determination was performed utilizing time-driven activity-based costing. Clinic visit length was measured on a subset of patients. Decisional quality measures were collected after the clinic visit. RESULTS: Total process time (minutes) for DA delivery was 10.14 (UCLA), 68 (Olive View-UCLA), and 25 (Vanderbilt). Total average costs (USD) per patient were $38.32 (UCLA), $59.96 (Olive View-UCLA), and $42.38 (Vanderbilt), respectively. Labor costs were the largest contributors to the cost of DA delivery. Variance analyses confirmed the cost efficiency of electronic health record (EHR) integration. We noted a shortening of clinic visit length when the DA was used, with high levels of decision quality. CONCLUSIONS: Time-driven activity-based costing is an effective approach to determining true inclusive costs of service delivery while also elucidating opportunities for cost containment. The absolute cost of delivering a DA to men with prostate cancer in various settings is much lower than the system costs of the treatments they consider. EHR integration streamlines DA delivery efficiency and results in substantial cost savings.

Coping Mechanisms for Financial Toxicity Among Patients With Metastatic Prostate Cancer: A Survey-based Assessment.

PURPOSE: Assessments of financial toxicity among patients with metastatic prostate cancer are lacking. Using patient surveys, we sought to identify coping mechanisms and assess characteristics associated with lower financial toxicity. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Surveys were administered to all patients seen at a single center's Advanced Prostate Cancer Clinic over a 3-month period. Surveys included the COST-FACIT (COmprehensive Score for Financial Toxicity) and coping mechanism questionnaires. Patients with metastatic disease (lymph nodes, bone, visceral) were included for analysis. Coping mechanisms were compared between patients experiencing low (COST-FACIT >24) vs high (COST-FACIT ≤24) financial toxicity using Fisher's exact test. Multivariable linear regression was used to evaluate characteristics associated with lower financial toxicity. RESULTS: Overall, 281 patients met inclusion criteria of which 79 reported high financial toxicity. In multivariable analysis, characteristics associated with lower financial toxicity included older age (estimate: 0.36, 95%CI: 0.21-0.52), applying for patient assistance programs (estimate: 4.42, 95%CI: 1.72-7.11), and an annual income of at least $100,000 (estimate: 7.81, 95%CI: 0.97, 14.66). Patients with high financial toxicity were more likely to decrease spending on basic goods (35% vs 2.5%, P < .001) and leisure activities (59% vs 15%, P > .001), as well as use savings (62% vs 17%, P < .001) to pay for their treatment. CONCLUSIONS: In this cross-sectional study, patients with metastatic prostate cancer and high financial toxicity were more likely to decrease spending on basic goods and leisure activities and use savings to pay for care. Understanding the impact of financial toxicity on patients' lives is crucial to inform shared decision-making and interventions designed to mitigate financial toxicity in this population.

Estimating the Impact of the Inflation Reduction Act on the Out-of-Pocket Costs for Medicare Beneficiaries With Advanced Prostate Cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Combination systemic therapy for advanced prostate cancer has reduced mortality, but high out-of-pocket costs impose financial barriers for patients. The Inflation Reduction Act's $2,000 out-of-pocket spending cap for Medicare's prescription drug benefit (Part D) can potentially lower out-of-pocket spending for beneficiaries starting in 2025. This study aims to compare out-of-pocket spending for commonly prescribed regimens for advanced prostate cancer before and after implementation of the Inflation Reduction Act. METHODS: Medication regimens constructed to treat metastatic, hormone-sensitive prostate cancer consisted of baseline androgen deprivation therapy with traditional chemotherapy, androgen receptor inhibitors, and androgen biosynthesis inhibitors. Using 2023 Medicare Part B prices and the Medicare Part D plan finder, we estimated annual out-of-pocket costs under current law and under the Inflation Reduction Act's redesigned standard Part D benefit. RESULTS: Under current law, out-of-pocket costs for Part D drugs ranged from $464 to $11,336 per year. Under the Inflation Reduction Act, annual out-of-pocket costs for 2 regimens remained unchanged: androgen deprivation therapy with docetaxel and androgen deprivation therapy with abiraterone and prednisone. However, out-of-pocket costs for regimens using branded novel hormonal therapy were significantly lower under the 2025 law with potential savings estimated to be $9,336 (79.2%) for apalutamide, $9,036 (78.7%) for enzalutamide, and $8,480 (76.5%) for docetaxel and darolutamide. CONCLUSIONS: The $2,000 spending cap introduced by the Inflation Reduction Act may significantly decrease out-of-pocket costs and reduce financial toxicity associated with advanced prostate cancer treatment, impacting an estimated 25,000 Medicare beneficiaries.

Projected Savings for Generic Oncology Drugs Purchased via Mark Cuban Cost Plus Drug Company Versus in Medicare.

PURPOSE: Self-administered oncology drugs contribute disproportionately to Medicare Part D spending; prices often remain high even after generic entry. Outlets for low-cost drugs such as Mark Cuban Cost Plus Drug Company (MCCPDC) offer opportunities for decreased Medicare, Part D, and beneficiary spending. We estimate potential savings if Part D plans obtained prices such as those offered under the MCCPDC for seven generic oncology drugs. METHODS: Using the 2020 Medicare Part D Spending dashboard, Q3-2022 Part D formulary prices, and Q3-2022 MCCPDC prices for seven self-administered generic oncology drugs, we estimated Medicare savings by replacing Q3-2022 Part D unit costs with costs under the MCCPDC plan. RESULTS: We estimate potential savings of $661.8 million (M) US dollars (USD; 78.8%) for the seven oncology drugs studied. Total savings ranged from $228.1M USD (56.1%) to $2,154.5M USD (92.4%) compared with 25th and 75th percentiles of Part D plan unit prices. The median savings replacing Part D plan prices were abiraterone $338.0M USD, anastrozole $1.2M USD, imatinib 100 mg $15.6M USD, imatinib 400 mg $212.0M USD, letrozole $1.9M USD, methotrexate $26.7M USD, raloxifene $63.8M USD, and tamoxifen $2.6M USD. All 30-day prescription drug prices offered by MCCPDC generated cost savings except for three drugs offered at the 25th percentile Part D formulary pricing: anastrozole, letrozole, and tamoxifen. CONCLUSION: Replacing current Part D median formulary prices with MCCPDC pricing could yield significant savings for seven generic oncology drugs. Individual beneficiaries could save nearly $25,200 USD per year for abiraterone or between $17,500 USD and $20,500 USD for imatinib. Notably, Part D cash-pay prices for abiraterone and imatinib under the catastrophic phase of coverage were still more expensive than baseline MCCPDC prices.

Effects of Specialist Palliative Care for Patients Undergoing Major Abdominal Surgery for Cancer: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Specialist palliative care benefits patients undergoing medical treatment of cancer; however, data are lacking on whether patients undergoing surgery for cancer similarly benefit from specialist palliative care. Objective: To determine the effect of a specialist palliative care intervention on patients undergoing surgery for cure or durable control of cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants: This was a single-center randomized clinical trial conducted from March 1, 2018, to October 28, 2021. Patients scheduled for specified intra-abdominal cancer operations were recruited from an academic urban referral center in the Southeastern US. Intervention: Preoperative consultation with palliative care specialists and postoperative inpatient and outpatient palliative care follow-up for 90 days. Main Outcomes and Measures: The prespecified primary end point was physical and functional quality of life (QoL) at postoperative day (POD) 90, measured by the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General (FACT-G) Trial Outcome Index (TOI), which is scored on a range of 0 to 56 with higher scores representing higher physical and functional QoL. Prespecified secondary end points included overall QoL at POD 90 measured by FACT-G, days alive at home until POD 90, and 1-year overall survival. Multivariable proportional odds logistic regression and Cox proportional hazards regression models were used to test the hypothesis that the intervention improved each of these end points relative to usual care in an intention-to-treat analysis. Results: A total of 235 eligible patients (median [IQR] age, 65.0 [56.8-71.1] years; 141 male [60.0%]) were randomly assigned to the intervention or usual care group in a 1:1 ratio. Specialist palliative care was received by 114 patients (97%) in the intervention group and 1 patient (1%) in the usual care group. Adjusted median scores on the FACT-G TOI measure of physical and functional QoL did not differ between groups (intervention score, 46.77; 95% CI, 44.18-49.04; usual care score, 46.23; 95% CI, 43.08-48.14; P = .46). Intervention vs usual care group odds ratio (OR) was 1.17 (95% CI, 0.77-1.80). Palliative care did not improve overall QoL measured by the FACT-G score (intervention vs usual care OR, 1.09; 95% CI, 0.75-1.58), days alive at home (OR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.69-1.11), or 1-year overall survival (hazard ratio, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.50-1.88). Conclusions and Relevance: This randomized clinical trial showed no evidence that early specialist palliative care improves the QoL of patients undergoing nonpalliative cancer operations. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03436290.

Association between body mass index and localized prostate cancer management and disease-specific quality of life.

Purpose: The purpose of this work is to describe the association between body mass index (BMI) and (1) management option for localized prostate cancer (PCa) and (2) disease-specific quality of life (ds-QoL) after treatment or active surveillance. Subjects/patients and methods: We analysed data from men with localized PCa managed with radical prostatectomy (RP), radiation therapy (RT), or active surveillance (AS) in a prospective, population-based cohort study. We evaluated the association between BMI and management option with multivariable multinomial logistic regression analysis. The association between BMI and ds-QoL was assessed using multivariable longitudinal linear regression. Regression models were adjusted for baseline domain scores, demographics, and clinicopathologic characteristics. Results: A total of 2378 men were included (medians [quartiles]: age 64 [59-69] years; BMI 27 kg/m2; 77% were non-Hispanic white); 29% were obese (BMI ≥ 30). Accounting for demographic and clinicopathologic features, BMI ≥ 28 kg/m2 was inversely associated with the likelihood of receiving RP (compared with RT) and became statistically significant at BMI ≥ 33 kg/m2 (maximum adjusted relative risk ratio = 0.80, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.95, p = 0.013 for BMI ≥ 33 vs. 25). Conversely, BMI was not significantly associated with the likelihood of receiving AS compared with RT. After stratification by management option, obese men who underwent definitive treatment were not found to have clinically worse ds-QoL. Obese men initially on AS appeared to have worse urinary incontinence than nonobese men, but this was not significant on an as-treated sensitivity analysis. Conclusions: Among men with localized PCa, those with BMI ≥ 33 kg/m2 were less likely to receive surgery than radiation. Obesity was not associated with ds-QoL in men undergoing definitive treatment, nor in men who remained on AS.

Association between adherence to radiation therapy quality metrics and patient reported outcomes in prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: Prior studies have shown significant variability in the quality of prostate cancer care in the US with questionable associations between quality measures and patient reported outcomes. We evaluated the impact of compliance with nationally recognized radiation therapy (RT) quality measures on patient-reported health-related quality of life (HRQOL) outcomes in the Comparative Effectiveness Analysis of Surgery and Radiation (CEASAR) cohort. METHODS: CEASAR is a population-based, prospective cohort study of men with localized prostate cancer from which we identified 649 who received primary RT and completed HRQOL surveys for inclusion. Eight quality measures were identified based on national guidelines. We analyzed the impact of compliance with these measures on HRQOL assessed by the 26-item Expanded Prostate Index Composite at pre-specified intervals up to 5 years after treatment. Multivariable analysis was performed controlling for demographic and clinicopathologic features. RESULTS: Among eligible participants, 566 (87%) patients received external beam radiation therapy and 83 (13%) received brachytherapy. Median age was 69 years (interquartile range: 64-73), 33% had low-, 43% intermediate-, and 23% high-risk disease. 28% received care non-compliant with at least one measure. In multivariable analyses, while some statistically significant associations were identified, there were no clinically significant associations between compliance with evaluated RT quality measures and patient reported urinary irritative, urinary incontinence, bowel, sexual or hormonal function. CONCLUSIONS: Compliance with RT quality measures was not meaningfully associated with patient-reported outcomes after prostate cancer treatment. Further work is needed to identify patient-centered quality measures of prostate cancer care.

Prostate volume, baseline urinary function, and their association with treatment choice and post-treatment urinary function in men treated for localized prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: Benign prostatic hyperplasia, lower urinary tract symptoms, and prostate cancer often co-occur. Their effect on urinary function is an important consideration regarding prostate cancer treatment choices. While prostate volume (PV) and urinary symptoms are commonly used in treatment choice decision making, their association with post-treatment urinary function is unknown. We evaluated the associations between PV and baseline urinary function with treatment choice and post-treatment urinary function among men with localized prostate cancer. METHODS: We identified 1647 patients from CEASAR, a multicenter population-based, prospective cohort study of men with localized prostate cancer, for analysis. Primary outcomes were treatment choice and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) assessed by the 26-item Expanded Prostate Index Composite (EPIC-26) at pre-specified intervals up to 5 years. Multivariable analysis was performed, controlling for demographic and clinicopathologic features. RESULTS: Median baseline PV was 36 mL (IQR 27-48), and baseline urinary irritative/obstructive domain score was 87 (IQR 75-100). There was no observed clinically meaningful association between PV and treatment choice or post-treatment urinary function. Among patients with poor baseline urinary function, treatment with radiation or surgery was associated with statistically and clinically significant improvement in urinary function at 6 months which was durable through 5 years (improvement from baseline at 5 years: radiation 20.4 points, surgery 24.5 points). CONCLUSIONS: PV was not found to be associated with treatment modality or post-treatment urinary irritative/obstructive function among men treated for localized prostate cancer. Men with poor baseline urinary irritative/obstructive function improve after treatment with surgery or radiation therapy.

Single cell analysis of cribriform prostate cancer reveals cell intrinsic and tumor microenvironmental pathways of aggressive disease.

Cribriform prostate cancer, found in both invasive cribriform carcinoma (ICC) and intraductal carcinoma (IDC), is an aggressive histological subtype that is associated with progression to lethal disease. To delineate the molecular and cellular underpinnings of ICC/IDC aggressiveness, this study examines paired ICC/IDC and benign prostate surgical samples by single-cell RNA-sequencing, TCR sequencing, and histology. ICC/IDC cancer cells express genes associated with metastasis and targets with potential for therapeutic intervention. Pathway analyses and ligand/receptor status model cellular interactions among ICC/IDC and the tumor microenvironment (TME) including JAG1/NOTCH. The ICC/IDC TME is hallmarked by increased angiogenesis and immunosuppressive fibroblasts (CTHRC1+ASPN+FAP+ENG+) along with fewer T cells, elevated T cell dysfunction, and increased C1QB+TREM2+APOE+-M2 macrophages. These findings support that cancer cell intrinsic pathways and a complex immunosuppressive TME contribute to the aggressive phenotype of ICC/IDC. These data highlight potential therapeutic opportunities to restore immune signaling in patients with ICC/IDC that may afford better outcomes.

Which traits affect how long patients with advanced prostate cancer live when treated with enzalutamide?

WHAT IS THIS SUMMARY ABOUT?: This is a summary of a research article originally published in European Journal of Cancer. The PROSPER study involved men who had a type of advanced prostate cancer called nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC). In men with nmCRPC, their cancer has progressed on traditional hormone therapy but scans show that it has not spread to other parts of the body. The main results of the PROSPER study showed that patients treated with enzalutamide lived longer than patients treated with placebo. For this analysis, researchers looked at whether this was different depending on patients' traits. WHAT WERE THE RESULTS?: Researchers found that age and location did not affect how long patients lived when treated with enzalutamide. They found three patient traits that did make a difference. Being able to carry out daily activities, low prostate-specific antigen level (PSA level), and receiving no other prostate cancer treatments after the study meant that patients were more likely to live longer. WHAT DO THE RESULTS OF THE STUDY MEAN?: Patients with nmCRPC treated with enzalutamide lived longer than patients treated with placebo. Age and location did not affect how long these patients lived, but other traits did. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT02003924 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

The Association Between Financial Toxicity and Treatment Regret in Men With Localized Prostate Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Financial toxicity is emerging as an important patient-centered outcome and is understudied in prostate cancer patients. We sought to understand the association between financial burden and treatment regret in men with localized prostate cancer to better evaluate the role of financial discussions in patient counseling. METHODS: Utilizing the Comparative Effectiveness Analysis of Surgery and Radiation dataset, we identified all men accrued between 2011 and 2012 who underwent surgery, radiation, or active surveillance for localized prostate cancer. Financial burden and treatment regret were assessed at 3- and 5-year follow-up. The association between financial burden and regret was assessed using multivariable longitudinal logistic regression controlling for demographic and disease characteristics, treatment, functional outcomes, and patient expectations. RESULTS: Of the 2924 eligible patients, regret and financial burden assessments for 3- and/or 5-year follow-up were available for 81% (n = 2359). After adjustment for relevant covariates, financial burden from "finances in general" was associated with treatment regret at 3 years (odds ratio [OR] = 2.47, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.33 to 4.57; P = .004); however, this association was no longer statistically significant at 5-year follow-up (OR = 1.19, 95% CI = 0.56 to 2.54; P = .7). CONCLUSIONS: In this population-based sample of men with localized prostate cancer, we observed associations between financial burden and treatment regret. Our findings suggest indirect treatment costs, especially during the first 3 years after diagnosis, may impact patients more profoundly than direct costs and are important for inclusion in shared decision making.

Out-of-Pocket Cost Burden Associated With Contemporary Management of Advanced Prostate Cancer Among Commercially Insured Patients.

PURPOSE: Out-of-pocket costs represent an important component of financial toxicity and may impact patients' receipt of care. Herein, we evaluated patient-level factors associated with out-of-pocket costs for contemporary advanced prostate cancer treatment options. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We identified all commercially insured men receiving treatment for advanced prostate cancer between 2007 and 2019 within the OptumLabs Data Warehouse®. Patients were categorized into 3 treatment groups: androgen deprivation monotherapy, novel hormonal therapy, and nonandrogen systemic therapy. The primary outcome was out-of-pocket costs in the first year of treatment. The associations of treatment and patient variables with out-of-pocket costs were assessed using multivariable regression models. All costs were adjusted to reflect 2019 U.S. dollars using the Consumer Price Index. RESULTS: In a cohort of 13,409 men 81% (n = 10,926) received androgen deprivation monotherapy, 6% (n = 832) novel hormonal therapy, and 12% (n = 1,651) nonandrogen systemic therapy. Mean treatment-related out-of-pocket costs in the first year were $165, $4,236, and $994 for androgen deprivation monotherapy, novel hormonal therapy, and nonandrogen systemic therapy, respectively. The adjusted difference in annual treatment-related out-of-pocket costs for novel hormonal therapy and nonandrogen systemic therapy were $2,581 (95% CI: $1,923-$3,240) and $752 (95% CI: $600-$903) higher than androgen deprivation monotherapy, respectively. Patient characteristics associated (P < .05) with higher treatment-related out-of-pocket costs included older age (65-74 years), Black race, lower comorbidity scores, and lower household income. CONCLUSIONS: Patients receiving novel hormonal therapy for advanced prostate cancer had substantially higher treatment-related out-of-pocket costs. In addition to raising awareness among prescribers, these data support the inclusion of treatment associated financial toxicity in shared decision making for advanced prostate cancer and call attention to subgroups of patients particularly vulnerable to financial toxicity.