Holler, Albert

Abstract Background: Historically, less than 10% of adult patients with cancer enroll in clinical trials, however, enrollment dropped further at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Barriers to trial participation during the pandemic have not been reported. As part of the TBCRC 057 survey on the impact of the pandemic on willingness to participate in breast cancer trials, we assessed reasons for reluctance to participate in trials during the pandemic. Methods: US residents who self-reported a breast cancer diagnosis were eligible to complete the online survey 8/6/21-9/30/21. Respondents indicated whether they were current trial participants and, if not, their willingness to consider participating in a trial during the pandemic using a 5-point scale (0-not at all willing to 4-definitely willing). Respondents who were not current trial participants and who were not “definitely willing” to consider participation during the pandemic were characterized as “reluctant” and asked to select reasons for their reluctance from a checklist. Pandemic-related anxiety was assessed on an 11-point scale (0-no anxiety to 10-worst anxiety possible). Respondents indicated how the option to conduct trial activities online would affect their decision to participate in a trial (much less likely, somewhat less likely, would not affect my decision, somewhat more likely, or much more likely). In exploratory analyses, we evaluated whether pandemic-related anxiety and favorable reactions towards opportunities to conduct trial activities online were associated with reluctance to consider trial participation during the pandemic due to fear of SARS-CoV-2 exposure. Means were compared with two sample t-tests and proportions with Fisher’s exact tests. Results: Of 385 survey respondents, 185 (48%) were characterized as reluctant to consider trial participation during the pandemic. Among these 185, median age was 55 (range 25-80), 85.7% were non-Hispanic White, 48.1% had metastatic disease and 44.2% received care at academic centers. Reasons for reluctance to consider trial participation during the pandemic cited by ≥15% of the 185 reluctant respondents are shown in the Table. Respondents who selected fear of exposure to SARS-CoV-2 as a reason for their reluctance to consider participating in a trial during the pandemic had higher mean pandemic-related anxiety (7.0 vs 5.2, p< 0.001). These respondents were more likely to indicate telemedicine doctor visits (p=0.01), virtual consents (p=0.001) and online study questionnaires (p=0.001) would make them somewhat or much more likely to participate in trials than respondents who did not select fear of exposure to SARS-CoV-2 as a reason for their reluctance. Conclusions: Reasons for reluctance of patients with breast cancer to consider participation in clinical trials during the pandemic are multifactorial. Although concerns about safety and efficacy remain prominent, fear of exposure to SARS-CoV-2 drives unwillingness to participate in >25% of reluctant patients. Trial accrual may benefit from incorporation of electronic activities when possible. Table Citation Format: Karen L. Smith, Carolyn Mead-Harvey, Gina L. Mazza, Albert E. Holler, Eileen Shinn, Elizabeth Frank, Michelle Melisko, Cyd Eaton, Jeannine M. Salamone, Teri Pollastro, Patricia Spears, Antonio C. Wolff, Gabrielle B. Rocque. Reasons for Reduced Willingness to Participate in Clinical Trials During the COVID-19 Pandemic: The Translational Breast Cancer Research Consortium (TBCRC) 057 Survey [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2022 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2022 Dec 6-10; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2023;83(5 Suppl):Abstract nr P6-08-07.

PURPOSE Two poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors (olaparib and rucaparib) are US Food and Drug Administration–approved for patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) harboring BRCA1/ 2 mutations, but the relative efficacy of PARP inhibition in BRCA1- versus BRCA2-altered mCRPC is understudied. METHODS We conducted a multicenter retrospective analysis involving 12 sites. We collected genomic and clinical data from 123 patients with BRCA1/ 2-altered mCRPC who were treated with PARP inhibitors. The primary efficacy end point was the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) response (≥ 50% PSA decline) rate. Secondary end points were PSA progression-free survival (PSA-PFS), clinical or radiographic PFS, and overall survival. We compared clinical outcomes, and other genomic characteristics, among BRCA1- versus BRCA2-altered mCRPC. RESULTS A total of 123 patients (13 BRCA1 and 110 BRCA2) were included. PARP inhibitors used were olaparib (n = 116), rucaparib (n = 3), talazoparib (n = 2), and veliparib (n = 2). At diagnosis, 72% of patients had Gleason 8-10 disease. BRCA1 patients were more likely to have metastatic disease at presentation (69% v 37%; P = .04). Age, baseline PSA, metastatic distribution, and types of previous systemic therapies were similar between groups. There were equal proportions of germline mutations (51% v 46%; P = .78) in both groups. BRCA1 patients had more monoallelic (56% v 41%; P = .49) and concurrent TP53 (55% v 36%; P = .32) mutations. PSA 50 responses in BRCA1- versus BRCA2-altered patients were 23% versus 63%, respectively ( P = .01). BRCA2 patients achieved longer PSA-PFS (HR, 1.94; 95% CI, 0.92 to 4.09; P = .08), PFS (HR, 2.08; 95% CI, 0.99 to 4.40; P = .05), and overall survival (HR, 3.01; 95% CI, 1.32 to 6.83; P = .008). Biallelic (compared with monoallelic) mutations, truncating (compared with missense) mutations, and absence of a concurrent TP53 mutation were associated with PARP inhibitor sensitivity. CONCLUSION PARP inhibitor efficacy is diminished in BRCA1- versus BRCA2-altered mCRPC. This is not due to an imbalance in germline mutations but might be related to more monoallelic mutations and/or concurrent TP53 alterations in the BRCA1 group.

100 Background: Two PARP inhibitors (olaparib, rucaparib) are now FDA approved for mCRPC patients with mutations in BRCA1/2, but the relative efficacy of PARP inhibition in BRCA1- vs BRCA2-altered mCRPC is understudied. Methods: We conducted a multi-center retrospective analysis involving 11 academic sites. We collected genomic and clinical data from 123 BRCA1/2-altered mCRPC patients receiving PARP inhibitor treatment. The primary efficacy endpoint was PSA50 response rate (≥50% decline in PSA level). Secondary endpoints were PFS (clinical, radiographic or PSA progression, whichever occurred first) and overall survival (OS). We also captured information on other concurrent genomic alterations. We compared genomic characteristics and clinical outcomes among BRCA1- vs BRCA2-altered mCRPC. Results: A total of 123 patients (13 BRCA1, 110 BRCA2) were included. PARP inhibitors used were olaparib (n = 116), rucaparib (n = 3), talazoparib (n = 2) and veliparib (n = 2). All BRCA1 and 71% of BRCA2 patients had Gleason 8-10 disease. Compared to BRCA2 patients, BRCA1 patients were more likely to have received prior taxane chemotherapy (77% vs 62%). Age, baseline PSA, and prior enzalutamide/abiraterone treatment were similar between groups. PSA50 responses in BRCA1- vs BRCA2-altered patients were 38% vs 65% respectively ( P= 0.06). Median PFS in BRCA1 vs BRCA2 patients was 3.0 mo (95%CI, 0.9–5.1) vs 8.0 mo (95%CI, 5.3–10.6) respectively (HR 0.42, P= 0.01). Similarly, median OS in BRCA1 vs BRCA2 patients was 11.0 mo (95%CI, 9.9–12.1) vs 24.0 mo (95%CI, 18.2–29.8) respectively (HR 0.33, P= 0.005). There were roughly equal proportions of germline mutations (50% vs 45%) and biallelic mutations (31% vs 25%) in the BRCA2 and BRCA1 groups, respectively. There were numerically more TP53 mutations in the BRCA1 vs BRCA2 group (40% vs 29%, P= 0.45), but an equal number of mutations in other key genes ( PTEN, RB1 and AR). Conclusions: PARP inhibitor activity is diminished in BRCA1- vs BRCA2-altered mCRPC. In our cohort, this differential activity was not explained by mutation origin (germline vs somatic) or allelic status (mono- vs biallelic). These findings warrant validation.