Guha, Avirup

57 Background: Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the leading non-cancer cause of death among men with prostate cancer (PC), particularly during androgen-deprivation therapy. While CVD risk-prediction models are well established in the general population, barriers to integration within oncology workflows remain poorly defined. Guided by the PRISM and RE-AIM frameworks, this study evaluated multilevel determinants influencing adoption, feasibility, and sustainability of CVD risk-assessment tools in PC care. Methods: A national, cross-sectional survey of 45 physicians (medical oncology 49%, urology 38%, radiation oncology 13%) from 18 U.S. states was conducted. Respondents represented early- (27%), mid- (36%), and late-career (38%) clinicians across academic (87%) and community (13%) settings. Quantitative items mapped to PRISM/RE-AIM domains assessed adaptability, cost/resource feasibility, effectiveness, equity, and sustainability; open-ended responses explored contextual barriers and facilitators. Descriptive statistics summarized quantitative data. Results: Physicians reported moderate-to-high readiness to adopt a CVD risk-assessment tool, emphasizing workflow alignment and EHR integration over algorithmic complexity. Table 1 summarizes domain-specific findings. Ninety-three percent of respondents favored lab-independent models that minimize workflow disruption. Conclusions: Pre-implementation analysis highlighted that structural barriers, rather than algorithmic or statistical limitations, remain the primary obstacles to adopting CVD risk-assessment tools in prostate-cancer care. Physicians emphasized the need for EHR-integrated, non-laboratory-based, and time-efficient tools that align with routine oncology workflows and minimize cross-specialty friction. Addressing these practical and organizational determinants may be pivotal to achieving equitable, scalable, and sustainable cardio-oncology implementation across diverse practice settings. PRISM and RE-AIM constructs evaluation results. Construct Likely/Very Likely (%) Interpretation Perceived Effectiveness 87% Broad confidence in clinical utility Equity in Patient Reach 75% Strong perceived equity in reach Equity in Effectiveness 73% Expected to perform consistently across populations Adaptability to Workflow 71% High compatibility with existing clinic workflows Cost/Resource Feasibility 65% Feasible for resource-constrained settings Likelihood of Adoption 60% Moderate readiness for implementation Equity in Adoption 58% Equitable uptake possible despite resource differences Reach to Target Population 57% Moderate likelihood of reaching most patients Sustainability Over Time 51% Moderate long-term feasibility Consistency of Implementation 42% Need for standardized protocols

352 Background: Glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP1) receptor expression in prostate cancer tissue has raised concerns that GLP1 receptor agonists (GLP1A) may influence tumor growth or progression. We compared prostate cancer severity at diagnosis among patients receiving GLP1A versus other glucose lowering therapies. Methods: A retrospective chart review identified patients who received GLP1A or alternative second-line glucose lowering agents (DPP4/SGLT2 inhibitors) and were subsequently diagnosed with prostate cancer. Patients receiving both drug classes were excluded. Baseline demographics (race, ethnicity, age), comorbidities (diabetes, myocardial infarction, peripheral vascular disease) concomitant medications (insulin, metformin, statins), appointments (within past year) and laboratory values (HbA1c, eGFR) at therapy initiation were recorded. Primary outcomes included Gleason grade group and metastatic presentation within three months of diagnosis. Propensity score matching balanced baseline characteristics between groups. Mann-Whitney U tests compared grade groups. Chi-square tests compared metastatic presentation, reporting odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Multivariable logistic regression identified predictors of grade group (low-grade: 1-2; high-grade: ≥3) and metastatic presentation, reporting OR with 95% CI. A p value <0.05 indicated a significant association. Results: Of 260 propensity-matched patients (GLP1A: 130, comparison: 130), 87% were White and 95% were Non-Hispanic/Non-Latino in each group. Median HbA1c was 7% (IQR: 6.4-8) in GLP1A group versus 7.5% (6.2-8.5) in comparison group. Median eGFR was 75mL/min/1.73m 2 (IQR: 61.5-90.0) in GLP1A group versus 60.0 (52.0-80.5) in comparison group. High-grade disease occurred in 33 (25%) GLP1A patients and 37 (29%) comparison patients. Among patients with available imaging (GLP1A: 40; comparison: 32), metastatic presentation occurred in 7 (18%) GLP1A group and 7 (22%) comparison group patients. No significant differences were observed in grade group (GLP1A median: 2; IQR: 1-2 vs. comparison median: 2; 1-3; p=0.44) or metastatic presentation (OR: 1.32; 95%CI: 0.41-4.25; p=0.64) between groups. In multivariable analysis, higher HbA1c was associated with high-grade disease in GLP1A group (OR: 1.83; 95%CI: 1.07-3.35; p=0.03) while higher eGFR was associated with low-grade disease in the comparison group (0.97; 0.93-0.99; p=0.04). Conclusions: GLP1A use was not associated with prostate cancer grade or metastatic presentation at diagnosis compared to alternative glucose-lowering agents. However, the association between elevated HbA1c and high-grade disease in GLP1A patients suggests a potential impact of poor glycemic control on tumor biology. Prospective studies are needed to elucidate the relationship between metabolic dysregulation and prostate cancer severity.

145 Background: Multiple trials have demonstrated addition of androgen-receptor pathway inhibitors (ARPIs) improve survival in patients with metastatic prostate cancer but there is a need to quantify cardiovascular toxicity. Understanding the nature and extent of ARPI-associated cardiovascular adverse events across disease states and toxicity grades is critical to inform treatment decisions and long-term patient safety. Methods: MEDLINE, and EMBASE were systematically searched from database inception through August 30, 2025, for phase III randomized controlled trials evaluating abiraterone, enzalutamide, apalutamide, darolutamide, orteronel in metastatic prostate cancer. Trials were included if they reported CVS toxicity. Meta-analysis using a random-effects model was performed to assess the difference of all-cause and treatment-emergent cardiovascular adverse events between ARPI+ADT and ADT alone. Summary effects were expressed as relative risk (RR) with associated 95% confidence intervals. Results: A total of 21 trials (45 references) with 25,576 patients (mCSPC: 12,537, mCRPC: 13,039) were included in this meta-analysis. Compared to ADT alone, ARPI+ADT significantly increased the risk of all cause, all grade hypertension in both mCSPC (RR 1.60, 1.22–2.10) and mCRPC (RR 1.61, 1.20–2.16) as well as grade ≥ 3 hypertension (RR 1.71, 1.17–2.48) in mCRPC setting. There was an increased risk of all-cause, all grade acute coronary syndrome (RR 2.21, 1.09–4.49) and AV nodal disease (RR 2.53, 1.18–5.43) with ARPI+ADT compared to ADT alone in mCSPC setting. There was increased risk of all cause, all grade, any cardiac events (RR 1.30, 1.10–1.54) as well as grade ≥ 3 any cardiac events (RR 1.70, 1.20–2.42) in mCRPC setting. Risk of all cause, all grade hot flashes (RR 1.47, 1.16–1.85) was also significantly increased with ARPI+ADT when compared to ADT alone. In terms of treatment-emergent adverse effects, a significant increase was observed only for pulmonary embolism with ARPI+ADT when compared to ADT alone (RR 1.66, 1.06–2.60) in mCRPC setting. Conclusions: Current evidence indicates potentially increased risk of hypertension, venous thromboembolic, and ischemic cardiac events with ARPI therapy in metastatic prostate cancer. Proactive CV risk assessment, particularly in patients with preexisting comorbidities or prolonged ARPI exposure, may optimize outcomes and minimize treatment interruptions. All cause adverse events. Adverse Event Disease State All Grade Grade ≥3 Any Cardiac Event mCSPC 0.81 (0.37–1.76) 0.88 (0.16–4.64) mCRPC 1.30 (1.10–1.54) 1.70 (1.20–2.42) Hypertension mCSPC 1.60 (1.22–2.10) 1.43 (0.82–2.52) mCRPC 1.61 (1.20–2.16) 1.71 (1.17–2.48) ACS mCSPC 2.21 (1.09–4.49) 1.77 (0.86–3.61) mCRPC – – Hot Flashes mCSPC – – mCRPC 1.47 (1.16–1.85) 1.46 (0.21–9.97)