Tan, Winston

e17027 Background: Guidelines recommend active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer and definitive therapy for high-risk disease. We evaluated national patterns of risk-misaligned care and the survival consequences of undertreatment. Methods: National Cancer Database prostate cancer cases diagnosed from 2010–2022 were analyzed. Low-risk disease was defined as clinical T1–T2, Grade Group 1, and PSA < 10; overtreatment was definitive treatment vs active surveillance or no treatment. High-risk disease was defined as Grade Group ≥4, PSA ≥20, or clinical T3–T4; undertreatment was no definitive local therapy or incomplete definitive therapy. Multivariable logistic regression evaluated factors associated with misalignment. Overall survival (OS) among high-risk patients was assessed using multivariable Cox regression. Results: Among low-risk patients (N = 124,562), overtreatment occurred in 40% of cases. Overtreatment was more common among young men (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.982; p < 0.001) and less common at academic centers (aOR 0.414; p = 0.015). Compared with White men, odds of overtreatment were lower among Black men (aOR 0.946; p = 0.002) and Asian men (aOR 0.827; p < 0.001), with additional variation by education and region (all p < 0.001). Among high-risk patients (N = 318,532), undertreatment affected 27.3% of patients and was more common among older men (aOR 1.061; p < 0.001). Compared with White men, undertreatment was higher among Black men (aOR 1.479; p < 0.001) and lower among Asian patients (aOR 0.863; p < 0.001) (overall race p < 0.001). Compared with private insurance, undertreatment was higher in Medicaid (aOR 2.038; p < 0.001) and uninsured patients (aOR 2.649; p < 0.001), and slightly lower with Medicare (aOR 0.931; p < 0.001) (overall insurance p < 0.001). Multiple comorbidities were associated with higher undertreatment (≥2 vs 0: aOR 1.252; p < 0.001). Facility type was not independently associated (p = 0.490), while region remained significant (overall p < 0.001). In the survival cohort (high risk) (N = 338,919), undertreatment was associated with substantially worse OS (HR 2.745, 95% CI 2.706–2.784; p < 0.001), adjusted for age (HR 1.056; p < 0.001), race (p = 0.001), insurance (p < 0.001), comorbidity (p < 0.001), income (overall p < 0.001), education (overall p < 0.001), and facility region (overall p < 0.001). Conclusions: Low-risk overtreatment remains common nationwide and varies across patient and health-system factors. In high-risk disease, undertreatment affects over one-quarter of patients and disproportionately impacts Black men and those with Medicaid or no insurance. Undertreatment confers a nearly threefold mortality hazard (adjusted HR 2.75; p < 0.001), highlighting a major national quality gap and the urgent need for system-level interventions to ensure equitable, guideline-concordant delivery of definitive therapy.

e13611 Background: Decentralized cancer care models may reduce treatment burden for patients with advanced prostate cancer (CaP), particularly those facing mobility, transportation, of scheduling challenges. However, prospective patient-reported experience and quality-of-life data comparing home- versus clinic-based oncology care remain limited. Mayo Clinic Cancer CARE Beyond Walls (CCBW) is a patient-centered program designed to deliver selected standard-of-care cancer therapies in the home with virtual clinical oversight. This observational study evaluated patient-reported experience, feasibility, safety, and quality of life among men with advanced or metastatic CaP receiving care at home. Methods: Men with advanced/metastatic CaP receiving active standard-of-care therapy including hormone-based treatments, oral anticancer therapies, anti-bone resorptive agents, or intravenous chemotherapy who were participating in a CCBW randomized trial were enrolled into a companion observational study. After confirmation of treatment tolerance in clinic, patients received home-based care for 24 weeks (Arm A) or in-clinic care for 8 weeks followed by home-based care for 16 weeks (Arm B). Patient-reported outcomes were collected at baseline and Weeks 8, 16, and 24, using CAHPS-based measures and CCBW-specific surveys assessing overall cancer care experience, patient preference for site of care, comfort with home infusions, functional/symptom assessment and quality of life. Descriptive analyses were performed. Results: Eighteen participants were analyzed (Arm A n = 10; Arm B n = 8). Participants were medically stable, and predominantly insured by Medicare. Survey completion was 100% at baseline and 83% at all follow-up time points. At Weeks 16 and 24 when all respondents had received home-based care, 100% and 92% reported being “quite a bit” or “very much” comfortable receiving treatment at home. Communication with at-home and remote nursing teams was rated highly, and most respondents reported transition, scheduling, and equipment use easy or very easy. At Weeks 16 and 24, 45% and 40% of respondents reported improved quality of life from receiving home-based care, with no reports of worsening. No emergency department visits, hospitalizations, or urgent care visits occurred in either arm. Conclusions: In this prospective, observational study, home-based oncology care delivered through CCBW was feasible, safe, and associated with high patient satisfaction among men with advanced CaP receiving diverse systemic therapies. These findings support further evaluation and expansion of decentralized care integrating home-based treatment with virtual clinical oversight.