Odedina, Folakemi

Abstract Black/African American populations, globally, bear the greatest prostate cancer (CaP) burden compared to other racial/ethnic groups. Addressing CaP disparities in Black men is complex, requiring a patient-centered, community-centric and comprehensive approach. This study integrates iCCaRE Consortium findings and broader literature to address unmet needs in survivorship care. The iCCaRE Consortium implemented five complementary pilot studies using mixed-methods designs, including feasibility trials, qualitative research, and observational analyses across the United States and sub-Saharan Africa. Descriptive statistics, subgroup analyses, and qualitative thematic analyses were performed across these studies. Collectively, projects addressed multilevel determinants including social, behavioral, and biological drivers of disparities. Project 1 implemented a Virtual Reality Assistant (ViRA) across clinical and community settings, with ongoing evaluation in pragmatic trials. Project 2 showed strong patient preference for home-based cancer care. Project 3 enrolled demonstrated trends toward improved health-related quality of life. Project 4 identified key themes influencing survivorship experiences. Project 5 identified biological mechanisms linking stress, immune modulation, and symptom burden. The iCCaRE pilot projects demonstrate the feasibility and early impact of a consortium-based, transdisciplinary approach to addressing CaP disparities in Black men. These findings highlight the importance of integrating patient-centered interventions, community engagement, and biological insights to inform scalable strategies aimed at improving survivorship outcomes and advancing health equity. The iCCaRE Consortium demonstrates that a transatlantic, patient-centered, and multidisciplinary approach integrating social, clinical, and biological factors can generate scalable strategies to improve survivorship outcomes and advance equity in CaP care for Black men.

Abstract Rural and low-socioeconomic status women face social determinants of health barriers leading to disproportionately low rates of breast cancer screening and markedly reduced participation in clinical trials. To address this gap, we developed the WeCARE (Women’s Engagement for Cancer Awareness, Resources, and Education) intervention using a community-engaged approach. This paper describes how Community Advisory Board feedback informed the development of Mayo Clinic Health System’s WeCARE intervention components. Their input was systematically analyzed using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR 2.0) to identify determinants of acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility and to guide actionable refinements to intervention content and delivery.

LBA5012 Background: There is a critical evidence gap on the relative benefits and harms of proton therapy (PT) compared with photon-based intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) in prostate cancer. Herein we report early results from COMPPARE, a non-randomized comparative study of outcomes with PT and IMRT in prostate cancer. Methods: Between 2018-2022, 2524 patients from 51 facilities (28 PT and 23 IMRT) enrolled in COMPPARE, including 1501 treated with PT and 1023 treated with IMRT, and were followed prospectively. Treatment naïve patients with localized prostate cancer except those with very high-risk disease were eligible. Treatment was pragmatic with daily standard fractionation (1.8-2.1 Gy) and moderate hypofractionation (2.4-3.1 Gy) permitted. Use of rectal spacers and androgen deprivation were at physician discretion. Patient-reported quality of life data and treatment team-reported toxicity and disease control outcomes were collected at baseline and pre-specified time intervals via VisionTreeOptimalCare; treatment planning and delivery data were collected via the Advanced Treatment Consortium. We analyzed 1404 PT patients and 939 IMRT patients. We report the early primary endpoint of the study, a comparison of patient reported bowel urgency and bowel frequency at 2-years using the EPIC tool, and the secondary endpoints of 2-year CTCAE v5 ≥ grade 2 gastrointestinal toxicity outcomes and 3-year freedom from biochemical progression (FFBP) results reported by the study teams. Results: Study sample size was targeted at 1,500 PT patients and 1,000 IMRT patients, and median follow-up time was 4.0 years. The primary endpoint and secondary toxicity 2-year endpoints focused on the alternative hypothesis of PT superiority. All results include inverse probability of treatment weighting. Using generalized linear mixed effects models, we found there to be no significant difference in EPIC bowel urgency scores (p = 0.324) or bowel frequency scores (p = 0.514) between PT and IMRT cohorts over time up to the 2-year endpoint. For grade 2 gastrointestinal toxicity, the 2-year cumulative incidence was 5.2% for PT and 5.6% for IMRT. Gray’s Test for competing risks showed a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.91 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.65-1.28, p = 0.6] for PT versus IMRT. The exploratory non-inferiority endpoint of 3-year FFBP was 98.0% for PT and 97.9% for IMRT, and Gray’s Test showed a HR of 0.95 (95% CI: 0.52-1.71, p = 0.90). Conclusions: Analysis of early results of COMPPARE show no significant differences between PT and IMRT in patient reported bowel frequency and urgency, grade ≥2 gastrointestinal toxicity, or FFBP. Assessment of long-term disease control, late toxicity and secondary malignancy will require longer follow-up. Clinical trial information: NCT03561220 .