Templeton, Arnoud J.

e16003 Background: Multidisciplinary management improves complex treatment decision making in cancer care, but its impact for bladder cancer (BC) has not been documented. While radical cystectomy (RC) is currently viewed as the standard of care for muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC), radiotherapy-based, bladder-sparing trimodal therapy (TMT) combining transurethral resection of bladder tumor, chemotherapy for radiation sensitization and external beam radiotherapy has emerged as a valid treatment option. In the absence of randomized studies, we compared the oncological outcomes between patients managed by RC or TMT using a propensity-score matched cohort analysis. Methods: Patients seen in our multidisciplinary bladder cancer clinic (MDBCC) from 2008 to 2013 were retrospectively reviewed. Those who received TMT for MIBC were identified and matched (for gender, cT and cN stage, ECOG status, Charlson comorbidity score, treatment date, age, CIS, hydronephrosis) using propensity scores, to patients who underwent RC. Overall survival and disease-specific survival (DSS) were assessed with Cox Proportional hazards modeling and competing risk analysis, respectively. Results: 112 patients with MIBC were included after matching, 56 treated with TMT and 56 by RC. Median age was 68.0 years and 29.5% were cT3/cT4. At a median follow up of 4.51 years, there were 20 (35.7%) deaths (13 from BC) in the RC group and 22 (39.3%) deaths (13 from BC) in the TMT group. 5 year DSS was 73.2% and 76.6%, in the RC and TMT groups, respectively (p = 0.49). Salvage cystectomy was performed in 6/56 TMT patients (10.7%). Conclusions: In the setting of a MDBCC, TMT yielded survival outcomes similar to matched RC patients. Appropriately selected MIBC patients should be offered the opportunity to discuss various treatment options including organ-sparing TMT.

213 Background: Daily oral prednisone (P) has been employed for the therapy of mCRPC, alone or in combination regimens. Despite palliative benefits and PSA responses, the overall clinical impact of P is unknown and it may foster resistance mechanisms. We performed a pooled analysis of control arms of randomized trials which either did or did not administer single agent P to evaluate its impact on overall survival (OS) and toxicities. Methods: Individual patient data from control arms ofrandomized trials of post-docetaxel men receiving placebo or P + placebo were eligible for analysis. Patient demographics, survival, and toxicity data were collected. The impact of P on OS and toxicities was investigated in Cox regression models adjusted for known clinical and laboratory prognostic factors. Statistical significance was defined as a p-value < 0.05 and all tests were two-sided. Results: The control arms of 2 randomized phase III trials were available totaling 794 men: the COU-AA-301 trial (n = 394) administered P plus placebo and the CA184-043 trial (n = 400) administered placebo alone. P plus placebo was not significantly associated with OS compared to placebo alone in a multivariable analysis (HR = 0.89 [95% CI 0.72-1.10], p = 0.27). Other factors associated with poor OS were Eastern Cooperative Oncology group (ECOG)-performance status (PS) ≥ 1, Gleason Score ≥ 8, liver metastasis, high PSA, hypoalbuminemia, and elevated LDH.In contrast, CTCAE grade ≥ 3 therapy-related toxicities were significantly increased with P plus placebo compared to placebo alone (HR = 1.48 (1.03-2.13), p = 0.034) in a multivariable analysis. Other baseline factors significantly associated with a higher risk of grade ≥ 3 toxicities were ECOG-PS ≥ 1, hypoalbuminemia and elevated LDH. Conclusions: P plus placebo compared with placebo alone for post-docetaxel men with mCRPC was not associated with extension of OS, but was associated with higher grade ≥ 3 toxicities. With the exception of the use of P in combination with abiraterone, P alone or in combination regimens should be questioned given its unclear palliative benefits and association with increased toxicities.