Li, Haoran

5076 Background: C and Lu are both life-prolonging therapies for pts with mCRPC after progression on androgen receptor pathway inhibitor (ARPI) and docetaxel (D). Herein, our objective was to assess the comparative effectiveness of C vs. Lu in pts with mCRPC with prior progression on D and ARPI in real-world pts in the USA. Methods: A de-identified nationwide Flatiron Health electronic health record (EHR)-derived database was used to extract pt-level data. Eligibility: pts with mCRPC who progressed on D and ARPI and received for the first-time single-agent C or Lu. Pts who received alternative Lu or C in a later line of therapy (LOT) were excluded. Endpoints: real-world time to next therapy (rwTTNT) and real-world overall survival (rwOS). These were summarized via Kaplan-Meier survival estimates with a 95% confidence interval (CI) and compared in the context of propensity score (PS) matching weighted analysis using the Cox proportional hazard model. PS model included the following covariates: age, race-ethnicity, socioeconomic status, treatment year, Gleason score, ECOG performance status, log2PSA, alkaline phosphatase, hemoglobin, creatinine, LOT, insurance, and practice type. All the covariates achieved balance after PS matching weighting. Results: Among 24,105 pts with metastatic prostate cancer in the dataset, 1,445 met the eligibility criteria and were included (1,227 treated with C, 218 treated with Lu). In C cohort: median age was 73 (IQR 67 – 78), 66.9% had Gleason score ≥ 8, and median LOT was 4 (IQR 3-4). In Lu cohort: median age was 75 (IQR 67.25 – 80), 68.1% had Gleason score ≥ 8, and median LOT was 4 (IQR 3-5). In PS matching weighting analysis, there was evidence that pts receiving Lu had a significantly improved rwTTNT (median 8.3 months [mo], 95% CI 6.3 – 9.8) compared to those receiving C (median 4.7 mo, 95% CI 4.2 – 5.4) (HR 0.49, 95% CI 0.37 – 0.63, p < 0.001), which persisted after adjusting for covariates (HR 0.43, 95% CI 0.32 – 0.57, p < 0.001). Additionally, there was evidence that rwOS was longer in pts receiving Lu (median 10.3, 95% CI 8.9 – 12.8) compared to those receiving C (median 8.8 mo, 95% CI 6.6 – 10.8) (HR 0.69, 95% CI 0.51 – 0.92, p = 0.01). This improvement in rwOS with Lu compared to C persisted after adjusting for covariates (HR 0.61, 95% CI 0.44 – 0.84, p < 0.001). Conclusions: This is the largest real-world data to date assessing the comparative effectiveness of Lu vs. C, and it showed significantly longer rwTTNT and rwOS with Lu compared to C in pts with mCRPC pretreated with ARPI and D. Limitations: retrospective nature, selection bias, missingness, lack of randomization, etc. and residual confounding in real-world datasets. Upon external validation, these findings could guide treatment selection in the clinic and design of clinical trials.