Vapiwala, Neha

PURPOSE Precision medicine has revolutionized oncology; however, tumor biomarkers are not reflective of the heterogeneous cancer population. We evaluated NRG Oncology prostate cancer (PCa) clinical trials for demographic differences among patients with optional biospecimen collection (BC) consent and biospecimen submission (BSub). METHODS Data from 19 NRG PCa clinical trials closed before 2015 were analyzed. Patients who consented to BC and completed BSub were evaluated by race, ethnicity, median income, area deprivation index (ADI; categorized as highest v lowest three quartiles), age at enrollment, site, and year of enrollment. T/chi-square tests were used for continuous/categorical variables, respectively, followed by logistic regression. RESULTS Of the 15,648 randomized patients eligible for BC, 11,796 (75%) had specimens submitted. In all, 4,598 (82.2%) of 5,597 eligible patients consented for optional BC in nine clinical trials with a separate BC consent process (consent rates by race/ethnicity: 74.1% Black, 72.8% Hispanic/Latino, 83.8% White). A smaller proportion of Black and Hispanic/Latino patients consented to optional BC compared with those who did not (12.1% v 19.5% Black, P < .0001; 3.5% v 5.8% Hispanic, P = .0006). In univariable logistic regression models, high ADI (more socioeconomic disadvantage) was associated with a decreased likelihood for optional BC consent (odds ratio [OR], 0.67 [95% CI, 0.55 to 0.82]; P = .02), but not a decreased likelihood for BSub (OR, 0.74 [95% CI, 0.53 to 1.04]; P = .08). Multivariable models demonstrated that Black/Hispanic/Latino patients were less likely to consent to optional BC, and Black patients were less likely to have BSub ( P < .05 for all). CONCLUSION White/non-Hispanic patients and those with less socioeconomic disadvantage were more likely to consent to optional BC, whereas Black patients were less likely to have BSub. Targeted solutions are needed to improve biorepository representation so that precision medicine approaches better reflect the cancer population.

ASCO Guidelines provide recommendations with comprehensive review and analyses of the relevant literature for each recommendation, following the guideline development process as outlined in the ASCO Guidelines Methodology Manual . ASCO Guidelines follow the ASCO Conflict of Interest Policy for Clinical Practice Guidelines . Clinical Practice Guidelines and other guidance (“Guidance”) provided by ASCO is not a comprehensive or definitive guide to treatment options. It is intended for voluntary use by clinicians and should be used in conjunction with independent professional judgment. Guidance may not be applicable to all patients, interventions, diseases or stages of diseases. Guidance is based on review and analysis of relevant literature, and is not intended as a statement of the standard of care. ASCO does not endorse third-party drugs, devices, services, or therapies and assumes no responsibility for any harm arising from or related to the use of this information. See complete disclaimer in Appendix 1 and 2 (online only) for more . PURPOSE To provide evidence-based recommendations for patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). METHODS An Expert Panel including patient representation completed a systematic review of the evidence and made recommendations. RESULTS Depending upon prior treatment received, androgen receptor pathway inhibitors (ARPIs: enzalutamide, abiraterone with prednisone), poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors (PARPi), chemotherapeutic agents (docetaxel, cabazitaxel), radiopharmaceuticals (radium 223, 177 Lu-prostate-specific membrane antigen [PSMA]-617), and sipuleucel-T have demonstrated an overall survival (OS) benefit for patients with mCRPC. For patients with BRCA1 / 2 alterations who did not receive prior ARPI, the combination of PARPi and ARPI (talazoparib + enzalutamide, olaparib and/or niraparib + abiraterone) has shown clinical benefit. For patients with BRCA1 / 2 alterations who received prior ARPI or ARPI followed by docetaxel, olaparib showed OS benefit. In select patients with microsatellite instability-high/mismatch repair-deficient, pembrolizumab showed clinical efficacy. RECOMMENDATIONS Prior systemic therapy for castration-sensitive prostate cancer will determine subsequent therapy used for mCRPC. Continue androgen-deprivation therapy for patients with mCRPC indefinitely. Early adoption of somatic genetic testing and palliative care is recommended. Patients with mCRPC and bony metastases should receive a bone-protective agent. The panel recommends the combination of ARPI with PARPi in patients with BRCA1 / 2 alterations who did not receive prior ARPI. For patients who received prior ARPI, the panel recommends docetaxel chemotherapy. The panel recommends 177 Lu-PSMA-617 or cabazitaxel chemotherapy for patients who receive prior ARPI and docetaxel chemotherapy. For patients with BRCA1 / 2 alterations who received prior ARPI, the panel recommends PARPi monotherapy. Radium 223 is recommended for patients with symptomatic bone–only disease. Evidence for optimal sequencing for mCRPC regimens is lacking. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/genitourinary-cancer-guidelines .

AbstractBackgroundWe sought to characterize and compare late patient‐reported outcomes (PROs) after moderately hypofractionated intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and proton beam therapy (PBT) for localized prostate cancer (PC).MethodsThis multi‐institutional analysis included low‐ or intermediate‐risk group PC patients treated with moderately hypofractionated radiation to an intact prostate stratified by treatment modality: IMRT or PBT. The primary outcomes were prospectively collected patient‐reported late gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary (GU) toxicity assessed by International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) and Expanded PC Index Composite (EPIC). Multivariable regression analysis (MVA) controlling for age, race, and risk group tested the effect of time, treatment, and their interaction.Results287 IMRT and 485 PBT patients were included. Intermediate risk group (81.2 vs. 68.2%; p < 0.001) and median age at diagnosis (70 vs. 67 years; p < 0.001) were higher in the IMRT group. On MVA, there was no significant difference between modalities. PBT IPSS did not differ from IMRT IPSS at 12 months (odds ratio [OR], 1.19; p = 0.08) or 24 months (OR, 0.99; p = 0.94). PBT EPIC overall GI function at 12 months (OR, 3.68; p = 0.085) and 24 months (OR 2.78; p = 0.26) did not differ from IMRT EPIC overall GI function. At 24 months, urinary frequency was no different between PBT and IMRT groups (OR 0.35; p = 0.096).ConclusionsThis multi‐institutional analysis of low‐ or intermediate‐risk PC treated with moderately hypofractionated PBT and IMRT demonstrated low rates of late patient‐reported GI and GU toxicities. After covariate adjustment, late GI and GU PROs were not significantly different between PBT or IMRT cohorts.

The NCCN Guidelines for Prostate Cancer Early Detection provide recommendations for individuals with a prostate who opt to participate in an early detection program after receiving the appropriate counseling on the pros and cons. These NCCN Guidelines Insights provide a summary of recent updates to the NCCN Guidelines with regard to the testing protocol, use of multiparametric MRI, and management of negative biopsy results to optimize the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer and minimize the detection of indolent disease.

11009 Background: Gender & racial/ethnic leadership disparities have been independently identified in academic hematology/oncology (HO) and radiation oncology (RO). Here, we evaluate gender and racial/ethnic intersectionality from the trainee to the leadership level. Methods: All ACGME accredited HO and RO training program websites were queried to identify constituent trainees, academic faculty, program directors (PD) and department chairs (DC), with a leadership position defined as PD or DC. Individual gender & race/ethnicity was determined using externally validated software tools (Gender-API, NamSor, & Onolytics), publicly available descriptors, and image review. We grouped individuals into 6 categories: White Male (WM), White Female (WF), Asian Male (AM), Asian Female (AF), Underrepresented Groups in Medicine (as defined by AAMC) Male (URMM) and Female (URMF). The chi-squared goodness-of-fit test was applied to examine if deviations exist between the observed vs. expected proportions of gender/race dyads in trainees, PD, and DC compared to academic faculty. Results: We identified 7,722 individuals from 2019-2020: 1,759 trainees (HO=1525; RO=234), 5,726 faculty (HO=4834; RO=892), 242 PD (HO=149; RO=93) and 237 DC (HO=144; RO=93). Leadership positions were most often comprised by WM (52.6%), and least often comprised by URMF (2.9%). Combined HO/RO analysis revealed significant differences in the observed representation of trainees & DC vs expected levels based on total faculty, respectively: WM (33.7% & 60.3% vs. 42.3%), WF (19.2% & 13.9% vs. 22.3%), AM (20.75% & 16.9% vs. 16.4%), AF (17.9% & 2.5% vs. 12.7%), URMM (4.09% & 5.5% vs. 3.5%) and URMF (4.3% & 0.8% vs. 2.8%), p<0.01. No differences were seen between PD vs total faculty. On subset analysis, there were significant differences observed in HO programs at the trainee, PD and DC levels compared to total faculty, whereas significant differences in RO programs were seen only at the DC level [Table]. Conclusions: Gender & racial/ethnic disparity is present in academic oncology. Specifically, women of all races/ethnicities are proportionally underrepresented in DC positions in HO and RO programs. These data can serve as a benchmark to raise awareness and monitor progress towards a more balanced workforce in oncology.[Table: see text]

PURPOSE Germline testing (GT) is a central feature of prostate cancer (PCA) treatment, management, and hereditary cancer assessment. Critical needs include optimized multigene testing strategies that incorporate evolving genetic data, consistency in GT indications and management, and alternate genetic evaluation models that address the rising demand for genetic services. METHODS A multidisciplinary consensus conference that included experts, stakeholders, and national organization leaders was convened in response to current practice challenges and to develop a genetic implementation framework. Evidence review informed questions using the modified Delphi model. The final framework included criteria with strong (> 75%) agreement (Recommend) or moderate (50% to 74%) agreement (Consider). RESULTS Large germline panels and somatic testing were recommended for metastatic PCA. Reflex testing—initial testing of priority genes followed by expanded testing—was suggested for multiple scenarios. Metastatic disease or family history suggestive of hereditary PCA was recommended for GT. Additional family history and pathologic criteria garnered moderate consensus. Priority genes to test for metastatic disease treatment included BRCA2, BRCA1, and mismatch repair genes, with broader testing, such as ATM, for clinical trial eligibility. BRCA2 was recommended for active surveillance discussions. Screening starting at age 40 years or 10 years before the youngest PCA diagnosis in a family was recommended for BRCA2 carriers, with consideration in HOXB13, BRCA1, ATM, and mismatch repair carriers. Collaborative (point-of-care) evaluation models between health care and genetic providers was endorsed to address the genetic counseling shortage. The genetic evaluation framework included optimal pretest informed consent, post-test discussion, cascade testing, and technology-based approaches. CONCLUSION This multidisciplinary, consensus-driven PCA genetic implementation framework provides novel guidance to clinicians and patients tailored to the precision era. Multiple research, education, and policy needs remain of importance.

Oligometastatic prostate cancer has increasingly been recognized as a unique clinical state with therapeutic implications. It has been proposed that patients with oligometastases may have a more indolent course and that outcome may be further improved with metastasis-directed local ablative therapy. In addition, there are differing schools of thoughts regarding whether oligometastases represent isolated lesions—where targeted therapy may render a patient disease free—or whether they coexist with micrometastases, where targeted therapy in addition to systemic therapy is required for maximal clinical impact. As such, the approach to the patient with oligometastatic prostate cancer requires multidisciplinary consideration, with surgery, radiotherapy, and systemic therapy potentially of benefit either singularly or in combination. Indeed, mounting evidence suggests durable disease-free intervals and, in some cases, possibly cure, may be achieved with such a multimodal strategy. However, selecting patients that may benefit most from treatment of oligometastases is an ongoing challenge. Moreover, with the advent of new, highly sensitive imaging technologies, the spectrum based on CT of the abdomen and pelvis and technetium bone scan of localized to oligometastatic to widespread disease has become increasingly blurred. As such, new MRI- and PET-based modalities require validation. As some clinical guidelines advise against routine prostate-specific antigen screening, the possibility of more men presenting with locally advanced or de novo oligometastatic prostate cancer exists; thus, knowing how best to treat these patients may become more relevant at a population level. Ultimately, the arrival of prospective clinical data and better understanding of biology will hopefully further inform how best to treat men with this disease.

Purpose In April 2017, the American Urological Association, American Society for Radiation Oncology, and Society of Urologic Oncology released a joint evidence-based practice guideline on clinically localized prostate cancer. The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) has a policy and set of procedures for endorsing clinical practice guidelines that have been developed by other professional organizations. Methods The Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer guideline was reviewed for developmental rigor by methodologists. An ASCO Expert Panel then reviewed the content and the recommendations. Results The ASCO Expert Panel determined that the recommendations from the Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer guideline were clear, thorough, and based upon the most relevant scientific evidence. ASCO endorsed the Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer guideline except for two recommendations on cryosurgery. The two recommendations covering cryosurgery were not endorsed because the panel found that there is insufficient evidence to support the use of cryotherapy in this setting. Recommendations The ASCO Expert Panel endorsed all but two of the original guideline recommendations as written and offered a series of discussion points to guide practice.