Brookland, Robert K.

e17040 Background: Our aim was to evaluate two distinct clinical settings catering to US patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC): academic (A) and community (C) practice. We used data from a real-world non-interventional study (REASSURE; NCT02141438) examining the use of 223Ra. Methods: Patients with mCRPC who received at least one dose of 223Ra in the US were included. Enrolment occurred between 2014 and 2017; median follow-up was nearly 12 months. Our analysis included patient disease characteristics, treatment history, short- and long-term safety of 223Ra, patient overall survival (OS), and patient-reported pain (Brief Pain Inventory – Short Form [BPI–SF] scores). A clinically meaningful pain response was a ≥2-point decrease from a baseline score of ≥2 in the BPI-SF worst pain item during treatment until last dose. Results: Analysis included 498 patients (A: 147; C: 351). Comparing A with C, the median ages were 70 and 76 years, respectively, and the majority of patients (74% and 84%) had bone-only metastases. A higher percentage of patients in A (69%) than in C (49%) had completed at least one life-prolonging therapy (LPT) prior to 223Ra; these included abiraterone (A: 38%; C: 19%), enzalutamide (A: 32%; C:17%), docetaxel (A: 38%; C: 19%), and sipuleucel-T (A: 18%; C: 25%). Most patients received 5–6 223Ra injections in both settings (A: 65%; C: 71%). 223Ra was used concomitantly with LPTs in 48% of patients in A and 57% in C, predominantly with abiraterone (A: 25%; C: 25%) or enzalutamide (A: 25%; C: 36%); fewer patients in A (35%) received concomitant bone health agents than in C (52%). For safety outcomes, refer to the table. During treatment, 47% and 62% of patients with a baseline BPI-SF ≥2 had a clinically meaningful pain response in A and C, respectively. The median OS was 17.2 months (95% CI 14.0–19.4) in A and 18.4 months (14.8–21.0) in C. More patients in A (42%) than in C (26%) received a LPT after 223Ra, most commonly docetaxel (A: 25%; C: 12%). Conclusions: Patients treated in A tended to be younger and more heavily treated, as evidenced by a higher number of patients receiving LPTs prior to and following 223Ra treatment. Bone health agents were more frequently used in C. Additionally, more patients in C had a clinically meaningful pain response and more drug-related AEs were reported in A. Despite the observed differences, overall survival was comparable for both practice settings. Clinical trial information: NCT02141438 . [Table: see text]

Abstract The American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) staging manual has become the benchmark for classifying patients with cancer, defining prognosis, and determining the best treatment approaches. Many view the primary role of the tumor, lymph node, metastasis (TNM) system as that of a standardized classification system for evaluating cancer at a population level in terms of the extent of disease, both at initial presentation and after surgical treatment, and the overall impact of improvements in cancer treatment. The rapid evolution of knowledge in cancer biology and the discovery and validation of biologic factors that predict cancer outcome and response to treatment with better accuracy have led some cancer experts to question the utility of a TNM‐based approach in clinical care at an individualized patient level. In the Eighth Edition of the AJCC Cancer Staging Manual , the goal of including relevant, nonanatomic (including molecular) factors has been foremost, although changes are made only when there is strong evidence for inclusion. The editorial board viewed this iteration as a proactive effort to continue to build the important bridge from a “population‐based” to a more “personalized” approach to patient classification, one that forms the conceptual framework and foundation of cancer staging in the era of precision molecular oncology. The AJCC promulgates best staging practices through each new edition in an effort to provide cancer care providers with a powerful, knowledge‐based resource for the battle against cancer. In this commentary, the authors highlight the overall organizational and structural changes as well as “what's new” in the Eighth Edition. It is hoped that this information will provide the reader with a better understanding of the rationale behind the aggregate proposed changes and the exciting developments in the upcoming edition. CA Cancer J Clin 2017;67:93–99. © 2017 American Cancer Society.