Citations

Mayo Clinic

Clear

2500 citation(s) found for "Ma, C Benjamin".

Assessment of PARP1 mRNA expression as prognostic of aggressive pathology and adverse outcomes, and as predictor of response to PARP inhibition in castration-sensitive prostate cancer.
Alshalalfa, Mohammed , Hao, Yangyang , Proudfoot, J. , Schaeffer, Edward M. , Karnes, R. Jeffrey , Antonarakis, Emmanuel S. , Teply, Benjamin A. , Davicioni, Elai , Spratt, Daniel E. , Hwang, Justin H. , Lotan, Tamara Levin , Marshall, Catherine H.

Journal of Clinical Oncology | February 18, 2025 | Volume: 43 | Issue: 5_suppl | Pages: 202-202

10.1200/jco.2025.43.5_suppl.202 Get It

202 Background: While several PARP inhibitors are approved in combination with hormonal therapies for metastatic castrate resistant prostate cancer (CRPC), their use in castrate sensitive prostate cancer (CSPC) is understudied. We previously reported that olaparib monotherapy (without ADT) shows significant clinical activity in BRCA2 -altered patients with biochemically recurrent (BCR) prostate cancer. Here, we explored prognostic and predictive PARP-related mRNA biomarkers derived from primary prostate tumors. Methods: We characterized the expression of 16 PARP transcripts using a cohort of 52,266 radical prostatectomy (RP) specimens (2016-2024) undergoing Decipher prostate genomic classifier testing (Veracyte Inc). Transcriptome-wide mRNA expression data as well as baseline clinical/pathologic factors were retrieved from the Decipher GRID database (NCT02609269). Associations between high PARP expression (top 25%), baseline factors, and gene signatures were examined using logistic regression. We assessed the association between PARP expression and distant metastases in 3 retrospective cohorts (n= 545, 855, and 325). Finally, we evaluated PARP expression in our prior phase II trial (NCT03047135, n=39) of olaparib monotherapy in the setting of BCR following RP. Results: Higher mRNA levels of PARP1 , 2 , 8 and 14 showed strong associations (all P <0.001) with known adverse prognostic factors such as very-high Decipher score (>0.85), high Gleason grade (GG5) and non-organ confined disease (EPE, SVI and LNI), while higher PARP6 and 7 expression were associated with more favorable disease characteristics. High PARP1 expression was positively correlated with DNA-repair deficiency (r=0.77) and tumor immune microenvironment (r=0.62) signatures. In 3 independent retrospective cohorts of intermediate-high risk PCa patients, higher PARP1 expression was strongly associated with development of distant metastases after RP (HR 1.70, 1.81, and 1.67 respectively; all P <0.05). Finally, in our phase II trial of patients with BCR who received olaparib monotherapy, PARP1 (but not PARP2 ) expression from RP was 1.5-fold higher in samples with BRCA2 mutations (median 0.416 vs 0.276, P =0.01) and was associated with overall improved PSA progression-free survival (continuous variable, HR 0.55, P =0.01) and longer time to next systemic treatment (continuous variable, HR 0.66, P =0.02). Conclusions: High PARP1 mRNA expression, measured at RP, is associated with aggressive disease biology and greater risk of metastasis. However, high PARP1 (but not PARP2 ) levels are associated with improved response to PARP inhibition in the setting of BCR prostate cancer. Future trials testing PARP (including PARP1-selective) inhibitors in the CSPC space should consider measuring PARP1 mRNA levels in addition to BRCA1/2 mutation status. Clinical trial information: NCT02609269 , NCT03047135 .
Rates of first next-generation sequencing (NGS) testing at the end of life in patients (pts) with advanced urothelial carcinoma (aUC).
Hardy, Richard, Anderson, Ethan J. , Nordblad, Blake , Li, Haoran , Gupta, Sumati , Maughan, Benjamin L. , McKay, Rana R. , Swami, Umang , Agarwal, Neeraj , Chehade, Chadi Hage , Jo, Yeonjung , Özay, Zeynep İrem , Gebrael, Georges , Sayegh, Nicolas , Hardy, Tanner , Anderson, Ethan, Thomas, Vinay Mathew , Graf, Ryon P. , Roy, Soumyajit , Riaz, Irbaz Bin , Agarwal, Neeraj

Journal of Clinical Oncology | February 18, 2025 | Volume: 43 | Issue: 5_suppl | Pages: 727-727

10.1200/jco.2025.43.5_suppl.727 Get It

727 Background: Despite the availability of targeted therapies like erdafitinib for pts with aUC with susceptible genomic alterations, the rate of NGS testing remains low at 32% in the United States (Hage Chehade...Swami, JAMA Network Open, 2024). Furthermore, limited data exist regarding the timing of NGS testing in relation to the time of death. Herein, we sought to assess the rates of NGS testing at the end of life in pts with aUC in a real-world patient population. Methods: A de-identified nationwide Flatiron Health electronic health record (EHR)-derived database was used to extract patient-level data. Inclusion criteria: pts who received NGS testing (blood/tissue) and who had a date of death recorded. The analytic cohort included pts diagnosed with aUC between 1/1/2011 and 11/14/2022 who received first NGS testing results between 5/3/2012 and 12/21/2022. The time difference between each pt’s first NGS result delivered and death was calculated, and thereafter, pts were categorized into 3 categories: pts receiving results > 3 months (mo) before death, within 3 mo of death, or after death. The frequency and percentages of the 3 categories were reported, as well as by year of death. The percentages in each category were compared between 2019 (year of erdafitinib approval) and 2022 (last year in dataset) to evaluate changes in NGS testing trend. Results: Among 12,157 pts with aUC in the dataset, 1,637 had both a recorded date of death and underwent NGS testing, and were eligible and included in final analysis. The median age was 72 (IQR 66 – 79). The majority were male (73%), White non-Hispanic (76%), and treated in community practice (86%). 68.2% received NGS results > 3 mo before death (n = 1,117), 28.3% received results within 3 mo of death (n = 464), and 3.4% of NGS results were reported after death (n = 56). In pts who died in 2019 versus 2022, the percentage of pts receiving NGS results > 3 mo before death increased from 61% to 75%, while the percentage of pts receiving results within 3 months decreased from 33% to 22%, and the percentage of NGS results reported after death declined from 5.2 to 2.7%. Baseline characteristics (including race-ethnicity, insurance plan, practice type [academic vs. community]) in these categories will be presented at the meeting. Conclusions: Our findings suggest that a sizeable number of pts with aUC (∼ 32%) received their first NGS testing results towards the end of life, highlighting the need to integrate genomic testing earlier during the course of the disease to optimize benefit with targeted therapies. These results could inform clinical practice and therapeutic decisions in the clinic. CHC, YJ: Equal contribution; US, NA: Senior authors.
Receipt of poly(ADP) ribose polymerase inhibitors (PARPi) in patients (pts) with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) harboring BRCA1/2 alterations.
Ostrowski, Micah , Lin, Edwin , Srivastava, Ayana , Ji, Richard, Li, Haoran , Gupta, Sumati , Maughan, Benjamin L. , Roy, Soumyajit , Swami, Umang , Agarwal, Neeraj , Jo, Yeonjung , Chehade, Chadi Hage , Özay, Zeynep İrem , Gebrael, Georges , Sayegh, Nicolas , Thomas, Vinay Mathew , Riaz, Irbaz Bin , Agarwal, Neeraj

Journal of Clinical Oncology | February 18, 2025 | Volume: 43 | Issue: 5_suppl | Pages: 108-108

10.1200/jco.2025.43.5_suppl.108 Get It

108 Background: PARPi are approved for the treatment of pts with mCRPC either as single agents or as a combination with an androgen receptor pathway inhibitor (ARPI) [PMID: 37442702]. In a US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) pooled analysis, the benefit from PARPi appeared greatest for pts harboring BRCA1/2 alterations [PMID: 38484203]. However, real-world uptake of PARPi in pts with mCRPC with BRCA1/2 alterations is unknown. Herein, our objective was to assess the usage of PARPi in real-world pts with mCRPC harboring BRCA1/2 alterations. Methods: A de-identified nationwide Flatiron Health electronic health record (EHR)-derived database was used to extract pt-level data. Eligibility criteria: pts with mCRPC harboring alterations in BRCA1 or BRCA2 or both and alive after 8/15/2020 (i.e., 3 months following the approval of the first PARPi, rucaparib, in mCRPC) with available treatment information. The data cutoff date was 5/31/2024. Pts were categorized into two cohorts based on the receipt of any PARPi or not. Baseline characteristics at the time of mCRPC diagnosis, including age, race-ethnicity, and insurance plan, were collected in both cohorts. Results: Of the overall cohort of 24,105 pts with metastatic prostate cancer, 443 pts had mCRPC with BRCA1/2 alterations and were eligible and included in this analysis. 227 (51.2%) received a PARPi, while 216 did not (48.8%). Among the 227 pts who received a PARPi, 166 received it as a single agent (73.1%), 40 received it in combination with an ARPI (17.6%), and 21 received it in combination with other agents (9.3%). The median age was 72 in both cohorts (IQR 65 – 79 in patients receiving a PARPi and 66 – 78 in patients who did not). Other baseline characteristics in both groups are shown (Table). Conclusions: Despite PARPi demonstrating survival improvement in pts with mCRPC with BRCA1/2 alterations, a significant proportion of pts do not receive them. Our findings highlight the need to improve education among clinicians of level 1 evidence and improve access to life-prolonging therapies in pts with mCRPC. Baseline characteristics of pts with mCRPC who received vs. did not receive a PARPi. Characteristic Subgroup Pts who received a PARPiN = 227 Pts who did not receive a PARPiN = 216 Race-ethnicity, n (%) Asian 9 (4) 1 (0.5) Black 22 (9.7) 30 (13.9) Hispanic-Latino 10 (4.4) 10 (4.6) White 149 (65.6) 124 (57.4) Other and unknown 37 (16.3) 51 (23.6) Insurance, n (%) Commercial health plan 192 (84.5) 182 (84.3) Medicare-other government programs 31 (13.7) 18 (8.3) Medicaid 1 (0.4) 3 (1.4) Others and unknown 3 (1.3) 13 (6)
Treatment (Rx) patterns and attrition rates in patients (pts) with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC).
Ostrowski, Micah , Campbell, Patrick , Anderson, Ethan J. , Nordblad, Blake , Maughan, Benjamin L. , Swami, Umang , Gebrael, Georges , Jo, Yeonjung , Chehade, Chadi Hage , Özay, Zeynep İrem , Sayegh, Nicolas , Anderson, Ethan, Fortuna, Gliceida Galarza , Thomas, Vinay Mathew , Riaz, Irbaz Bin , Graf, Ryon P. , Guha, Avirup , Roy, Soumyajit, Antonarakis, Emmanuel S. , Agarwal, Neeraj

Journal of Clinical Oncology | February 18, 2025 | Volume: 43 | Issue: 5_suppl | Pages: 75-75

10.1200/jco.2025.43.5_suppl.75 Get It

75 Background: The Rx landscape of pts with mCRPC has recently evolved with the approval of lutetium-177-PSMA-617 (Lu-177) and poly(ADP) ribose polymerase inhibitors (PARPi) either as single agents or as combinations with an androgen receptor pathway inhibitor (ARPI) [PMID: 37442702]. However, real-world data on the uptake of these agents are lacking. Herein, we sought to assess the Rx patterns and attrition rates of pts with mCRPC in the era of newly approved therapies. Methods: The de-identified nationwide Flatiron Health Electronic-Health Record (EHR)-derived database was used to extract pt-level data. Eligibility criteria: diagnosis of mCRPC and Rx line (L) information. The data cut-off date was 5/31/2024. Rx patterns in each line of therapies were summarized using frequency and percentages. All analysis was done using R version 4.2.3. Results: Of the overall cohort of 24,105 pts with metastatic prostate cancer, 12,333 pts diagnosed with mCRPC between 1/1/2013 and 5/9/2024 met the eligibility criteria and were included. Rx trends are summarized (Table). Of pts receiving 1L Rx, 61% of pts received 2L therapy, and 35% received 3L therapy. Androgen receptor pathway inhibitor (ARPI) was the most common Rx in the 1L setting (73.7%), followed by taxane (10%) and sipuleucel-T (3.8%). In 2L, ARPI was again the most frequent Rx (46.8%), followed by taxane (23.6%). In 3L, taxane became the most frequent Rx (35.4%), followed by ARPI (26.2%) and radium-223 (4.9%). Rx trends per year will be presented in the meeting. Conclusions: In the current era,a high proportion of pts with mCRPC receiving 1L Rx do not receive a subsequent line of Rx (39% of pts do not receive 2L, and 65% do not receive 3L Rx). ARPIs and taxanes remain the most frequently used Rx options in most L of therapy. These findings highlight the need for better tolerated Rx, therapies with a novel mechanism of action, and improved access to care for our pts. Rx trends per year will be presented in the meeting. Rx patterns in pts with mCRPC. Rx 1L, n (%)N = 12,333 2L, n (%)N = 7475 3L, n (%)N = 4316 4L, n (%)N = 2339 5L, n (%)N = 1225 ARPI 9085 (73.7) 3503 (46.8) 1130 (26.2) 356 (15.2) 157 (12.8) PARPi-based therapies 93 (0.8) 185 (2.5) 142 (3.3) 98 (4.2) 47 (3.9) Platinum-based therapy 127 (1) 216 (2.9) 198 (4.6) 148 (6.3) 130 (10.6) Lu-177-based therapies 50 (0.4) 109 (1.5) 169 (3.9) 143 (6.3) 103 (8.4) Radium-223 183 (1.5) 241 (3.2) 213 (4.9) 125 (5.3) 79 (6.4) Sipuleucel-T 474 (3.8) 94 (1.3) 53 (1.2) 18 (0.8) 8 (0.7) Taxane 1240 (10) 1763 (23.6) 1526 (35.4) 935 (40) 393 (32) Pembrolizumab 24 (0.2) 41 (0.5) 36 (0.8) 27 (1.2) 29 (2.4) Other*/not-applicable** 665 (5.4)/392 (3.2) 1000 (13.4)/323 (4.3) 602 (14)/247 (5.7) 320 (13.7)/169 (7.2) 162 (13.3)/117 (9.5) *Includes drugs approved for mCRPC in combination with unapproved agents or clinical trial drugs. **Includes agents not approved for prostate cancer.
Real-world use of bone-modifying agents (BMA) in patients (pts) with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) in the US.
Swami, Umang , Ostrowski, Micah , Campbell, Patrick , HU, Siqi, Li, Haoran , Maughan, Benjamin L. , McKay, Rana R. , Jo, Yeonjung , Chehade, Chadi Hage , Özay, Zeynep İrem , Sayegh, Nicolas , Gebrael, Georges , Fortuna, Gliceida Galarza , Thomas, Vinay Mathew , Graf, Ryon P. , Roy, Soumyajit , Guha, Avirup , Riaz, Irbaz Bin , Antonarakis, Emmanuel S. , Agarwal, Neeraj

Journal of Clinical Oncology | February 18, 2025 | Volume: 43 | Issue: 5_suppl | Pages: 95-95

10.1200/jco.2025.43.5_suppl.95 Get It

95 Background: Most pts with prostate cancer with bone metastasis experience symptomatic skeletal events (SSEs) [PMID: 23884473], leading to increased morbidity and mortality. BMAs have been approved since 2007 and are recommended in mCRPC to prevent SSEs in pts with bone metastases or a high risk of osteoporotic fracture. Herein, we sought to assess the real-world trends of BMA administration in pts with mCRPC. Methods: We used the de-identified nationwide Flatiron Health electronic health record (EHR)-derived database to extract pt-level data. Inclusion criteria: pts with mCRPC with available date of diagnosis of mCRPC and information on receipt of BMA. Pts were categorized into 2 cohorts based on BMA receipt (e.g., bisphosphonates, denosumab, teriparatide, romosozumab) or not. Treatment trends of BMA by year of mCRPC diagnosis were summarized using frequency and percentages. Baseline characteristics at the time of mCRPC diagnosis (age, race-ethnicity, practice type, insurance) were compared between cohorts using the Wilcoxon rank-sum and Chi-squared tests. Results: Of 24,105 pts with metastatic prostate cancer in the dataset, 14,112 with mCRPC were eligible and included. 7,990 (56.6%) received BMA while 6,122 (43.4%) did not. In BMA receipt cohort: median age was 75 (IQR 67 – 81), majority were White (61%), treated in community practice (87%) and had commercial health plan (80%). In BMA non receipt cohort: median age was 75 (IQR 68 – 82), majority were White (61%), treated in a community practice (78%), and had commercial health plan (76%). The use of BMA decreased over time from 56% in 2013 to 46% in 2024 (Table). Statistically significant differences existed between cohorts in race-ethnicity, practice type, and insurance (p < 0.001) and will be presented at the meeting. Conclusions: Despite recommendations to use BMAs in pts with mCRPC and bone metastasis or high risk of osteoporotic fracture, our findings reveal a low utilization rate of BMAs in mCRPC setting with a notable decline over time. This highlights the need to incorporate the use of BMAs in clinical practice and improve access to these agents. Trends by year of mCRPC diagnosis in receipt of the first BMA and frequency and percentage of each agent. Year 2013N = 549 2014N = 1035 2015N = 1223 2016N = 1345 2017N = 1441 2018N = 1346 2019N = 1469 2020N = 1380 2021N = 1352 2022N = 1393 2023N = 1196 2024N = 383 Receipt of BMA, n (%) 316 (56) 674 (65) 792 (65) 837 (62) 886 (61) 766 (57) 816 (56) 766 (56) 692 (51) 713 (51) 556 (46) 176 (46) Denosumab, n (%) 190 (60.1) 450 (66.8) 557 (70.3) 599 (71.6) 606 (68.4) 533 (70) 526 (64.5) 488 (63.7) 410 (59.2) 414 (58.1) 290 (52.2) 94 (53) Zoledronic acid, n (%) 120 (38) 220 (32.6) 228 (28.7) 233 (27.8) 270 (30.5) 225 (29) 281 (34.4) 273 (35.6) 277 (40) 295 (41.4) 258 (46.4) 82 (47) Teriparatide, other bisphosphonates, n (%) 6 (1.9) 4 (0.6) 7 (1) 5 (0.6) 10 (1.1) 8 (1) 9 (1.1) 5 (0.7) 5 (0.7) 4 (0.5) 8 (1.4) 0
First next-generation sequencing (NGS) testing at the end of life in patients with metastatic prostate cancer.
Ostrowski, Micah , Lin, Edwin , Nordblad, Blake , Maughan, Benjamin L. , McKay, Rana R. , Swami, Umang , Özay, Zeynep İrem , Jo, Yeonjung , Chehade, Chadi Hage , Sayegh, Nicolas , Gebrael, Georges , Fortuna, Gliceida Galarza , Li, Haoran, Thomas, Vinay Mathew , Graf, Ryon P. , Riaz, Irbaz Bin , Guha, Avirup , Roy, Soumyajit, Antonarakis, Emmanuel S. , Agarwal, Neeraj

Journal of Clinical Oncology | February 18, 2025 | Volume: 43 | Issue: 5_suppl | Pages: 90-90

10.1200/jco.2025.43.5_suppl.90 Get It

90 Background: Poly(ADP) ribose polymerase inhibitors and pembrolizumab are approved for patients with metastatic prostate cancer (mPC) with susceptible genomic alterations based on NGS testing. We recently reported that the rate of NGS testing in mPC remains low at 29.3% in the United States (1). Herein, we investigated the rates of NGS testing at the end of life in a real-world patient population. Methods: This study utilized the nationwide Flatiron Health electronic health record (EHR)-derived de-identified database. Eligibility: diagnosis of mPC, with information on receipt of NGS testing (blood/tissue) and recorded date of death. The time between each patient’s first NGS testing result date and date of death was measured and categorized into 3 groups: NGS test results delivered more than 3 months (mo) before death, within 3 mo of death, and delivered after death. Frequencies and percentages of these 3 categories were reported, also by the year of death. Results: Out of 24,105 patients with mPC in the database, 3,397 had both a recorded date of death and underwent NGS testing and were eligible and included. The median age was 74 (IQR 67–80), 70% were White non-Hispanic, and 83% were treated in a community-based practice. In these patients, 2,901 (85.4%) NGS results were reported more than 3 mo before death, 457 (13.5%) within 3 mo of death, and 39 (1.1%) after death. From 2015 to 2024, the percentage of patients receiving their result more than 3 mo before death increased from 27% to 91%, while those receiving it within 3 mo before death decreased from 55% to 8.5%, and the percentage of NGS results reported after death declined from 18% to 0.6%. Baseline characteristics (including race-ethnicity, insurance plan, practice type [academic vs. community]) in these categories will be presented at the meeting. Conclusions: Despite the availability of life-prolonging targeted therapies based on NGS testing results for patients with mPC, in ∼14% of patients, the first NGS testing results were reported within 3 mo before death or after death. The lack of timely NGS testing limits patients' access to life-prolonging personalized treatments in earlier settings, resulting in missed opportunities for improved outcomes. 1. Hage Chehade, Swami, JAMA Network Open, 2024.
PSA dynamics: Enhancing predictive models in prostate cancer follow-up.
Ekama, Lydia, Osorio, Mariana Borras, Bogan, Aaron, Comstock, Bryce, Talom, Benjamin K., Weiskittel, Taylor M. , Griner, Dalton , Stish, B.J., Choo, Chunhee Richard, Phillips, Ryan, Pisansky, Thomas M. , Waddle, Mark R. , Namazi, Mohammad Javad , Davis, Brian J. , Ebner, Daniel, Routman, David M.

Journal of Clinical Oncology | February 18, 2025 | Volume: 43 | Issue: 5_suppl | Pages: 424-424

10.1200/jco.2025.43.5_suppl.424 Get It

424 Background: Advances in prostate cancer (PC) care have led to a 98% 10-year survival rate. Prostate Specific Antigen (PSA) is the primary method of follow-up after definitive radiotherapy (RT), with benign PSA ‘bounce’ occurring in up to 30% of patients, causing uncertainty and anxiety. Distinguishing between PSA bounce and biochemical recurrence (BCR) remains challenging. The Phoenix Criteria is the standard definition of BCR since 2006, defined as PSA nadir + 2 ng/dl, but does not consider patient specific information. Our study aims to explore factors associated with bounce and BCR and develop a predictive tool to differentiate between these two events. Methods: PC patients who received RT at our institution between 2006 and 2022 were identified, including only patients with a PSA increase during follow-up. Exclusion criteria included palliative RT, prostatectomy, or insufficient follow-up information. Patients’ clinical data was collected, and PSA increase was classified as bounce or BCR. Variables were compared using Kruskal Wallis or Chi-square. Multivariate logistic regression was performed in the subset of patients with absolute PSA value >2 (n= 581). Results: Of 1783 patients reviewed due to PSA rise after treatment, 694 met the inclusion criteria. There were 213 (30.7%) with PSA bounce and 481 (69.3%) with recurrence. Prior to meeting the Phoenix Criteria, 20 (4.2%) had biopsy-proven recurrence and 18 (3.7%) imaging-proven recurrence. The median delta PSA was 0.8 ng/mL for bounce vs 5 ng/mL for recurrence (p<0.001). The median time from treatment to event was 14.4 months for bounce vs 45.3 months for BCR (p<0.001). Recurrence was significantly associated (p<0.001) with older age at diagnosis, N1 stage, higher risk category, Gleason score, and higher baseline PSA. In the subgroup of patients without ADT, recurrence was associated with a lower median first PSA post-RT (1.9 vs. 2.4, p=0.046) and a lower median nadir before event (0.6 vs. 1.8, p<0.001). Multivariate logistic regression achieved an accuracy of 0.94, with a sensitivity of 0.83, specificity of 0.98, and an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.97. Conclusions: Our results highlight significant differences in clinical factors between bounce and recurrence in post-RT patients. The multivariate logistic regression differentiated the events with 94% accuracy for patients with a rising PSA value >2 subgroup. We highlight the possible improvement that could be accomplished by personalizing a PSA threshold for recurrence versus the Phoenix definition. This tool offers patients and providers a highly specific tool to differentiate between PSA recurrence and bounce, and may reduce stress and unnecessary testing, or help diagnosis recurrence faster. Next steps include prospective validation of the model to assess the impact on clinical practice costs, patient experience, and cancer outcomes.
Time from medication order to administration of cabazitaxel (C) vs. lutetium Lu-177 vipivotide tetraxetan (Lu) in patients (pts) with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC).
Hardy, Richard R. , Hu, Si-Yuan , Tripathi, Nishita , Chigarira, Beverly , Nordblad, Blake , Ji, Richard, Garg, Diya, Roy, Soumyajit , Maughan, Benjamin L. , Agarwal, Neeraj , Swami, Umang , Jo, Yeonjung , Chehade, Chadi Hage , Özay, Zeynep İrem , Gebrael, Georges , Sayegh, Nicolas , Hardy, Richard, HU, Siqi, Fortuna, Gliceida Galarza , Thomas, Vinay Mathew , Li, Haoran, Riaz, Irbaz Bin

Journal of Clinical Oncology | February 18, 2025 | Volume: 43 | Issue: 5_suppl | Pages: 109-109

10.1200/jco.2025.43.5_suppl.109 Get It

109 Background: C and Lu are associated with overall survival benefit and approved for pts with mCRPC after prior treatment with docetaxel and an androgen receptor pathway inhibitor (ARPI). However, in real-world settings, administering Lu requires coordination across specialties and resources [PMID: 36637862], which could delay its administration. Herein, we sought to compare the time from medication order to administering the first dose of C versus Lu. Methods: This study used pt level data from the nationwide Flatiron Health electronic health record (EHR)-derived de-identified database. Inclusion criteria: availability of the date of the first order of single-agent C or Lu and the date of first administration of the drugs. The time between the first medication order to the administration of single-agent C or Lu was measured. Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used to compare the median days between medication order to administration between these 2 agents and a stratified analysis by practice type and insurance was performed. Results: Of 2,329 orders, 2,045 orders were for C between 1/1/2013 and 1/26/2024, while 284 were for Lu between 8/1/2013 and 12/6/2023. The time from medication order to administration was significantly longer with Lu (median 22 days, IQR 12-43) compared to C (median 7 days, IQR 3-14, p < 0.001). Time from medication order to administration of C and Lu by practice type and insurance is summarized (Table). At the time of the first order, pts in Lu cohort, compared to C cohort, were significantly older (median age 74 vs. 72, p < 0.001), more likely to be treated at an academic practice (27% vs. 15%, p < 0.001), and more likely to be covered by a commercial health plan (80% vs. 73%, p < 0.001). Conclusions: Our results show that it takes significantly longer to administer Lu compared to C across different practice types and most insurance plans. These results could inform healthcare policies aimed at improving access to Lu and guide treatment selection in the clinic. Time from medication order to administration of C and Lu by practice type and insurance. Category Subtype (number of orders for C/number of orders for Lu) CN = 2045 LuN = 284 p-value Practice type, mean (range) (days) Academic (315/77) 1.3 (0 – 59) 9.2 (0 – 55) < 0.001 Community (1730/207) 13 (0 – 243) 44 (1 – 282) < 0.001 Insurance, mean (range) (days) Commercial (1494/226) 11 (0 – 163) 32 (0 – 215) < 0.001 Medicare/other government programs (266/46) 10 (0 – 120) 46 (0 – 282) < 0.001 Medicaid (32/2) 9 (0 – 76) 28 (0 – 55) 0.8 Others (72/6) 12 (0 – 42) 21 (0 – 41) 0.2 Unknown (181/4) 14 (0 – 243) 76 (39 – 91) < 0.001
Recent treatment patterns in US-based real-world patients (pts) with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC).
Swami, Umang , Ostrowski, Micah , Anderson, Ethan J. , Garg, Diya, Srivastava, Ayana , Chigarira, Beverly , Gupta, Sumati , Maughan, Benjamin L. , Roy, Soumyajit , Agarwal, Neeraj , Jo, Yeonjung , Özay, Zeynep İrem , Chehade, Chadi Hage , Gebrael, Georges , Sayegh, Nicolas , Anderson, Ethan, Hu, Siqi , Thomas, Vinay Mathew , Guha, Avirup , Riaz, Irbaz Bin , Agarwal, Neeraj

Journal of Clinical Oncology | February 18, 2025 | Volume: 43 | Issue: 5_suppl | Pages: 104-104

10.1200/jco.2025.43.5_suppl.104 Get It

104 Background: Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) intensification [ADT + androgen receptor-pathway inhibitor (ARPIs) +/- docetaxel] has been shown to improve survival outcomes in pts with mHSPC and is recommended as standard of care by all major guidelines. However, prior studies have shown underutilization of ADT intensification [PMID: 39191549]. There are limited updated and large-scale studies on the use of ADT intensification, beyond January 2023. In this study, we aimed to assess the treatment patterns of ADT intensification in real-world pts with mHSPC in the US, including data on those treated since January 2023. Methods: This retrospective study utilized the nationwide Flatiron Health Electronic Health Record (EHR) derived de-identified database. Eligibility: Pts diagnosed with mHSPC and availability of treatment information (ADT and/or line of therapy in mHSPC). The data cut-off date was 5/31/2024. Treatment patterns were summarized using frequency and percentages. All analysis was done using R version 4.2.3. Results: Among 24,105 pts with metastatic prostate cancer in the database, a total of 14,084 were eligible and included. The median age at metastatic diagnosis was 72 years (IQR 65 – 79), and 60% were White non-Hispanic. In the overall cohort (1/1/2013–5/15/2024), 56.8% received ADT monotherapy, and 37.7% received ADT intensification. Table summarizes the treatment patterns by year, highlightinga consistent increase in adoption of intensified ADT regimens, and a decline in use of ADT monotherapy. Notably, since January 2023, 76.8% pts with mHSPC received ADT intensification while only 17.3% of pts received ADT monotherapy. Conclusions: To our knowledge, this is the first and largest study to evaluate the current use of ADT intensification. These data indicate a notable improvement in the adoption of level 1 evidence (ADT intensification) in the treatment of pts with mHSPC. These encouraging data emphasize the benefits of continued efforts to promote guideline-concordant care and provide the current treatment landscape to design clinical trials. Treatment patterns by year in pts with mHSPC. Treatment 2013–2017n = 5,263(%) 2018n = 1,313 (%) 2019n = 1,407(%) 2020n = 1,353(%) 2021n = 1,483(%) 2022n = 1,556(%) 2023n = 1,459(%) 2024n = 250(%) ADT monotherapy 4,095 (77.8) 856 (65.2) 819 (58.2) 664 (49) 698 (47.1) 569 (36.6) 291 (20) 5 (2) ADT + ARPI 155 (2.9) 238 (18) 354 (25.1) 452 (33) 555 (37.4) 695 (44.7) 842 (58) 154 (61.6) ADT + Docetaxel 709 (13.5) 156 (12) 175 (12.4) 156 (12) 134 (9.0) 117 (7.5) 78 (5.3) 19 (7.6) Triplet(ADT + ARPI + Docetaxel) 6 (0.1) 2 (0.2) 1 (0.1) 2 (0.1) 9 (0.6) 82 (5.2) 166 (11.1) 53 (21.2) Other therapies 298 (5.7) 61 (4.6) 58 (4.1) 79 (5.8) 87 (5.9) 93 (6) 82 (5.6) 19 (7.6)
Verdiperstat in Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis
Hayden, Douglas * deceased, Lai, Po-Ying, Donahue, Rachel, Chen, Hao-Wun, Nm, Mathai, Lopes, Gabriela, McCaffrey, Alexandra, Scalia, Jennifer , Luppino, Sarah , Lagier‐Tourenne, Clotilde , Sadri‐Vakili, Ghazaleh , Heintzman, Sarah, Sufit, Robert , Szymanski, April, Jenkins, Liberty, Martín, Alan, Greene, Ericka , Liao, Bing , Whitaker, Charles H. , Clawson, Lora , Uchil, Alpa, Riley, Kristen M., Arneklev, JinAe, Grogan, James , Su, Xiaowei , Mamarabadi, Mansoureh , Malcolm, Amber, Bazan, Tracy, Rad, Nassim, Wang, Leo H. , Piccione, Ezequiel, Thaisetthawatkul, Pariwat , Farmakidis, Constantine , Jabari, Duaa, Pasnoor, Mamatha , Brown, Robert H. , Houmani, Hajar, Douthwright, Catherine, Daniello, Kate, Suresh, Niraja, Farias, Jerrica, Chen, I-Hweii A. , Steijlen, Kara , Bhavaraju‐Sanka, Ratna, Jacobsen, Bill , Milliard, Jourdan, Bowser, Robert , Deboo, Anahita, Cartwright, Michael S. , Nance, Christopher , Yasek, Julia , Harms, Matthew B. , Burford, Matthew, Shrilla, David, Jones, Sarah , Solórzano, Guillermo, Li, Xiaoyan , Mahuwala, Zabeen , Kumaraswamy, Vishakhadatta Mathur, Baer, Michael , Bhuvaneswaran, Karthikeyan, Kaur, Jasdeep , Walk, David , Maiser, Sam , Mundwiler, Andrew, Meyer, Jenny A. , Soliven, Betty , Roos, Raymond, Mozaffar, Tahseen , Korb, Manisha Kak , Mullen, Jeffrey, Stommel, Elijah W. , Carberry, Nathan , Govindarajan, Raghav , Fournier, C. , Darki, Leila, Rodriguez, Rodrigo , McNeely, Whitney, Diaz‐Abad, Montserrat , Jin, Peter H., Chauhan, Chandana, Bobenhouse, James, Hayat, Ghazala , Bailey, Abbey, Bailey, Jesse, Barlow, Victoria , Bulat, Allison, Changkuon, Genevive, Cirino, Melissa, Deignan, Cristina, Deirmendjian, Emma, Mattos, Annette De, DiStefano, Sofia, Drake, Kristin, Estes, Michaela, Faulconer, Kenneth, Figueroa-Szostek, Precious, Garozzo, Tessa, Hasenoehrl, Meredith Gibbons, Henrique, Jennifer, Henrique, Natalie, Hurwitz, Samuel , Igne, Courtney, Irwin, Liam, Jentoft, Katie, Jordan, Boglarka, Katsovskiy, Igor, Kharakozova, Olga, Kolvek, Taylor, Korin, Alexander, La, Thuong, Li, Haining , Nguyen, Joey, Novak, Ilya, Ortiz, Ricardo, Ostrow, Joe, Pagliaro, Jaclyn , Palillo, Jack, Patterson, J.C., Phan, Minh , Popel, Najla , Proueng, Serena, Rosenthal, Jesse, Small, Catherine B. , Tarasenko, Natalia, Thomas, M., Vigneswaran, Prasha, Wahab, Yusra, Whitworth, Isaac, Wright, Spencer, Santiago, Diana De, Félix, Adrián, Garrett, Karly, Hamilton, Jenny, Khan, Kamran, Lovett, Marlee, Nelson, Linda S., Pabon, Marissa, Rede, Diana, Bolger, Patrick, Fetouh, Ahmed , Woodcook, Joan, Kamp, Cornelia , Kennedy, Julie, McGarry, Andrew , Torti, Margherita , Andrews, Jinsy , Quintana, Melanie , Saville, Benjamin R. , Detry, Michelle A. , Vestrucci, Matteo, Marion, Joseph , Young, Eufrosina , Chase, Marianne, Pothier, Lindsay , Harkey, Brittney, Yu, Hong , Sherman, Alex, Hall, Meghan, Kittle, Gale, Connolly, Mariah, D’Agostino, Derek, Tustison, Eric, Scirocco, Erica, Alameda, Gustavo, Locatelli, Eduardo, Ho, Doreen , Quick, Adam , Heitzman, Daragh, Ajroud‐Driss, Senda , Appel, Stanley H. , Shroff, Sheetal , Katz, Jonathan, Felice, Kevin J. , Maragakis, Nicholas J., Simmons, Zachary , Olney, Nicholas , Miller, Timothy M. , Fernandes, Joseph Americo, Ilieva, Hristelina , Jawdat, Omar, Weiss, Michael D. , Foster, Laura A. , Owegi, Margaret, Newman, Daniel S. , Arcila-Londono, Ximena , Jackson, Carlayne E. , Heiman‐Patterson, Terry , Fee, Dominic , Lewis, Richard A. , Rosenfeld, Jeffrey , Johnson, Kristin, Elliott, Matthew, Kasarskis, Edward J. , Rutkove, Seward B. , McIlduff, Courtney, Bedlack, Richard , Elman, Lauren , Goyal, Namita , Rezania, Kourosh , Twydell, Paul, Benatar, Michael , Glass, Jonathan D. , Jones, Vovanti , Zilliox, Lindsay , Wymer, James , Beydoun, Said R., Shah, Jaimin , Pattee, Gary L. , Martinez‐Thompson, Jennifer M. , Nayar, Shakti, Donohue, Mary V., Grossman, Katheryn, Campbell, Daniel , Qureshi, Irfan , Babu, Suma , Group, HEALEY ALS Platform Trial Study, Maragakis, Nicholas J. , Scirocco, Erica , Martinez-Thompson, Jennifer, Scirocco, Erica , Simmons, Zachary , Maragakis, Nicholas , Bedlack, Richard S , Walk, David , Hayden, Douglas, Wang, Jianing , Mathai, N. M., Kolb, Stephen J. , Szymanski, April L., Liao, Bing, Arneklev, JinAe, Malcolm, Amber, Feldman, Eva L. , Statland, Jeffrey , Dimachkie, Mazen M. , Ghasemi, Mehdi , Houmani, Hajar, Pasinelli, Piera , Milliard, Jourdan, Gutmann, Ludwig , Diaz, Frank , Shrilla, David, Rakočević, Goran , Quinn, Colin , Borg, David, Bhuvaneswaran, Karthikeyan, Robbins, Nathaniel M. , Oskarsson, Björn , Chuquilin, Miguel , McNeely, Whitney, Bobenhouse, James, Staff, Nathan P. , Arroyave, Luisa, Bulat, Allison , Changkuon, Genevive, Cirino, Melissa, Deignan, Cristina, Deirmendjian, Emma, Estes, Michaela, Figueroa-Szostek, Precious, Garozzo, Tessa, Henrique, Jennifer, Henrique, Natalie, Hurwitz, Samuel, Irwin, Liam, Jordan, Boglarka, Kolvek, Taylor, Korin, Alexander, Nguyen, Joey, Novak, Ilya, Ostrow, Joe, Palillo, Jack, Patel, Payal, Patterson, Janae, Phan, Minh, Proueng, Serena, Rosenthal, Jesse, Small, Catherine, Thomas, Mirna, Felix, Adrian, Khan, Kamran, Lovett, Marlee, Nelson, Linda, Rede, Diana, Bolger, Patrick, Fetouh, Ahmed, Woodcook, Joan, Kennedy, Julie, Paganoni, Sabrina , Macklin, Eric A. , Chibnik, Lori Beth , McGlothlin, Anna , Shefner, Jeremy M. , Berry, James D. , Giacomelli, Elisa , Goutman, Stephen A. , Fernandes, J. Americo, Vu, Tuan , Ladha, Shafeeq , Newman, Daniel S., Swenson, Andrea , Caress, James B. , Peltier, Amanda , Johnson, Kristin, Cohen, Jeffrey Allen , Granit, Volkan , Donohue, Mary, Cudkowicz, Merit , Group, HEALEY ALS Platform Trial Study

JAMA Neurology | February 17, 2025 | Volume: 82 | Issue: 4 | Pages: 333

10.1001/jamaneurol.2024.5249 | PMID 40067754 Get It

ImportanceMyeloperoxidase is one of the most abundant peroxidase enzymes in activated myeloid cells. Myeloperoxidase inhibitors may have a clinical benefit in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) by slowing neurodegeneration via reduced neuroinflammation and oxidative stress.ObjectiveTo determine the safety, tolerability, and efficacy of verdiperstat, a selective myeloperoxidase inhibitor, in ALS.Design, Settings, and ParticipantsVerdiperstat was tested as a regimen of the HEALEY ALS Platform Trial, a multicenter, double-blind, perpetual platform design, randomized clinical trial, with sharing of trial infrastructure and placebo data across multiple regimens. The study was conducted at 54 ALS referral centers across the US from July 2020 to April 2022. Adult participants with a diagnosis of clinically possible, probable, laboratory-supported probable, or definite ALS defined by the revised El Escorial criteria were randomized to verdiperstat or regimen-specific placebo. An additional group of participants concurrently randomized to placebo from other regimens was included in the analyses.InterventionsEligible participants were randomized in a 3:1 ratio to receive oral verdiperstat, 600 mg, twice daily or matching placebo for a planned placebo-controlled duration of 24 weeks.Main Outcomes and MeasuresThe primary efficacy outcome was change from baseline through week 24 in disease severity, as measured by a joint model of ALS Functional Rating Scale–Revised and survival, with the treatment effect quantified by the disease rate ratio (DRR), with DRR less than 1 indicating a slowing in disease progression of verdiperstat relative to placebo.ResultsA total of 167 participants (mean [SD] age, 58.5 [11.4] years; 59 [35.3%] female; 108 [64.6%] male) were randomized to either verdiperstat (126 [75.4%]) or to placebo (41 [25.6%]). Among the participants randomized to the verdiperstat regimen, 130 (78%) completed the trial. The estimated DRR was 0.98 (95% credible interval, 0.77-1.24; posterior probability = 0.57 for slowing of disease progression [DRR &amp;lt;1]). Verdiperstat was estimated to slow progression by 2% vs placebo (95% credible interval, −23% to 24%; posterior probability 0.57). Verdiperstat was overall safe and well tolerated. Common adverse events in the verdiperstat group were nausea, insomnia, and elevated thyrotropin levels.Conclusions and RelevanceResults demonstrate that treatment with verdiperstat was unlikely to alter disease progression in ALS.Trial RegistrationClinical Trial Identifiers: NCT04297683 and NCT04436510