Morgans, Alicia K.

Background: Management strategies for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) have rapidly shifted in recent years. As novel imaging and therapeutic approaches have made their way to the clinic, providers are encountering increasingly challenging clinical scenarios, with limited guidance from the current literature. Materials and Methods: The US Prostate Cancer Conference (USPCC) is a multidisciplinary meeting of prostate cancer experts intended to address the many challenges of prostate cancer management. At the first annual USPCC meeting, areas of controversy and consensus were identified during a 2-day meeting that included expert presentations, full-panel discussions, and postdiscussion responses to questions developed by the USPCC cochairs and session moderators. Results: This narrative review covers the USPCC expert discussion and perspectives relevant to mCRPC, including neuroendocrine/aggressive-variant prostate cancer (NEPC/AVPC). Areas of broad agreement identified among USPCC experts include the benefits of poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors for patients with BRCA1/2 mutations, the use of radioligand therapy in patients with prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA)–positive mCRPC, and the need for clinical trials that address real-world clinical questions, including the performance of novel therapies when compared with modern standard-of-care treatment. Ongoing areas of controversy and uncertainty included the appropriateness of PARP inhibitors in patients with non-BRCA1/2 mutations, the optimal definition of PSMA positivity, and systemic therapies for patients with NEPC/AVPC after progression on platinum-based therapies. Conclusions: The first annual USPCC meeting identified several areas of controversy in the management of mCRPC, highlighting the urgent need for clinical trials designed to facilitate treatment selection and sequencing in this heterogeneous disease state.

Purpose: Castration-sensitive prostate cancer (CSPC) is a complex and heterogeneous condition encompassing a range of clinical presentations. As new approaches have expanded management options, clinicians are left with myriad questions and controversies regarding the optimal individualized management of CSPC. Materials and Methods: The US Prostate Cancer Conference (USPCC) multidisciplinary panel was assembled to address the challenges of prostate cancer management. The first annual USPCC meeting included experts in urology, medical oncology, radiation oncology, and nuclear medicine. USPCC co-chairs and session moderators identified key areas of controversy and uncertainty in prostate cancer management and organized the sessions with multidisciplinary presentations and discussion. Throughout the meeting, experts responded to questions prepared by chairs and moderators to identify areas of agreement and controversy. Results: The USPCC panel discussion and question responses for CSPC-related topics are presented. Key advances in CSPC management endorsed by USPCC experts included the development and clinical utilization of gene expression classifiers and artificial intelligence (AI) models for risk stratification and treatment selection in specific patient populations, the use of advanced imaging modalities in patients with clinically localized unfavorable intermediate or high-risk disease and those with biochemical recurrence, recommendations of doublet or triplet therapy for metastatic CSPC (mCSPC), and consideration of prostate and/or metastasis-directed radiation therapy in select patients with mCSPC. Conclusions: CSPC is a diverse disease with many therapeutic options and the potential for adverse outcomes associated with either undertreatment or overtreatment. Future studies are needed to validate and clinically integrate novel technologies, including genomics, AI, and advanced imaging, to optimize outcomes among patients with CSPC.

Abstract Background: Advanced prostate cancer is defined as metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC) or castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC). Newer and aggressive treatments are leading to increasing lifespans in this population. As such, studying quality of life could have a large impact on the survivorship experience. An important component of quality of life is financial toxicity, defined as the financial burden and distress that can arise for patients and their families because of cancer treatment. Objectives: To understand the prevalence and predictors of financial toxicity in advanced prostate cancer. Methods: IRONMAN (International Registry of Men with Advanced Prostate Cancer) is a prospective cohort of patients with newly diagnosed mHSPC or CRPC enrolling in 15 countries. Financial toxicity was collected using the EORTC QLQ-C30 (“has your physical condition or medical treatment caused you financial difficulties?”) at enrollment and every three months thereafter. For this analysis, we studied 997 patients cared for at 37 US sites enrolled from 7/2017 to 7/2023. We examined baseline and longitudinal reports of financial toxicity across clinical and demographic factors: age at enrollment, race and ethnicity, disease state, marital status, education, employment, military status, and type of health center. We conducted adjusted risk difference analysis and multivariable regression modeling to identify predictors of financial toxicity using a generalized estimating equations approach to calculate odds ratios (OR and 95% confidence intervals, CI). Results: At enrollment, 125 (13%) patients reported experiencing “quite a bit” or “very much” financial toxicity. 21% of Black patients experienced toxicity compared to 10% of White patients. Even after incorporating all other predictors, Black patients experienced 5% (95% CI: 0, 11) greater toxicity than White patients. Independently of other predictors, patients >75 experienced 11% (CI: -17, -4) lower toxicity compared to those <65 years (while patients in the 65-74 group experienced 6% less, CI: -12, 1). Toxicity was 6% greater in patients with mHSPC (CI: 2, 10) than in patients with CRPC, and disabled or unemployed patients were at substantially higher risk. In the multivariable longitudinal analyses, older age (> 75) remained associated with significantly lower odds for financial toxicity (OR: 0.30, 0.15-0.61) while mHSPC (OR: 1.91, 1.14-3.20) and being unemployed (OR: 2.69, 1.03-6.99) or disabled (OR: 5.14, 2.29-11.6) were associated with higher odds. Conclusions: Financial toxicity is prevalent in advanced prostate cancer, especially in patients who are Black, younger than 75, diagnosed with mHSPC, or unemployed/disabled. These results may inform identification of patients at high risk for financial toxicity to support delivery of patient-situation-informed care by clinicians and targeted aid for patients at highest risk. Citation Format: Isani Singh, Bailey Vaselkiv, Emily Rencsok, Karen Autio, Deborah Enting, Alicia Morgans, Joel Nowak, Kevin Kensler, David Nanus, Robert Dreicer, Brian Lewis, Oliver Sartor, Elisabeth Heath, Phillip Kantoff, Deborah Kaye, Daniel George, Lorelei Mucci. Financial toxicity among patients with advanced prostate cancer in the United States [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2024; Part 1 (Regular Abstracts); 2024 Apr 5-10; San Diego, CA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2024;84(6_Suppl):Abstract nr 3410.

Abstract Bone pain is a well-known quality-of-life detriment for individuals with prostate cancer and is associated with survival. This study expands previous work into racial differences in multiple patient-reported dimensions of pain and the association between baseline and longitudinal pain and mortality. This is a prospective cohort study of individuals with newly diagnosed advanced prostate cancer enrolled in the International Registry for Men with Advanced Prostate Cancer (IRONMAN) from 2017 to 2023 at U.S. sites. Differences in four pain scores at study enrollment by race were investigated. Cox proportional hazards models and joint longitudinal survival models were fit for each of the scale scores to estimate HRs and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for the association with all-cause mortality. The cohort included 879 individuals (20% self-identifying as Black) enrolled at 38 U.S. sites. Black participants had worse pain at baseline compared with White participants, most notably a higher average pain rating (mean 3.1 vs. 2.2 on a 10-point scale). For each pain scale, higher pain was associated with higher mortality after adjusting for measures of disease burden, particularly for severe bone pain compared with no pain (HR, 2.47; 95% CI: 1.44–4.22). The association between pain and all-cause mortality was stronger for participants with castration-resistant prostate cancer compared with those with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer and was similar among Black and White participants. Overall, Black participants reported worse pain than White participants, and more severe pain was associated with higher mortality independent of clinical covariates for all pain scales. Significance: Black participants with advanced prostate cancer reported worse pain than White participants, and more pain was associated with worse survival. More holistic clinical assessments of pain in this population are needed to determine the factors upon which to intervene to improve quality of life and survivorship, particularly for Black individuals.

ImportanceSystematic data on the association between anticancer therapies and thromboembolic events (TEEs) in patients with COVID-19 are lacking.ObjectiveTo assess the association between anticancer therapy exposure within 3 months prior to COVID-19 and TEEs following COVID-19 diagnosis in patients with cancer.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis registry-based retrospective cohort study included patients who were hospitalized and had active cancer and laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. Data were accrued from March 2020 to December 2021 and analyzed from December 2021 to October 2022.ExposureTreatments of interest (TOIs) (endocrine therapy, vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors/tyrosine kinase inhibitors [VEGFis/TKIs], immunomodulators [IMiDs], immune checkpoint inhibitors [ICIs], chemotherapy) vs reference (no systemic therapy) in 3 months prior to COVID-19.Main Outcomes and MeasuresMain outcomes were (1) venous thromboembolism (VTE) and (2) arterial thromboembolism (ATE). Secondary outcome was severity of COVID-19 (rates of intensive care unit admission, mechanical ventilation, 30-day all-cause mortality following TEEs in TOI vs reference group) at 30-day follow-up.ResultsOf 4988 hospitalized patients with cancer (median [IQR] age, 69 [59-78] years; 2608 [52%] male), 1869 had received 1 or more TOIs. Incidence of VTE was higher in all TOI groups: endocrine therapy, 7%; VEGFis/TKIs, 10%; IMiDs, 8%; ICIs, 12%; and chemotherapy, 10%, compared with patients not receiving systemic therapies (6%). In multivariable log-binomial regression analyses, relative risk of VTE (adjusted risk ratio [aRR], 1.33; 95% CI, 1.04-1.69) but not ATE (aRR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.56-1.16) was significantly higher in those exposed to all TOIs pooled together vs those with no exposure. Among individual drugs, ICIs were significantly associated with VTE (aRR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.01-2.07). Also noted were significant associations between VTE and active and progressing cancer (aRR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.01-2.03), history of VTE (aRR, 3.10; 95% CI, 2.38-4.04), and high-risk site of cancer (aRR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.14-1.75). Black patients had a higher risk of TEEs (aRR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.03-1.50) than White patients. Patients with TEEs had high intensive care unit admission (46%) and mechanical ventilation (31%) rates. Relative risk of death in patients with TEEs was higher in those exposed to TOIs vs not (aRR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.91-1.38) and was significantly associated with poor performance status (aRR, 1.77; 95% CI, 1.30-2.40) and active/progressing cancer (aRR, 1.55; 95% CI, 1.13-2.13).Conclusions and RelevanceIn this cohort study, relative risk of developing VTE was high among patients receiving TOIs and varied by the type of therapy, underlying risk factors, and demographics, such as race and ethnicity. These findings highlight the need for close monitoring and perhaps personalized thromboprophylaxis to prevent morbidity and mortality associated with COVID-19–related thromboembolism in patients with cancer.

5071 Background: Best treatment of mCSPC involves doublet therapy (ADT + novel hormonal agent) or triplet therapy (ADT + novel hormone + docetaxel); however, opportunity remains for further improvement. Studies show that homologous recombination repair (HRR) gene mutations are enriched in metastatic prostate cancer, and may portend resistance to docetaxel. CASCARA tested quadruplet therapy (ADT + cabazitaxel/carboplatin + abiraterone) in high-volume mCSPC, aiming to enhance PSA responses and decrease progression at 1 year. Methods: This phase 2 study enrolled 61 mCSPC patients with high-volume disease who received ADT plus cabazitaxel (20 mg/m2 q21d x 6) and carboplatin (AUC=4 q21d x 6) followed by abiraterone (1000 mg, plus prednisone 5 mg). Primary endpoint was freedom from PSA/radiographic progression at 1 year. Other endpoints included PSA50 response, freedom from PSA progression, and safety. Archival biopsies were retrospectively evaluated for HRR ( BRCA1/2, ATM, CHEK2, CDK12, BRIP1, RAD51B) mutations at a CLIA-certified lab. A sample size of 61 was determined using a Simon two-stage design (stage 1: 32 men, stage 2: 29 men) with a null hypothesis of a 1-year PSA/radiographic progression-free rate of 0.80 against a one-sided alternative of 0.92. Results: From 11/2019 to 06/2022, 61 men enrolled at 7 sites. Median age was 64 (range, 45–76) years; 21% were African American. Median baseline PSA was 8.9 (range, 0.1–1021) ng/mL. 44% of men had ECOG=1. 91% had Gleason sum 8–10. Prevalence of DNA alterations (50 evaluable pts) was 18% for HRR mutations, 38% for TP53 muts, 22% for ERG fusions, 10% for SPOP muts. Freedom from PSA/radiographic progression at 1 year was 77% (95% CI, 63–87%), and freedom from PSA progression at 1 year was 81% (95% CI, 67–90%). The PSA50 rate response was 97%. PSA ≤0.2 ng/mL at month-7, a surrogate for survival in other mCSPC studies, was 61%; PSA ≤4 ng/mL at month-7 was 82%. Outcomes according to mutation status are shown. AEs included 7% grade (Gr)-3/4 myelosuppression, 8% Gr-3/4 infections, 10% Gr-3 GI disorders, and 3% Gr-3 fatigue. There were 4 treatment-related discontinuations. Conclusions: Quadruplet therapy with ADT + cabazitaxel/carboplatin + abiraterone was well tolerated. At 1 year, 77% of pts were progression-free. PSA ≤0.2 ng/mL at month-7 was 61%, exceeding the historical month-7 PSA ≤0.2 ng/mL rate of 45% in CHAARTED–docetaxel arm. Further exploration of this quadruplet strategy in randomized phase III studies is warranted. Clinical trial information: NCT03934840 . [Table: see text]

The burden of cancer and oncologic treatment is reflected not only through morbidity and mortality, but also through impacts on patient quality of life (QoL). However, QoL has not been historically measured or addressed with the same rigorous methodology as traditional disease-related outcomes such as overall survival and progression, as these are driven by objective measurements and events. Prostate cancer (PCa) is one of the most prevalent non-cutaneous cancers in men around the world. Both the cancer and its treatment significantly impact patients’ physical, emotional, sexual, social, and overall QoL. Ensuring assessment and integration of QoL in research and clinical care enables improvement in treatment outcomes that matter most to patients while also facilitating alignment of healthcare priorities with reimbursements. Great strides toward this end have been made over the last decade, but significant room for improvement remains. To ensure high quality, reliable data collection, QoL assessment tools must be psychometrically validated, standardized, widely implemented across trials, and regularly assessed to allow internal and external validity, longitudinal comparative effectiveness research, and quality control. Additional consideration should be taken for instruments used to measure the aspects of QoL specific to minority, caregiver, and elderly populations. Open clinical questions include how providers should weight changes in different QoL subscales and how clinically meaningful difference thresholds should be defined. Review of ongoing clinical trials encouragingly reveals an increased focus on measuring and improving QoL for men with PCa which will inform the way we utilize QoL assessments. However, additional efforts herein described are needed to fully optimize these processes. In summary, this review will explain the rationale for QoL assessments in PCa populations, discuss requirements for effective implementation, describe considerations for vulnerable and under-evaluated populations, and summarize ongoing clinical trials assessing patient QoL.

ImportanceCytokine storm due to COVID-19 can cause high morbidity and mortality and may be more common in patients with cancer treated with immunotherapy (IO) due to immune system activation.ObjectiveTo determine the association of baseline immunosuppression and/or IO-based therapies with COVID-19 severity and cytokine storm in patients with cancer.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis registry-based retrospective cohort study included 12 046 patients reported to the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19) registry from March 2020 to May 2022. The CCC19 registry is a centralized international multi-institutional registry of patients with COVID-19 with a current or past diagnosis of cancer. Records analyzed included patients with active or previous cancer who had a laboratory-confirmed infection with SARS-CoV-2 by polymerase chain reaction and/or serologic findings.ExposuresImmunosuppression due to therapy; systemic anticancer therapy (IO or non-IO).Main Outcomes and MeasuresThe primary outcome was a 5-level ordinal scale of COVID-19 severity: no complications; hospitalized without requiring oxygen; hospitalized and required oxygen; intensive care unit admission and/or mechanical ventilation; death. The secondary outcome was the occurrence of cytokine storm.ResultsThe median age of the entire cohort was 65 years (interquartile range [IQR], 54-74) years and 6359 patients were female (52.8%) and 6598 (54.8%) were non-Hispanic White. A total of 599 (5.0%) patients received IO, whereas 4327 (35.9%) received non-IO systemic anticancer therapies, and 7120 (59.1%) did not receive any antineoplastic regimen within 3 months prior to COVID-19 diagnosis. Although no difference in COVID-19 severity and cytokine storm was found in the IO group compared with the untreated group in the total cohort (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.80; 95% CI, 0.56-1.13, and aOR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.41-1.93, respectively), patients with baseline immunosuppression treated with IO (vs untreated) had worse COVID-19 severity and cytokine storm (aOR, 3.33; 95% CI, 1.38-8.01, and aOR, 4.41; 95% CI, 1.71-11.38, respectively). Patients with immunosuppression receiving non-IO therapies (vs untreated) also had worse COVID-19 severity (aOR, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.36-2.35) and cytokine storm (aOR, 2.32; 95% CI, 1.42-3.79).Conclusions and RelevanceThis cohort study found that in patients with cancer and COVID-19, administration of systemic anticancer therapies, especially IO, in the context of baseline immunosuppression was associated with severe clinical outcomes and the development of cytokine storm.Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04354701

AbstractBackgroundE3805 (CHAARTED) is a phase 3 trial demonstrating improved survival for men with metastatic hormone‐sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC) randomized to treatment with docetaxel (D) and androgen‐deprivation therapy (ADT) versus ADT alone. We assessed the association of baseline body mass index (BMI) and metformin exposure with quality of life (QOL) and prostate cancer outcomes including survival in patients enrolled in the CHAARTED study.MethodsWe performed a posthoc exploratory analysis of the CHAARTED trial of men with mHSPC randomized to treatment with ADT with or without D between 2006 and 2012. Cox proportional hazards models and Kruskal–Wallis test were used to evaluate the association between BMI with QOL and prostate cancer outcomes and between metformin exposure and survival.ResultsIn 788 of 790 enrolled patients with prospectively recorded baseline BMI and metformin exposure status, lower BMI was not associated with survival, but was associated with high volume disease (p < 0.0001) and poorer baseline QOL on functional assessment of cancer therapy–prostate (p = 0.008). Only 68 patients had prevalent metformin exposure at baseline in the CHAARTED trial. Four groups were identified: ADT + D + metformin (n = 39); ADT + D (n = 357); ADT + metformin (n = 29); and ADT alone (n = 363). Baseline clinicopathologic characteristics were similar between groups. In this small exploratory multivariable analysis, metformin exposure was not associated with survival (hazard ratio: 1.15; 95% confidence interval: 0.81–1.63, p = 0.44).ConclusionsThere was no link between baseline BMI and survival, but lower baseline BMI was associated with features of greater cancer burden and poorer QOL.