Riaz, Irbaz Bin

Background CV mortality has been recognized as the preventable cause of death in most cancers. However, there is a scarcity of data exploring CV mortality in adults diagnosed with leukemia. Hence, understanding the timing, and quantifying the magnitude of CV mortality can facilitate strategies to reduce the burden of mortality in these patients. Methods Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database (2004-2018) was queried to obtain CV mortality (defined as deaths due to heart diseases, hypertension, cerebrovascular diseases, atherosclerosis, and aortic aneurysm and dissection) in adults (>18 years of age) diagnosed with leukemias including acute lymphocytic leukemia (ALL), chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), acute myeloid leukemia (AML), and chronic myeloid leukemia (CML). Standardized mortality ratios (SMRs) were calculated. SMR was defined as the observed deaths from each category divided by the expected number of deaths in the age-matched US population for the same period. SMR >1 indicated increased while <1 indicated decreased mortality. SMR was presented by latency periods of <2, 2-5, and >5 years after the initial diagnosis of leukemias and stratified by age (<50 years, 50-70 years, >70 years), race (White, Black, Asian/Pacific Islander, Native American), ethnicity (Hispanic, Non-Hispanic), and marital status (married vs single/divorced/widowed). Results This analysis included 120,193 leukemia patients. Of which, 61,763 had lymphocytic leukemia and 58,430 were diagnosed with myeloid leukemia. In overall population, a significant increase in mortality was observed in adults diagnosed with leukemia (SMR: 1.34, 95% CI: 1.27-1.40). The risk of CV death was highest <2 years of initial diagnosis (1.94, 1.87-2.01) as compared to the population who died 2-5 years (1.17, 1.11-1.23) and >5 years (1.07, 1.01-1.14) after the initial diagnosis. In terms of different subgroups, patients aged <50 years observed the highest risk of CV mortality within < 2 years (9.35, 6.54-13.38) compared to patients aged 50-70 years (2.73, 2.45-3.04), and aged >70 years (1.80, 1.73-1.88). Similarly, regarding race, Asians/Pacific islanders had the highest risk of CV mortality (4.41, 3.70-5.26) followed by Blacks (2.58, 2.26-2.94), and Whites (1.85, 1.78-1.92) within <2 years of initial diagnosis. There was a significant increase in observed mortality in Hispanic (2.83, 2.47-3.23) as well as in non-Hispanic (1.90, 1.83-1.97) population within <2 years of initial diagnosis. However, the magnitude was relatively higher in Hispanic as compared to non-Hispanics. The risk of CV death was observed to be higher in single/divorced/widowed patients (2.30, 2.00-2.20) compared to those who were married (1.81, 1.71-1.91). The CV mortality risk remained consistent for all subtypes of leukemias (ALL, CLL, AML and CML) in overall patient population and among subgroups of interest over different latency periods of <2, 2-5, and > 5years after the initial diagnosis. Small sample size in Native Americans precluded any meaningful statistics. Conclusions: Risk of CV mortality among adults with leukemia is observed to be highest among younger (<50 years), Asians, Hispanics, and single/divorced/widowed patients, especially within 2 years of initial diagnosis. A risk-adapted approach may be warranted for cardiovascular care in these patients. Targeted cardio-oncological strategies should be aimed at improving CV mortality in patients who are at the highest risk of death.

Introduction: Telemedicine has been widely utilized in the healthcare marketplace since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. Over the last 3 years, virtual care has been widely employed in the care of patients with polycythemia vera (PV), essential thrombocythemia (ET) and myelofibrosis (MF) at Mayo Clinic. These rare disorders have few experts; therefore, telemedicine becomes an optimal approach for patients receive expert care even when they are not close to the medical center. 1 Additionally, telemedicine reduces financial burden for the patients. We aim to estimate potential cost savings to patients utilizing telemedicine. Methods: We identified patients with MPN seen at Mayo Clinic, Arizona who have had at least 2 visits (1 or more virtual visits) between March 2020 and June 2022. We extracted retrospective data from electronic medical records (EMR) including sociodemographic data, disease related data and number of visits - both virtual and in person - of the patients identified. The address recorded from the EMR was assumed to be the patient's location at the time of virtual visit. Driving distances were determined using zip codes in Google Maps and the patients were stratified into quartiles based on round trip travel distances. Patients in quartiles 1 through 3 were assumed to have driven while patients in quartile 4 were assumed to have traveled by plane. Patients in quartile 1 were assumed to have 1 travel day including the follow-up visit and no accommodation, patients in quartile 2 were assumed to have 2 travel days including the follow up visit and 1 night of accommodation whereas patients in quartiles 3 and 4 were assumed to have 2 travel days, 1 day for the follow up visit and 2 nights of accommodation. Mileage rate costs were based on US Internal Revenue Service (IRS) standard mileage rates for medical or moving purposes for 2021. 2 Owing to extreme variability in flight costs, flying costs were assumed to be equal to the driving costs. Per diem costs for accommodation and meals and incidentals were based on the US General Services Administration (GSA) 2021 rates for Phoenix 3 with the cost being 75% of the full per diem rate on traveling days via GSA formulaic approach. Results: One hundred and eight patients having 282 virtual visits were identified. Patients ranged from 30 - 87 years with the mean and median age of 65 years and 67 years respectively. Majority of the patients were female (62%) and white (98%) with gender distribution varying by distance. Descriptive statistics of the estimated out-of-pocket costs for patients by distance quartiles are summarized in Table 1a. Mean estimated cost savings ranged from $46.8 to $877.3 with the savings of $43.8 - $1372.2 at extremes. The total cost savings by all patients was $90,306.7. The breakdown of costs by category for each quartile is shown in Table 1b which shows that the majority of costs saved by patients in quartile 1 were due to avoiding costs spent on meals and incidentals (~90% of mean costs) whereas costs saved due to meals and incidentals for patients in quartile 4 were only ~16% of the mean costs. Conclusions: Our research highlighted telemedicine as a cost-effective approach for patients with MPN who received virtual care from March 2020 - June 2022. Study limitations included not weighing costs for childcare or accompanying individuals and using driving costs instead of flying costs, however, these considerations potentially underestimate the actual cost savings to the patient. Additionally, since the median age of this population was 65, we didn't include loss of wages to the analysis, which may further underestimate the costs. Despite concerns over billing, reimbursement, and state licensure, virtual care is being established as a critical part of medicine moving forward. 1. Doolittle, G.C. and A.O. Spaulding, Providing Access to Oncology Care for Rural Patients via Telemedicine. Journal of Oncology Practice, 2006. 2(5): p. 228-230. 2. Internal Revenue Service. Standard mileage rates for 2021. Available at: https://www.irs.gov/tax-professionals/standard-mileage-rates 3. US General Services Administration. Per diem rates. Available at: https://www.gsa.gov/travel/plan-book/per-diem-rates/per-diem-rates-results?action=perdiems_report&fiscal_year=2021&state=AZ&city=&zip=85054

AbstractBackgroundFor men with prostate cancer, radiographic progression may occur without a concordant rise in prostate‐specific antigen (PSA). Our study aimed to assess the prevalence of radiographic progression using C‐11 choline positron emission tomography (PET) imaging in patients achieving ultra‐low PSA values and to evaluate clinical outcomes in this patient population.MethodsIn a single institution study, we reviewed the prospectively maintained Mayo Clinic C‐11 Choline PET metastatic prostate cancer registry to identify patients experiencing radiographic disease progression (rDP) on C‐11 choline PET scan while the PSA value was less than 0.5 ng/mL. Disease progression was confirmed by tissue biopsy or response to subsequent therapy. Clinicopathologic variables were abstracted by trained research personnel. Overall survival was estimated using the Kaplan–Meier method. Intergroup differences were assessed using the log‐rank test. A univariate and multivariate Cox regression model was performed to investigate variables associated with poor survival after rDP.ResultsA total of 1323 patients within the registry experienced rDP between 2011 and 2021, including 220 (16.6%) men with rDP occurring at low PSA level. A median (interquartile range [IQR]) of 54.7 (19.7–106.9) months elapsed between the time of prostate cancer diagnosis and low PSA rDP, during which 173 patients (78%) developed castration‐resistant prostate cancer (CRPC). Sites of low PSA rDP included local recurrence (n = 17, 8%), lymph node (n = 90, 41%), bone (n = 94, 43%) and visceral metastases (n = 19, 9%). Biopsy at the time of rDP demonstrated small‐cell or neuroendocrine features in 21% of patients with available tissue. Over a median (IQR) follow‐up of 49.4 (21.3–95.1) months from the time of low PSA rDP, 46% (n = 102) of patients died. Factors associated with poorer survival outcomes include advanced age at rDP, CRPC status, bone and visceral metastasis (p value <0.05). Visceral metastases were associated with decreased overall survival (p = 0.009 by log‐rank) as compared with other sites of rDP.ConclusionsMen with prostate cancer commonly experience metastatic progression at very low or even undetectable PSA levels. Periodic imaging, even at low absolute PSA values, may result in more timely identification of disease progression.

ImportancePatterns of clinical utilization and comparative effectiveness of anticoagulants for cancer-associated thrombosis (CAT) remain largely unexplored.ObjectivesTo assess patterns of and factors associated with anticoagulant use and to evaluate the comparative effectiveness of contemporary anticoagulants in patients with active cancer in a clinical setting.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis retrospective cohort study obtained deidentified OptumLabs electronic health record claims data from January 1, 2012, to September 30, 2019. Adult patients (≥18 years of age) with a primary cancer diagnosis (except skin cancer) during at least 1 inpatient or 2 outpatient visits within 6 months before the venous thromboembolism (VTE) date were included. Data were analyzed from April 2020 to September 2021.ExposuresThe patients were grouped according to the anticoagulant prescribed: (1) direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs), (2) low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH), and (3) warfarin.Main Outcomes and MeasuresOdds ratios (ORs) were used to present the association between factors of interest and utilization of anticoagulants. Main efficacy outcomes included risk of VTE recurrence and all-cause mortality. Main safety outcomes included the risk of hospitalization due to major bleeding. Relative treatment effect estimates were expressed as hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% CIs.ResultsThis study included 5100 patients (mean [SD] age, 66.3 [12.3] years; 2670 [52.4%] women; 799 [15.7%] Black, 389 [7.6%] Hispanic, and 3559 [69.8%] White individuals). Overall, 2512 (49.3%), 1488 (29.2%), and 1460 (28.6%) filled prescriptions for DOACs, LMWH, and warfarin, respectively. The median (IQR) treatment duration was 3.2 (1.0-6.5) months for DOACs, 3.1 (1.0-6.8) months for warfarin, and 1.8 (0.9-3.8) months for LWMH. Patients with lung (OR, 2.07; 95% CI, 1.12-3.65), urological (OR, 1.94; 95% CI,1.08-3.49), gynecological (OR, 4.25; 95% CI, 2.31-7.82), and colorectal (OR, 2.26; 95% CI, 1.20-4.32) cancer were associated with increased prescriptions for LMWH compared with DOACs. LMWH (HR, 1.47; 95% CI, 1.14-1.90) and warfarin (HR, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.13-1.87) were associated with an increased risk of VTE recurrences compared with DOACs. LMWH was associated with an increased risk of major bleeding (HR, 2.27; 95% CI, 1.62-3.20) and higher all-cause mortality (HR, 1.61; 95% CI, 1.15-2.25) compared with DOACs.Conclusions and RelevanceIn this comparative effectiveness study of claims-based data, patients with CAT received anticoagulation for a remarkably short duration in clinical settings. DOACs was associated with a lower risk of VTE recurrence, major bleeding, and mortality. Warfarin may still be considered for patients with contraindications to DOACs and those with poor persistence on LMWH.

Abstract Background Early-stage breast cancer is among the most common cancer diagnoses. Adjuvant radiotherapy is an essential component of breast-conserving therapy, and several options exist for tailoring its extent and duration. This study assesses the comparative effectiveness of partial-breast irradiation (PBI) compared with whole-breast irradiation (WBI). Methods A systematic review was completed to identify relevant randomized clinical trials and comparative observational studies. Independent reviewers working in pairs selected studies and extracted data. Randomized trial results were pooled using a random effects model. Prespecified main outcomes were ipsilateral breast recurrence (IBR), cosmesis, and adverse events (AEs). Results Fourteen randomized clinical trials and 6 comparative observational studies with 17 234 patients evaluated the comparative effectiveness of PBI. PBI was not statistically significantly different from WBI for IBR at 5 years (RR = 1.34, 95% CI = 0.83 to 2.18; high strength of evidence [SOE]) and 10 years (RR = 1.29, 95% CI = 0.87 to 1.91; high SOE). Evidence for cosmetic outcomes was insufficient. Statistically significantly fewer acute AEs were reported with PBI compared with WBI, with no statistically significant difference in late AEs. Data from subgroups according to patient, tumor, and treatment characteristics were insufficient. Intraoperative radiotherapy was associated with higher IBR at 5, 10, and over than 10 years (high SOE) compared with WBI. Conclusions Ipsilateral breast recurrence was not statistically significantly different between PBI and WBI. Acute AEs were less frequent with PBI. This evidence supports the effectiveness of PBI among selected patients with early-stage, favorable-risk breast cancer who are similar to those represented in the included studies.

e24078 Background: The addition of anti-CD38 mAbs, daratumumab and isatuximab, to standard anti-myeloma regimens have drawn scrutiny towards long-term safety concerns, including the risk of SPMs. ICARIA-MM study reported SPMs in 3.9% patients (pts.) in the Isatuximab, pomalidomide and dexamethasone (Isa-Pd) arm compared to 0.7% in the Pd arm. We hypothesized that exposure to anti-CD38 mAbs could potentially increase risk of SPMs due to prolonged immunosuppression. An assessment of this association is warranted, given the improved life expectancy and growing prevalence of pts. with MM. Methods: We performed a meta-analysis on data obtained from RCTs published between January 2005 and April 2022 that compared anti-CD38 mAb-based regimens to other standard anti-myeloma regimens (control) in pts. with newly diagnosed or relapsed/refractory (r/r) MM. Total number of SPMs (including categories) were extracted for pts. in both groups. Malignant melanomas were included under solid SPM category. Binary outcome data were analyzed using fixed-effect Peto method. Treatment effect estimates were expressed as odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). I2 > 50% indicated substantial heterogeneity. Results: 10 RCTs involving 4980 pts. were included, with 2824 (57%) and 2156 (43%) pts. randomized to the anti-CD38 mAb and control arms, respectively (Table). Overall, 191 and 112 SPMs were reported in the anti-CD38 mAb and control arms, respectively. At a median follow-up of 35.3 months, anti-CD38 mAb exposure was associated with an increased risk of developing SPMs compared to control (6.8% vs. 5.2%; OR: 1.53 [95% CI: 1.20-1.95]; I2= 0%). Non-melanoma cutaneous cancers were the most common, and higher in the anti-CD38 mAb vs. control arms (92 versus 47; OR: 1.77 [95% CI: 1.25-2.51]; I2= 0%). The increase in solid cancers (including melanoma) (OR: 1.28 [95% CI: 0.85-1.95]) and hematologic SPMs (OR: 1.86; [95% CI: 0.81-4.27] was not significant. On sensitivity analysis, the total number of SPMs were higher in the anti-CD38 mAb arm vs. control arm, regardless of the presence of immunomodulatory drugs in combination regimen. Conclusions: This meta-analysis shows an increased risk of SPMs in pts. with MM exposed to daratumumab or isatuximab, particularly that of non-invasive cutaneous tumors. This association should be further investigated in real-world settings using large databases. [Table: see text]

6636 Background: Equitable regional enrollment in clinical trials is critical to addressing global inequities in health care outcomes. Therefore, we quantified disparities in regional recruitment in global cancer trials. Methods: Phase II/III clinical trials in prostate (PC), breast (BC), colorectal (CRC) and lung cancer (LC), and reporting regional recruitment were identified from Medline. Global regions were defined as North-(NA) and South- America (SA), Europe (EU), Africa (AF), Asia (AS), and Australia (AU). For multi-regional trials, enrollment incidence ratios (EIR) which compare region-wise trial enrollment against global estimates of region-wise specific cancer incidence obtained from Global Burden of Disease 2019 database. Trial-level EIRs were pooled using random-effects meta-analysis. A pooled EIR of < 1.0 indicates underrepresentation of a particular region in clinical trial enrollment compared to the actual burden of the specific cancer in that region. Statistical analyses were conducted in R v4.1.2. Results: Of the total 2125 trials identified, 1681 (79.1%) trials with 691,800 participants reported information regarding regional recruitment. Among those, only 1400 (65.9%) trials reported proportions of patients from pre-defined regions. A total of 1231 (57.9%) trials were single-regional recruiting patients from EU (589; 47.8%), NA (329; 26.7%), AS (295; 23.9%), AU (10; 0.8%), AF (4; 0.3%), and SA (4; 0.3%). There was significant underrepresentation of patients from AS (EIR: 0.47; 95% CI: 0.41-0.54) in cancer clinical trials. This was consistent across different cancers: PC (0.49; 0.35-0.71), BC (0.63; 0.43-0.94), CRC (0.63; 0.43-0.94), LC (0.39; 0.30-0.50). Similarly, there is a trend of under-representation of patients from AF (0.67; 0.43-1.04). Consistently, patients from were under-represented in PC (0.43; 0.24-0.77) and LC (0.26; 0.09-0.79) trials. Patients from NA (1.27; 1.08-1.51), EU (1.64; 1.57-1.72), and AU (5.41; 3.90-7.51) were significantly over-represented in multi-regional cancer clinical trials. The results are provided in table. Conclusions: There is suboptimal reporting of region-wise enrollment in cancer clinical trials. Representation of Africa and Asia in cancer clinical trials appears to be less than their expected share based on their burden of cancer incidence. [Table: see text]

6559 Background: Recent findings that Black and Hispanic patients were significantly underrepresented in industry-sponsored prostate cancer trials warrant a detailed investigation across cancer types to assess the association between funding source and enrollment disparities. Methods: Phase II/III clinical trials in prostate, breast, colorectal, and lung cancers reporting age, gender, race/ethnicity, and reporting NIH or industry as the funding source were considered eligible for inclusion. For age, and gender analysis, all trials were considered eligible. For race/ethnicity analysis, trials recruiting from the United States (US) were considered eligible. Enrollment-incidence ratios (EIR) comparing trial proportion from age/gender or racial/ethnic subgroups against global cancer incidence in the corresponding group (from Global Burden of Disease) or US-population-based incidence in the corresponding racial/ethnic subgroup (from SEER 22), were computed. Trial-level EIRs were pooled using a random-effects model and subsequently stratified by funding source. A univariate meta-regression was conducted to assess the temporal changes in EIR by each funding category. Results: Of 42,390 studies initially identified, 2234 trials (1989-2021) met the eligibility criteria. Regarding age, 361 (16%) trials reported age categories by 65 years threshold. Of 698 trials recruiting from the US, 498 (71%) reported race, and 198 (28%) reported ethnicity. Regarding representation, older adults were under-represented (EIR: 0.66; 95% CI: 0.62-0.70) in the industry but not in NIH-sponsored clinical trials (0.79; 0.62-1.00). Regarding gender, no significant disparity was observed regarding the enrollment of men and women in colorectal and lung cancer clinical trials. In terms of race, there was a greater under-representation of Black patients in industry sponsored trials (0.29; 0.26-0.32) as compared to NIH-sponsored clinical trials (0.65; 0.57-0.74) [Pint <0.01]. Asian patients were significantly overrepresented in industry sponsored trials (3.17; 2.69-3.74) but not in NIH sponsored clinical trials (1.43; 0.85-2.41) [Pint <0.01]. Hispanic patients were significantly under-represented in both, industry (0.27; 0.22-0.34) and NIH-sponsored clinical trials (0.35; 0.22-0.55) [Pint 0.32]. Secondary analyses including trials recruiting exclusively from the US, and analyses by specific cancer types showed consistent results. Recruitment of older adults, men, and Black patients is decreasing over time. Conclusions: There is a consistent under-representation of older adults in industry-sponsored, and of Black and Hispanic patients in both industry-sponsored and NIH-sponsored clinical trials. The under-representation of Black patients is likely to be greater in industry-sponsored trials, which has worsened over the last three decades.

6557 Background: Trials that inadequately include underrepresented minority (URM) populations widen inequities in cancer care. We assessed reporting patterns, representation, and trends of URM representation in breast cancer (BC) trials. Methods: We analyzed all phase 2/3 trials for age disparity and trials recruiting from the US for racial/ethnic disparity amongst BC RCTs (1990-2021). Enrollment-incidence ratios (EIR), which compare trial proportions (TP) from age subgroups against global estimates of incidence in the corresponding age group (from Global Burden of Disease) and racial/ethnic subgroups against US-population-based incidence in the corresponding racial/ethnic group (from SEER 22), were calculated. Individual-trial EIRs were pooled using random-effects meta-analyses. EIRs of <0.80 indicated meaningful underrepresentation, while EIRs >1.20 indicated meaningful overrepresentation. Meta-regression was used to explore associations between key trial characteristics and EIR, and trends in EIR over the last three decades. Results: Of 842 global trials with 490,657 participants, 232 (27.6%) reported the number of participants in specific age strata and 144 (17.1%) reported outcomes by age. Only 60 trials recruited exclusively from the US. Of these, 41 (68.3%) reported race and 24 (40.0%) reported ethnicity, and 2 (3.3%) analyzed outcomes by race. Older adults aged ≥65 years (TP: 24.3%; EIR: 0.53 [95% CI: 0.47-0.60]) and Hispanic women (TP: 5.3%; 0.54; 0.40-0.75) were underrepresented across global trials and US-only trials respectively. Black women were significantly underrepresented in trials that led to FDA approval (0.38; 0.25-0.58) but not in US-only trials. Stratified analysis by BC subtype (with subtype-specific population incidence) showed underrepresentation of Black women in US-only trials for HER2+ BC (0.66; 0.47-0.93), Hispanic women in ER+ BC (0.42; 0.20-0.90), Asians in triple-negative BC (0.24; 0.11-0.53), and older women in HER2+ BC (0.35; 0.31-0.40) and triple-negative BC (0.36; 0.29-0.45). From 1990-2021, the representation of older women declined significantly (meta-regression coefficient for EIR: -0.4 per 10 years), while Black and Hispanic representation showed no significant change. Black (p = 0.02) and Hispanic representation (p = 0.05) worsened significantly in larger trials. Conclusions: Published reports of BC trials do not consistently report the inclusion of URM. Older and Hispanic women were consistently underrepresented, whereas Black women were underrepresented in large, practice-changing trials. [Table: see text]

5088 Background: Previous evidence suggests that there may be no additional benefit of triplet therapy in low volume disease based on limited data. Therefore, we investigated the efficacy of triplet therapy as compared to docetaxel (D) and androgen pathway inhibitor (API) doublets by volume of disease using the most up to date results from the ARASENS trial. Methods: Phase III randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing treatment intensification with API, and/or D in patients with mCSPC were included. Precomputed hazard ratios (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for OS were pooled using an inverse-variance approach. A DerSimonian-Laird random-effects meta-analysis was conducted to assess the efficacy of triplet therapy compared to D doublet therapy. P-value of interaction was computed to assess difference between high (HV) and low volume (LV) disease subgroups (Pint <0.1 - statistical significance). Additionally mixed treatment comparisons were computed using network meta-analysis (NMA) to assess the comparative effectiveness of triplet therapy compared to API doublets by volume of disease. Results: Pairwise meta-analysis included a total of 3 RCTs (ARASENS, PEACE-1, ENZAMET) with 2518 patients (HV: 1820; LV: 698) as shown. In patients with HV disease, 385 (43%) and 484 (53%) deaths were observed with triplet therapy, and D doublet, respectively. Triplet therapy significantly improved OS as compared to D doublet in HV (HR: 0.73; 95% CI: 0.64-0.84). In patients with LV disease, 73 (20%) and 94 (28%) deaths were observed with triplet therapy, and D doublet, respectively. Triplet therapy significantly improved OS as compared to D doublet in LV (HR: 0.71; 95% CI: 0.52-0.97). There was no statistically significant interaction by volume of disease for triplet therapy vs. D doublet (Pint: 0.86). NMA including 10 clinical trials and over 11500 patients updated as of 13th Feb 2023 showed that in HV mCSPC, triplet therapy was ranked as potentially the most efficacious treatment option and may improve OS compared to API doublet therapy (HR: 0.83; 95% CI: 0.66-1.03). In LV mCSPC, API doublet therapy was ranked as potentially the most efficacious treatment followed by triplet therapy. There was no significant difference between triplet therapy and API doublet therapy (HR: 1.12; 95% CI: 0.74-1.12). Conclusions: These results underscore that triplet therapy may be preferred in mCSPC patients with HV disease whereas API doublet therapy may be preferred in LV disease. [Table: see text]