Citations

269 Background: Metastatic visceral involvement in prostate cancer patients conveys a poor prognosis. Survival patterns of site-specific visceral metastasis are poorly understood. Here, we sought to investigate survival patterns in prostate cancer patients according to their first detected site of visceral metastasis. Methods: Retrospectively, we identified 200 patients with visceral metastatic prostate cancer. Patients were divided into three groups according to first site detected with visceral metastases; first-site lung metastases, first-site brain metastases, and first-site liver metastases. Visceral metastases were detected on either conventional imaging (CT/MRI), metabolic imaging (C-11 choline), or PSMA PET-CT scan. Follow up duration of our study was 80 months. Results: Clinicopathological variables are shown. The K-M curve of overall survival of the entire cohort suggests better survival patterns in patients with first-site lung metastases compared to patients with first-site brain or liver metastases (p<0.0001). In subset analysis of patients with CRPC, the K-M curve of overall survival, which demonstrates better survival outcomes in patients with first-site lung metastases in comparison with patients with first-site brain or liver metastases (p<0.0001). Conclusions: Our data suggests that prostate cancer patients with visceral metastatic disease have different survival patterns according to the first site detected with visceral metastasis. In our cohort, patients with first-site lung metastasis demonstrated better survival outcomes than patients with first-site brain or liver metastasis. Further studies are warranted. [Table: see text]

239 Background: In part, TMB guides therapeutic decisions on the use of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in aPC. Most patients (pts) with aPC do not have high TMB (TMB-H) at the time of initial assessment. However, TMB changes over time (from treatment pressure) as pts progress through lines of therapy (LOT) has not been extensively explored in aPC. We describe real world data on changes to blood TMB (bTMB) in pts with aPC exposed to several LOT. Methods: Genomic results from pts with aPC who had ≥1 ctDNA test(s) with TMB analyzed (Guardant360, Guardant Health, Inc) as part of clinical care from Oct 2020 – Jun 2022 were retrospectively queried. Clinical factors were extracted from test requisition forms; pts from Mayo Clinic had additional factors, including intervening treatment, extracted from medical records. High bTMB (TMB-H) was defined as ≥13.4 mut/Mb, as previously reported. Proportions were compared using Fisher’s Exact Test. Results: 316 patients with a median age of 72 (range: 44-91) were analyzed. Initial median TMB for the entire cohort was 8.18 mut/Mb (range: 0.01-268.3). On subsequent test, TMB decreased in 122(40%), increased in 173(55%), of whom 29 (17%) became TMB-H; 21 (7%) had unchanged TMB. Median time between tests was 182 days (range: 21-578). 101 patients with 262 tests and a median age of 71 years (range: 46-87) were clinically annotated in the Mayo cohort of whom 58 had >2 consecutive TMB scores: 25 (43%) had TMB increase, of whom 4 (16%) became TMB-H, 23 (40%) had TMB decrease, 10 (17%) had dynamic changes with increases and decreases. Numeric but not statistically significant differences in clinical factors were observed between groups (p>0.05). Conclusions: In this real world cohort, variation in TMB is seen with increasing LOT. Importantly, nearly 1 in 5 patients with increasing tumor mutational burden develop TMB-H, which may be a clinically actionable finding as these pts become eligible for ICI. Findings underscore the importance of repeat genetic testing with time and LOT. [Table: see text]

Importance The effectiveness of triplet therapy compared with androgen pathway inhibitor (API) doublets in a heterogeneous patient population with metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC) is unknown. Objective To assess the comparative effectiveness of contemporary systemic treatment options for patients with mCSPC across clinically relevant subgroups. Data Sources For this systematic review and meta-analysis, Ovid MEDLINE and Embase were searched from each database’s inception (MEDLINE, 1946; Embase, 1974) through June 16, 2021. Subsequently, a “living” auto search was created with weekly updates to identify new evidence as it became available. Study Selection Phase 3 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) assessing first-line treatment options for mCSPC. Data Extraction and Synthesis Two independent reviewers extracted data from eligible RCTs. The comparative effectiveness of different treatment options was assessed with a fixed-effect network meta-analysis. Data were analyzed on July 10, 2022. Main Outcomes and Measures Outcomes of interest included overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), grade 3 or higher adverse events, and health-related quality of life. Results This report included 10 RCTs with 11 043 patients and 9 unique treatment groups. Median ages of the included population ranged from 63 to 70 years. Current evidence for the overall population suggests that the darolutamide (DARO) triplet (DARO + docetaxel [D] + androgen deprivation therapy [ADT]; hazard ratio [HR], 0.68; 95% CI, 0.57-0.81), as well as the abiraterone (AAP) triplet (AAP + D + ADT; HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.59-0.95), are associated with improved OS compared with D doublet (D + ADT) but not compared with API doublets. Among patients with high-volume disease, AAP + D + ADT may improve OS compared with D + ADT (HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.55-0.95) but not compared with AAP + ADT, enzalutamide (E) + ADT, and apalutamide (APA) + ADT. For patients with low-volume disease, AAP + D + ADT may not improve OS compared with APA + ADT, AAP + ADT, E + ADT, and D + ADT. Conclusions and Relevance The potential benefit observed with triplet therapy must be interpreted with careful accounting for the volume of disease and the choice of doublet comparisons used in the clinical trials. These findings suggest an equipoise to how triplet regimens compare with API doublet combinations and provide direction for future clinical trials.

PURPOSE: For the past 5 years, most major antiemesis guidelines have included olanzapine-containing regimens among the recommended options for prophylaxis with highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC). We analyzed the uptake of olanzapine in clinical practice and the changing composition of multidrug antiemetic regimens. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was performed using an OptumLabs deidentified database of medical and pharmacy claims, which was filtered for patients starting HEC in the interval of 2006 to Q2 of 2021. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze patient characteristics and year-by-year antiemetic prescribing patterns, coinciding with cycles 1 and 2 of chemotherapy. RESULTS: A total of 63,154 distinct patients were included. The median age was 58 years (range, 18-88). Breast (45.2%) and hematologic (20.8%) cancers were the most common diagnoses. In 2016, olanzapine was prescribed to 1.4% of patients with cycle 1 of HEC. Prescriptions increased modestly each year, and by 2021, 13.9% of patients received olanzapine with their first cycle of chemotherapy. An additional 5.7% of patients received olanzapine for breakthrough symptoms or enhanced prophylaxis during cycle 2. In 2021, more than three-quarters of patients were prescribed antiemetics in a guideline-concordant manner, with an olanzapine-containing quadruplet (12.2%), an NK1-receptor antagonist triplet (64.5%), or an olanzapine triplet (suppressed for small sample size). CONCLUSION: Despite inclusion in major antiemesis guidelines, there has been relatively slow uptake of olanzapine for prophylaxis with HEC. This finding highlights the challenges of disseminating information and keeping prescribing systems updated with the newest evidence in supportive oncology.

232 Background: Olanzapine has an important role in preventing and treating nausea and vomiting from highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC). This drug, for the last 5 years, has been a component of most major antiemesis guidelines. The aim of the current study was to assess how often olanzapine has been prescribed for patients receiving HEC. Methods: A retrospective analysis was performed using an OptumLabs de-identified clinical database of medical and pharmacy claims. The database was filtered for patients starting HEC in the interval of 2006 to Q2 of 2021. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze patient characteristics and year-by-year antiemetic prescribing patterns, coinciding with cycles 1 and 2 of chemotherapy. Results: A total of 63,154 distinct patients were included. The median age was 58 years (range, 18-88). Over a quarter of the patients identified as Black, Hispanic, Asian, or other. Breast (45.2%) and hematologic (20.8%) cancers were the most common diagnoses. In 2016, olanzapine was prescribed to only 1.4% of patients with cycle 1 of HEC. Prescriptions increased modestly each year, and by 2021, 13.9% of patients received olanzapine with their first cycle of chemotherapy. An additional 5.7% of patients received olanzapine for breakthrough symptoms or enhanced prophylaxis during cycle 2. In 2021, over three-quarters of patients were prescribed antiemetics in a guideline concordant manner, with either an olanzapine-containing quadruplet (12.2%), an NK1 receptor antagonist triplet (64.5%), or an olanzapine triplet (exact number suppressed due to small sample size). Conclusions: The rate of olanzapine prescribing is less than might be expected following its inclusion in major antiemesis guidelines. This finding highlights the challenges of disseminating information and keeping prescribing systems updated with the newest evidence in supportive oncology.

e24094 Background: Hundreds, if not thousands, of participants are enrolled hot flash trials each year given the magnitude of the problem for breast and prostate cancer survivors. Classically, these studies have included a baseline period of 1-week, or longer, to understand the frequency and severity of hot flashes before starting a new treatment. The objective of the current study was to compare the accuracy of a 1-day baseline hot flash diary to a more traditional 1-week dairy. A shorter baseline period would be more convenient for patients and provide a more efficient study design. Methods: Raw data from 5 pilot studies and 15 phase III randomized, controlled trials (RCTs), all of which used a one-week baseline period, were obtained. Descriptive statistics were used to describe day-by-day variations in hot flash frequencies and scores, during the baseline week. Additional analyses evaluated whether the conclusions from any of the individual pilot studies would have been changed if only a 1-day baseline period had been used. For the RCTs, p-values were recalculated using mixed models, adjusting for the baseline value by including it as a covariate. Results: A total of 2,573 participants were included. On average, participants had 8.5 hot flashes per day on Day 1. Mean hot flash frequencies and scores on subsequent days (Days 2-7) were within 6% of Day 1 values. When comparing a 1-day to a 1-week baseline period, there was an absolute difference of only 0.29 hot flashes per day (SD 2.25). Re-analysis for each pilot study revealed that no individual study conclusions would have been meaningfully altered by a shorter baseline. For the RCTs, a shorter baseline period changed the results of only 1 of 24 comparisons from statistically significant to not significant, or vice versa. Conclusions: A 1-day hot flash diary appears to accurately reflect true frequency and severity of baseline hot flash symptoms in appropriately sized cohorts. Results support a shorter baseline period for pilot studies and RCTs.

e19533 Background: Pneumocystis pneumonia (PJP) is a catastrophic infection seen in the context of low CD4 counts. Brentuximab vedotin (BV) is a drug antibody conjugate targeting CD30 and is used to treat patients with Hodgkin’s lymphoma (HL) and T-cell lymphoma (TCL). PJP prophylaxis is not currently recommended for patients receiving BV-based treatment despite co-expression of CD30 on CD4 cells. The frequency of PJP following BV remains poorly defined. Methods: We evaluated patients who received BV between January 1, 2011 and October 31, 2021 at Mayo Clinic for the development of PJP. Patient demographics and clinical characteristics including underlying disease, chemotherapy regimen, absolute lymphocyte count (ALC), and steroid exposure were collected. Patients who developed PJP more than 3 months after their last BV exposure were excluded. Results: Of 402 BV recipients identified, 63 received PJP prophylaxis and were omitted. Fourteen of the 339 (4.1%) not on prophylaxis developed PJP following BV. Those infected had a median age of 61 (22-87), 71% were male. The most common diagnoses were HL, TCL, and primary mediastinal B-cell lymphoma at rates of 57%, 21%, and 14% respectively. Therapy regimens included BV monotherapy, BV-CHP, and BV-AVD at rates of 43%, 21%, and 14% respectively. BV represented median 2nd line of therapy (1-10) and patients received median of 3 doses (1-10) prior to PJP diagnosis. Patients with PJP had median ALC of 620 (370-3500). 71.4% (10/14) had an ALC less than 750 and among those with ALC greater than 1000, 75% (3/4) had underlying diagnosis of HL. Three patients had CD4 count measured at time of PJP diagnosis with median value of 157 (5-175). 57.1% (8/14) had no steroid exposure beyond the treatment regimen. 14.3% (2/14) were on chronic doses of 5mg prednisone for autoimmune conditions. Short bursts of steroids (prednisone 40 mg) prior to PJP were seen in 21.4% (3/14) with median exposure of 8 days (7-10). One patient had prolonged steroid exposure but was weaned off 17 days prior to PJP diagnosis. 71.4% were older than 50 years at time of PJP. Conclusions: We observed rates of PJP above the commonly accepted threshold of 3.5% for recommending prophylaxis. Among patients with an ALC greater than 1000, 75% had HL raising the question of a qualitative defect in immunity. Close ALC monitoring is recommended for patients receiving BV with a low threshold to institute PJP prophylaxis, especially amongst those older than 50 or with a diagnosis of HL.[Table: see text]

Those with metastatic urothelial carcinoma generally respond more poorly to chemotherapy after they have progression on a checkpoint inhibitor (CPI). There is interest in combining CPIs with conventional cytotoxic chemotherapies as a strategy to exploit the efficacy and immunomodulatory effects of chemotherapy. We conducted a single institution, retrospective analysis including all patients treated between May 2018 and May 2020 with carboplatin and paclitaxel, concurrently or sequential with pembrolizumab, after having progression on a CPI alone. Clinical characteristics, response by RECIST 1.1, progression-free survival, and safety/tolerance of the treatment are reported. Median age was 80 years (64–85). Five patients (100%) had visceral metastases when starting carboplatin and paclitaxel. Chemotherapy was given with concurrent pembrolizumab (four patients) or following pembrolizumab (one patient) and continued until maximum response, significant toxicity, or progression. Two patients subsequently remained on maintenance pembrolizumab. There were four partial responses and one patient with stable disease. All patients on follow-up have progressed with median time to progression of 47 weeks (18–75). Two patients died from disease progression. This case series suggests that the combination of carboplatin, paclitaxel, and pembrolizumab leads to durable freedom from progression in some with metastatic urothelial cancer, who have progressed on a CPI alone. Larger studies of chemoimmunotherapy for metastatic urothelial carcinoma are warranted.