Real-world clinical outcomes of patients with localized prostate cancer (LPC) treated with external beam radiation therapy (EBRT).

Authors

null

Lawrence Ivan Karsh

The Urology Center of Colorado, Denver, CO

Lawrence Ivan Karsh , Shawn Du , Jinghua He , Dexter Waters , Erik Muser , Neal D. Shore

Organizations

The Urology Center of Colorado, Denver, CO, Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC, Horsham, PA, Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC, Titusville, NJ, Carolina Urologic Research Center and Atlantic Urology Clinics, Myrtle Beach, SC

Research Funding

Pharmaceutical/Biotech Company
Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC

Background: Patients (pts) with localized prostate cancer (LPC) or locally advanced prostate cancer (PC) have several treatment options, including external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) and radical prostatectomy, which can be curative in some pts. However, limited real-world evidence exists on the long-term clinical outcomes of these pts, particularly those with high-risk LPC (HRLPC). This study examines real-world clinical outcomes for HRLPC and low/intermediate risk LPC (LIRLPC) pts treated with EBRT in the US. Methods: A retrospective study using Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare linked registry-claims data from 2012−2019 included LPC pts aged ≥65 treated with EBRT as initial definitive therapy. Baseline demographic and clinical characteristics were summarized for HRLPC and LIRLPC pts. Clinical outcomes of interest (overall survival, metastasis-free survival [MFS] and time to initiation of advanced PC treatment) were compared using Kaplan-Meier (KM) and Cox proportional hazards (PH) models. Results: Of 11,127 LPC pts treated with EBRT within 6 months of LPC diagnosis, ~40% (n=4,414) were HRLPC and ~60% (N=6,713) were LIRLPC. Patient characteristics for both groups appeared similar, with mean age at EBRT initiation >70 years, 86% white, and mean follow-up time >40 months. ADT was used with EBRT in 78% HRLPC and 34% LIRLPC. Median (IQR) duration of ADT therapy (via KM analysis) was 9.9 (5.8, 21.5) months for HRLPC and 7.2 (5.3, 9.8) months for LIRLPC. A higher proportion of HRLPC vs LIRLPC pts experienced metastasis, death, and progression to advanced PC therapies (medians were not reached). Unadjusted Cox PH survival analyses showed higher risk of mortality, metastasis, and advanced PC therapy use for HRLPC vs LIRLPC pts. Conclusions: This real-world study of clinical outcomes in pts with HRLPC and LIRLPC treated with EBRT suggested substantial additional disease burden in pts with HRLPC and highlights the need for additional strategies and treatments to improve clinical outcomes in pts with HRLPC.

OutcomeHRLPC Pts with Event LIRLPC Pts with EventHazard Ratio (95% Confidence Interval)
HRLPC vs. LIRLPC Pts
P-value
Earliest of metastasis or death23.5%12.1%2.22 (2.03, 2.44)<0.0001
Death13.7%7.6%2.01 (1.79, 2.26)<0.0001
Advanced PC treatment*6.8%2.7%2.78 (2.31, 3.35)<0.0001

* Earliest initiation of chemotherapy, PARP inhibitors, radiopharmaceuticals, related immunotherapies, or advanced androgen signaling inhibitors.

Disclaimer

This material on this page is ©2024 American Society of Clinical Oncology, all rights reserved. Licensing available upon request. For more information, please contact licensing@asco.org

Abstract Details

Meeting

2023 ASCO Genitourinary Cancers Symposium

Session Type

Poster Session

Session Title

Poster Session A: Prostate Cancer

Track

Prostate Cancer - Advanced,Prostate Cancer - Localized

Sub Track

Quality of Care/Quality Improvement and Real-World Evidence

Citation

J Clin Oncol 41, 2023 (suppl 6; abstr 330)

DOI

10.1200/JCO.2023.41.6_suppl.330

Abstract #

330

Poster Bd #

L8

Abstract Disclosures