Current status and future perspective on the management of metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer

Real-world economic burden associated with disease progression from metastatic castration-sensitive to castration-resistant prostate cancer on treatment in the United States

BACKGROUND

The advent of next-generation imaging will likely reduce nonmetastatic prostate cancer (PC) prevalence and increase identification of metastatic prostate cancer cases, resulting in two predominant advanced stages in the metastatic setting. There is a need to characterize changes in health care resource utilization (HRU) and costs when metastatic castration-sensitive PC (mCSPC) progresses to metastatic castration-resistant PC (mCRPC) to identify value drivers from current and new treatments.

OBJECTIVE

To describe treatment patterns, HRU, and total health care costs among patients with mCSPC, before and after progression to mCRPC.

METHODS

Clinical data from the Flatiron Metastatic PC Core Registry (January 1, 2013, to December 1, 2021) and linked claims from Komodo Health (January 1, 2014, to December 1, 2021) were used to identify patients with progression from mCSPC to mCRPC (date of progression was the index date) and subsequently initiated first-line mCRPC therapy on/after January 1, 2017. Treatment patterns and all-cause/PC-related HRU and health care costs were described per-patient-per-month (PPPM), separately for no more than 12 months pre-index (mCSPC disease state) and post-index (mCRPC disease state). Costs (payer's perspective) included those for services/procedures from medical claims and costs from pharmacy claims. Continuous HRU and costs were compared between the mCSPC and mCRPC disease states using Wilcoxon signed rank tests.

RESULTS

Among 296 patients with mCSPC progressing to mCRPC (median age 69.0 years, 60.5% White, 15.9% Black), use of systemic therapies with androgen deprivation therapy increased dramatically from 35.1% in the mCSPC disease state to 92.9% in the mCRPC disease state, and use of androgen deprivation therapy monotherapy decreased from 25.7% to 2.4%, respectively. Although 39.2% received none of these therapies in the mCSPC disease state, this proportion decreased to 4.7% after transition to mCRPC. The mean number of days with PC-related outpatient visits increased from 1.57 to 2.16 PPPM in the mCSPC and mCRPC disease states (P < 0.001). From the mCSPC to mCRPC disease states, mean all-cause total health care costs PPPM increased from $4,424 (medical costs: $2,846) to $9,717 (medical costs: $4,654), and mean PC-related total health care costs PPPM increased from $2,859 (medical costs: $1,626) to $8,012 (medical costs: $3,285; all P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

In this real-world study of patients with disease progression from mCSPC to mCRPC in US clinical practice, nearly 2-in-3 patients did not receive treatment with additional systemic therapies before progression to castration resistance. Post-progression, mean PC-related total costs increased nearly 3-fold, with a more than 2-fold increase in PC-related medical costs. Use of additional systemic therapies may delay the time and cost associated with disease progression to castration resistance.

GnRH antagonist monotherapy versus a GnRH agonist plus bicalutamide for advanced hormone-sensitive prostate cancer; KYUCOG-1401

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effectiveness and safety of gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist monotherapy to combined androgen blockade (CAB) with a GnRH agonist and bicalutamide in patients with advanced hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (HSPC).

METHODS

The study was conducted as KYUCOG-1401 trial (UMIN000014243) and enrolled 200 patients who were randomly assigned to either group A (GnRH antagonist monotherapy followed by the addition of bicalutamide) or group B (CAB by a GnRH agonist and bicalutamide). The primary endpoint was PSA progression-free survival. The secondary endpoints were the time to CAB treatment failure, radiographic progression-free survival, overall survival, changes in serum parameters, including PSA, hormones, and bone and lipid metabolic markers, and adverse events.

RESULTS

PSA progression-free survival was significantly longer in group B (hazard ratio [HR], 95% confidence interval [CI]; 1.40, 1.01-1.95, p = 0.041). The time to CAB treatment failure was slightly longer in group A (HR, 95% CI; 0.80, 0.59-1.08, p = 0.146). No significant differences were observed in radiographic progression-free survival or overall survival. The percentage of patients with serum testosterone that did not reach the castration level was higher at 60 weeks (p = 0.046) in group A. No significant differences were noted in the serum levels of bone metabolic or lipid markers between the two groups. An injection site reaction was more frequent in group A.

CONCLUSIONS

The present results support the potential of CAB using a GnRH agonist and bicalutamide as a more effective treatment for advanced HSPC than GnRH antagonist monotherapy.

Cardiovascular disease risk assessment and multidisciplinary care in prostate cancer treatment with ADT: recommendations from the APMA PCCV expert network

PURPOSE

Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) is the mainstay approach for prostate cancer (PCa) management. However, the most commonly used ADT modality, gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonists, has been associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD).

METHODS

The PCa Cardiovascular (PCCV) Expert Network, consisting of multinational urologists, cardiologists and oncologists with expertise in managing PCa, convened to discuss challenges to routine cardiovascular risk assessment in PCa management, as well as how to mitigate such risks in the current treatment landscape.

RESULTS

The experts identified several barriers, including lack of awareness, time constraints, challenges in implementing risk assessment tools and difficulties in establishing multidisciplinary teams that include cardiologists. The experts subsequently provided practical recommendations to improve cardio-oncology care for patients with PCa receiving ADT, such as simplifying cardiovascular risk assessment, individualising treatment based on CVD risk categories, establishing multidisciplinary teams and referral networks and fostering active patient engagement. A streamlined cardiovascular risk-stratification tool and a referral/management guide were developed for seamless integration into urologists' practices and presented herein. The PCCV Expert Network agreed that currently available evidence indicates that GnRH antagonists are associated with a lower risk of CVD than that of GnRH agonists and that GnRH antagonists are preferred for patients with PCa and a high CVD risk.

CONCLUSION

In summary, this article provides insights and guidance to improve management for patients with PCa undergoing ADT.

Apalutamide for metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer: final analysis of the Asian subpopulation in the TITAN trial

The final analysis of the phase 3 Targeted Investigational Treatment Analysis of Novel Anti-androgen (TITAN) trial showed improvement in overall survival (OS) and other efficacy endpoints with apalutamide plus androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) versus ADT alone in patients with metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC). As ethnicity and regional differences may affect treatment outcomes in advanced prostate cancer, a post hoc final analysis was conducted to assess the efficacy and safety of apalutamide in the Asian subpopulation. Event-driven endpoints were OS, and time from randomization to initiation of castration resistance, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) progression, and second progression-free survival (PFS2) on first subsequent therapy or death. Efficacy endpoints were assessed using the Kaplan-Meier method and Cox proportional-hazards models without formal statistical testing and adjustment for multiplicity. Participating Asian patients received once-daily apalutamide 240 mg ( n = 111) or placebo ( n = 110) plus ADT. After a median follow-up of 42.5 months and despite crossover of 47 placebo recipients to open-label apalutamide, apalutamide reduced the risk of death by 32% (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.68; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.42-1.13), risk of castration resistance by 69% (HR: 0.31; 95% CI: 0.21-0.46), PSA progression by 79% (HR: 0.21; 95% CI: 0.13-0.35) and PFS2 by 24% (HR: 0.76; 95% CI: 0.44-1.29) relative to placebo. The outcomes were comparable between subgroups with low- and high-volume disease at baseline. No new safety issues were identified. Apalutamide provides valuable clinical benefits to Asian patients with mCSPC, with an efficacy and safety profile consistent with that in the overall patient population.