Comparison of Mexican-American vs Caucasian prostate cancer active surveillance candidates.

BACKGROUND: We compared upgrading and upstaging rates in low risk and favorable intermediate risk prostate cancer (CaP) patients according to racial and/or ethnic group: Mexican-Americans and Caucasians. METHODS: Within Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results database (2010-2015), we identified low risk and favorable intermediate risk CaP patients according to National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines. Descriptives and logistic regression models were used. Furthermore, a subgroup analysis was performed to test the association between Mexican-American vs. Caucasian racial and/or ethnic groups and upgrading either to Gleason-Grade Group (GGG II) or to GGG III, IV or V, in low risk or favorable intermediate risk CaP patients, respectively. RESULTS: We identified 673 (2.6%) Mexican-American and 24,959 (97.4%) Caucasian CaP patients. Of those, 14,789 were low risk (434 [2.9%] Mexican-Americans vs. 14,355 [97.1%] Caucasians) and 10,834 were favorable intermediate risk (239 [2.2%] Mexican-Americans vs. 10,604 [97.8%] Caucasians). In low risk CaP patients, Mexican-American vs. Caucasian racial and/or ethnic group did not result in either upgrading or upstaging differences. However, in favorable intermediate risk CaP patients, upgrading rate was higher in Mexican-Americans than in Caucasians (31.4 vs. 25.5%, OR 1.33, P = 0.044), but no difference was recorded for upstaging. When comparisons focused on upgrading to GGG III, IV or V, higher rate was recorded in Mexican-American relative to Caucasian favorable intermediate risk CaP patients (20.4 vs. 15.4%, OR 1.41, P = 0.034). CONCLUSION: Low risk Mexican-American CaP patients do not differ from low risk Caucasian CaP patients. However, favorable intermediate risk Mexican-American CaP patients exhibit higher rates of upgrading than their Caucasian counterparts. This information should be considered at treatment decision making.

Improving research for prostate cancer survivorship: A statement from the Survivorship Research in Prostate Cancer (SuRECaP) working group.

Survivorship care for patients with prostate cancer requires careful consideration of unique disease-specific factors, including the prolonged natural disease history, the potential for competing health risks, and the consequences of long-term androgen deprivation therapy. However, current prostate cancer survivorship research is unfortunately limited by the lack of a robust supportive evidence base, variability in the definitions and measurement of survivorship outcomes, and a heavy reliance on expert opinion. As a result, the conduct of quality prostate cancer survivorship research is of increasing importance for patients, medical providers, and other key stakeholders. This manuscript harmonizes a path forward for improving prostate cancer survivorship by defining prostate cancer survivorship and survivorship research, as well as by highlighting key research priorities and cooperative mechanisms for survivorship studies within prostate cancer, with a particular focus on men with advanced disease.

Efficacy outcomes by baseline prostate-specific antigen quartile in the AFFIRM trial.

BACKGROUND: Enzalutamide significantly prolonged the survival of men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (PCa) after docetaxel in the randomised, phase 3, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multinational Patients with Progressive Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer Previously Treated with Docetaxel-Based Chemotherapy (AFFIRM) trial (NCT00974311). Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) is commonly used as a marker of PCa disease burden, and the relationship of baseline PSA level to consequent treatment effect is of clinical interest. OBJECTIVE: Exploratory analysis to evaluate any differences in patient characteristics and efficacy outcomes by baseline PSA level in the AFFIRM trial. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Post hoc subanalysis of all randomised patients (n=1199) from the AFFIRM trial. INTERVENTION: Participants were randomly assigned in a two-to-one ratio to receive oral enzalutamide 160 mg/d or placebo. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The major clinical efficacy end points were overall survival (OS), radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS), and time to PSA progression (TTPP) versus placebo; baseline characteristics, treatment duration, and subsequent antineoplastic therapy were compared by baseline PSA quartile. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Baseline PSA quartiles corresponded to the following PSA groups: <40 ng/ml (n=299), 40 to <111 ng/ml (n=300), 111 to <406 ng/ml (n=300), and ≥406 ng/ml (n=300). Enzalutamide consistently improved OS, rPFS, and TTPP compared with placebo across all subgroups, regardless of baseline PSA level. Hazard ratios for improvements in OS were 0.55 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.36-0.85), 0.69 (95% CI, 0.47-1.02), 0.73 (95% CI, 0.53-1.01), and 0.53 (95% CI, 0.39-0.73) for PSA groups 1-4, respectively. The post hoc design of this analysis was not statistically powered to assess the relationship between baseline PSA and clinical efficacy outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: This post hoc analysis of the AFFIRM trial demonstrates consistent benefits in OS, rPFS, and TTPP with enzalutamide regardless of baseline disease severity, as assessed by PSA. PATIENT SUMMARY: Exploratory post hoc analysis of the AFFIRM trial showed that enzalutamide improves overall survival, radiographic progression-free survival, and time to prostate-specific antigen progression compared with placebo regardless of baseline disease severity, as assessed by prostate-specific antigen. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT00974311.