Suspension of Oncology Randomized Clinical Trials during the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Cross-Sectional Evaluation of COVID-Related Suspensions.

We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of ClinicalTrials.gov-registered oncology randomized controlled trials between September 2019 and December 2021 to identify predictors of trial suspensions. The dataset included 1,183 oncology trials, of which 384 (32.5%) were suspended. COVID-19 accounted for 47 (12.2%) suspensions. Trials that were single center- or US-based had higher odds of COVID-19 (ORs: 3.85 and 2.48, 95% CIs: 1.60-11.50 and 1.28-4.93, respectively) or any-reason suspensions (ORs: 2.33 and 2.04, 95% CIs: 1.46-3.45 and 1.40-2.76, respectively). Phase two (OR 1.27), three (OR 6.45) and four trials (OR 11.5) had increased odds of COVID-19 suspensions, compared to phase one trials.

Pathologic upgrading in favorable intermediate risk active surveillance patients: Clinical heterogeneity and implications for active surveillance decision.

INTRODUCTION: Current guidelines support active surveillance (AS) for select patients with favorable intermediate risk (FIR) prostate cancer (CaP). A significant proportion of FIR CaP patients undergoing surgical treatment are found to have evidence of adverse pathology. Our objective was to determine the incidence and predictors of pathologic upgrading in FIR AS patients undergoing radical prostatectomy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Prostate with Watchful Waiting (WW) database was used to identify men younger than 80 years with National Comprehensive Cancer Network FIR CaP initially opting for AS and/or WW between 2010 and 2015 and subsequently underwent radical prostatectomy at least one year following diagnosis. Patients were assigned into one of three subgroups based on their intermediate risk factor: Gleason Score 7(3 + 4) (Group 1), prostate specific antigen level of 10-20 ng/ml (Group 2), and cT2b-c (Group 3). Pathologic upgrading was present in Group 1 if pathologic GS was 7 (4 + 3) or worse. For patients in Groups 2 and 3, upgrading occurred if pathologic GS was 7 (3 + 4) or worse. Oncologic and sociodemographic predictors of pathologic upgrading were evaluated univariable and multivariable logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: 18,760 patients were identified. Pathologic upgrading occurred in 138 (13.3%), 59 (25.0%), and 8,011 (45.8%) patients in groups 1, 2, and 3 respectively. Pathologic downgrading occurred in 226 (21.7%) patients in group 1. Significant predictors of pathologic upgrading on multivariable analysis included older age at diagnosis: 70 to 79 vs. 40 to 49 years (Groups 1 and 3, P < 0.05), a more recent diagnosis: 2014 to2015 vs. 2010-2011 (Groups 2 and 3, P < 0.005), higher volume disease: 37.5% to 49.9% vs. 0% to 12.4% (Groups 2 and 3, P < 0.005), and clinically palpable disease (Groups 1 and 2, P < 0.05). Additional risk factors for upgrading included uninsured or Medicaid status, diagnosis in a Western region (Group 2), African American ethnicity and higher socioeconomic status (Group 3) CONCLUSIONS: FIR CaP is a clinically heterogeneous risk group with incidence of pathologic upgrading ranging from 13.3% in those with GS 7 (3 + 4) to 45.8% in those with cT2b-c disease. Risk of pathologic upgrading in FIR CaP patients initially managed with AS and/or WW is significantly associated with multiple patient-level oncologic and sociodemographic variables.

Influence of Sociodemographic Factors on Definitive Intervention Among Low-risk Active Surveillance Patients.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate sociodemographic factors influencing decision of initially active surveillance (AS) prostate cancer (CaP) patients to opt for definitive therapy, and, specifically, choice of radical prostatectomy (RP) versus radiation therapy (XRT). METHODS: The Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Prostate with Watchful Waiting database was used to identify AS patients diagnosed with NCCN low-risk CaP between 2010 and 2015. We sought to determine predictors of treatment type using multivariable logistic regression analyses. RESULTS: Out of 32,874 men included, 21,255 (64.7%) underwent delayed treatment, with 3,751 (17.6%) and 17,463 (82.2%) opting for RP and XRT, respectively. Patients who were married (Odds Ratio [OR]: 1.18, P <.001), insured (OR 2.94, P <.001), of higher socioeconomic status (OR 1.67 for highest vs lowest, P <.01), and residing in a Southeastern or Midwestern region (ORs 1.26 and 1.22 vs Northeast, respectively, P <.01) were significantly more likely to undergo definitive intervention. A significant interaction between patient race and marital/socioeconomic statuses on the decision-making process was identified. Decision for XRT (vs RP) was more likely in older (OR 11.6 for 70-79 vs 50-59 years, P <.01), unmarried (OR 1.89, P <.01), African American (OR 1.41, P .018), and higher socioeconomic status (OR 1.54 for highest versus lowest quartile, P <.01) patients. CONCLUSION: The majority of patients initially treated with AS underwent delayed treatment. After accounting for pathologic characteristics, the interaction of sociodemographic factors including race, socioeconomic status, marital status, insurance status, and region of residence are significantly associated with the likelihood of undergoing definitive therapy.