Aim: To assess homologous recombination repair mutation (HRRm) testing patterns in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. Methods: A point-in-time, international survey conducted January–August 2020. Results: Three-quarters of physicians (oncologists, urologists, specialist surgeons) globally reported access to genetic/genomic testing and just over half were HRRm testers. Surveyed physicians reported HRRm testing and positivity rates for 1913 patients, which were 18.1% and 33.7%, respectively. Of patients tested (n = 347), the most common HRR genes tested were BRCA (91.6%) and ATM (47.3%). Conclusion: Overall testing rates were low, with physicians mostly testing patients they considered higher risk. Increased awareness and education are needed to encourage broader testing, to understand familial risk and to identify patients with worse outcomes or those eligible for life-prolonging treatments.

Background Until five years ago, the metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC) treatment landscape was dominated by the use of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) alone. However, novel hormonal agents (NHAs) and chemotherapy are now approved for male patients with mHSPC. This study aimed to understand the impact NHA approvals had on mHSPC real-world treatment patterns and to identify the key factors associated with NHA or chemotherapy (± ADT) usage vs ADT alone. Methods Data were collected from the Adelphi Prostate Cancer Disease Specific Programme (DSP)™, a point-in-time survey of physicians and their consulting patients conducted in the United States (US), five European countries (France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and the United Kingdom), and Japan between January and August 2020. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics for individual countries, regions, and all countries combined. Pairwise analyses were used to further investigate differences between treatment groups at global level. Results 336 physicians provided data on 1195 mHSPC patients. Globally, at data collection, the most common mHSPC regimen initiated first was ADT alone (47%), followed by NHAs (± ADT) (31%, of which 21% was abiraterone, 8% was enzalutamide, and 2% was apalutamide) and chemotherapy (± ADT) (19%). The highest rates of ADT alone usage were observed in Japan (78%) and Italy (66%), and the lowest in Spain (34%) and in the US (36%). Our results showed that clinical decision making was driven by patient fitness, compliance, tolerance of adverse events, and balance of impact on quality of life vs overall survival. Conclusions This real-world survey offered early insights into the evolving mHSPC treatment paradigm. It showed that in 2020, ADT alone remained the most common initial mHSPC therapy, suggesting that physicians may prefer using treatments which they are familiar and have experience with, despite clinical trial evidence of improved survival with NHAs or chemotherapy (± ADT) vs ADT alone. Results also indicated that physicians prescribed specific mHSPC treatments primarily based on the following criteria: patient preference, disease burden/severity, and the performance status and comorbidities of the patient. To fully appreciate the rapidly changing mHSPC treatment landscape and monitor NHA uptake, additional real-world studies are required.

IntroductionRecent studies suggest that docetaxel plus androgen deprivation therapy can prolong survival among men with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC). However, as a cytotoxic therapy, there is a need to understand the experiences of men with mHSPC receiving docetaxel and their carers in a real-world setting.MethodsDuring phase 1, semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with men with mHSPC (n = 31) and their carers (n = 14) in Europe to elicit in-depth data concerning their experiences with docetaxel. Eighteen men were also asked to record their experiences in a diary for 7 days. During phase 2, men with mHSPC (n = 161) and carers of men with mHSPC (n = 135) completed an online survey comprising self-report questionnaires including the Cancer Therapy Satisfaction Questionnaire, Brief Fatigue Inventory, Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Prostate, EuroQol-5-Dimensions and the Burden Scale for Family Caregivers (carers only).ResultsAt the outset of therapy, men reported a willingness to take docetaxel to prolong their life, despite being fearful of the potential side effects and impacts on their daily lives. Patient and carer experiences were generally consistent with pre-treatment expectations. However, variations in individual experiences and their ability to tolerate side effects were evident. Fatigue emerged as a prominent symptom with the majority (n = 98, 60.9%) of men reporting experiencing moderate-severe fatigue in the past 24 h. Participant ratings of fatigue were strongly correlated with health-related quality of life (r = − 0.82). Nausea, diarrhoea and sore mouth were also among the most bothersome symptoms for participants.ConclusionsFindings from this study highlight that real-world experience of docetaxel may differ from that observed in clinical trials and that care must be taken to ensure that treatment options are tailored to the needs of individual patients to promote not only how long patients survive but also the quality of that survival.FundingJanssen

Introduction: Prostate cancer (PC) is the second most common cancer, and the fifth most common cause of cancer-related mortality among male patients, worldwide. In Europe and Japan, the incidence of PC in men in 2020 exceeded that of lung cancer. Although national and regional clinical guidelines for the treatment of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) are available in Europe and Japan, a literature review did not identify a published comparison of differing guidelines, but identified a lack of studies reporting treatment patterns of approved mCRPC treatments in Europe and Japan in normal clinical practice. The objective of this real-world study was to compare national treatment guidelines and real-world treatment for mCRPC in Europe and Japan. Methods: Physician-reported demographics, clinical characteristics, and treatment data of patients with mCRPC were drawn from the Adelphi Prostate Cancer Disease Specific Programme TM , conducted in five European countries and Japan (2020) and analysed descriptively. Results: All current treatment guidelines recommended the use of novel hormonal agents (NHA-abiraterone/enzalutamide) and chemotherapy (mainly docetaxel), with some intercountry differences, with NHA rechallenge accepted in Germany, Italy and Japan, but not in France, Spain or the United Kingdom. Overall, 271 physicians provided data for 1753 patients. At 1st-line (1L), the most common treatment was NHAs followed by (?) chemotherapy, in all countries. Chemotherapy was the most common 2nd-line (2L) treatment, except in Japan, where 2L NHA use was preferred, and Spain, where both were used equally.NHA ? chemotherapy and chemotherapy ? NHA were the first and second usual 1L ? 2L sequence in most countries, except for France, where the second most common sequence was NHA ? NHA, and Japan, with androgen deprivation therapy alone ? NHA. Conclusion: Real-world mCRPC treatment patterns largely reflected national guidelines. It is expected that guidelines and treatment patterns will change with the development of new treatment options.

5065 Background: Based on level 1 evidence of overall survival, ASCO/NCCN/AUA guidelines uniformly recommend novel hormonal therapy (NHT) or chemotherapy (CHT) added to androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) as standard of care in mCSPC. However, real-world evidence across US healthcare systems suggests most patients receive ADT +/- first generation non-steroidal antiandrogens (NSAA). Reasons behind the lack of treatment intensification (TI) in mCSPC have not been studied. Methods: Data from medical charts of patients initiating mCSPC treatment from Jul ’18-Nov ‘21 were retrospectively extracted from multiple US academic/community practices. Oncologists and urologists who treated these patients were surveyed to provide reasons for treatment choices including prostate specific antigen (PSA) goals and explicit reasons for not prescribing NHT. Descriptive statistics (Fishers exact tests) were used to compare outcomes between groups; p-values for odds ratios (OR) were generated via Wald test. Results: 65 oncologists and 42 urologists provided data on 621 patients. Median age at initial mCSPC treatment start was 68.0 years, 58% were White, 25% Black, 84% had de novo metastases, 30% had high-volume disease including 22% with visceral metastases, and 83% had ECOG PS score ≤1. In the first-line (1L) setting, most mCSPC patients received ADT±NSAA alone (69%), while TI rates with ADT+NHT (26%) or ADT+CHT (4%) were low. An additional 27% (n = 166/621) received subsequent TI while still castration-sensitive. According to the physician survey, the top 5 reasons why their patients did not receive initial NHT were perceptions about: drug tolerability (38%), lack of clinical trial evidence of overall survival improvement (31%), lack of reimbursement (26%), patient financial constraints (20%), and questions about sequencing NHTs earlier vs later in disease (21%). Regarding treatment goals for PSA response, physicians more frequently reported a relative (%) reduction than an absolute PSA reduction (85% vs 51%). Oncologists considered a median PSA reduction of 50% (IQR 25-75) adequate vs 75% (IQR 50-90) among urologists. Urologists had higher rates of TI at 1L and/or subsequent treatment in patients who were still castration-sensitive (p < 0.01). Physicians who aimed for deeper PSA reduction of 75-100% were more likely (OR = 1.63; p = 0.034) to provide TI in 1L compared with physicians with less aggressive PSA goals (0-49%). Conclusions: To our knowledge, this is the first study identifying reasons for underutilization of intensified treatment in mCSPC. While survey results suggest perceptions of tolerability and lack of efficacy and financial considerations affect NHT use, in practice, non-guideline driven PSA reduction goals are associated with low rates of TI. These results demonstrate the need for further medical education.