Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND:Studies have demonstrated that Black men may undergo definitive prostate cancer (CaP) treatment less often than men of other races, but it is unclear whether they are avoiding overtreatment of low-risk disease or experiencing a reduction in appropriate care. The authors' aim was to assess the role of race as it relates to treatment benefit in access to CaP treatment in a single-payer population. METHODS:The authors used the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) Corporate Data Warehouse to perform a retrospective cohort study of veterans diagnosed with low- or intermediate-risk CaP between 2011 and 2017. RESULTS:The authors identified 35,427 men with incident low- or intermediate-risk CaP. When they controlled for covariates, Black men had 1.05 times the odds of receiving treatment in comparison with non-Black men (P < .001), and high-treatment-benefit men had 1.4 times the odds of receiving treatment in comparison with those in the low-treatment-benefit group (P < .001). The interaction of race and treatment benefit was significant, with Black men in the high-treatment-benefit category less likely to receive treatment than non-Black men in the same treatment category (odds ratio, 0.89; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS:Although race does appear to influence the receipt of definitive treatment in the VHA, this relationship varies in the context of the patient's treatment benefit, with Black men receiving less definitive treatment in high-benefit situations. The influence of patient race at high treatment benefit levels invites further investigation into the driving forces behind this persistent disparity in this consequential group.

BACKGROUND:The authors sought to study the risk factors associated with severe outcomes in hospitalized coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients with cancer. METHODS:The authors queried the New York University Langone Medical Center's records for hospitalized patients who were polymerase chain reaction-positive for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS CoV-2) and performed chart reviews on patients with cancer diagnoses to identify patients with active cancer and patients with a history of cancer. Descriptive statistics were calculated and multivariable logistic regression was used to determine associations between clinical, demographic, and laboratory characteristics with outcomes, including death and admission to the intensive care unit. RESULTS:A total of 4184 hospitalized SARS CoV-2+ patients, including 233 with active cancer, were identified. Patients with active cancer were more likely to die than those with a history of cancer and those without any cancer history (34.3% vs 27.6% vs 20%, respectively; P < .01). In multivariable regression among all patients, active cancer (odds ratio [OR], 1.89; CI, 1.34-2.67; P < .01), older age (OR, 1.06; CI, 1.05-1.06; P < .01), male sex (OR for female vs male, 0.70; CI, 0.58-0.84; P < .01), diabetes (OR, 1.26; CI, 1.04-1.53; P = .02), morbidly obese body mass index (OR, 1.87; CI, 1.24-2.81; P < .01), and elevated D-dimer (OR, 6.41 for value >2300; CI, 4.75-8.66; P < .01) were associated with increased mortality. Recent cancer-directed medical therapy was not associated with death in multivariable analysis. Among patients with active cancer, those with a hematologic malignancy had the highest mortality rate in comparison with other cancer types (47.83% vs 28.66%; P < .01). CONCLUSIONS:The authors found that patients with an active cancer diagnosis were more likely to die from COVID-19. Those with hematologic malignancies were at the highest risk of death. Patients receiving cancer-directed therapy within 3 months before hospitalization had no overall increased risk of death. LAY SUMMARY/UNASSIGNED:Our investigators found that hospitalized patients with active cancer were more likely to die from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) than those with a history of cancer and those without any cancer history. Patients with hematologic cancers were the most likely among patients with cancer to die from COVID-19. Patients who received cancer therapy within 3 months before hospitalization did not have an increased risk of death.

BACKGROUND:Genetic counseling and germline testing have an increasingly important role for patients with prostate cancer (PCa); however, recent data suggests they are underutilized. Our objective was to perform a qualitative study of the barriers and facilitators of germline genetic evaluation among physicians who manage PCa. METHODS:We conducted semi-structured interviews with medical oncologists, radiation oncologists, and urologists from different U.S. practice settings until thematic saturation was achieved at n = 14. The interview guide was based on the Tailored Implementation in Chronic Diseases Framework to identify key determinants of practice. Interview transcripts were independently coded by ≥2 investigators using a constant comparative method. RESULTS:The decision to perform or refer for germline genetic evaluation is affected by factors at multiple levels. Although patient factors sometimes play a role, the dominant themes in the decision to conduct germline genetic evaluation were at the physician and organizational level. Physician knowledge, coordination of care, perceptions of the guidelines, and concerns about cost were most frequently discussed as the main factors affecting utilization of germline genetic evaluation. CONCLUSIONS:There are currently numerous barriers to implementation of germline genetic evaluation for PCa. Efforts to expand physician education, to develop tools to enhance genetics in practice, and to facilitate coordination of care surrounding genetic evaluation are important to promote guideline-concordant care.

BACKGROUND:Therapeutic targeting of host-cell factors required for SARS-CoV-2 entry is an alternative strategy to ameliorate COVID-19 severity. SARS-CoV-2 entry into lung epithelium requires the TMPRSS2 cell surface protease. Pre-clinical and correlative data in humans suggest that anti-androgenic therapies can reduce the expression of TMPRSS2 on lung epithelium. Accordingly, we hypothesize that therapeutic targeting of androgen receptor signaling via degarelix, a luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH) antagonist, will suppress COVID-19 infection and ameliorate symptom severity. METHODS:This is a randomized phase 2, placebo-controlled, double-blind clinical trial in 198 patients to compare efficacy of degarelix plus best supportive care versus placebo plus best supportive care on improving the clinical outcomes of male Veterans who have been hospitalized due to COVID-19. Enrolled patients must have documented infection with SARS-CoV-2 based on a positive reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction result performed on a nasopharyngeal swab and have a severity of illness of level 3-5 (hospitalized but not requiring invasive mechanical ventilation). Patients stratified by age, history of hypertension, and severity are centrally randomized 2:1 (degarelix: placebo). The composite primary endpoint is mortality, ongoing need for hospitalization, or requirement for mechanical ventilation at 15 after randomization. Important secondary endpoints include time to clinical improvement, inpatient mortality, length of hospitalization, duration of mechanical ventilation, time to achieve a normal temperature, and the maximum severity of COVID-19 illness. Exploratory analyses aim to assess the association of cytokines, viral load, and various comorbidities with outcome. In addition, TMPRSS2 expression in target tissue and development of anti-viral antibodies will also be investigated. DISCUSSION/CONCLUSIONS:In this trial, we repurpose the FDA approved LHRH antagonist degarelix, commonly used for prostate cancer, to suppress TMPRSS2, a host cell surface protease required for SARS-CoV-2 cell entry. The objective is to determine if temporary androgen suppression with a single dose of degarelix improves the clinical outcomes of patients hospitalized due to COVID-19. TRIAL REGISTRATION/BACKGROUND:ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04397718. Registered on May 21, 2020.

BACKGROUND:In 2012, the United States Preventative Services Task Force (USPSTF) formally recommended against all Prostate Specific Antigen (PSA) screening for prostate cancer. Our goal was to characterize PSA screening trends in the Veterans Health Administration (VA) before and after the USPSTF recommendation, and to determine if PSA screening was more likely to be ordered based on a Veteran's race or age. METHODS:Using the VA Corporate Data Warehouse, we created 10 annual groups of PSA-eligible men covering 2009-2018. We identified all PSA tests performed in the VA to determine yearly rates of PSA screening. All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS:The overall rate of PSA testing in the VA decreased from 63.3% in 2009 to 51.2% in 2018 (p<.001). PSA screening rates varied markedly by age group during our study period, with men aged 70-80 having the highest initial rate and greatest decline (70.6% in 2009 to 48.4% in 2018, p<.001). Men aged 55-69 saw a smaller decline (65.2% in 2009 to 58.9% in 2018, p<.001) while the youngest men, aged 40-54, had an increase in PSA screening (26.2% in 2009 to 37.8 in 2018, p<.001). CONCLUSIONS:In this analysis of PSA screening rates among veterans before and after the 2012 USPSTF recommendation against screening, we found that overall PSA screening decreased only modestly, continuing for more than half of the men in our study. Veterans of different races had similar screening rates, suggesting that VA care may minimize racial disparities. Veterans of varying age experienced significantly different trends in PSA screening.

Advances in precision oncology, including RAS testing to predict response to epidermal growth factor receptor monoclonal antibodies (EGFR mAbs) in colorectal cancer (CRC), can extend patients' lives. We evaluated uptake and clinical use of KRAS molecular testing, guideline recommended since 2010, in the Veterans Affairs Healthcare System (VA).

OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:Small studies suggest that a new entity of high-grade (HG) (G3, by Ki-67 or mitotic index) well-differentiated (histologically) gastrointestinal neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) exists, but prognosis and characteristics are unknown. We further characterized demographics and prognosis of patients with colorectal G3 NETs. MATERIALS AND METHODS/METHODS:We used the Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) database to study colorectal NETs diagnosed from 2000 to 2015. We evaluated demographic, clinical, and tumor characteristics. We compared overall survival (OS) for G1-2 NET, G3 NET, and NEC (neuroendocrine carcinoma). We used logistic regression to detect grade associations and Cox proportional hazards models to examine predictors of survival. RESULTS:We identified 5894 cases with colorectal NET (5780 [98.1%] G1-2 and 114 [1.9%] G3); the cohort was 66% white, 47% male, and had a median age of 54. Patients with G3 NET were likely to be older (odds ratio [OR]: 2.23; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.19-4.19 for 60 to 69 vs. <50), unmarried (OR: 1.56; 95% CI: 1.02-2.38), and less likely to be diagnosed after 2010 (OR: 0.09; 95% CI: 0.06-0.15). OS for G3 NET (median, 36 mo; 95% CI: 13-92) fell between OS for NEC (median, 7 mo; 95% CI: 6-8), and G1-2 NET (median not reached, >120 mo). Among G1-3 NETs, black patients (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.30; 95% CI: 1.03-1.62), older patients (HR: 3.63; 95% CI: 2.63-5.01 for age 60 to 69 vs. <50), unmarried patients (HR: 1.40; 95% CI: 1.17-1.68), and those with HG features (HR: 3.97; 95% CI: 3.15-4.99) had worse survival. CONCLUSIONS:We defined a subset of G3 NETs that are HG and well differentiated, more common in older, unmarried patients, with a prognosis between that of NEC and G1-2 NETs. Our analysis adds the first national registry study in support of a new classification of nonpancreatic HG and well-differentiated NETs.

OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:The impact of diabetes mellitus (DM) on colorectal cancer (CRC) outcomes remains unknown. We studied this by conducting a meta-analysis to evaluate (1) CRC outcomes with and without DM and (2) treatment patterns. METHODS:We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Google Scholar, and CINAHL for full-text English studies from 1970 to 12/31/2017. We searched keywords, subject headings, and MESH terms to locate studies of CRC outcomes/treatment and DM. Studies were evaluated by two oncologists. Of 14,332, 48 met inclusion criteria. In accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses method, we extracted study location, design, DM definition, covariates, comparison groups, outcomes, and relative risks and/or hazard ratios. We utilized a random-effects model to pool adjusted risk estimates. Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality (ACM), disease-free survival (DFS), relapse-free survival (RFS), and cancer-specific survival (CSS). The secondary outcome was treatment patterns. RESULTS:Forty-eight studies were included, 42 in the meta-analysis, and 6 in the descriptive analysis, totaling > 240,000 patients. ACM was 21% worse (OR 1.21, 95% CI 1.15-1.28) and DFS was 75% worse (OR 1.75, 95% CI: 1.33-2.31) in patients with DM. No differences were detected in CSS (OR 1.10, 95% CI 0.98-1.23) or RFS (OR 1.12, 95% CI 0.91-1.38). Descriptive analysis of treatment patterns in CRC and DM suggested potentially less adjuvant therapy use in cases with DM and CRC. CONCLUSIONS:Our meta-analysis suggests that patients with CRC and DM have worse ACM and DFS than patients without DM, suggesting that non-cancer causes of death in may account for worse outcomes.

OBJECTIVE:To understand how to potentially improve inappropriate prostate cancer imaging rates we used National Comprehensive Cancer Network's (NCCN) guidelines to design and implement a Clinical Reminder Order Check (CROC) that alerts ordering providers of potentially inappropriate imaging orders in real-time based on patient features of men diagnosed with low-risk prostate cancer. METHODS:We implemented the CROC at VA New York Harbor Healthcare System (VANYHHS) from April 2, 2015 to November 15, 2017. We then used VA administrative claims from the VA's Corporate Data Warehouse to analyze imaging rates among men with low-risk prostate cancer at VHANYHHS before and after CROC implementation. We also collected and cataloged provider responses in response to overriding the CROC in qualitative analysis. RESULTS:57% (117/205) of Veterans before CROC installation and 73% (61/83) of Veterans post-intervention with low-risk prostate cancer received guideline-concordant care. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:While the decrease in inappropriate imaging during our study window was almost certainly due to many factors, a CPRS-based CROC intervention is likely associated with at least moderate improvement in guideline-concordant imaging practices for Veterans with low-risk prostate cancer.