Gupta, Shilpa

The NCCN Guidelines for Prostate Cancer provide a framework on which to base decisions for patients with prostate cancer across the disease spectrum. The Guidelines sections included in this article focus on metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC), nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC), and metastatic CRPC (mCRPC). For patients with mCSPC, disease characteristics, such as whether metastases arose synchronously or metachronously and the degree of metastatic burden, impact therapy decisions, including how much treatment intensification is appropriate and when prostate-directed and/or metastasis-directed therapy should be considered. In the mCRPC setting, androgen deprivation therapy is continued with the sequential or concurrent addition of certain androgen receptor pathway inhibitors, chemotherapies, immunotherapies, radiopharmaceuticals, and/or targeted therapies. The NCCN Prostate Cancer Panel emphasizes a shared decision-making approach in all disease settings based on patient preferences, prior treatment exposures, biomarkers, the extent and location of metastases, symptoms, and potential side effects.

TPS294 Background: Approval of [ 177 Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 ( 177 Lu-PSMA-617) for the treatment of adult patients with prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA)-positive metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, previously treated with androgen receptor pathway inhibitors and taxane-based chemotherapy, was based on the results of the Phase 3 VISION study (NCT03511664). It is important to further characterize long-term safety outcomes in 177 Lu-PSMA-617–treated patients, with particular regard to potential treatment-related risks. To this end, the long-term follow-up (LTFU) safety study (NCT05803941) has been established. Findings from the LTFU study will be crucial for assessing delayed toxicities for patients with PSMA-positive metastatic prostate cancer treated with 177 Lu-PSMA-617 globally. Methods: The LTFU study is a prospective, multi-center, non-EU post-authorization safety study. Patients who received ≥1 dose of 177 Lu-PSMA-617 within one of the prospective parent studies (Table 1) are eligible. Patients may enroll in the LTFU study after fulfilling the requirements of their corresponding parent study. The primary endpoint is the number and proportion of selected adverse events (AEs), including myelosuppression, xerostomia, renal failure, xerophthalmia, and second primary malignancies (eg, myelodysplastic syndrome or acute myeloid leukemia), other serious AEs, and changes in laboratory values. The secondary endpoint is the number and proportion of deaths. Following enrollment, patients will undergo assessments at baseline, and then every 6–8 months for up to 10 years after their first dose of 177 Lu-PSMA-617 or until death. At each visit, a review of selected treatment-related AEs (xerostomia, xerophthalmia, myelosuppression), any-cause AEs (renal toxicity, new diagnoses of second primary malignancies), and treatment-related serious AEs will be conducted. Physical and laboratory assessments, as well as details on concomitant medications and interventions, including anti-cancer therapies, will be collected. Patients may receive treatment with any medical intervention. Interim analyses are planned at 2 and 5 years post-study activation. Enrollment is ongoing (n=13). Clinical trial information: NCT05803941 . Parent studies of the long-term follow-up safety study. Trial Indication Phase N (all groups) ClinicalTrials.gov ID VISION (+sub-study) Post-taxane mCRPC 3 831 (+30) NCT03511664 PSMAfore Pre-taxane mCRPC 3 469 NCT04689828 PSMAddition mHSPC 3 1144 NCT04720157 177 Lu-PSMA-617 in patients with moderately or severely impaired, or normal renal function Post-taxane mCRPC 2 20 a NCT06004661 a Planned. mCRPC, metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer; mHSPC, metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer.

The NCCN Guidelines for Prostate Cancer include recommendations for staging and risk assessment after a prostate cancer diagnosis and for the care of patients with localized, regional, recurrent, and metastatic disease. These NCCN Guidelines Insights summarize the panel's discussions for the 2024 update to the guidelines with regard to initial risk stratification, initial management of very-low-risk disease, and the treatment of nonmetastatic recurrence.

TPS714 Background: 1st-line induction platinum-based chemotherapy followed by switch maintenance Av is the current preferred standard of care in patients (pts) with aUC who do not progress after platinum-based chemotherapy. There is an significant need to further improve outcomes by combining Av with an effective, non-cross resistant therapy with non-overlapping toxicity. CABO is an oral inhibitor of MET, VEGFR and TAM family receptors involved in tumor growth, angiogenesis and immune cell regulation and has shown efficacy in UC in combination with PD-1/PD-1L1 inhibitor. We hypothesized that CABO-Av combination would improve survival vs Av alone and have an acceptable safety profile as switch maintenance therapy in mUC. Methods: MAIN-CAV is a phase III randomized, multicenter, international trial for pts with locally advanced/metastatic UC (including cN3M0 only)) who do not progress after 4-6 cycles of any platinum-based chemotherapy (gem-cis, gem-carbo, MVAC or ddMVAC). 654 adults are randomized 1:1 within 3-10 weeks (wk) after last dose of chemotherapy to receive Av 800 mg IV every 2 wk or Av and CABO 40 mg daily for up to 2 yrs. Key eligibility criteria include ECOG PS 0-1, no prior use of anti-PD(L)1, no CNS metastases, no major surgery within 4 wks, no uncontrolled hypertension or cardiovascular disorders. Pts are stratified based on 1) best response to 1L chemotherapy: complete vs partial response vs stable disease and 2) presence vs absence of visceral metastases. The primary endpoint is overall survival (OS) with assumptions of 1-sided alpha 0.025, power 80%, median OS 21 months (mo) with Av and hazard ratio 0.75, thus hypothesizing median OS 28 mo on CABO-Av. Key secondary endpoints include progression-free survival, safety, tolerability, and efficacy of CABO-Av vs Av alone based on RECIST 1.1 and iRECIST criteria (and PD-L1 status).Quality of life (QOL) are assessed using EQ-5D-5L, PROMIS-Fatigue 4a, EORTC QLQ-C30, EORTC QLQ-BLM30 between pts on CABO-Av vs Av alone. Biomarkers of response and resistance to Av will be assessed using baseline archival tissues, baseline and serial blood, ctDNA, stool and urine. Imaging studies will test the correlation of established and new radiomic signatures with survival, adverse events and QOL and incorporate both radiologic and biologic features to assess their potential association with outcomes. This trial would be the first to systematically address whether adding the multitargeted TKI, CABO, to Av improves survival vs Av alone as 1L maintenance therapy. https://acknowledgments.alliancefound.org . Support: U10CA180821, U10CA180882; U24CA196171, U10CA180863 (CCTG); Clinical trial information: NCT05092958 .

686 Background: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) have been used to treat advanced muscle invasive and/or metastatic bladder cancer. However, ICIs are only effective in 30-40% of cases. In light of potentially significant IRAE’s, tools to predict individual patient level benefits are desirable. AI technology offers the opportunity to apply computational methods to predict outcomes from readily available digitized pathology slides. We investigated the utility of an AI platform integrating computational biomarkers based on morphological characterization of digitized H&E slide whole images (WSI) to predict response to ICI. Methods: We analyzed H&E-stained whole slide images (WSI) of bladder tumor tissue collected from transurethral resection of bladder tumor (TURBT) from 116 patients with advanced or metastatic bladder cancer at a single institution between 2015-2020. Adjacent multiplex IHC stained specimens were analyzed myeloid and lymphoid marker panels. 20 patients from the overall cohort treated with ICI were designated ‘responders’ (complete response, partial response, stable disease) and 20 patients were identified as non-responders (progressive disease) based on ICI best clinical/radiographic response. WSIs were divided into small non-overlapping image patches. These image tiles were processed into multiple AI encoder models to extract morphological features. The tile morphological features, represented by high dimensional vectors, were combined by an aggregation model to represent the whole slide morphology and then used to classify the patients into responders vs non-responders to immunotherapy. Area-under-the-receiver operating characteristic (AUC) was used to measure the performance of response prediction. Results: Our method shows AUC of 0.708 at classification of the patients (n=40) into responder and non-responder groups. With a cutoff that identifies the top 50% patients (n=20) of high probability of responding to immunotherapy predicted by our models, 75% of them are responders. In the bottom 50% patients (n=20) of the low scores, 75% of them are non-responders. . Multiplex IHC (myeloid and lymphoid panel) was performed using adjacent sections and were characterized yielding deeper mechanistic insight into the inflammatory populations driving predictive morphologic patterns. Conclusions: By applying innovative AI morphological analysis on patient WSIs, we generated a computational biomarker that shows promising ability to predict patient response to immunotherapy in bladder cancer. This approach merits future prospective validation and additional patient level analysis in broader cohorts. [Table: see text]

654 Background: MSI and TMB correlate with ICI efficacy. We assessed the association between TMB and MSI with outcomes in pts with aUC treated with anti-PD1/L1 in a ‘real-world’ cohort. We hypothesize that pts with high TMB and MSI-high (H) have better outcomes with ICI. Methods: In this retrospective study we included pts from 13 sites treated with ICI for aUC. We calculated overall response rate (ORR), median overall and progression-free survival (mOS, mPFS) using KM method from ICI start. TMB and MSI were assessed by NGS. TMB was analyzed as dichotomous (≥10 vs <10 mut/Mb) and continuous variable. The analysis was stratified by therapy line (1L/upfront, 2+L). Multivariable models were adjusted by Khaki factors for 1L/upfront and Bellmunt factors for 2+L. We separately analyzed pts on maintenance avelumab (mAV). MSI is reported with descriptive statistics only. Results: 342 pts were treated with ICI 1L/upfront or 2+L (69% pure UC, median age at ICI start 69, 77% men, 90% White, 16% upper tract primary, 12% liver metastases [mets], 78% ECOG PS 0-1). Median f/u from ICI start was 34 months (mo). ORR was 36% (95%CI 26-46%) in pts with TMB≥10 vs 30% (95%CI 23-36%) with TMB<10 (OR=1.4 [95%CI 0.8-2.5] p=0.3). ORR was 75% (6/8) in pts with MSI-H and 30% (60/200) with MSI stable (MSI-S). mPFS was similar between TMB≥10 and <10 groups (6 vs 4 mo; HR=0.88 [95%CI 0.61-1.26] p=0.48) and between MSI-H and MSI-S (5 mo). mOS was numerically longer (not significant) in pts with TMB≥10 vs TMB<10: 25 vs 21 mo; (HR=0.7 [95%CI 0.50-1.09] p=0.12) and with MSI-H and MSI-S (NR and 20 mo). A significant association was found between TMB (continuous variable) and OS (HR=0.97 [95%CI 0.95-0.99] p=0.01). TMB analyses by therapy line are shown in Table. In the 1L/upfront setting (N=144), ORR 71% (5/7) vs 33% (45/135), mPFS 5 and 4 mo, mOS NR and 22 mo for MSI-H and MSI-S, respectively. Pts on mAV (n=77) were 77% men, 92% White, 16% upper primary, 13% liver mets, 84% ECOG PS 0-1 with median f/u 15 mo from avelumab start; mOS was NR for MSI-H and 24 mo for MSI-S; mPFS was 4 mo for both groups. Of 3 pts on mAV with MSI-H: 1 CR, 2 SD; of 58 pts with MSI-S: 4CR, 4PR, 24 SD, 21 PD, 5 unknown. Conclusions: MSI-H had numerically higher ORR and higher TMB was associated with longer OS with ICI, but further validation is needed. Limitations: retrospective design, small sample size for MSI-H cases, lack of randomization and central scan review, selection/confounding. [Table: see text]

Background: Limited information is available for patients with breast cancer (BC) and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), especially among underrepresented racial/ethnic populations. Methods: This is a COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19) registry-based retrospective cohort study of females with active or history of BC and laboratory-confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection diagnosed between March 2020 and June 2021 in the US. Primary outcome was COVID-19 severity measured on a five-level ordinal scale, including none of the following complications, hospitalization, intensive care unit admission, mechanical ventilation, and all-cause mortality. Multivariable ordinal logistic regression model identified characteristics associated with COVID-19 severity. Results: 1383 female patient records with BC and COVID-19 were included in the analysis, the median age was 61 years, and median follow-up was 90 days. Multivariable analysis revealed higher odds of COVID-19 severity for older age (aOR per decade, 1.48 [95% CI, 1.32–1.67]); Black patients (aOR 1.74; 95 CI 1.24–2.45), Asian Americans and Pacific Islander patients (aOR 3.40; 95 CI 1.70–6.79) and Other (aOR 2.97; 95 CI 1.71–5.17) racial/ethnic groups; worse ECOG performance status (ECOG PS ≥2: aOR, 7.78 [95% CI, 4.83–12.5]); pre-existing cardiovascular (aOR, 2.26 [95% CI, 1.63–3.15])/pulmonary comorbidities (aOR, 1.65 [95% CI, 1.20–2.29]); diabetes mellitus (aOR, 2.25 [95% CI, 1.66–3.04]); and active and progressing cancer (aOR, 12.5 [95% CI, 6.89–22.6]). Hispanic ethnicity, timing, and type of anti-cancer therapy modalities were not significantly associated with worse COVID-19 outcomes. The total all-cause mortality and hospitalization rate for the entire cohort was 9% and 37%, respectively however, it varied according to the BC disease status. Conclusions: Using one of the largest registries on cancer and COVID-19, we identified patient and BC-related factors associated with worse COVID-19 outcomes. After adjusting for baseline characteristics, underrepresented racial/ethnic patients experienced worse outcomes compared to non-Hispanic White patients. Funding: This study was partly supported by National Cancer Institute grant number P30 CA068485 to Tianyi Sun, Sanjay Mishra, Benjamin French, Jeremy L Warner; P30-CA046592 to Christopher R Friese; P30 CA023100 for Rana R McKay; P30-CA054174 for Pankil K Shah and Dimpy P Shah; KL2 TR002646 for Pankil Shah and the American Cancer Society and Hope Foundation for Cancer Research (MRSG-16-152-01-CCE) and P30-CA054174 for Dimpy P Shah. REDCap is developed and supported by Vanderbilt Institute for Clinical and Translational Research grant support (UL1 TR000445 from NCATS/NIH). The funding sources had no role in the writing of the manuscript or the decision to submit it for publication. Clinical trial number: CCC19 registry is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04354701 .

The NCCN Guidelines for Prostate Cancer provide a framework on which to base decisions regarding the workup of patients with prostate cancer, risk stratification and management of localized disease, post-treatment monitoring, and treatment of recurrence and advanced disease. The Guidelines sections included in this article focus on the management of metastatic castration-sensitive disease, nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC), and metastatic CRPC (mCRPC). Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) with treatment intensification is strongly recommended for patients with metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer. For patients with nonmetastatic CRPC, ADT is continued with or without the addition of certain secondary hormone therapies depending on prostate-specific antigen doubling time. In the mCRPC setting, ADT is continued with the sequential addition of certain secondary hormone therapies, chemotherapies, immunotherapies, radiopharmaceuticals, and/or targeted therapies. The NCCN Prostate Cancer Panel emphasizes a shared decision-making approach in all disease settings based on patient preferences, prior treatment exposures, the presence or absence of visceral disease, symptoms, and potential side effects.

ImportanceSystematic data on the association between anticancer therapies and thromboembolic events (TEEs) in patients with COVID-19 are lacking.ObjectiveTo assess the association between anticancer therapy exposure within 3 months prior to COVID-19 and TEEs following COVID-19 diagnosis in patients with cancer.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis registry-based retrospective cohort study included patients who were hospitalized and had active cancer and laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. Data were accrued from March 2020 to December 2021 and analyzed from December 2021 to October 2022.ExposureTreatments of interest (TOIs) (endocrine therapy, vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors/tyrosine kinase inhibitors [VEGFis/TKIs], immunomodulators [IMiDs], immune checkpoint inhibitors [ICIs], chemotherapy) vs reference (no systemic therapy) in 3 months prior to COVID-19.Main Outcomes and MeasuresMain outcomes were (1) venous thromboembolism (VTE) and (2) arterial thromboembolism (ATE). Secondary outcome was severity of COVID-19 (rates of intensive care unit admission, mechanical ventilation, 30-day all-cause mortality following TEEs in TOI vs reference group) at 30-day follow-up.ResultsOf 4988 hospitalized patients with cancer (median [IQR] age, 69 [59-78] years; 2608 [52%] male), 1869 had received 1 or more TOIs. Incidence of VTE was higher in all TOI groups: endocrine therapy, 7%; VEGFis/TKIs, 10%; IMiDs, 8%; ICIs, 12%; and chemotherapy, 10%, compared with patients not receiving systemic therapies (6%). In multivariable log-binomial regression analyses, relative risk of VTE (adjusted risk ratio [aRR], 1.33; 95% CI, 1.04-1.69) but not ATE (aRR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.56-1.16) was significantly higher in those exposed to all TOIs pooled together vs those with no exposure. Among individual drugs, ICIs were significantly associated with VTE (aRR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.01-2.07). Also noted were significant associations between VTE and active and progressing cancer (aRR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.01-2.03), history of VTE (aRR, 3.10; 95% CI, 2.38-4.04), and high-risk site of cancer (aRR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.14-1.75). Black patients had a higher risk of TEEs (aRR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.03-1.50) than White patients. Patients with TEEs had high intensive care unit admission (46%) and mechanical ventilation (31%) rates. Relative risk of death in patients with TEEs was higher in those exposed to TOIs vs not (aRR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.91-1.38) and was significantly associated with poor performance status (aRR, 1.77; 95% CI, 1.30-2.40) and active/progressing cancer (aRR, 1.55; 95% CI, 1.13-2.13).Conclusions and RelevanceIn this cohort study, relative risk of developing VTE was high among patients receiving TOIs and varied by the type of therapy, underlying risk factors, and demographics, such as race and ethnicity. These findings highlight the need for close monitoring and perhaps personalized thromboprophylaxis to prevent morbidity and mortality associated with COVID-19–related thromboembolism in patients with cancer.