Riaz, Irbaz B

Background High‐risk non‐muscle‐invasive bladder cancer (HRNMIBC) has a variable prognosis, managed predominantly by local surgical resection and intravesical Bacillus Calmette–Guérin (BCG), or radical cystectomy (RC). Current treatments are poorly tolerated, have supply limitations and often fail to control the disease. Treatments overcoming these limitations are needed to improve HRNMIBC outcomes. Many novel agents have been approved in recent years (including systemic pembrolizumab, nogapendekin alfa inbakicept‐pmln, N‐803), but long‐term efficacy is unknown. Given advanced bladder cancer findings, we believe direct intravesical administration of atezolizumab may aid with managing HRNMIBC or muscle‐invasive bladder cancer in patients who are ineligible for cisplatin‐based neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Study design The INtraVESical immunoTherapy (INVEST) trial is a UK‐based, open‐label, non‐randomised, single‐centre, Phase Ib dose escalation, window of opportunity study exploring atezolizumab administration via intravesical routes (passive instillation and direct injection [sub‐urothelial]) in patients with bladder cancer with all stages undergoing RC. For both routes, an initial dose confirmation stage will determine toxicity and recommended atezolizumab dosage, followed by a dose expansion stage to further evaluate safety and toxicity at the recommended dose. Endpoints We aim to investigate safety (primary) and preliminary activity (secondary) of intravesical atezolizumab delivered by passive instillation and direct injection into the tumour/bladder wall in patients with bladder urothelial cell carcinoma prior to RC. Primary endpoints include dose limiting toxicities and adverse events. Secondary endpoints include progression‐free survival, pathological complete response rate and treatment compliance. Exploratory endpoints include pharmacokinetic profile (assessed by serum and urine concentrations at prespecified timepoints), spatial analysis of atezolizumab distribution within RC tissue by imaging mass spectrometry and overall survival. Patients and Methods Atezolizumab will be administered intravesically by either passive instillation or direct injection into the tumour/bladder wall. Cohorts will receive either 600 mg or 1200 mg doses administered as a single dose or as multiple doses (weekly for 3–6 weeks). Trial Registration International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number: ISRCTN15842444 , registered 2 December 2022.

ABSTRACT Background Men with castration‐resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) who have a pre‐existing history of cardiovascular disease (CVD) or other comorbidities are often excluded from clinical trials involving oral androgen receptor pathway inhibitors (ARPi). In this study, we compared all‐cause and prostate cancer‐specific mortality among CRPC patients, with and without a pre‐existing history of CVD, receiving ARPi compared to chemotherapy. Methods Men with CRPC were identified using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results‐Medicare Linked Database from 2004 to 2015. Patients were grouped into two analytical cohorts by drug use. Inverse probability treatment weights (IPTW)‐adjusted Cox models and Fine‐Gray subdistribution hazards models were used to evaluate associations between ARPi and chemotherapy, and between ENZ and AA for all‐cause mortality and cancer‐specific mortality separately. Results The study cohort included 1438 men with CRPC. Nearly 54.4% of patients had a pre‐existing history of CVD. Patients with a pre‐existing history of CVD had a higher incidence of all‐cause and prostate cancer‐specific mortality compared to patients without a history of CVD (all‐cause mortality: 69.7% vs. 59.3%, prostate cancer‐specific mortality: 56.0% vs. 49.5%, respectively). In the pre‐existing history of CVD cohort, the IPTW‐adjusted Cox model showed a significantly lower all‐cause mortality in patients who received APRi, enzalutamide, and abiraterone, versus chemotherapy (IPTW‐adjusted hazard ratio [AHR], 0.56; 95% Confidence Interval [CI], 0.48–0.64; p ‐value < 0.001). Further, the IPTW‐adjusted competing risk model showed significantly lower prostate cancer‐specific mortality in patients who received ARPi compared with those who received chemotherapy (IPTW‐AHR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.41 to 0.57; p ‐value < 0.001). In the without pre‐existing history of CVD cohort, the adjusted Cox model showed significantly lower all‐cause mortality in patients who received APRi than those who received chemotherapy (IPTW‐AHR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.41–0.60; p ‐value < 0.001). Whereas the IPTW‐adjusted competing risk model showed significantly lower prostate cancer‐specific mortality in patients who received ARPi compared with those who received chemotherapy (IPTW‐AHR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.42–0.64; p ‐value < 0.001). Conclusion In this population‐based cohort of older men with castration‐resistant prostate cancer, treatment with oral androgen receptor pathway inhibitors was associated with lower estimated risks of all‐cause and prostate cancer–specific mortality compared with chemotherapy in patients with and without pre‐existing CVD. These findings add real‐world comparative effectiveness evidence for patient populations not well represented in randomized clinical trials; however, given the observational design and limitations of administrative data, residual confounding and unmeasured clinical differences may have influenced the results.

Abstract Background: Accurate staging is essential for treatment selection, prognosis assessment, and trial eligibility. While prior studies attempted automating pathological (p) staging, few address clinical (c) staging and no studies have compared LLM-derived staging with clinician staging during clinical visit and retrospective cancer registry staging. Methods: We developed a multi-agent framework using Gemini-2.0-Flash-001 and GPT-5 to (1) identify reports (2) extract key data, and (3) apply AJCC 8th edition staging criteria. LLM staging was compared with clinician documentation and registry staging in breast cancer patients. Clinician-registry agreement served as the reference standard. Two independent breast oncologists reviewed discordant cases. Results: We analyzed 122 randomly selected breast cancer patients across all three Mayo Clinic sites from 2018 - 2023. LLM performance matched or exceeded human inter-rater agreement for pathological staging (95-99.2% vs. 95-98.4%). Clinical staging was more challenging, with LLM concordance of 73-77.9% for cT and 87-89.3% for cN versus 87.8% and 91.0% clinician-registry agreement. Among 89 patients with clinician-registry concordance, LLM concordance was 98.9% for pT/pN, 79.8% for cT, and 91.0% for cN. Experts favored LLM staging in 27.8% (5/18) of cT and 25.0% (2/8) of cN discordances. Error analysis revealed LLM challenges in handling non-mass enhancements (6 cases), selecting radiologic measurements (2 cases), identifying discrete masses (2 cases), and miscellaneous (3 cases). Conclusion: LLMs achieved human-level performance for pathological staging (98%), supporting human-in-the-loop deployment. For clinical staging (79.8% cT, 91.0% cN), future work must enhance multimodal reasoning and integrate physical examination data. Prospective validation is needed to assess real-world impact. With targeted refinements and oversight, automated staging can transform registry workflows while augmenting clinical decision-making. Citation Format: Arshad Mohammed, Umair Ayub, Pooja Advani, Shakeela W. Bahadur, Amye J. Tevaarwerk, Tufia C. Haddad, Elisabeth I. Heath, Brenda J. Ernst, Ben Zhou, Cui Tao, Sara J. Holton, Karthik V. Giridhar, Irbaz B. Riaz. Automating clinical and pathological staging for breast cancer patients [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2026; Part 1 (Regular Abstracts); 2026 Apr 17-22; San Diego, CA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2026;86(7 Suppl):Abstract nr 2744.

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.

ImportanceCytokine storm due to COVID-19 can cause high morbidity and mortality and may be more common in patients with cancer treated with immunotherapy (IO) due to immune system activation.ObjectiveTo determine the association of baseline immunosuppression and/or IO-based therapies with COVID-19 severity and cytokine storm in patients with cancer.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis registry-based retrospective cohort study included 12 046 patients reported to the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19) registry from March 2020 to May 2022. The CCC19 registry is a centralized international multi-institutional registry of patients with COVID-19 with a current or past diagnosis of cancer. Records analyzed included patients with active or previous cancer who had a laboratory-confirmed infection with SARS-CoV-2 by polymerase chain reaction and/or serologic findings.ExposuresImmunosuppression due to therapy; systemic anticancer therapy (IO or non-IO).Main Outcomes and MeasuresThe primary outcome was a 5-level ordinal scale of COVID-19 severity: no complications; hospitalized without requiring oxygen; hospitalized and required oxygen; intensive care unit admission and/or mechanical ventilation; death. The secondary outcome was the occurrence of cytokine storm.ResultsThe median age of the entire cohort was 65 years (interquartile range [IQR], 54-74) years and 6359 patients were female (52.8%) and 6598 (54.8%) were non-Hispanic White. A total of 599 (5.0%) patients received IO, whereas 4327 (35.9%) received non-IO systemic anticancer therapies, and 7120 (59.1%) did not receive any antineoplastic regimen within 3 months prior to COVID-19 diagnosis. Although no difference in COVID-19 severity and cytokine storm was found in the IO group compared with the untreated group in the total cohort (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.80; 95% CI, 0.56-1.13, and aOR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.41-1.93, respectively), patients with baseline immunosuppression treated with IO (vs untreated) had worse COVID-19 severity and cytokine storm (aOR, 3.33; 95% CI, 1.38-8.01, and aOR, 4.41; 95% CI, 1.71-11.38, respectively). Patients with immunosuppression receiving non-IO therapies (vs untreated) also had worse COVID-19 severity (aOR, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.36-2.35) and cytokine storm (aOR, 2.32; 95% CI, 1.42-3.79).Conclusions and RelevanceThis cohort study found that in patients with cancer and COVID-19, administration of systemic anticancer therapies, especially IO, in the context of baseline immunosuppression was associated with severe clinical outcomes and the development of cytokine storm.Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04354701