Chohan, Yashveer

360 Background: Adding NHT to androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) improves survival in mCSPC, but their comparative impact on patient-reported QoL and time to deterioration (TTD) across FACT-P domains remains underexplored. Methods: MEDLINE and Embase were systematically searched from each database’s inception through August 21, 2025, to identify Phase III trials assessing NHT treatment in mCSPC. Time to FACT-P (total, physical, emotional, functional, and social/family well-being) deterioration across trials with the latest follow up were extracted. Hazards ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were pooled and mixed treatment comparisons were made using network meta-analysis. P-scores were computed; a higher score indicated better QoL. Results: A total of 4 trials (12 references) with 4,037 patients met the inclusion criteria with median follow up ranging from 14.4 months to 30 months. Median time to QoL deterioration ranged from 11.4 to 12.9 months. In terms of FACT-P overall, darolutamide (DARO)+ADT (HR: 0.76; 95% CI: 0.62-0.93), abiraterone acetate (AAP)+ADT (0.85; 0.73-0.98) significantly improved TTD as compared to ADT alone. DARO+ADT was associated with significant improvement in TTD when compared to APA+ADT (0.75; 0.56-0.98). In terms of FACT-P social/family wellbeing, DARO+ADT significantly improved TTD when compared to AAP+ADT (0.75; 0.57-0.96), and ADT (0.79; 0.64-0.98). Likewise, ENZA+ADT significantly improved TTD when compared to AAP+ADT (0.77; 0.63-0.95), APA+ADT (0.88; 0.61-0.99) and ADT (0.82; 0.70-0.95). However, there was no statistically significant difference between DARO+ADT and ENZA+ADT. In terms of FACT-P physical wellbeing, AAP+ADT was associated with statistically significant improvement in TTD when compared to APA+ADT (0.66; 0.52-0.83), ENZA+ADT (0.74; 0.61-0.90), and ADT (0.75; 0.65-0.87). In terms of FACT-P functional wellbeing, DARO+ADT was associated with statistically significant improvement in TTD when compared to ADT (0.78; 0.63-0.96). The ranking analysis is showed in Table. Conclusions: Novel hormonal therapies significantly delay QoL deterioration in mCSPC, particularly across overall, emotional, and functional domains. Domain-specific analyses suggest darolutamide may preserve social/family and functional well-being, while abiraterone favors physical well-being. Rank table. Rank (P-score) FACT-Ptotal FACT-Psocial/family FACT-Pphysical FACT-Pfunctional FACT-Pemotional AAP+ADT 2 (0.73) 5 (0.18) 1 (0.98) 2 (0.62) 3 (0.52) APA+ADT 5 (0.17) 4 (0.22) 5 (0.07) 4 (0.33) 4 (0.52) DARO+ADT 1 (0.90) 1 (0.88) 2 (0.68) 1 (0.92) 2 (0.66) ENZA+ADT 3 (0.50) 2 (0.84) 4 (0.36) 3 (0.52) 1 (0.67) ADT 4 (0.18) 3 (0.38) 3 (0.42) 5 (0.11) 5 (0.13)

129 Background: Androgen receptor pathway inhibitors (ARPIs) improve metastasis-free and overall survival in men with non-metastatic hormone-resistant prostate cancer (nmHRPC). Apalutamide and darolutamide were approved by the Federal Drug Administration in 2018 and 2019, respectively, based on pivotal clinical trials showing similar efficacy. However, no head-to-head comparisons exist in real-world settings. We compared prescription patterns and survival outcomes between apalutamide and darolutamide in men with nmHRPC using the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER)-Medicare data. Methods: We identified men aged ≥66 years with localized or locoregional prostate cancer between 2000 and 2021 using the SEER-Medicare linked database. Eligible patients initiated apalutamide or darolutamide between January 2019 and December 2021, defined by Medicare Part D claims. The index date was the first prescription of either agent. Men with distant metastases, prior malignancies and age ≤65 were excluded. Baseline demographics and clinical characteristics were compared using chi-square and Wilcoxon rank-sum tests. Survival was assessed using Kaplan-Meier analysis with log-rank tests. Cox proportional hazards regression was used to estimate adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) for mortality. Results: Among 582 men with nmHRPC, 435 (74.7%) received apalutamide and 147 (25.3%) received darolutamide. The mean age at diagnosis was 73.8 vs 74.1 years (p=0.95). Most patients were White (84.6% vs 81.0%, p=0.21) and resided in metropolitan areas (85.0% vs 88.4%, p=0.39). Darolutamide use was more frequent in the Northeast (42.9% vs 24.6%, p<0.001), while apalutamide was more common in the South (28.7% vs 15.6%, p<0.001). Patients receiving darolutamide had higher-grade tumors (68.0% grade III vs 51.3%, p=0.002) and a longer median time from diagnosis to prescription (93 vs 64 months, p<0.001). Kaplan-Meier curves and adjusted Cox models showed no significant difference in overall survival (HR 1.00; 95% CI 0.51–1.98; p=1.00). Age was independently associated with mortality (HR 1.05 per year; 95% CI 1.00–1.10; p=0.04). Conclusions: Apalutamide and darolutamide demonstrated comparable real-world survival outcomes in nmHRPC. Geographic and clinical factors influenced prescribing patterns, but survival did not differ between agents. Treatment choice may therefore be guided by patient comorbidities, tolerability, and clinician preference. Variable Comparison HR (95% CI) P-Value Treatment Darolutamide vs Apalutamide 1.00 (0.51,1.98) 1.00 Age at Diagnosis 1.05 (1.00, 1.10) 0.04* Race White vs Non-White 0.71 (0.28, 1.80) 0.47 Marital Status Married vs Unmarried 1.29 (0.60, 2.75) 0.51 Geographic Region -Midwest vs West 1.18 (0.34, 4.15) 0.79 -Northeast vs West 1.92 (0.92, 3.88) 0.07 -South vs West 1.01 (0.43, 2.36) 0.99

127 Background: Bone metastases affect up to 90 % of patients with metastatic hormone-resistant prostate cancer (mHRPC) and cause substantial morbidity from skeletal-related events (SREs) such as fracture, spinal-cord compression, and palliative interventions. Bone-modifying agents (BMAs) including bisphosphonates and denosumab reduce SRE risk and are NCCN-recommended, however, real-world use remains inconsistent. Methods: Patients with mHRPC treated from January 2017-September 2024 across Mayo Clinic sites were identified using SQL-based EHR queries confirmed by manual chart review. Bone Metastases were detected through keyword searchers of radiology reports and confirmed through manual chart review. SRE-prevention dosing was defined as zoledronic acid 4mg IV or denosumab 120mg SC; osteoporosis dosing was excluded. SREs were identified using diagnosis codes and text-pattern searches for radiotherapy, surgery, fracture, and spinal-cord compression. Descriptive statistics summarized BMA utilization and SRE incidence. Categorical variables were compared using Chi-square tests, and a risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals was calculated to evaluate association between early BMA initiation and SRE risk. Results: Among 778 patients with mHRPC, 685 (88 %) had bone metastases (mean age 70.5 years). Of these, 169 (24.7 %) had an SRE, and 261 (38.1 %) received BMAs at SRE-prevention doses (denosumab n = 157 [60 %]; zoledronic acid n = 104 [40 %]). Based on a chi-square test, combined SRE incidence did not differ significantly (No BMA 23 %, denosumab 23 %, zoledronic 33 %; p = 0.069). Bone pain at baseline was more common in patients who later received a BMA (136 [68 %]) than in those who did not (82 [41 %]; p < 0.001). Among 200 randomly sampled non-BMA patients, 83 had no recorded BMA discussion (66 also lacked bone pain), 38 lacked dental clearance, 32 had uncompleted plans and 18 declined therapy. Early BMA initiation (before first bone metastases) was associated with fewer SREs (16 % vs 29 %; RR 0.56, 95 % CI 0.33–0.96). Conclusions: Less than half of bone-metastatic mHRPC patients received BMAs. Non-initiation was often linked to modifiable factors such as delayed dental clearance or lack of treatment discussions, highlighting the need for system-level strategies to improve timely bone-directed care. SREs were common, affecting one quarter of patients. Small sample size precluded meaningful comparison of the impact of BMAs on SRE incidence however early BMA initiation may lower SREs. Incidence of SREs stratified by no BMA vs BMA treatment. SRE No BMA BMA Overall Pathological Fracture 6.4% (27/424) 4.9% (13/261) 5.8% (40/685) Radiotherapy to Bone 13.9% (59/424) 18.8% (49/261) 15.7% (108/685) Spinal Cord Compression 0.7% (3/424) 3.1% (8/261) 1.6% (11/685) Surgery to Bone 2.1% (9/424) 0.3% (1/261) 1.5% (10/685) Combined 23% (98/424) 27.2% (71/261) 24.7% (169/685)

483 Background: Sarcomatoid dedifferentiation (sRCC) in metastatic clear-cell renal cell carcinoma (mccRCC) confers aggressive disease and poor prognosis. We maintain a living meta-analysis of first-line immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI)–based combinations in mccRCC (Riaz et al., Eur Urol Oncol 2021), which demonstrated improved survival with ICI-based regimens over sunitinib. Here, we present an updated synthesis focused on the comparative efficacy of ICI combinations in the sarcomatoid subset. Methods: A systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL through October 2025 was performed as part of our living meta-analysis of first-line mccRCC therapy. Eligible phase III RCTs compared ICI combinations (IO/IO or IO/TKI) versus sunitinib, including CheckMate 214, CheckMate 9ER, KEYNOTE-426, CLEAR/KEYNOTE-581, JAVELIN Renal 101, and IMmotion151. Extracted outcomes included overall (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS), and objective (ORR), complete (CR), and partial (PR) response rates. Random-effects meta-analyses generated pooled hazard ratios (HRs) for time-to-event outcomes and risk ratios (RRs) for response rates with 95% confidence intervals. Subgroup interaction analyses compared sarcomatoid versus non-sarcomatoid subgroups, with p < 0.1 considered significant. Results: Six phase III RCTs (n = 5,121; 624 sarcomatoid) were included. Across all ICI-based combinations, ICI therapy improved outcomes versus sunitinib in both sarcomatoid and non-sarcomatoid disease. In the pooled analysis, the OS interaction favored sRCC meeting the prespecified significance threshold for subgroup analyses (HR 0.53 vs 0.68; p-interaction = 0.06 < 0.10), while no significant interaction was seen for PFS. Response outcomes showed the strongest differential benefit, particularly with IO/TKI regimens. IO/IO results were directionally consistent but limited by smaller non-sarcomatoid samples. Conclusions: ICI-based combinations significantly improve survival and response outcomes versus sunitinib in mccRCC. Using a prespecified α = 0.10 for interaction testing, the pooled analysis showed a significant OS interaction and higher response rates in sRCC, indicating enhanced ICI sensitivity. These updated meta-analysis data support ICI regimens as the preferred first-line therapy for mRCC with sarcomatoid de-differentiation. Endpoint Regimen Subgroup (S = sarcomatoid; NS = non-sarcomatoid) Effect (95% CI) p-interaction PFS IO/IO S 0.51 (0.40–0.65) – IO/TKI S vs NS 0.48 (0.36–0.64) vs 0.46 (0.39–0.52) 0.81 OS IO/IO S 0.54 (0.07–4.42) – IO/TKI S vs NS 0.51 (0.17–1.48) vs 0.68 (0.30–1.58) 0.24 ORR IO/IO S 2.93 (0.49–17.37) – IO/TKI S vs NS 2.43 (1.84–3.21) vs 1.95 (1.67–2.28) 0.03 CR IO/IO S 3.81 (0.82–17.71) – IO/TKI S vs NS 5.93 (4.73–7.42) vs 2.85 (0.10–83.73) 0.007 PR IO/IO S 3.48 (1.70–7.11) – IO/TKI S vs NS 2.10 (1.78–2.47) vs 1.75 (1.18–2.61) <0.001

399 Background: The standard of care for resectable GEA adenocarcinomas is perioperative chemotherapy with the FLOT (fluorouracil, leucovorin, oxaliplatin, docetaxel) regimen. Recent studies investigating the addition of checkpoint inhibitors (CPIs) to perioperative chemotherapy have shown mixed results. An NMA can leverage both direct and indirect comparisons to evaluate the relative efficacies of available regimens in this setting. Methods: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Science and CENTRAL were searched until August 27th, 2025. Eligible studies included phase 3 randomized trials evaluating perioperative or neoadjuvant chemotherapy +/- CPIs ± radiation in resectable GEA. The primary outcomes were disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS). Hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated using a frequentist NMA framework. Results: Fifteen trials including 8072 patients were analyzed. For DFS, perioperative durvalumab + FLOT (dFLOT) ranked highest (P-score = 0.99), followed by FLOT (P-score = 0.84) (HR for dFLOT vs. FLOT was 0.71, 95% CI 0.58-0.86). dFLOT also ranked higher than perioperative pembrolizumab + cisplatin and fluorouracil/capecitabine (KN-585), though this comparison was not statistically significant (HR 0.65, 95% CI 0.40-1.04). Compared with CROSS, dFLOT showed superior DFS (HR of 0.48, 95% CI 0.36-0.63). For OS, dFLOT ranked the highest (P-score=0.95) and was superior to CROSS (HR 0.57, 95% CI 0.42-0.77). While dFLOT appeared favorable versus FLOT (HR 0.78, 95% CI 0.62-0.98), this finding was primarily driven by MATTERHORN, which did not meet its prespecified OS significance boundary (P = 0.03 vs threshold P < 0.0001), and the proportional hazards assumption was violated. Similarly, no significant OS difference was observed between dFLOT and the KN-585 arms (HR 0.75, 95% CI 0.45-1.23). Conclusions: In this NMA, perioperative FLOT remained the benchmark regimen for resectable GEA. dFLOT has shown promising early results, ranking the highest for DFS and showing favorable, but not statistically definitive OS trends in comparison to FLOT. Importantly, the network enabled indirect comparisons not tested in head-to-head trials, demonstrating that dFLOT ranked above pembrolizumab+CF/CX (KN-585) without reaching statistical significance, and also outperformed CROSS. However, these findings should be interpreted with caution, as they are primarily driven MATTERHORN data in which OS did not cross the prespecified threshold and proportional hazards assumptions were violated. Perioperative immunotherapy combinations appear promising, but final MATTERHORN results and further confirmatory studies are needed before dFLOT can be considered as a new standard of care.