Khan, Muhammad Ali

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)

352 Background: Glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP1) receptor expression in prostate cancer tissue has raised concerns that GLP1 receptor agonists (GLP1A) may influence tumor growth or progression. We compared prostate cancer severity at diagnosis among patients receiving GLP1A versus other glucose lowering therapies. Methods: A retrospective chart review identified patients who received GLP1A or alternative second-line glucose lowering agents (DPP4/SGLT2 inhibitors) and were subsequently diagnosed with prostate cancer. Patients receiving both drug classes were excluded. Baseline demographics (race, ethnicity, age), comorbidities (diabetes, myocardial infarction, peripheral vascular disease) concomitant medications (insulin, metformin, statins), appointments (within past year) and laboratory values (HbA1c, eGFR) at therapy initiation were recorded. Primary outcomes included Gleason grade group and metastatic presentation within three months of diagnosis. Propensity score matching balanced baseline characteristics between groups. Mann-Whitney U tests compared grade groups. Chi-square tests compared metastatic presentation, reporting odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Multivariable logistic regression identified predictors of grade group (low-grade: 1-2; high-grade: ≥3) and metastatic presentation, reporting OR with 95% CI. A p value <0.05 indicated a significant association. Results: Of 260 propensity-matched patients (GLP1A: 130, comparison: 130), 87% were White and 95% were Non-Hispanic/Non-Latino in each group. Median HbA1c was 7% (IQR: 6.4-8) in GLP1A group versus 7.5% (6.2-8.5) in comparison group. Median eGFR was 75mL/min/1.73m 2 (IQR: 61.5-90.0) in GLP1A group versus 60.0 (52.0-80.5) in comparison group. High-grade disease occurred in 33 (25%) GLP1A patients and 37 (29%) comparison patients. Among patients with available imaging (GLP1A: 40; comparison: 32), metastatic presentation occurred in 7 (18%) GLP1A group and 7 (22%) comparison group patients. No significant differences were observed in grade group (GLP1A median: 2; IQR: 1-2 vs. comparison median: 2; 1-3; p=0.44) or metastatic presentation (OR: 1.32; 95%CI: 0.41-4.25; p=0.64) between groups. In multivariable analysis, higher HbA1c was associated with high-grade disease in GLP1A group (OR: 1.83; 95%CI: 1.07-3.35; p=0.03) while higher eGFR was associated with low-grade disease in the comparison group (0.97; 0.93-0.99; p=0.04). Conclusions: GLP1A use was not associated with prostate cancer grade or metastatic presentation at diagnosis compared to alternative glucose-lowering agents. However, the association between elevated HbA1c and high-grade disease in GLP1A patients suggests a potential impact of poor glycemic control on tumor biology. Prospective studies are needed to elucidate the relationship between metabolic dysregulation and prostate cancer severity.

145 Background: Multiple trials have demonstrated addition of androgen-receptor pathway inhibitors (ARPIs) improve survival in patients with metastatic prostate cancer but there is a need to quantify cardiovascular toxicity. Understanding the nature and extent of ARPI-associated cardiovascular adverse events across disease states and toxicity grades is critical to inform treatment decisions and long-term patient safety. Methods: MEDLINE, and EMBASE were systematically searched from database inception through August 30, 2025, for phase III randomized controlled trials evaluating abiraterone, enzalutamide, apalutamide, darolutamide, orteronel in metastatic prostate cancer. Trials were included if they reported CVS toxicity. Meta-analysis using a random-effects model was performed to assess the difference of all-cause and treatment-emergent cardiovascular adverse events between ARPI+ADT and ADT alone. Summary effects were expressed as relative risk (RR) with associated 95% confidence intervals. Results: A total of 21 trials (45 references) with 25,576 patients (mCSPC: 12,537, mCRPC: 13,039) were included in this meta-analysis. Compared to ADT alone, ARPI+ADT significantly increased the risk of all cause, all grade hypertension in both mCSPC (RR 1.60, 1.22–2.10) and mCRPC (RR 1.61, 1.20–2.16) as well as grade ≥ 3 hypertension (RR 1.71, 1.17–2.48) in mCRPC setting. There was an increased risk of all-cause, all grade acute coronary syndrome (RR 2.21, 1.09–4.49) and AV nodal disease (RR 2.53, 1.18–5.43) with ARPI+ADT compared to ADT alone in mCSPC setting. There was increased risk of all cause, all grade, any cardiac events (RR 1.30, 1.10–1.54) as well as grade ≥ 3 any cardiac events (RR 1.70, 1.20–2.42) in mCRPC setting. Risk of all cause, all grade hot flashes (RR 1.47, 1.16–1.85) was also significantly increased with ARPI+ADT when compared to ADT alone. In terms of treatment-emergent adverse effects, a significant increase was observed only for pulmonary embolism with ARPI+ADT when compared to ADT alone (RR 1.66, 1.06–2.60) in mCRPC setting. Conclusions: Current evidence indicates potentially increased risk of hypertension, venous thromboembolic, and ischemic cardiac events with ARPI therapy in metastatic prostate cancer. Proactive CV risk assessment, particularly in patients with preexisting comorbidities or prolonged ARPI exposure, may optimize outcomes and minimize treatment interruptions. All cause adverse events. Adverse Event Disease State All Grade Grade ≥3 Any Cardiac Event mCSPC 0.81 (0.37–1.76) 0.88 (0.16–4.64) mCRPC 1.30 (1.10–1.54) 1.70 (1.20–2.42) Hypertension mCSPC 1.60 (1.22–2.10) 1.43 (0.82–2.52) mCRPC 1.61 (1.20–2.16) 1.71 (1.17–2.48) ACS mCSPC 2.21 (1.09–4.49) 1.77 (0.86–3.61) mCRPC – – Hot Flashes mCSPC – – mCRPC 1.47 (1.16–1.85) 1.46 (0.21–9.97)

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

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

464 Background: Based on LITESPARK-005 trail, Belzutifan was FDA-approved to treat advanced RCC following ICI and a VEGF-TKI. We conducted a retrospective cohort study to report the real-world outcomes of Belzutifan in pre-treated RCC patients. Methods: A retrospective chart review of all patients who received Belzutifan at the Mayo Clinic Comprehensive Cancer Center between Dec 2023 and Sep 2025 was conducted. Patients treated for sporadic RCC were eligible; those with von Hippel–Lindau disease, non-RCC pathologies (e.g., Pheochromocytoma, ovarian cancer) were excluded. Radiologic response was assessed by trained curators using RECIST-defined criteria, approximated through systematic review of radiology reports with clinician adjudication when needed. Progression-free survival (PFS), defined as the time from treatment initiation to radiographic progression or death, was estimated using the Kaplan–Meier method. Non-progressors were censored at the last radiology assessment. Patients who discontinued therapy for non-progression reasons were censored at the last radiology assessment prior to discontinuation. Any-cause hypoxia and anemia were reported using CTCAEv5 definitions. Results: A total of 158 patients were identified; 83 (52.5%) who received Belzutifan for sporadic RCC were included. The remaining were excluded for VHL disease (68, 43%) or other pathologies (7, 4.4%). Median follow up was 12 months, 67% were male, median age was 70 (range 39, 94) with 57 patients (69%) were ≥ 65. 28 patients (34%) had a poor IMDC score at baseline. The cohort received a median of 3 previous lines of therapy (range 1,8). Median treatment duration was 3 months (IQR: 1-9.5). Median PFS was 5.7 months (95% CI, 3.8–8.7). At 12 and 18 months, 23.1% and 13.9% of patients, respectively, remained alive and progression-free. Corresponding OS rates at these time points were 60.2% and 51.5%. A confirmed ORR occurred in 12 patients (14.4%). Hypoxia occurred in 44 (53%) patients, median onset 31 days (range 1–270) and 29 (34.9%) required hospitalizations. Median hemoglobin (Hb) levels at baseline were 12.65 g/dl (range, 7.2-15.5), and 68 (82%) patients developed Hb decline on Belzutifan, 27 (32.5%) required transfusions. Conclusions: In an older, high-risk cohort with higher number of prior lines of therapy, Belzutifan yielded PFS/OS and ORR landmarks comparable to the trial supporting its effectiveness in the real world. Outcomes compared with LITESPARK-005 trial. Variable Real world cohort (Mayo Clinic) LITESPARK-005, Belzutifan arm Median PFS (months, 95% CI) 5.7 (3.8-8.7) 5.6 (3.9-7) 12-month PFS rate (%, 95% CI) 23.1% (14.4-33.4) 33.4% (28.4-33.5) 18-month PFS rate (%, 95% CI) 13.9% (7.7-23.9) 24% (19-29.4) 12-month OS rate (%, 95% CI) 60.2% (48.9-70.8) 67.9% (62.9-72.4) 18-month OS rate (%, 95% CI) 51.5% (40.6-62.9) 55.2% (50-60.1) ORR (%, 95% CI) 14.4% (7.7-23.9) 21.9% (17.8-26.5)