Parikh, Rahul A

This guideline has been updated. This ASCO Living Guideline is reviewed on an eight-week cycle. Please see the online dynamic version for the latest updates. Living guidelines are developed for selected topic areas with rapidly evolving evidence that drives frequent change in recommended clinical practice. Living guidelines are updated on a regular schedule by a standing expert panel that systematically reviews the health literature on a continuous basis, as described in the ASCO Guidelines Methodology Manual . ASCO Living Guidelines follow the ASCO Conflict of Interest Policy Implementation for Clinical Practice Guidelines . Living Guidelines and updates are not intended to substitute for independent professional judgment of the treating clinician and do not account for individual variation among patients. See appendix for disclaimers and other important information (Appendix I and Appendix II). Updates are published regularly and can be found on the ASCO Publications website .

This guideline has been updated. This ASCO Living Guideline is reviewed on an eight-week cycle. Please see the online dynamic version for the latest updates. Living guidelines are developed for selected topic areas with rapidly evolving evidence that drives frequent change in recommended clinical practice. Living guidelines are updated on a regular schedule by a standing expert panel that systematically reviews the health literature on a continuous basis, as described in the ASCO Guidelines Methodology Manual . ASCO Living Guidelines follow the ASCO Conflict of Interest Policy Implementation for Clinical Practice Guidelines . Living Guidelines and updates are not intended to substitute for independent professional judgment of the treating clinician and do not account for individual variation among patients. See appendix for disclaimers and other important information ( Appendix 1 and Appendix 2 ). Updates are published regularly and can be found at www.asco.org/genitourinary-cancer-guidelines .

ASCO Guidelines provide recommendations with comprehensive review and analyses of the relevant literature for each recommendation, following the guideline development process as outlined in the ASCO Guidelines Methodology Manual . ASCO Guidelines follow the ASCO Conflict of Interest Policy for Clinical Practice Guidelines . Clinical Practice Guidelines and other guidance (“Guidance”) provided by ASCO is not a comprehensive or definitive guide to treatment options. It is intended for voluntary use by clinicians and should be used in conjunction with independent professional judgment. Guidance may not be applicable to all patients, interventions, diseases or stages of diseases. Guidance is based on review and analysis of relevant literature, and is not intended as a statement of the standard of care. ASCO does not endorse third-party drugs, devices, services, or therapies and assumes no responsibility for any harm arising from or related to the use of this information. See complete disclaimer in Appendix 1 and 2 (online only) for more . PURPOSE To provide evidence-based recommendations for patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). METHODS An Expert Panel including patient representation completed a systematic review of the evidence and made recommendations. RESULTS Depending upon prior treatment received, androgen receptor pathway inhibitors (ARPIs: enzalutamide, abiraterone with prednisone), poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors (PARPi), chemotherapeutic agents (docetaxel, cabazitaxel), radiopharmaceuticals (radium 223, 177 Lu-prostate-specific membrane antigen [PSMA]-617), and sipuleucel-T have demonstrated an overall survival (OS) benefit for patients with mCRPC. For patients with BRCA1 / 2 alterations who did not receive prior ARPI, the combination of PARPi and ARPI (talazoparib + enzalutamide, olaparib and/or niraparib + abiraterone) has shown clinical benefit. For patients with BRCA1 / 2 alterations who received prior ARPI or ARPI followed by docetaxel, olaparib showed OS benefit. In select patients with microsatellite instability-high/mismatch repair-deficient, pembrolizumab showed clinical efficacy. RECOMMENDATIONS Prior systemic therapy for castration-sensitive prostate cancer will determine subsequent therapy used for mCRPC. Continue androgen-deprivation therapy for patients with mCRPC indefinitely. Early adoption of somatic genetic testing and palliative care is recommended. Patients with mCRPC and bony metastases should receive a bone-protective agent. The panel recommends the combination of ARPI with PARPi in patients with BRCA1 / 2 alterations who did not receive prior ARPI. For patients who received prior ARPI, the panel recommends docetaxel chemotherapy. The panel recommends 177 Lu-PSMA-617 or cabazitaxel chemotherapy for patients who receive prior ARPI and docetaxel chemotherapy. For patients with BRCA1 / 2 alterations who received prior ARPI, the panel recommends PARPi monotherapy. Radium 223 is recommended for patients with symptomatic bone–only disease. Evidence for optimal sequencing for mCRPC regimens is lacking. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/genitourinary-cancer-guidelines .

270 Background: Inconsistent reporting of subgroup data across clinical trials makes interpretation and application of the evidence from trials challenging. We conducted a living systematic review to summarize evidence for American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) guidelines for management of metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). Here, we provide an overview of reporting patterns of subgroup data across mCRPC trials. Methods: MEDLINE and EMBASE were systematically searched from each database's inception through September 20 th , 2024, to identify phase II/III/IV randomized clinical trials assessing the efficacy and safety of treatment options in mCRPC. For outcomes of overall survival (OS) and progression free survival (PFS), data from the subgroup analyses was collected and compared across trials to assess heterogeneity in the reporting of subgroups. Results: This analysis included 141 trials (phase II: 83; phase III: 56; phase IV: 2). OS was reported by 113 (80%) trials; 32 (28%) reported OS by any subgroups with 95 unique subgroup categories. PFS was reported by 110 (78%) trials; 23 (21%) reported PFS by any subgroups with 63 unique subgroup categories. Even among consistently reported subgroups, such as age, ECOG performance status, race, geographical area, and Gleason score, considerable heterogeneity in different subgroup levels/thresholds was observed across trials. Top ten most commonly reported subgroups are summarized (Table). Conclusions: Lack of consistent reporting for subgroup analysis in mCRPC trials preclude meaningful conclusions about clinically relevant subgroup and synthesizing evidence for clinical guidelines. A standardized framework for consistent reporting of subgroup data across trials can help inform clinical practice and clinical practice guidelines. OS PFS Number of trials 113 110 Reporting subgroup analysis – N (%) 32 (28) 23 (21) Commonly reported subgroups – (N) Age (26)ECOG-PS (26)LDH (21)PSA (18)Geographic area (15)Alkaline phosphatase (14)Visceral disease (14)Gleason score (9)Race (9)Brief pain inventory level (8) Age (21) ECOG-PS (19)PSA (18)LDH (14)Geographic area (13)Visceral disease (11)Gleason score (10)Alkaline phosphatase (9)Bone metastasis (9)Disease location (9) Age – (N) <65 (14); ≥65 (9); ≤68 (1); ≥69 (1); <70 (5); ≥70 (5); ≤74 (4); 65-75 (5); ≤ 71 (1); >71 (1); ≥75 (11); >Median (1); <Median (1) <65 (12); 65-74 (6); ≥65 (6); <70 (5); ≥70 (5); <75 (4); ≥75 (10); 76-80 (1); >80 (1) ECOG-PS – (N) 0 (15); 0-1 (11), 1 (11); 1-2 (5); 2 (12) 0 (15); 0-1 (5), 1 (12); 1-2 (2); 2 (6) Race – (N) White (9)Non-white (6)African American/black (2)Asian (2) White (8)Non-white (5)African American/black (2)Asian (4) Geographic Area – (N) Europe (8)North America (14)United States (1)Australia (1)Asia (2) Europe (11)North America (13)United States (1)Australia (1)Asia (2)North and South America (2) Gleason Score – (N) 2-6 (1); 7 (1); 8 (1); <8 (8); ≥ 8 (8); 9-10 (1) <8 (10); ≥ 8 (10)

PURPOSE Patients with no evidence of disease (NED) after metastasectomy for renal cell carcinoma are at high risk of recurrence. Pazopanib is an inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor receptor and other kinases that improves progression-free survival in patients with metastatic RCC (mRCC). We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled multicenter study to test whether pazopanib would improve disease-free survival (DFS) in patients with mRCC rendered NED after metastasectomy. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients with NED after metastasectomy were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive pazopanib 800 mg once daily versus placebo for 52 weeks. The study was designed to observe an improvement in DFS from 25% to 45% with pazopanib at 3 years, corresponding to 42% reduction in the DFS event rate. RESULTS From August 2012 to July 2017, 129 patients were enrolled. The study was unblinded after 83 DFS events (92% information). The study did not meet its primary end point. An updated analysis at 60.5-month median follow-up from random assignment (95% CI, 59.3 to 71.0) showed that the 3-year DFS was 27.4% (95% CI, 17.9 to 41.7) for pazopanib and 21.9% (95% CI, 13.3 to 36.2) for placebo. Hazard ratio (HR) for DFS was 0.90 ([95% CI, 0.60 to 1.34]; Pone-sided = .29) in favor of pazopanib. Three-year overall survival (OS) was 81.9% (95% CI, 72.7 to 92.2) for pazopanib and 91.4% (95% CI, 84.4 to 98.9) for placebo. The HR for OS was 2.55 (95% CI, 1.23 to 5.27) in favor of placebo ( Ptwo-sided = .012). Health-related quality-of-life measures deteriorated in the pazopanib group during the treatment period. CONCLUSION Pazopanib did not improve DFS as the primary end point compared with blinded placebo in patients with mRCC with NED after metastasectomy. In addition, there was a concerning trend favoring placebo in OS.

LBA531 Background: Muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma (MIUC) is an aggressive disease with high relapse rates. Neoadjuvant platinum-based chemotherapy (NAC) is the standard of care in patients (pts) who are cisplatin (Cis)-eligible. However, many pts are Cis-ineligible or have persistent muscle-invasive disease after NAC and surgery. We evaluated pembrolizumab (Pembro) as adjuvant therapy in pts with high-risk MIUC following surgical resection. Methods: The AMBASSADOR study is an open-label, randomized, phase III trial that enrolled pts with histologically confirmed MIUC of the bladder, upper tract, or urethra who (1) had ≥ pT2 and/or pN+ or margins+ at surgery (radical cystectomy, nephrectomy, nephroureterectomy, or ureterectomy) following NAC or (2) ≥ pT3 and/or pN+ or margins+ at surgery without NAC and were either Cis-ineligible or declined adjuvant Cis-based therapy. Pts were registered ≥4 to 16 weeks after surgery and randomized 1:1 to receive Pembro 200 mg every 3 weeks for 1 year or observation (Obs). Randomization was stratified by pathologic stage, centrally tested PD-L1 status, and prior NAC. The dual primary endpoints were disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) with a target sample size of 739 pts and required 387 DFS and 320 OS events for final analysis. Secondary objectives included evaluation of DFS and OS in PD-L1-positive and -negative pts and assessing safety. Here we present the interim DFS and OS results. Results: Between 09/2017 and 08/2021 a total of 702 pts were randomized prior to early closure due to US FDA approval of nivolumab for MIUC pts: 354 pts to Pembro and 348 pts to Obs; 13.0% vs 21.6% withdrew from study without event in the Pembro vs Obs arms, respectively. 74 pts (21%) in the Obs arm received an immune checkpoint inhibitor. Median follow-up was 22.3 months (mos) for DFS and 36.9 mos for OS. The DFS endpoint (based on 319 events needed for interim analysis) crossed the efficacy boundary. Median DFS was 29.0 months (95% confidence interval (CI) 21.8‒not evaluable (NE)) with Pembro and 14.0 months (95% CI 9.7‒20.20) with Obs (hazard ratio (HR) 0.69 [95% CI 0.55–0.87]; p=0.0013). At the interim analysis (n = 257 events), median OS was 50.9 months (95% CI 43.9‒NE) with Pembro and 55.8 months (95% CI 53.3‒NE) with Obs (HR 0.98 [95% CI 0.76–1.26]; p=0.88). Grade 3+ adverse events occurred in 48.4% and 31.8% of pts in the Pembro and Obs arms, respectively. Conclusions: Adjuvant Pembro demonstrated a statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in DFS vs Obs for high-risk MIUC pts after radical surgery. The OS endpoint may have been impacted by pts on the Obs arm receiving a checkpoint inhibitor. Pembro was tolerable with no new safety signals. These results support adjuvant Pembro as a new therapeutic option for pts with MIUC with high risk for recurrence. Additional follow-up is ongoing for the final DFS/OS, PD-L1 subgroups, and ctDNA analyses. Clinical trial information: NCT03244384 .

Abstract Background: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is an important cause of morbidity and mortality in patients with hematologic malignancies (HMs). The national burden of inpatient VTE in patients with HMs is not known. Methods: We used the National Inpatient Sample (NIS), one of the largest publicly-available inpatient dataset in United States (U.S.), which represents a 20% stratified random sample of discharges from all hospitals, excluding rehabilitation and long-term acute care hospitals. The NIS is drawn from all States participating in Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project, representing more than 95 percent of the U.S. population. Discharge weights are used to generate national estimates. Patients with HMs were identified using ICD9 codes published by NIS and VTE was defined by ICD9 codes 451 - 453 and 415.1. Annual rates of inpatient VTE were calculated from 1993 to 2012 by HM type. Multivariate odds of inpatient VTE was determined by logistic regression controlling for confounders (age, sex, Charlson co-morbidity index, metastasis, chemotherapy, transfusion of blood products, major operating room procedure, primary hypercoagulable state, disseminated intravascular coagulation, heparin induced thrombocytopenia and thrombosis, antiphospholipid syndrome, obesity and calendar year). The malignancies with non-specific designation (e.g. unspecified leukemia) or with less than 1000 patients (weighted number) were excluded from results. Results: 8.42million hospitalized patients (weighted number) with HMs were identified, and 335,240had VTE (3.98%). In patients with HMs, rates of inpatient VTE increased from 2.59% to 5.22% between 1993 and 2012 (p<0.01). A detailed analysis of VTE rates for various HMs is presented in Table 1. The HMs with highest odds of inpatient VTE are peripheral T-cell lymphoma (PTCL), anaplastic large cell lymphoma (ALCL) and primary central nervous system (CNS) lymphoma (OR 1.56, 1.53, and 1.39, p<0.05) as compared to all other HM. Among leukemias, hairy cell leukemia had higher odds of VTE (OR 1.19, p<0.05). The HMs with the least odds of VTE were acute lymphoid leukemia, chronic monocytic leukemia and plasma cell leukemia (OR 0.65, 0.66 and 0.71, p<0.05). The HMs with the highest rates of VTE were PTCL, large cell lymphoma and ALCL (6.96%, 6.35% and 6.27%). The HMs with lowest rate of VTE were megakaryocytic leukemia, acute lymphoid leukemia and acute monocytic leukemia (1.42%, 2.04%, and 2.73%). Conclusions: Our study provides national estimates of inpatient VTE in HM, which are increasing over the last 20 years. Certain HMs have higher rates and odds of VTE as compared to others. Identification of these differences provides valuable information for the use of prophylaxis in HM with high risk of VTE. Table 1. Multivariate Odds and Rates of Inpatient Venous Thromboembolism in Patients with Hematologic Malignancies (Total weighted N = 8.42 million) Hematologic malignancy Inpatient VTE rate (%) Adjusted OR (95% CI) of inpatient VTE compared to all other HM Hodgkin's disease Hodgkin's disease - lymphocyte rich 3.86 1.15 (0.82 - 1.61) Hodgkin's disease - nodular sclerosing 4.04 1.3 (1.18 - 1.43) Hodgkin's disease - mixed cellularity 4.02 1.22 (0.89 - 1.68) Hodgkin's disease - lymphocyte depleted 3.88 1.14 (0.73 - 1.77) Non-hodgkin's lymphoma Nodular lymphoma 4.89 1.2 (1.13 - 1.28) Mycosis fungoides 4.83 1.25 (1.16 - 1.35) Sezary's disease 3.99 1.08 (0.72 - 1.62) Peripheral t-cell lymphoma 6.96 1.56 (1.32 - 1.85) Burkitt's lymphoma 3.44 1.05 (0.97 - 1.15) Marginal zone lymphoma 5.57 1.07 (0.91 - 1.26) Mantle cell lymphoma 4.91 1.03 (0.92 - 1.15) Primary CNS lymphoma 6.18 1.39 (1.18 - 1.64) Anaplastic large cell lymphoma 6.27 1.53 (1.21 - 1.94) Large cell lymphoma 6.35 1.36 (1.22 - 1.51) Sarcoma Myeloid sarcoma 4.24 1.14 (0.9 - 1.44) Myeloma and leukemia Multiple myeloma 4.57 1.14 (1.1 - 1.18) Plasma cell leukemia 2.85 0.71 (0.5 - 1) Lymphoid leukemia - acute 2.04 0.65 (0.61 - 0.69) Lymphoid leukemia - chronic 3.43 0.76 (0.73 - 0.78) Myeloid leukemia - acute 3.71 0.97 (0.93 - 1) Myeloid leukemia - chronic 2.93 0.72 (0.68 - 0.76) Monocytic leukemia - acute 2.73 0.75 (0.59 - 0.96) Monocytic leukemia - chronic 2.74 0.66 (0.44 - 0.98) Erythrocytic leukemia - acute 2.95 0.81 (0.5 - 1.32) Megakaryocytic leukemia 1.42 0.48 (0.23 - 1.02) Hairy cell leukemia 4.72 1.19 (1.07 - 1.32) Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

4502 Background: Patients with no evidence of disease (NED) after metastasectomy for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) are at high risk of recurrence, but no systemic therapy has been shown to benefit this population. Pazopanib is an inhibitor of VEGFR and other kinases that improves progression-free survival in patients with measurable RCC metastatic disease. We performed a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled multicenter study to test the hypothesis that pazopanib would improve disease-free survival in patients with mRCC rendered NED after metastasectomy Methods: Patients with NED following metastasectomy were randomized 1:1 to receive pazopanib starting at 800 mg daily vs. placebo for 52 weeks. Patients were stratified by 1 vs. > 1 site of resected disease, and by disease-free interval ≤ vs. > 1 year. Clinical assessment for toxicity and patient-reported outcomes were performed every 4 weeks, and restaging scans every 12 weeks. The study was designed to observe a 42% improvement in disease-free survival (DFS) from 25% to 45% at 3 years. Results: From August 2012 to July 2017, 129 patients were enrolled. The study was unblinded after 83 DFS events had been observed (92% information). The median follow-up from randomization was 30 months (range 0.4 – 66.5 months). The study did not meet the primary endpoint: hazard ratio (95% CI) for DFS was 0.85 (0.55, 1.31) p= 0.47 in favor of pazopanib. At the time of unblinding, 22/129 (17%) of subjects had died. The HR for overall survival (OS) was 2.65 (1.02, 6.9) in favor of placebo ( p= 0.05). Patient-reported outcomes and laboratory correlates will be reported separately. Conclusions: 52 weeks of pazopanib did not improve DFS compared to blinded placebo in patients with mRCC who were NED after metastasectomy. There was a trend toward worse overall survival with pazopanib. Clinical trial information: NCT01575548.