Agarwal, Neeraj

ImportancePatients with metastatic castration–resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) harboring BRCA1/2 alterations are eligible to receive poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors as single agents or in combination with an androgen receptor pathway inhibitor after these agents showed survival improvement in their landmark clinical trials. However, data are limited regarding the uptake of PARP inhibitors in these patients.ObjectiveTo investigate the use of PARP inhibitors in patients with mCRPC harboring BRCA1/2 alterations.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis retrospective cohort study used the deidentified Flatiron-Health electronic health record–derived database of US community and academic practices to extract patient-level data. The data cutoff date was May 31, 2024. Patients with mCRPC with evidence of harboring BRCA1/2 alterations and alive after August 15, 2020 (ie, 3 months after the approval of the first PARP inhibitor, rucaparib, in mCRPC) were included. Statistical analysis was performed from September 2024 to May 2025.ExposuresAge, race and ethnicity, insurance status, and practice type at the time of mCRPC diagnosis.Main Outcomes and MeasuresThe receipt of PARP inhibitors. Multivariable logistic regression was conducted to assess the association between the exposures and the main outcome.ResultsOf 24 105 patients with metastatic prostate cancer, 443 male patients (median [IQR] age, 72 [65-79] years) had mCRPC with BRCA1/2 alterations and were eligible and included in our analysis. Of these patients, 227 (51.2%) received a PARP inhibitor, whereas 216 (48.8%) did not. Compared with patients covered by a commercial health plan, those covered by Medicare were significantly more likely to receive a PARP inhibitor (odds ratio, 1.91; 95% CI, 1.02-3.66; P = .047). The odds of receiving a PARP inhibitor were not significantly higher in patients treated in community practice compared with those treated in academic centers (odds ratio, 1.64; 95% CI, 1.00-2.70; P = .05).Conclusions and RelevanceThis retrospective cohort study of patients with mCRPC and evidence of BRCA1/2 alterations found that approximately half of patients did not receive PARP inhibitors despite evidence of survival improvement in this population. These findings highlight the need to increase awareness of the survival data and access to life-prolonging therapies in patients with mCRPC.

TPS5126 Background: The treatment of advanced prostate cancer (PC) is challenging, with undesirable side effects that impact patient quality of life. Radioimmunotherapy (RIT) can localize therapy to specific tumor cells in multiple organs to reduce or eliminate damage to normal tissue. The cell surface glycoprotein prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) is an ideal therapeutic target as it is highly expressed by malignant prostate cells. There is a strong rationale for further investigation of the 177 Lu-labeled, chelator-conjugated antibody, 1 77 Lu-rosopatamab, as a potential first-line RIT candidate for the treatment of PC. Methods: This multinational, multicenter, prospective, randomized, open label phase 3 study will have 2 parts: a dosimetry and safety lead-in (n=30) and a randomized treatment expansion (n=490). In Part 1, patients will be divided into 3 groups (n=10 each) to receive 2 single intravenous (IV) injections of 76 millicuries (mCi) each, 14 days apart, of 177 Lu-rosopatamab with best standard of care (SoC) combinations with abiraterone, enzalutamide, or docetaxel to fully characterize biodistribution and safety profiles of 177 Lu-DOTA-rosopatamab + SoC. SoC received will be determined prior to treatment with 177 Lu-rosopatamab. In Part 2, patients will be enrolled in a 2:1 ratio to receive either the best SoC or 2 single IV injections of 76 mCi each of 177 Lu-rosopatamab, given 14 days apart, plus best SoC. SoC will be determined prior to randomization. Eligible patients must have PSMA-expressing metastatic castration-resistant PC (mCRPC) that have progressed despite prior therapy with either enzalutamide or abiraterone plus prednisone, and 1 line of prior taxane therapy or have refused or are ineligible for taxanes. Patients must have adequate organ function including at least 150x10 9 /L platelets, hemoglobin 10 g/dL, and have PSMA-positive disease on 68 Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT imaging as confirmed by a central reader. Key exclusion criteria include small cell histology, increased risk of hemorrhage or bleeding, known brain or hepatic metastases, or history of stroke, seizure, or treatment with radioisotopes within 6 months prior to randomization. The primary endpoint is radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS). Key secondary endpoint is OS. Additional secondary endpoints include 5-year overall survival, tumor objective response rate, time to symptomatic skeletal event, and health-related quality of life. An alpha control and 95% confidence intervals will be used; patients will be substratified between TLX591 + 2 nd ARPI or TLX591 + docetaxel. This study is currently enrolling. Clinical trial information: NCT06520345 .

TPS303 Background: The treatment of advanced prostate cancer (PC) is challenging, with undesirable side effects that impact patient quality of life. Radioimmunotherapy (RIT) can localize therapy to specific tumor cells in multiple organs to reduce or eliminate damage to normal tissue. The cell surface glycoprotein prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) is an ideal therapeutic target as it is highly expressed by malignant prostate cells. There is a strong rationale for further investigation of the 177 Lu-labeled, chelator-conjugated antibody, 1 77 Lu-rosopatamab, as a potential first-line RIT candidate for the treatment of PC. Methods: This multinational, multicenter, prospective, randomized, open label phase 3 study will have 2 parts: a dosimetry and safety lead-in (n=30) and a randomized treatment expansion (n=490). In Part 1, patients will be divided into 3 groups (n=10 each) to receive 2 single intravenous (IV) injections of 76 millicuries (mCi) each, 14 days apart, of 177 Lu-rosopatamab with best standard of care (SoC) combinations with abiraterone, enzalutamide, or docetaxel to fully characterize biodistribution and safety profiles of 177 Lu-DOTA-rosopatamab + SoC combinations. SoC received will be determined prior to treatment with 177 Lu-rosopatamab. In Part 2, patients will be enrolled in a 2:1 ratio to receive either the best SoC or 2 single IV injections of 76 mCi each (equivalent to a 45 mCi/m 2 dose in a standard 1.7m 2 individual) of 177 Lu-rosopatamab, given 14 days apart, plus best SoC. SoC will be determined prior to randomization, and a change in planned SoC will not be permitted. Eligible patients must have PSMA-expressing metastatic castration-resistant PC (mCRPC) that have progressed despite prior therapy with either enzalutamide or abiraterone plus prednisone, and 1 line of prior taxane therapy or have refused or are ineligible for taxanes. Patients must have adequate organ function including at least 150x10 9 /L platelets, hemoglobin 10 g/dL, and have PSMA-positive disease on 68 Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT imaging as confirmed by a central reader. Key exclusion criteria include small cell histology, increased risk of hemorrhage or bleeding, known brain or hepatic metastases, or history of stroke, seizure, or treatment with radioisotopes within 6 months prior to randomization. The primary endpoint is radiographic progression-free survival. Key secondary endpoint is OS. Additional secondary endpoints include 5-year overall survival, tumor objective response rate, time to symptomatic skeletal event, and health-related quality of life. Clinical trial information: NCT04876651 .

727 Background: Despite the availability of targeted therapies like erdafitinib for pts with aUC with susceptible genomic alterations, the rate of NGS testing remains low at 32% in the United States (Hage Chehade...Swami, JAMA Network Open, 2024). Furthermore, limited data exist regarding the timing of NGS testing in relation to the time of death. Herein, we sought to assess the rates of NGS testing at the end of life in pts with aUC in a real-world patient population. Methods: A de-identified nationwide Flatiron Health electronic health record (EHR)-derived database was used to extract patient-level data. Inclusion criteria: pts who received NGS testing (blood/tissue) and who had a date of death recorded. The analytic cohort included pts diagnosed with aUC between 1/1/2011 and 11/14/2022 who received first NGS testing results between 5/3/2012 and 12/21/2022. The time difference between each pt’s first NGS result delivered and death was calculated, and thereafter, pts were categorized into 3 categories: pts receiving results > 3 months (mo) before death, within 3 mo of death, or after death. The frequency and percentages of the 3 categories were reported, as well as by year of death. The percentages in each category were compared between 2019 (year of erdafitinib approval) and 2022 (last year in dataset) to evaluate changes in NGS testing trend. Results: Among 12,157 pts with aUC in the dataset, 1,637 had both a recorded date of death and underwent NGS testing, and were eligible and included in final analysis. The median age was 72 (IQR 66 – 79). The majority were male (73%), White non-Hispanic (76%), and treated in community practice (86%). 68.2% received NGS results > 3 mo before death (n = 1,117), 28.3% received results within 3 mo of death (n = 464), and 3.4% of NGS results were reported after death (n = 56). In pts who died in 2019 versus 2022, the percentage of pts receiving NGS results > 3 mo before death increased from 61% to 75%, while the percentage of pts receiving results within 3 months decreased from 33% to 22%, and the percentage of NGS results reported after death declined from 5.2 to 2.7%. Baseline characteristics (including race-ethnicity, insurance plan, practice type [academic vs. community]) in these categories will be presented at the meeting. Conclusions: Our findings suggest that a sizeable number of pts with aUC (∼ 32%) received their first NGS testing results towards the end of life, highlighting the need to integrate genomic testing earlier during the course of the disease to optimize benefit with targeted therapies. These results could inform clinical practice and therapeutic decisions in the clinic. CHC, YJ: Equal contribution; US, NA: Senior authors.

132 Background: Distant metastasis at the time of prostate cancer (PCa) diagnosis is associated with increased morbidity and mortality. This study aimed to assess the impact of sociodemographic characteristics on distant metastasis at the time of PCa diagnosis. Methods: The Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) database (2000-2021), including PCa patients from 17 registries, was queried. Patients with late-stage diagnosis (LSD) were defined as those who were initially diagnosed with stage IV disease, indicating distant metastasis. Sociodemographic predictors included race, ethnicity, age, marital status, residential status, and median household income. Multicollinearity was assessed using variance inflation factors (VIF). Univariable logistic regression was performed to identify significant predictors of LSD, which were further analyzed in multivariable logistic regression using a maximum likelihood estimation approach. Odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were computed with a p-value of <0.05 indicating a statistically significant association. Results: Of the 1,089,736 PCa patients diagnosed, 64,983 (6%) had an LSD. The majority were white (80%), non-Hispanic/Latino (HL) (91%), aged ≥65 years (60%), married (75%), residents in metropolitan areas (88%), and had an annual house income of ≥$70,000 (70%). Multivariable logistic regression identified Black (OR: 1.24; 95%CI: 1.22-1.27), Asian or Pacific Islander (1.35; 1.30-1.40), and American Indian/Alaska Native (1.70; 1.53-1.89) to have higher odds of LSD compared to White patients (Table). In addition, HL ethnicity compared to non-HL (OR: 1.45; 95% CI: 1.42-1.49), age ≥65 compared to <65 (1.68; 1.65-1.71), unmarried status compared to married (1.88; 1.85-1.91), residency in non-metropolitan areas compared to metropolitan (1.10; 1.07-1.12), and household income <$70,000 compared to ≥$70,000 (1.03; 1.01-1.05) had a significant association with LSD. Conclusions: Older, non-White (Black, Asian/Pacific Islander, American Indian/Alaska Native), Hispanic/Latino, unmarried men, residents of non-metropolitan areas, or those with lower annual household incomes have higher odds of late-stage diagnosis. Interventions targeting early detection in these at-risk groups may improve prostate cancer outcomes in the US. Variable Odds Ratio (95% CI) p-value Race (Black vs White) 1.24 (1.22-1.27) <0.01 Race (Asian or Pacific Islander vs White) 1.35 (1.31-1.40) <0.01 Race (American Indian/Alaska Native vs White) 1.70 (1.53-1.89) <0.01 Ethnicity (Hispanic/Latino vs non-/Hispanic/Latino) 1.45 (1.42-1.49) <0.01 Age (≥65 vs <65) 1.68 (1.65-1.71) <0.01 Marital status (unmarried vs married) 1.88 (1.85-1.91) <0.01 Residence status (non-metropolitan vs metropolitan) 1.10 (1.07-1.12) <0.01 Household income (<$70,000 vs ≥$70,000) 1.03 (1.01-1.05) <0.01

108 Background: PARPi are approved for the treatment of pts with mCRPC either as single agents or as a combination with an androgen receptor pathway inhibitor (ARPI) [PMID: 37442702]. In a US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) pooled analysis, the benefit from PARPi appeared greatest for pts harboring BRCA1/2 alterations [PMID: 38484203]. However, real-world uptake of PARPi in pts with mCRPC with BRCA1/2 alterations is unknown. Herein, our objective was to assess the usage of PARPi in real-world pts with mCRPC harboring BRCA1/2 alterations. Methods: A de-identified nationwide Flatiron Health electronic health record (EHR)-derived database was used to extract pt-level data. Eligibility criteria: pts with mCRPC harboring alterations in BRCA1 or BRCA2 or both and alive after 8/15/2020 (i.e., 3 months following the approval of the first PARPi, rucaparib, in mCRPC) with available treatment information. The data cutoff date was 5/31/2024. Pts were categorized into two cohorts based on the receipt of any PARPi or not. Baseline characteristics at the time of mCRPC diagnosis, including age, race-ethnicity, and insurance plan, were collected in both cohorts. Results: Of the overall cohort of 24,105 pts with metastatic prostate cancer, 443 pts had mCRPC with BRCA1/2 alterations and were eligible and included in this analysis. 227 (51.2%) received a PARPi, while 216 did not (48.8%). Among the 227 pts who received a PARPi, 166 received it as a single agent (73.1%), 40 received it in combination with an ARPI (17.6%), and 21 received it in combination with other agents (9.3%). The median age was 72 in both cohorts (IQR 65 – 79 in patients receiving a PARPi and 66 – 78 in patients who did not). Other baseline characteristics in both groups are shown (Table). Conclusions: Despite PARPi demonstrating survival improvement in pts with mCRPC with BRCA1/2 alterations, a significant proportion of pts do not receive them. Our findings highlight the need to improve education among clinicians of level 1 evidence and improve access to life-prolonging therapies in pts with mCRPC. Baseline characteristics of pts with mCRPC who received vs. did not receive a PARPi. Characteristic Subgroup Pts who received a PARPiN = 227 Pts who did not receive a PARPiN = 216 Race-ethnicity, n (%) Asian 9 (4) 1 (0.5) Black 22 (9.7) 30 (13.9) Hispanic-Latino 10 (4.4) 10 (4.6) White 149 (65.6) 124 (57.4) Other and unknown 37 (16.3) 51 (23.6) Insurance, n (%) Commercial health plan 192 (84.5) 182 (84.3) Medicare-other government programs 31 (13.7) 18 (8.3) Medicaid 1 (0.4) 3 (1.4) Others and unknown 3 (1.3) 13 (6)

104 Background: Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) intensification [ADT + androgen receptor-pathway inhibitor (ARPIs) +/- docetaxel] has been shown to improve survival outcomes in pts with mHSPC and is recommended as standard of care by all major guidelines. However, prior studies have shown underutilization of ADT intensification [PMID: 39191549]. There are limited updated and large-scale studies on the use of ADT intensification, beyond January 2023. In this study, we aimed to assess the treatment patterns of ADT intensification in real-world pts with mHSPC in the US, including data on those treated since January 2023. Methods: This retrospective study utilized the nationwide Flatiron Health Electronic Health Record (EHR) derived de-identified database. Eligibility: Pts diagnosed with mHSPC and availability of treatment information (ADT and/or line of therapy in mHSPC). The data cut-off date was 5/31/2024. Treatment patterns were summarized using frequency and percentages. All analysis was done using R version 4.2.3. Results: Among 24,105 pts with metastatic prostate cancer in the database, a total of 14,084 were eligible and included. The median age at metastatic diagnosis was 72 years (IQR 65 – 79), and 60% were White non-Hispanic. In the overall cohort (1/1/2013–5/15/2024), 56.8% received ADT monotherapy, and 37.7% received ADT intensification. Table summarizes the treatment patterns by year, highlightinga consistent increase in adoption of intensified ADT regimens, and a decline in use of ADT monotherapy. Notably, since January 2023, 76.8% pts with mHSPC received ADT intensification while only 17.3% of pts received ADT monotherapy. Conclusions: To our knowledge, this is the first and largest study to evaluate the current use of ADT intensification. These data indicate a notable improvement in the adoption of level 1 evidence (ADT intensification) in the treatment of pts with mHSPC. These encouraging data emphasize the benefits of continued efforts to promote guideline-concordant care and provide the current treatment landscape to design clinical trials. Treatment patterns by year in pts with mHSPC. Treatment 2013–2017n = 5,263(%) 2018n = 1,313 (%) 2019n = 1,407(%) 2020n = 1,353(%) 2021n = 1,483(%) 2022n = 1,556(%) 2023n = 1,459(%) 2024n = 250(%) ADT monotherapy 4,095 (77.8) 856 (65.2) 819 (58.2) 664 (49) 698 (47.1) 569 (36.6) 291 (20) 5 (2) ADT + ARPI 155 (2.9) 238 (18) 354 (25.1) 452 (33) 555 (37.4) 695 (44.7) 842 (58) 154 (61.6) ADT + Docetaxel 709 (13.5) 156 (12) 175 (12.4) 156 (12) 134 (9.0) 117 (7.5) 78 (5.3) 19 (7.6) Triplet(ADT + ARPI + Docetaxel) 6 (0.1) 2 (0.2) 1 (0.1) 2 (0.1) 9 (0.6) 82 (5.2) 166 (11.1) 53 (21.2) Other therapies 298 (5.7) 61 (4.6) 58 (4.1) 79 (5.8) 87 (5.9) 93 (6) 82 (5.6) 19 (7.6)

Bladder cancer, the sixth most common cancer in the United States, is most commonly of the urothelial carcinoma histologic subtype. The clinical spectrum of bladder cancer is divided into 3 categories that differ in prognosis, management, and therapeutic aims: (1) non–muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC); (2) muscle invasive, nonmetastatic disease; and (3) metastatic bladder cancer. These NCCN Guidelines Insights detail recent updates to the NCCN Guidelines for Bladder Cancer, including changes in the fifth edition of the WHO Classification of Tumours: Urinary and Male Genital Tumours and how the NCCN Guidelines aligned with these updates; new and emerging treatment options for bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG)–unresponsive NMIBC; and updates to systemic therapy recommendations for advanced or metastatic disease.

The NCCN Guidelines for Bladder Cancer provide recommendations for the diagnosis, evaluation, treatment, and follow-up of patients with bladder cancer and other urinary tract cancers (upper tract tumors, urothelial carcinoma of the prostate, primary carcinoma of the urethra). These NCCN Guidelines Insights summarize the panel discussion behind recent important updates to the guidelines regarding the treatment of non–muscle-invasive bladder cancer, including how to treat in the event of a bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) shortage; new roles for immune checkpoint inhibitors in non–muscle invasive, muscle-invasive, and metastatic bladder cancer; and the addition of antibody–drug conjugates for metastatic bladder cancer.

BackgroundSystemic therapy (ST) can be deferred in patients who have metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) and slow‐growing metastases. Currently, this subset of patients managed with active surveillance (AS) is not well described in the literature.MethodsThis was a prospective observational study of patients with mRCC across 46 US community and academic centers. The objective was to describe baseline characteristics and demographics of patients with mRCC initially managed by AS, reasons for AS, and patient outcomes. Descriptive statistics were used to characterize demographics, baseline characteristics, and patient‐related outcomes. Wilcoxon 2‐sample rank‐sum tests and χ2 tests were used to assess differences between ST and AS cohorts in continuous and categorical variables, respectively. Kaplan‐Meier survival curves were used to assess survival.ResultsOf 504 patients, mRCC was initially managed by AS (n = 143) or ST (n = 305); 56 patients were excluded from the analysis. Disease was present in 69% of patients who received AS, whereas the remaining 31% had no evidence of disease. At data cutoff, 72 of 143 patients (50%) in the AS cohort had not received ST. The median overall survival was not reached (95% CI, 122 months to not estimable) in patients who received AS versus 30 months (95% CI, 25‐44 months) in those who received ST. Quality of life at baseline was significantly better in patients who were managed with AS versus ST.ConclusionsAS occurs frequently (32%) in real‐world clinical practice and appears to be a safe and appropriate alternative to immediate ST in selected patients.