Childs, Daniel S.

524 Background: Antiangiogenic tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) play a key role in treating renal cell carcinoma and other solid organ malignancies, but TKIs cause bothersome side effects that frequently necessitate dose reductions or treatment holds. Olanzapine has been useful for palliating symptoms from classical chemotherapies and advanced cancer, but its effect on TKI-related symptoms is largely unknown. This retrospective study aimed to estimate the efficacy of olanzapine for TKI-induced nausea, vomiting, anorexia, weight loss, and insomnia. Methods: All patients prescribed olanzapine with lenvatinib, cabozantinib, axitinib, or tivozanib at Mayo Clinic between January 1, 2018, and June 30, 2024 were assessed for inclusion. For baseline symptom assessment, clinical care team notes documenting the presence or absence of symptoms and indication(s) for starting olanzapine were reviewed. For response assessment, clinical notes and patient portal messages from the first three months after starting olanzapine were evaluated for qualitative descriptions of change in symptom burden. Relevant data were extracted as direct quotations, which were reviewed by the research team and categorized as “improved,” “worsened,” “stable,” or “missing data.” Each symptom domain was analyzed independently when olanzapine was prescribed for multiple interrelated symptoms. Results: A total of 60 patients who received olanzapine for the treatment of TKI-related adverse effects were included. The most common documented indication for olanzapine was nausea without vomiting (n=35), followed by anorexia (n=25), nausea with vomiting (n=16), weight loss (n=16), and insomnia (n=11). In 32 cases (53%), olanzapine was prescribed for multiple, simultaneous symptoms. Response rates for each symptom domain are shown in the table. In addition, prior to olanzapine, 34 patients (57%) had documented weight loss. Following olanzapine, 50% (n=17) gained weight (median increase: 6.1 kg; range: 2.0 - 10.7 kg), 26% (n=9) stabilized their weight (±1 kg), and 24% (n=8) continued to lose weight. Clinicians utilized a TKI dose reduction within one week of olanzapine initiation in 5 cases (8.3%), and 3 of these patients could resume the higher dose of TKI after starting olanzapine. Only 4 patients (7%) discontinued olanzapine within 3 months due to perceived side effects. Conclusions: Olanzapine appears to be effective in treating TKI-induced nausea, vomiting, anorexia, insomnia, and weight loss. Prospective randomized placebo-controlled studies are needed to confirm these findings. Improvedn (%) Worsened n (%) Stablen (%) Missing Datan (%) Nausea without emesis 32 (84) 3 (8) 1 (3) 2 (5) Nausea with emesis 13 (93) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (7) Anorexia 26 (74) 2 (6) 4 (11) 3 (9) Insomnia 11 (85) 0 (0) 2 (15) 0 (0)

745 Background: The combination of EV-P therapy has recently been approved as first-line (1L) therapy for patients with LA/mUC based on the results of the EV-302 trial. Herein, we report the updated results from a cohort of patients with LA/mUC who received EV-P in real world clinical setting. Methods: This retrospective study included patients with LA/mUC (07/2022-08/2024) at the Mayo Clinic who completed at least one cycle of EV-P. The best overall response (BOR) was evaluated using radiographic imaging and was adjudicated as complete response (CR), partial response (PR), stable disease (SD), mixed response (MR), or progressive disease (PD). The median progression-free survival (PFS), defined as the time from treatment initiation to disease progression or death, was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Patients who had not experienced disease progression by their last follow-up were censored for the PFS analysis. Results: A total of 120 patients were included; 79 (65.8%) were males, 41 (34.1%) females, 109 (91%) White, and 119 (99%) were non-Hispanic/Latino. The median age was 72 years (IQR: 65-77). Of these, only 22 (18.3%) had locally advanced disease while the remaining had mUC; 62 (51.6%) had lower tract urothelial carcinoma (LUTC), 36 (30%) had upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC). The median follow-up time was 7.1 months (IQR: 4.93-9.26). In terms of BOR, 56 patients (46.6%) experienced PR, 34 (28.3%) CR, 12 (10%) PD, 7 (5.8%) MR, and 8 (6.6%) experienced SD. 3 (2.5%) patients were not evaluable. The BOR across subgroups, LA and mUC, including LUTC and UTUC, is summarized in the table. Among the responders, the median number of treatment cycles to first response was 3 (IQR: 2.25–4). Within the follow-up, 28 patients (23.3%) experienced eventual radiographic disease progression; death was observed in 25 patients (20.8%). The median PFS was 12.7 months (95% CI: 9.8-NE), and OS was 25.1 months (16.3-NE). Conclusions: In real world setting, the combination of EV-P in LA/mUC demonstrated clinical efficacy compatible with the findings from the EV-302 trial. Our results showed comparable efficacy with EV-P in both UTUC and LUTC, highlighting it's broad therapeutic potential. However, clinical data at longer follow-up is required to fully evaluate overall survival and the durability of response. mUC LA Overall LUTC UTUC Total patients 98 62 36 22 BOR CR 23 (23.4%) 13 (20.9%) 10 (28.5%) 11 (50%) PR 49 (52.6%) 31 (50%) 18 (50%) 7 (31.8%) SD 6 (6.4%) 2 (3.2%) 4 (11.4%) 2 (9.0%) PD 10 (10.7%) 9 (15.5%) 1 (2.8%) 2 (9.0%) MR 7 (7.5%) 5 (8.6%) 2 (5.7%) 0 (0%)

114 Background: Oncologists have traditionally relied upon serial assessments of PSA and periodic imaging (i.e., every 2 to 3 cycles) to monitor treatment response. Early identification of disease progression allows for faster transitions to alternative therapies that might be more effective. In this study, we evaluated the utility of post-treatment SPECT/CT for earlier detection of treatment failure in patients receiving Lutetium-177–PSMA-617 (LuPSMA). Methods: We queried an IRB-approved registry including all patients starting LuPSMA at Mayo Clinic, MN, in the interval of March 2022 to March 2023. Those receiving fewer than 2 cycles of treatment and missing SPECT/CT data were excluded. We reviewed clinical notes to document the date and reason(s) for treatment discontinuation. The assembled cohort consists of patients stopping LuPSMA for progressive disease ([PD], categorized as biochemical, radiographic, or both). Results of the prior SPECT/CT imaging reports were reviewed. At our institution SPECT/CT images are typically acquired on the day after each infusion. Metrics collected from the radiology reports included: new foci of PSMA localization since the prior PSMA PET or SPECT/CT, suspicion for new non-PSMA avid disease, and a visual determination of PSMA-avid tumor volume. Results: A total of 256 patients received an initial cycle of LuPSMA. SPECT/CT imaging data for at least 2 consecutive treatment cycles was available for 68 patients who developed PD after a median (IQR) of 3 (2-4) cycles. There were 55 patients (81%) with both biochemical and radiographic evidence of PD, 7 (10%) with biochemical only progression, and 6 (9%) with radiographic only progression. The most used imaging modality for response assessment was PSMA PET/CT (n=46, 67%), followed by conventional imaging (n=9, 13%), and choline PET/CT (n=5, 7%). The median time between most recent post-therapy SPECT/CT and determination of PD was 39 days. The prior SPECT/CT had detected new foci of PSMA avid disease in 12 (18%) cases and new non-PSMA avid disease in 5 (7%) cases. Two patients had both new PSMA-avid and non-PSMA avid lesions. The most common sites of new PSMA-avid disease on SPECT/CT were bone (n=10) and liver (n=2). A total of 20 (29%) patients had visually increased tumor volume on SPECT/CT, 9 (45%) of which had no new lesions. In total, 24 of 68 patients (35%) had early detection of treatment futility detected by SPECT/CT. At a median (IQR) follow-up time of 8 (6.4-12) mo, the median OS [95% CI] was similar for patients with PD detected on SPECT/CT (7.8 [6.6 – 9] mo) compared to those without clear evidence of PD on SPECT/CT(8.4 [6.4-10.3] mo, p=0.885). Conclusions: Post-treatment SPECT/CT imaging may complement traditional forms of response assessment and provide an earlier warning of treatment failure through identification of new PSMA-avid lesions, non-PSMA avid disease, and increased tumor volume.

112 Background: We now have more than a decade of experience using Androgen Receptor Pathway Inhibitors (ARPIs) across various disease states of prostate cancer, and the safety of their combination with Lutetium-177–PSMA-617 has been demonstrated in VISION and other large randomized clinical trials. However, real-world data on treatment patterns and outcomes involving combination therapies with 177 Lu-PSMA-617 remain limited. Methods: For this analysis, we utilized the Mayo Clinic Rochester radiopharmaceutical database, a prospectively maintained retrospective database containing all patients who received 177 Lu-PSMA-617 at our institution. We focused on patients who started treatment from March 2022 to March 2023. Patients receiving an ARPI (abiraterone acetate, enzalutamide, apalutamide, or darolutamide) during the course of 177 Lu-PSMA-617 treatment were identified, inclusive of patients who continued using an ARPI prescribed as a prior line of treatment and those who started (i.e., switched) to a new ARPI. Baseline clinicopathologic and imaging characteristics were abstracted and compared using the Mann-Whitney U and Chi-square tests. Best PSA response during treatment was reported as a percent decline from baseline. Survival was calculated from the date of the first cycle of 177 Lu-PSMA-617. PSA50 response and overall survival (OS) outcomes for the two groups (concurrent use of ARPI vs. 177 Lu-PSMA-617 alone) were compared using the Chi-square test and Kaplan-Meier method, respectively. A multivariate Cox regression analysis was performed, including established prognostic factors. Results: An ARPI was prescribed to 106 of the 256 patients (41.4%) starting 177 Lu-PSMA-617 in the interval of March 2022 to March 2023. With regards to baseline characteristics, those receiving an ARPI concurrently with 177 Lu-PSMA-617 had a lower PSA (3.4 vs 29.7 ng/mL, p < 0.001) and a lower frequency of bone (77.4% vs. 87.4%, p = 0.035) and visceral metastases (18.9 vs 34%, p = 0.008) at start of treatment. Median follow-up for the overall cohort (IQR) was 19.1 months (8.7 – 23.6). Patients receiving an ARPI plus 177 Lu-PSMA-617, as compared to 177 Lu-PSMA-617 alone, were more likely to complete all 6 planned doses of treatment (63.2% vs. 48.7%, p < 0.001), though the PSA50 response rate was similar (49.1% vs 47.3%, p = 0.786). Median OS [95% CI] for the overall cohort was 21.3 [16.7 – 25.9] months and significantly longer for those receiving ARPI with 177 Lu-PSMA-617 (NR [NE – NE]) as compared to 177 Lu-PSMA-617 alone (15.3 mo [11.6 – 19.1], p < 0.001). However, on multivariate analysis including known prognostic variables, use of ARPI was not independently associated with improved survival (HR = 1.03 [CI: 0.68 to 1.55], p = 0.891). Conclusions: Patients receiving an ARPI with 177 Lu-PSMA-617 were more likely to complete all 6 cycles of treatment, but no clear differences in survival were observed on multivariate analysis.

136 Background: The ECOG performance status (PS) is a critical measure for evaluating functional capacity and determining clinical trial eligibility in patients with advanced prostate cancer. We aim to assess the capability of large language models (LLMs) to accurately infer ECOG PS from unstructured oncology notes. Methods: This retrospective study included patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) receiving Lutetium-177–PSMA-617 ( 177 Lu) at the Mayo Clinic (2022-2023). Baseline ECOG PS scores were manually curated by a trained clinician from clinical notes recorded within four weeks prior to 177 Lu initiation. Structured zero-shot prompts were then used to prompt GPT-4 to infer ECOG PS scores from unstructured oncology notes. Total dataset was randomly sampled to prompt development (20%) and held-out test set (80%). Three experimental setups were employed to assess model performance: (i) utilizing unmasked clinical notes, (ii) clinical notes with only numerical ECOG PS scores masked while retaining narrative descriptive/assessment by oncologist of ECOG score, and (iii) clinical notes with both numerical scores and narrative ECOG descriptors masked. Final performance was assessed using evaluation metrics (precision, recall, F1 score) on the held-out test set. Results: A total of 240 patients (n: 50 prompt development; n: 190 test set) were included in the analysis. The median age was 70 (IQR: 66-76); a majority of patients were White (n: 229; 95%) and non-Hispanic (n: 233; 97%). The most prevalent ECOG PS score was 0 (n: 140; 58%), followed by 1 (n: 88; 37%), and 2 (n: 12; 5%). The performance was numerically higher when using unmasked notes (weighted average precision: 0.89; recall: 0.89; F1: 0.89), compared to using notes with masked scores only (weighted average precision: 0.76; recall: 0.79; F1: 0.75) and notes with both scores and narrative masked (weighted average precision: 0.57; recall: 0.53; F1: 0.48). Metrics by each ECOG PS score is outlined (Table). Conclusions: Large language models demonstrate significant potential in precisely extracting ECOG performance status from unstructured oncology notes, offering valuable support for treatment decision-making and clinical trial enrollment. However, model performance declines as reliance on implicit reporting within clinical notes increases. Future efforts focusing on prediction of ECOG using a series of notes over time will be the next step. ECOG Unmasked oncology notes ECOG Score masked only ECOG Score + ECOG narrative marked Precision Recall F1 Score Precision Recall F1 Score Precision Recall F1 Score 0 0.89 0.92 0.91 0.75 0.93 0.83 0.59 0.74 0.66 1 0.88 0.86 0.87 0.76 0.74 0.75 0.19 0.47 0.27 2 1.00 0.82 0.90 0.78 0.33 0.47 0.78 0.16 0.26

134 Background: Prostate cancer patients with visceral metastases at diagnosis are often treated using one-size-fits-all approach. For example, CHAARTED criteria treats any visceral metastasis as high volume. Therefore, we aimed to assess overall survival (OS) by site of visceral involvement in patients with metastatic PCa. Methods: Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database (2010-2021) was queried to obtain case listing data on metastatic PCa patients from 17 registries. The patients were categorized into three groups based on visceral metastasis at diagnosis: lung metastasis, liver metastasis, and others. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was performed to estimate median OS with 95% confidence interval (CI). Log-rank test was conducted to assess if survival was significantly different among the groups. Cox proportional hazard regression analysis was performed to assess the magnitude of difference among the groups. P-value <0.05 established statistical significance. Results: This analysis included 21,007 metastatic PCa patients (lung: n=319; liver: n=123; brain: 107; bone: 20538). Metastatic PCa population with lung metastasis exhibited a median OS of 60 months (95% CI: 48-72) compared to 24 months (95% CI: 12-36) in population with liver metastases and to 36 months (95% CI: 36-36) in population with other metastases. The difference in OS among the groups was statistically significant (p < 0.001). Compared to population with lung metastasis, those with liver (HR: 1.91; 95% CI: 1.41-2.57) but not those with other metastases (1.16; 0.97-1.39) had significantly worse OS adjusting for Gleason score, PSA and race (Table). Conclusions: In metastatic PCa, patients with lung-only metastasis have significantly better overall survival and should be considered differently in prognostication to liver metastases. Consideration of site of visceral metastasis is critical for treatment intensification decisions. Limitations of this analysis include lack of accounting for confounding relationships at individual patient level. Variable Hazard Ratio (95% CI) Metastases (Lung) REFERENCE Metastases (Liver) 1.91 (1.41-2.57) Metastases (Other) 1.16 (0.97-1.39) Gleason score≥8 REFERENCE Gleason score <8 0.68 (0.64 -0.72) PSA - ng/dL 1.01 (1.00 – 1.01) Race (White) REFERENCE Race (Black) 0.99 (0.94 – 1.05) Race (Asian or Pacific Islander) 0.70 (0.64 – 0.76)

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

129 Background: Few studies have explored the use of focal therapies to address select sites of resistant disease in men receiving 177-Lu-PSMA-617 for metastatic castrate resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). Our institutional practice is to offer SBRT for patients with up to 5 sites of oligoprogression or non-responding lesions while undergoing 177Lu-PSMA-617 (every 6 weeks for 6 cycles total). This is determined by PSMA or choline PET imaging during the course of 177Lu-PSMA-617. Herein, we evaluated the safety of adding target SBRT during treatment with 177Lu-PSMA-617. Methods: This retrospective single institution analysis was conducted via systematic chart review to evaluate for adverse events during or after treatment. Grading of treatment-related adverse events was conducted using Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events Version 5.0 (CTCAE v5). Results: Thirty-one patients receiving 177Lu-PSMA-617 with 51 sites of oligoprogressive or non-responding metastatic disease were treated with SBRT. The median number of sites treated was 1 (range 1-4). Most patients received SBRT immediately after cycle 6 (32%) or after cycle 3 or 4 (42%). Bone was the most commonly treated site of disease (90%) with the majority (54%) of bone sites being spine or sacrum, followed by lymph nodes (10%). Ultimately, 84% of patients completed all 6 cycles of 177Lu-PSMA-617 (range 4-6). The median follow-up time was 19.1 months (IQR 15.5-22.4) after 177Lu-PSMA-617 therapy start. A total of 2 patients experienced a pathologic fracture within the SBRT treatment field that could possibly be related to radiotherapy. One patient experienced a grade 2 neuropathy which may have been related to radiation therapy. Other potential adverse events are listed (Table). Conclusions: Our data demonstrates a low rate of significant toxicity with the use SBRT during treatment with 177Lu-PSMA-617. Further study is indicated to determine the oncologic efficacy and potential late side effects of this treatment strategy. Adverse events. Event All Grades Grade > 3 Any Adverse Event 104 2 Anemia 29 (94%) 0 Low Platelets 11 (35.5%) 1 (3.2%) Any Pathologic Fracture 7 (22.5%) 1 (3.2%) Possible SBRT-related Pathologic Fracture 2 (6.5%) 1 (3.2%) Bone Pain Flare 3 (9.6%) 0 Neuropathy 1 (3.2%) 0

341 Background: Specialist clinicians (oncologists, urologists, radiation oncologists) read through free text reports of prostate MRI and biopsy reports to risk stratify patients during initial consultation of localized PCa. This laborious and time-consuming process is repeated for each day during the clinic. Herein, we propose a hybrid stratification framework utilizing a combination of large language model (LLM) and rule-based programming to automate this process. Methods: This retrospective study included patients with localized PCa (2004-2024) presenting to care at Mayo Clinic with at least one positive prostate biopsy and MRI report available. The state-of-the-art LLM – GPT4 – was utilized using a structured zeroshot prompt to extract relevant phenotypic variables (clinical T stage, Gleason patterns, grade group, extent of specimen/cores involved, prostate size/volume) from unstructured MRI and biopsy reports. Using a rule-based algorithm, the extracted variables and PSA at PCa diagnosis were used to categorize each patient into one of the six NCCN risk categories (very low [VL], low [L], favorable intermediate [FInt], unfavorable intermediate [UFInt], high risk (HR), very high risk [VHR]). Prompts were iteratively developed using ~5% of the total dataset and validated on ~10% of the dataset. Final performance was assessed against a held-out expert annotated test dataset using evaluation metrics (accuracy, F1-score, precision, recall). Additionally, manual annotation was conducted by two independent novice reviewers to compare machine annotated and novice-human annotated risk categorization. Results: A total of 397 patients were included in the evaluation. The median age at diagnosis was 64.8 (IQR: 59.7-68.5); majority of the men were White (n: 366; 92%) and non-Hispanic (n: 371; 94%). The most prevalent risk category was UFint (n: 151; 38%) followed by FInt (n: 80; 20.2%), HR (n: 76; 19.1%), VHR (n: 64; 16.1%), L (21: 5.3%), and VL (n: 5; 1.3%). Novice reviewers achieved an accuracy of 79%, precision of 80%, recall of 82% and a F1-score of 0.81. The hybrid stratification framework using GPT4 achieved an accuracy of 89%, precision of 89%, recall of 88% and a F1-score of 0.88. Among 43 errors by GPT4 risk stratification, majority of the errors were due to miscategorization of clinical T-stage (n: 21; 49%) followed by erroneous number of positive cores (n: 13; 30%). However, additional evaluation showed that GPT4 achieved numerically higher performance (accuracy: 90%; precision: 91%; recall: 90%; F1: 0.90) compared to novice reviewers (accuracy: 77%; precision: 89%; recall: 77%; F1: 0.82) for ascertaining clinical T-stage. Conclusions: Large language models exhibited superior performance than novice clinicians for risk stratification in patients with localized PCa. As the next step, we intend to validate our framework for automated risk classification in a prospective manner.

184 Background: We update evidence on mHSPC when new evidence becomes available (PMID: 36862387). ARANOTE trial prompted us to assess the comparative efficacy of darolutamide (DARO) with other ARPi agents in mHSPC using the living network meta-analysis (LNMA). Methods: This LNMA is conducted using the living interactive evidence (LIvE) synthesis framework. Phase III trials assessing systemic treatments in mHSPC are included. Mixed treatment comparisons were made using a frequentist network meta-analysis. P-scores were computed to assess relative treatment rankings with higher values indicating potentially better efficacy. Results: This report of LNMA includes a total 11 trials (12628 patients; 12 unique treatment options) as of October 1 st , 2024. Overall results were consistent with prior updates. Analysis limited to the ARPi trials showed that inhigh volume, abiraterone acetate (AAP)+androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) (HR: 0.46; 95% CI: 0.40-0.53; rank 1), apalutamide (APA)+ADT (0.53; 0.41-0.68; rank 3), DARO+ADT (0.60; 0.44-0.81; rank 4) and enzalutamide (E)+ADT (0.48; 0.41-0.56; rank 2) significantly improved radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) compared to ADT alone. No statistically significant differences were observed with DARO+ADT compared to AAP+ADT (1.30; 0.94-1.82), APA+ADT (1.14; 0.77-1.67) and E+ADT (1.24; 0.89-1.79). Inlow volume, AAP+ADT (0.48; 0.37-0.63; rank 4), APA+ADT (0.36; 0.22-0.58; rank 3), DARO+ADT (0.30; 0.15-0.60; rank 1) and E+ADT (0.32; 0.25-0.41; rank 2) significantly improved rPFS compared to ADT. E+ADT significantly improved rPFS compared to AAP+ADT (0.67; 0.47-0.96) in low volume. No statistically significant differences were observed with DARO+ADT compared to AAP+ADT (0.62; 0.30-1.30), APA+ADT (0.83; 0.36-1.92) and E+ADT (0.93; 0.45-1.94). In synchronous disease, AAP+ADT (0.58; 0.51-0.67; rank 4), APA+ADT (0.49; 0.39-0.62; rank 2), DARO+ADT (0.59; 0.44-0.79; rank 3) and E+ADT (0.42; 0.36-0.50; rank 1) significantly improved rPFS compared to ADT. E+ADT significantly improved rPFS compared to AAP+ADT (0.73; 0.59-0.89) in synchronous disease. In metachronous disease, DARO+ADT (0.34; 0.17-0.67; rank 1), APA+ADT (0.41; 0.22-0.77; rank 2) and E+ADT (0.44; 0.35-0.57; rank 3) significantly improved rPFS compared to ADT. No statistically significant differences were observed with DARO+ADT compared to APA+ADT (0.83; 0.33-2.08) and E+ADT (0.76; 0.37-1.57) in metachronous disease. The results were consistent for overall survival. Conclusions: Current evidence suggests no significant differences for darolutamide as compared to other ARPi agents. Enzalutamide may be preferred over AAP in low-volume or synchronous disease. Given similar efficacy, choice of ARPi requires careful consideration of patient-specific factors including cost, accessibility and toxicity.