Harrison, Michael R.

4559 Background: Baseline QOL has been linked to survival in mRCC therapy clinical trials (Cella, 2024); however, there is a paucity of prospectively collected real-world QOL data across front-line management strategies. We used data from ODYSSEY to examine the relationship between baseline QOL and early death. Methods: ODYSSEY is a multi-site, prospective observational study of 468 US pts with mRCC. Pts must have mRCC (any histology); have no prior systemic therapy (ST) or be within 3 months of starting ST; and follow up at a PCORnet study site. Exclusion criteria include treatment for cancer except mRCC. The primary objective is to determine patterns of change in QOL and symptom burden of pts with mRCC. Early death was defined as death within 12 months post-enrollment. All pts with non-missing FKSI-19 or FKSI-DRS at enrollment were included. Cumulative event probabilities as a function of time were stratified by either < or ≥ median QoL value and plotted as a step function vs time since enrollment to create cumulative event curves. To determine association between QoL at enrollment and early death, separate Cox proportional hazards models (unadjusted and adjusted) for time-to-first-event as a function of baseline QoL were fit. The adjusted model controlled for the following baseline covariates: IMDC risk (favorable vs intermediate or poor), histology (clear cell vs non). Results: As of 1/5/26, 468 pts were enrolled; 425 had non-missing FKSI-19 or FKSI-DRS at enrollment (329 immediate ST, 96 deferred ST [DST]). ST included 129 IO-IO, 108 IO-TKI, 92 Other. DST included 57 Active Surveillance, 22 Local Therapy Planned, 17 Other/Missing. 209 and 190 pts have < median FKSI-19 (score = 59) and FKSI-DRS (score = 29), respectively; 216 and 235 pts have ≥ median FKSI-19 and FKSI-DRS, respectively. Those below the median have lower rates of nephrectomy, worse IMDC risk and KPS, shorter time since RCC diagnosis, and higher rates of bone metastasis (all p<0.05). Cumulative event probabilities for death at 12 months are 21% and 7% in those < and ≥ median baseline FKSI-19, respectively; and 21% and 7% in those < and ≥ median baseline FKSI-DRS, respectively. For FKSI-19, the unadjusted hazard ratio (HR) for early death is 0.55 (95% CI: 0.43 – 0.70; p<0.001) and adjusted HR is 0.65 (0.49 – 0.85; p = 0.002) per 1 SD higher score. For FKSI-DRS, the unadjusted HR for early death is 0.57 (95% CI: 0.46 – 0.71; p<0.001) and adjusted HR is 0.66 (0.51 – 0.86; p =0.002) per 1 SD higher score (higher score indicates better QOL). Conclusions: Across management strategies in our ODYSSEY cohort of systemic therapy naïve mRCC patients, better baseline QOL was associated with better survival. This is to our knowledge the largest reported real world mRCC cohort with prospectively collected PROs. Future analyses will focus on association of outcomes with longitudinal PROs. Clinical trial information: NCT04919122 .

57 Background: Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the leading non-cancer cause of death among men with prostate cancer (PC), particularly during androgen-deprivation therapy. While CVD risk-prediction models are well established in the general population, barriers to integration within oncology workflows remain poorly defined. Guided by the PRISM and RE-AIM frameworks, this study evaluated multilevel determinants influencing adoption, feasibility, and sustainability of CVD risk-assessment tools in PC care. Methods: A national, cross-sectional survey of 45 physicians (medical oncology 49%, urology 38%, radiation oncology 13%) from 18 U.S. states was conducted. Respondents represented early- (27%), mid- (36%), and late-career (38%) clinicians across academic (87%) and community (13%) settings. Quantitative items mapped to PRISM/RE-AIM domains assessed adaptability, cost/resource feasibility, effectiveness, equity, and sustainability; open-ended responses explored contextual barriers and facilitators. Descriptive statistics summarized quantitative data. Results: Physicians reported moderate-to-high readiness to adopt a CVD risk-assessment tool, emphasizing workflow alignment and EHR integration over algorithmic complexity. Table 1 summarizes domain-specific findings. Ninety-three percent of respondents favored lab-independent models that minimize workflow disruption. Conclusions: Pre-implementation analysis highlighted that structural barriers, rather than algorithmic or statistical limitations, remain the primary obstacles to adopting CVD risk-assessment tools in prostate-cancer care. Physicians emphasized the need for EHR-integrated, non-laboratory-based, and time-efficient tools that align with routine oncology workflows and minimize cross-specialty friction. Addressing these practical and organizational determinants may be pivotal to achieving equitable, scalable, and sustainable cardio-oncology implementation across diverse practice settings. PRISM and RE-AIM constructs evaluation results. Construct Likely/Very Likely (%) Interpretation Perceived Effectiveness 87% Broad confidence in clinical utility Equity in Patient Reach 75% Strong perceived equity in reach Equity in Effectiveness 73% Expected to perform consistently across populations Adaptability to Workflow 71% High compatibility with existing clinic workflows Cost/Resource Feasibility 65% Feasible for resource-constrained settings Likelihood of Adoption 60% Moderate readiness for implementation Equity in Adoption 58% Equitable uptake possible despite resource differences Reach to Target Population 57% Moderate likelihood of reaching most patients Sustainability Over Time 51% Moderate long-term feasibility Consistency of Implementation 42% Need for standardized protocols

476 Background: Lack of standardized reporting and collection of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) limits cross-trial comparisons of first-line IO-based regimens for mRCC. Prospectively collected real world data may fill this important knowledge gap. Pts with stable/improved QoL at 3 mo versus baseline have longer median OS than pts with worse/unobserved HRQoL versus baseline (Cella, 2024). Methods: ODYSSEY is a multi-site, prospective observational study of 468 US pts with mRCC. Pts must have mRCC (any histology), no prior systemic therapy (ST), and follow up at a PCORnet study site. Exclusion criteria include treatment for cancer except mRCC. Descriptive statistics are used to show PRO score changes from baseline. We evaluate longitudinal change from baseline in PRO scores using least squares mean (LSM). Minimally important differences (MID) are 3 points for FKSI-19 total score, 1 point for the FKSI-Disease Related Symptoms (DRS) subscale and 7 points for FACT-G. Higher score indicates better QOL. The primary objective is to determine patterns of change in QOL and symptom burden of pts with mRCC. Results: As of 10/1/25, 360 pts were managed with ST, including 266 pts on IO-based combinations: 35 cabozantinib + nivolumab (C+N), 49 lenvatinib + pembrolizumab (L+P), 40 axitinib + pembrolizumab (A+P), and 142 ipilimumab + nivolumab (I+N). Overall median follow-up is 12.1 mos (IQR 6, 24). Age, sex and race were similar across regimens. Prior nephrectomy (50%) was lower than in trials. C+N and L+P pts had less clear cell (56 and 65%) versus A+P and I+N pts (94 and 82%). A+P pts had more favorable IMDC risk (19%) and less poor risk (14%). Baseline QOL was variable across regimens, with L+P generally the lowest. Absolute changes in PROs from enrollment to mo 3 (early change) by regimen are shown in the Table. LSM change from baseline in FKSI-19 and FKSI-DRS favored IO-IO versus IO-TKI at 3 mos but not at 6 mos (not shown). Conclusions: While early change in PROs did not meet the MID threshold between the IO-TKI and I+N cohorts, different patterns of early change are apparent among specific IO-TKI regimens. IO-TKI regimens exhibited higher variation in early PRO change vs I+N. As the data matures, we will associate baseline PROs and early PRO changes with early death and other outcomes. Clinical trial information: NCT04919122 . 3 month change. Instrument C+N (N=35) L+P (N=49) A+P (N=40) All IO-TKI(N=124) I+N(N=142) FKSI-19, N (%) 26 (74) 33 (67) 33 (83) 92 (74) 104 (73) Mean (SD) -0.3 (11) 2.8 (13) -3.2 (12) -0.2 (12) 0.7 (10) Median (IQR) 1.4 (-7, 6) 5.0 (-7, 11) -1.0 (-14, 5) 1.4 (-10, 8) -0.3 (-5, 6) FKSI-DRS, N (%) 26 (74) 33 (67) 33 (83) 92 (74) 104 (73) Mean (SD) -0.8 (5) 1.5 (7) -1.8 (6) -0.3 (6) 0.8 (5) Median (IQR) -0.5 (-5, 3) 2.0 (-5, 5) -1.0 (-5, 3) 0.0 (-5, 4) 0.0 (-2, 4) FACT-G, N (%) 27 (77) 32 (65) 29 (73) 88 (71) 102 (72) Mean (SD) 2.1 (14) 5.2 (16) -3.5 (15) 1.4 (15) 0.3 (13) Median (IQR) 4.0 (-4, 10) 1.2 (-6, 13) -6.4 (-11, 4) 1.6 (-8, 10) 1.6 (-7, 8)

e17064 Background: Analyses of clinical trials data suggest thatBlack men have equal or even improved overall survival (OS) with certain treatments for mCRPC compared with other races. Moreover, retrospective analysis of the PROCEED registry indicated that Black men who received Sip-T, an autologous cellular immunotherapy, had longer survival compared with other men with mCRPC. The Abi Race and PANTHER clinical trials prospectively assessed the effect of ARPIs on clinical outcomes among Black and White patient (pt) cohorts, and included pts who had received Sip-T either prior to or during study. We combined data from Abi Race and PANTHER to investigate associations between OS, Sip-T and race. Methods: Data from the Abi Race (N=100) and PANTHER (N=93) studies were retrospectively pooled for this analysis. Propensity scores for Sip-T treatment were calculated based on Karnofsky performance status, race, Gleason score, and study. Kaplan-Meier estimates for OS, with and without inverse propensity score weighting, were generated and stratified by Sip-T use. This analysis was stratified by race to examine whether the relationship between Sip-T use and OS differed by race. Results: Of the 93 Black pts and 100 White patients included from both studies, 123 patients did not receive Sip-T, while 70 patients did (60 before study, 10 on study). Pts who received Sip-T had a median OS (mOS) of 44 months (95% Confidence Interval (CI) 39, NR) compared to 36 months (95% CI 31, 48) for those who did not. Weighted by propensity scores, Black men who received Sip-T had a mOS of 72 months (95% CI 43, NR), while those who did not had a mOS of 38 months (95% CI 30, NR). Among White men, patients who received Sip-T had a mOS of 39 months (95% CI 30, NR), while those who did not had a mOS of 32 months (95% CI 29, 48) (see Table). Conclusions: Our findings from an investigator-led retrospective analysis independent of sponsors provide independent clinical trial support of prior retrospective findings that suggest Black men with mCRPC who receive Sip-T may have a greater OS than White men. While our analysis controlled for factors that may influence the use of Sip-T, it is limited by potential unmeasured confounders or timing of Sip-T. Further, adequately powered prospective trials specifically evaluating outcomes with Sip-T by race in earlier clinical settings are needed. Drug support and funding for Abi Race and PANTHER were provided by Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC. Death counts and median overall survival (mOS) in months by race and Sipuleucel-T use. Black Men White Men Sipuleucel-T use Deaths / Total N No 36 / 64 38 / 59 Yes 12 / 29 24 / 41 Unweighted mOS (95% CI) No 36 (29, NR) 32 (29, 48) Yes 72 (43, NR) 39 (31, NR) Weighted mOS (95% CI) No 38 (30, NR) 32 (29, 48) Yes 72 (43, NR) 39 (30, NR) NR = not reached, mOS = median overall survival, CI = confidence interval.

4558 Background: In the past 7 years, 4 immuno-oncology (IO) based combinations have been approved for mRCC. However, QOL data on these combinations are limited to trials in which collection and reporting was not standardized, which further limits cross trial comparisons. Real-world QOL data with multiple treatment regimens are needed to understand how these regimens are tolerated in practice. Methods: ODYSSEY is a multi-site, prospective observational study of 500 US pts with mRCC. Pts must have mRCC (any histology), no prior ST, and follow up at a PCORnet study site. Exclusion criteria include treatment for cancer except mRCC. The primary objective is to determine patterns of change in QOL and symptom burden of pts with mRCC. Minimally important differences (MID) are 3 points for FKSI-19 total score, 1 point for the FKSI-Disease Related Symptoms (DRS) subscale and 7 points for FACT-G. Results: As of 1/6/25, 392 pts were enrolled of whom 299 were managed with ST. Of pts on ST, 114 were treated with IO-IO, 108 with IO-TKI, 33 with IO alone, 27 with Other, and 18 with TKI alone. Median follow up for all pts is 8.8 months (IQR 2.9, 16.2). IO-IO pts are median age 64 yrs, 81% male, 84% white, 56% prior nephrectomy, 84% clear cell; IO-TKI pts median age 66 yrs, 76% male, 92% white, 43% prior nephrectomy, 66% clear cell; IMDC risk profiles are similar. IO-IO pts are more likely to be KPS 100; whereas, IO-TKI pts have a higher median number of metastatic sites and are more likely to have bone or liver metastasis. With median follow-up of 6.0 (IQR 1.8, 14.9) and 8.8 months (4.5, 17.8) in the IO-IO and IO-TKI cohorts, 17 (15%) and 21 (19%) pts had died with a median time to death of 5.4 (2.5, 6.4) and 5.7 months (4.4, 12.8), respectively. 20 (18%) and 16 (15%) pts on IO-IO and IO-TKI had discontinued therapy at a median of 3.0 (IQR 2.0, 4.0) and 6.4 months (2.4, 13.0), respectively. Rates of discontinuation for disease progression and toxicity are similar. Baseline PROs for pts on ST are shown in the Table (higher score indicates better QOL), with RCT data for reference (NA, not assessed). Conclusions: In our prospective multi-center ODYSSEY study, we demonstrate that real world pts treated with contemporary ST have worse baseline QOL than those enrolled on pivotal RCTs. One-third of IO-IO and IO-TKI pts died or discontinued therapy within 6 months of initiation. Our data on real world vs RCT differences in baseline QOL may partially explain the limitations of current IO combination regimens in practice and support development of alternative treatment approaches. Instrument, Mean (SD) ODYSSEYIO-IO(N=114) CheckMate214(N=425) ODYSSEYIO-TKI(N=108) KEYNOTE426(N=402) CheckMate9ER(N=323) CLEAR(N=351) FKSI-19 total 56.0 (12.5) 60.1 (9.8) 53.8 (11.8) NA 58.7 (10.6) NA FKSI-DRS 27.5 (6.3) 30.7 (4.5) 27.0 (5.8) 32 (4.2) 30.2 (5.2) 31.3 (4.4) FACT-G 82.4 (16.7) 82.6 (15.0) 78.5 (16.0) NA NA NA

4553 Background: AS is a recognized strategy in select pts with mRCC to maximize QOL and delay potential toxicity of systemic therapy (ST); however, only 2 prospective studies of AS in mRCC have been published: only 1 with patient-reported outcomes (PRO) and none in the IO-TKI era. Methods: ODYSSEY is a prospective observational study of 500 US pts with mRCC. Eligible pts must have mRCC (any histology), no prior ST, age ≥19. Pts were excluded if treated for non-mRCC cancers or if not followed at a PCORnet study site. Pts completed QOL surveys at baseline, by phone every 3 months for 2 years and then every 6 months until end of follow up. The primary objective is to determine patterns of change in QOL and symptom burden of pts with mRCC. Minimally important differences (MID) are 3 points for FKSI-19 total score, 1 point for the FKSI-Disease Related Symptoms (DRS) subscale and 7 points for FACT-G. Here we report baseline pt characteristics in AS pts compared to ST pts, and baseline QOL differences between these cohorts. Results: As of 1/6/25, 392 pts were enrolled of whom 299 were managed with ST, and 93 pts deferred ST; of these, 53 pts (57%) were classified as AS. Pts on AS are median age 68 yrs, 66% male, 94% white, 81% clear cell, 50% favorable risk, 44% intermediate risk. Compared with ST pts, AS pts were more likely to have undergone nephrectomy (91% vs 53%), favorable risk profile (50% vs 15%), pancreatic metastasis (15% vs 5%), and longer time since RCC diagnosis (median 58 vs 3.3 months); and less likely to have bone, brain, or liver metastasis. After median 8.8 months follow-up (IQR 2.9, 16.2), 2 pts (4%) on AS had died compared with 45 pts (15%) on ST. One pt (2%) on AS started first-line therapy and 45 pts (15%) discontinued ST. Mean baseline QOL (FKSI-19 total, DRS and FACT-G) for AS and ST ODYSSEY pts is shown in the Table (higher score indicates better QOL), with RCT data for reference (NA, not assessed). ODYSSEY pts on AS had higher QOL for all measures compared with ODYSSEY pts on ST. FSKI-DRS was the same or lower for pts on AS compared to the pivotal trials, while ODYSSEY pts on ST had both lower FKSI-19 total and DRS. Conclusions: In our large prospective cohort from ODYSSEY, pts on AS had higher median QOL scores than pts on ST, but similar to those included in RCTs. These results suggest that some RCT pts could have benefitted from AS. Further follow up is needed to determine long term outcomes in pts on AS and how they respond to deferred ST. Clinical trial information: NCT04919122 . Instrument, Mean (SD) ODYSSEY AS (N=53) ODYSSEY ST (N=299) ODYSSEY Difference, AS vs ST (95% CI) CheckMate 214 (N=425) KEYNOTE 426 (N=402) CheckMate 9ER (N=323) CLEAR (N=351) FKSI-19 total 63.4 (9.2) 56.3 (12.5) 7.0(4.0, 10.1) 60.1 (9.8) NA 58.7 (10.6) NA FKSI-DRS 30.8 (4.2) 27.9 (6.0) 2.9(1.5, 4.7) 30.7 (4.5) 32 (4.2) 30.2 (5.2) 31.3 (4.4) FACT-G 87.9 (14.0) 82.4 (16.7) 5.6(1.1, 10.0) 82.6 (15.0) NA NA NA

385 Background: Tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI) and immuno-oncology (IO) agents alone or in combination have revolutionized the landscape of management for untreated metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). Baseline quality of life (QOL) outside of interventional clinical trials and rationale for management decisions in mRCC are poorly understood. Methods: In this prospective observational study of 800 mRCC pts in the US, pts must: have a diagnosis of mRCC (any histology) with no prior systemic therapy (ST) for mRCC; be age ≥19 at informed consent; be able to comply with completion of PROs. Exclusion criteria include being treated for active malignancy other than mRCC or not intending to follow up at a study site within PCORnet. Pts undergo consent and baseline assessments by the study site team, with subsequent follow up by the central coordinating center. The primary objective is to determine distinct patterns of change in QOL and symptom burden of mRCC pts. A key secondary objective is to identify patterns of clinical management in the real world setting of mRCC across treatment regimens. Minimally important differences are defined as 3- and 7-points for FKSI-19 and FACT-G respectively. ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT04919122. Results: As of 9/1/2023, 173 pts have been enrolled (126 ST, 47 no ST [NST]): 75% male, 87% white, 73% clear cell, 52% intermediate risk and 47% poor risk. 47% had radical nephrectomy and 22% another solid tumor. ST pts as compared to NST pts were more likely to be poor risk (52% vs 16%); but differences in baseline pain were not significant. Of ST pts, 44 were treated with IO-IO (ipilimumab + nivolumab), 50 with IO-TKI (cabozantinib + nivolumab 38%, axitinib + pembrolizumab 38%, lenvatinib + pembrolizumab 24%) and 32 other (IO alone 34%, TKI alone 31%, investigational drug 25%). Reasons for NST included active surveillance (AS, 50%), other (21%), local therapy (13%). Mean differences between ST and NST for baseline FKSI-19 and FACT-G were 5.7 (95% CI: 1.2 – 10.2) and 3.3 (-2.6 – 9.3). There were no differences in pain or PROs between IO-IO and IO-TKI pts. Mean differences in FKSI-19 and FACT-G between AS vs IO-IO were 10.6 (4.8 – 16.4) and 8.6 (1.1 – 16.0); and vs IO-TKI were 11.0 (4.9 – 17.0) and 10.3 (3.5 – 17.1). On physician surveys, primary reasons for treatment selection were (in order of % selected): complete response (CR), prolonged survival (OS), prognostic factors (Px), treatment-free interval for IO-IO; versus delaying progression (PFS), OS, CR, Px for IO-TKI. Conclusions: Our data suggest differences in baseline QoL in pts treated with ST vs NST, as well as AS vs IO-IO or IO-TKI, in the real world. Reasons for selection of ST regimen differed among combination regimen classes. Completion of ODYSSEY will clarify baseline and longitudinal differences in pain and PROs among management strategies and give novel insights into the rationale for real world management of untreated pts with mRCC. Clinical trial information: NCT04919122 .

Abstract Background Treatment options for penile squamous cell carcinoma are limited. We sought to investigate clinical outcomes and safety profiles of patients with penile squamous cell carcinoma receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors. Methods This retrospective study included patients with locally advanced or metastatic penile squamous cell carcinoma receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors between 2015 and 2022 across 24 centers in the United States, Europe, and Asia. Overall survival and progression-free survival were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Objective response rates were determined per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours 1.1 criteria. Treatment-related adverse events were graded per the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 5.0. Two-sided statistical tests were used for comparisons. Results Among 92 patients, 8 (8.7%) were Asian, 6 (6.5%) were Black, and 24 (29%) were Hispanic and/or Latinx. Median (interquartile range) age was 62 (53-70) years. In all, 83 (90%) had metastatic penile squamous cell carcinoma, and 74 (80%) had received at least second-line treatment. Most patients received pembrolizumab monotherapy (n = 26 [28%]), combination nivolumab-ipilimumab with or without multitargeted tyrosine kinase inhibitors (n = 23 [25%]), or nivolumab (n = 16 [17%]) or cemiplimab (n = 15 [16%]) monotherapies. Median overall and progression-free survival were 9.8 months (95% confidence interval = 7.7 to 12.8 months) and 3.2 months (95% confidence interval = 2.5 to 4.2 months), respectively. The objective response rate was 13% (n = 11/85) in the overall cohort and 35% (n = 7/20) in patients with lymph node–only metastases. Visceral metastases, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 1 or higher, and a higher neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio were associated with worse overall survival. Treatment-related adverse events occurred in 27 (29%) patients, and 9.8% (n = 9) of the events were grade 3 or higher. Conclusions Immune checkpoint inhibitors are active in a subset of patients with penile squamous cell carcinoma. Future translational studies are warranted to identify patients more likely to derive clinical benefit from immune checkpoint inhibitors.

TPS739 Background: The landscape for treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) has changed dramatically over the past 7 years with the approvals of tyrosine kinase inhibitors and immune-oncology (IO) agents alone or in combination for untreated mRCC. However, multiple knowledge gaps remain. While active surveillance remains an option for selected pts, prospective evidence on selection of and outcomes for pts is limited. Recent phase III trials all used a common comparator, sunitinib, so no comparative effectiveness data on the new IO-based regimens exists. There are also no routinely used predictive biomarkers in mRCC pt management. Therefore, a better understanding of the biologic determinants associated with cancer heterogeneity and clinical outcomes through blood, tumor, and radiographic based assessments is needed. Importantly, longitudinal changes in health-related quality of life (QOL) and symptom burden of patients with mRCC initiated on new IO–based regimens outside of an interventional clinical trial are poorly understood. Pt reported outcomes (PRO) are rarely captured in a systematic manner. Addressing the evidence gap for how real world pts symptomatically change with treatment combinations and sequences over time is a pressing unmet need. Methods: This is a prospective, observational cohort, phase IV study of 800 mRCC pts in the US. Pts must: be age ≥19 at informed consent; have a diagnosis of mRCC (any histology) with no prior systemic therapy for mRCC (surgery and radiation therapy, prior neoadjuvant/adjuvant therapy for non-mRCC, and pts currently not on systemic therapy and being observed are all permitted); and be able to comply with completion of PROs. Those being treated for active malignancies other than mRCC or not intending to undergo follow up care at a study site within PCORnet are excluded. Pts will undergo consent and baseline assessments, including research blood collection and processing, by the study site team. A novel aspect of this study is the use of PCORnet and Medicare data to minimize data collection burden on sites. PCORnet, the National Patient-Centered Clinical Research Network, is a network of networks that curates EHR data from multiple health systems using a common data model. This allows subsequent follow up to be centrally coordinated by the coordinating center. PRO will be collected at baseline (pre-treatment), every 3 mos for 2 yrs, and then every 6 mos until end of follow up (minimum 18 mos follow-up; maximum 36 mos follow-up). The primary objective is to determine distinct patterns of change in QOL and symptom burden of mRCC pts receiving therapy. Secondary objectives include quantifying the time to treatment discontinuation of pts, identifying patterns of clinical management in the real world setting of mRCC pts on various treatment regimens, and evaluating overall survival of mRCC pts. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04919122 Clinical trial information: NCT04919122 .

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.