Ged, Yasser

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 .

Abstract GPNMB (Glycoprotein non-metastatic melanoma protein B) is a canonical transcriptional target of MiT/TFE proteins (TFEB/TFE3/MITF), expressed at low levels in normal tissues but upregulated in numerous MiT/TFE-driven tumors such as translocation RCC, alveolar soft part sarcoma and MITF-driven melanoma, where it is associated with poor prognosis. CDX-011 (CR011-MMAE) is an anti-GPNMB ADC, with demonstrated efficacy in pre-clinical models of TFE3-fusion RCC. To further characterize GPNMB functionality and value as a cell-surface therapeutic target in tRCC, we engineered cell lines with genomic deletion of GPNMB via CRSIPR-Cas9 editing. Deletion of GPNMB in PRCC-TFE3 cell lines [UOK120/UOK124] significantly decreased clonogenic growth in 2D, spheroid size and viability and tumor xenograft growth in NSG mice and was associated with a decrease in phosphorylation of mTORC1 substrates [p-P70S6K, p-4EBP1]. We then examined expression of CD44, the primary receptor for GPNMB, and a tumor-associated antigen associated with poor prognosis in many cancers. Expression of CD44 and its ligand SPP1/OPN, was significantly increased in bulk RNA-Seq data from multiple transgenic models of SFPQ-TFE3, PRCC-TFE3 and ASPSCR1-TFE3, in human tRCC cases compared to normal kidney, and in SFPQ-TFE3/ PRCC-TFE3 transgenic kidney tumors and an ASPSCR-TFE3 PDX model, by immunoblotting and IHC, with increased membrane localization. shRNA-mediated depletion of CD44 profoundly and specifically decreased clonogenicity of multiple TFE3-fusion lines, with no effect seen in ccRCC lines. In conclusion, GPNMB regulates the growth of tRCC cells, potentially via an autocrine mechanism involving its receptor CD44, and targeting GPNMB-CD44 signaling may be of therapeutic benefit in tRCC. Citation Format: Kaushal Asrani, Juhyung Woo, Kewen Feng, Thiago Vidotto, Adrianna Amaral, Vikrant Palande, Jayaprakash Mandal, Eddie Imada, Christopher Thoburn, Sangeeta Ray, Huili Li, Yasser Ged, Nirmish Singla, John A. Copland, Laura Schmidt, W. Marston Linehan, Pedram Argani, Tamara Lotan. GPNMB:CD44 signaling drives tumor progression in translocation renal cell carcinoma [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the AACR Special Conference in Cancer Research: Innovations in Kidney Cancer Research: From Molecular Insights to Therapeutic Breakthroughs; 2026 Mar 13-16; Philadelphia, PA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2026;86(5_Suppl_2):Abstract nr B014.

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)

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

4545 Background: The treatment landscape of front-line nccRCC has evolved with recent trials demonstrating the efficacy of combination systemic therapy. However, the efficacy of treatment after combination therapy is unknown. This study evaluates the efficacy of VEGF-based regimens in nccRCC patients (pts) previously treated with combination regimens. Methods: ORACLE is a real-world, multi-center, retrospective database that includes nccRCC patients that received combination systemic therapies (IO+IO, IO+VEGF and VEGF+ mTOR) in any line. Subsequent treatments were categorized as VEGF only regimens (cabozantinib vs other VEGF), IO+ VEGF and VEGF+ mTOR. The primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR) assessed by investigator review using RECIST 1.1. Secondary endpoints included disease control rate (DCR), defined as the proportion of patients achieving complete or partial responses or stable disease, time to treatment progression (TTP), calculated from the date of VEGF-based initiation to progression or last follow-up using the Kaplan-Meier method. Differences between groups were estimated with the log-rank test, and categorical outcomes were compared with the chi-square test. Results: 105 pts who received VEGF – based regimens after combination therapy were included in the analysis. Baseline characteristics: median age: 59years, 71 % male, 58% white, 25% black, 87% ECOG 0-2. IMDC-risk categories included:21% favorable, 59% intermediate and 20% poor risk. Histology included papillary (40%), unclassified (32%), chromophobe (16%) and other rare subtypes (12%). Prior combination therapies included IO+IO: 62%, IO+ VEGF: 34% and VEGF+ mTORi:4%. 70% pts received combination therapy in the first line setting while the remainder received combination therapy in a second or later line. Outcomes with subsequent treatments are described in Table1. IMDC risk score correlated with TTP. Conclusions: Modest antitumor activity was observed with VEGF- based approaches in combination therapy refractory nccRCC. Optimal management of nccRCC remains an unmet need. Outcomes of nccRCC patients by treatment and histologic type. Outcomes per Treatment n ORR (%) DCR (%) mTTP (mo.) Cabozantinib 56 18 47 3.6 VEGF/mTOR 19 16 42 9.3 IO+VEGF 17 29 47 5.6 Other VEGF 13 15 46 5.5 Outcomes per Histology Papillary 42 19 43 6.5 Unclassified 33 21 42 6.1 Chromophobe 17 29 59 8.9 Other * 13 0 46 NR

The NCCN Guidelines for Kidney Cancer provide multidisciplinary recommendations for diagnostic workup, staging, and treatment of patients with renal cell carcinoma (RCC). These NCCN Guidelines Insights focus on the systemic therapy options for patients with advanced RCC and summarize the new clinical data evaluated by the NCCN panel for the recommended therapies in Version 2.2024 of the NCCN Guidelines for Kidney Cancer.

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 .

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 .

The NCCN Guidelines for Kidney Cancer focus on the screening, diagnosis, staging, treatment, and management of renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Patients with relapsed or stage IV RCC typically undergo surgery and/or receive systemic therapy. Tumor histology and risk stratification of patients is important in therapy selection. The NCCN Guidelines for Kidney Cancer stratify treatment recommendations by histology; recommendations for first-line treatment of ccRCC are also stratified by risk group. To further guide management of advanced RCC, the NCCN Kidney Cancer Panel has categorized all systemic kidney cancer therapy regimens as “Preferred,” “Other Recommended Regimens,” or “Useful in Certain Circumstances.” This categorization provides guidance on treatment selection by considering the efficacy, safety, evidence, and other factors that play a role in treatment selection. These factors include pre-existing comorbidities, nature of the disease, and in some cases consideration of access to agents. This article summarizes surgical and systemic therapy recommendations for patients with relapsed or stage IV RCC.