Citations

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

PURPOSE The combination of the Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor ibrutinib with bendamustine-rituximab for first-line treatment of mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) prolonged progression-free survival (PFS), but without improvement in overall survival (OS), likely because of toxicity. Acalabrutinib was shown to be efficacious and less toxic than ibrutinib in a head-to-head trial in chronic lymphocytic leukemia and therefore might lead to better outcomes in MCL. METHODS Patients 65 years and older with previously untreated MCL received acalabrutinib (100 mg twice daily) or placebo (until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity), plus six cycles of bendamustine (90 mg/m 2 once daily; days 1 and 2) and rituximab (375 mg/m 2 as a single dose; day 1) followed by rituximab maintenance in responding patients for 2 years. Crossover to acalabrutinib at disease progression was permitted. The primary end point was PFS per the independent review committee; overall response rate and OS were secondary end points. RESULTS In total, 598 patients were randomly assigned, with 299 in each arm. At a median follow-up of 49.8 months using the reverse Kaplan-Meier method, the median PFS was 66.4 months in the acalabrutinib arm and 49.6 months in the placebo arm (hazard ratio [HR], 0.73 [95% CI, 0.57 to 0.94]; P = .0160). Benefit was seen across all subgroups, including those with high-risk features. Overall response/complete response rates were 91.0%/66.6% and 88.0%/53.5% in the acalabrutinib and placebo arms, respectively. OS was not significantly different (HR, 0.86 [95% CI, 0.65 to 1.13]; P = .27). Grade 3 or greater adverse events were reported in 88.9% and 88.2% in the acalabrutinib and placebo arms, respectively. CONCLUSION The combination of acalabrutinib with bendamustine-rituximab significantly improved PFS. Clinical benefit of acalabrutinib with bendamustine-rituximab was achieved with manageable toxicity.

ABSTRACTAlthough recent studies have demonstrated the efficacy of chimeric antigen receptor T‐cell (CAR‐T) therapy in relapsed large B‐cell lymphoma (LBCL) with MYC rearrangement (R‐MYC), the data comparing CAR‐T to autologous hematopoietic cell transplant (auto‐HCT) in such patients who achieve a complete or partial response (CR/PR) after salvage therapies are limited. We compared the clinical outcomes of patients with R‐MYC LBCL (including double and triple hit lymphomas) who underwent CAR‐T or auto‐HCT after achieving a CR/PR with salvage therapies using the Center for International Blood & Marrow Transplant Research registry. Among the 252 patients (auto‐HCT = 98, CAR‐T = 154), relative to auto‐HCT, CAR‐T was associated with significantly lower overall survival (OS) (Hazard Ratio [HR] 2.09, 95% CI 1.38–3.15, p < 0.001) on multivariate analysis. There were no differences in progression‐free survival (PFS) (HR 1.21, 95% CI 0.81–1.8 p = 0.36), risk of relapse (HR 1.1, 95% CI 0.71–1.69 p = 0.68), nonrelapse mortality (NRM) (HR 1.74, 95% CI 0.64–4.7 p = 0.28) while the post‐relapse survival was longer in auto‐HCT relative to CAR‐T (HR 1.93, 95% CI 1.21–3.06 p = 0.01). On propensity score matched analysis accounting for differences in characteristics across the two cohorts, we detected no significant differences in OS (HR 1.72, 95% CI 0.92–3.21 p = 0.09), PFS (HR 1.04, 95% CI 0.64–1.68 p = 0.88), NRM (HR 1.22, 95% CI 0.35–4.2 p = 0.76), relapse (HR = 0.93, 95% CI 0.54–1.6 p = 0.8) and post‐relapse survival (HR 2.25, 95% CI 0.98–5.17, p = 0.06). These data, although retrospective, support consideration for auto‐HCT in patients with R‐MYC LBCL who achieve a CR/PR after salvage therapies, particularly in regions with no or limited access to CAR‐T.

Abstract Outcomes of bispecific antibodies in patients with renal impairment (RI) are not well characterized, given the exclusion of these patients from clinical trials. Herein, we evaluated patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma and RI treated with standard-of-care teclistamab. RI was defined as creatinine clearance (CrCl) &lt;40 mL/min. CrCl &lt;30 mL/min or dialysis dependence was defined as severe RI. Of the 384 included patients, 81 (21%) had RI, including 45 (18%) with severe RI, and 18 (5%) on dialysis. Patients with RI were more likely to be older (median age, 71 vs 67 years; P = .002) and have a higher median number of previous lines of therapy (7 vs 6; P = .04). Rates and severity of cytokine release syndrome (51% vs 59%; grade ≥3: 1.2% vs 1%) and immune effector cell–associated neurotoxicity syndrome (16% vs 13%; grade ≥3: 2.5% vs 2.6%) were similar in patients with and without RI, respectively. Patients with RI had higher baseline and day 30 post-teclistamab grade ≥3 anemia and grade ≥3 thrombocytopenia. Renal function did not worsen after teclistamab initiation in most patients with RI outside of the context of disease progression. Overall response rate (52% vs 56%; P = .61) and survival outcomes (median progression-free survival, 4.6 vs 6.5 months; P = .62) were comparable in patients with and without RI, respectively, after a median follow-up of 9.9 months. No differences in overall survival or non-relapse mortality were noted. Our findings suggest that treatment with teclistamab is feasible in patients with RI, including those on dialysis, with a similar safety and efficacy profile to patients without RI.

Abstract Lineage switch (LS), defined as the immunophenotypic transformation of acute leukemia, has emerged as a mechanism of relapse after antigen-targeted immunotherapy, which is associated with dismal outcomes. Through an international collaborative effort, we identified cases of LS after a host of antigen-targeted therapies (eg, CD19, CD22, CD38, and CD7), described how LS was diagnosed, reviewed treatment approaches, and analyzed overall outcomes for this form of postimmunotherapy relapse. Collectively, 75 cases of LS were evaluated, including 53 (70.7%) cases of B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (B-ALL) transforming to acute myeloid leukemia (AML), 17 (22.7%) cases of B-ALL transforming to mixed phenotypic acute leukemia (MPAL)/acute leukemias of ambiguous lineage (ALAL), and 5 (6.7%) cases of rare LS presentation (ie, T-cell ALL to AML). An additional 10 cases with incomplete changes in immunophenotype, referred to as “lineage drift” were also described. With a primary focus on the 70 cases of LS from B-ALL to AML or MPAL/ALAL, LS emerged at a median of 1.5 months (range, 0-36.5) after immunotherapy, with 81.4% presenting with LS within the first 6 months from the most proximal immunotherapy. Although most involved KMT2A rearrangements (n = 45, 64.3%), other rare cytogenetic and/or molecular alterations were uniquely observed. Treatment outcomes were generally poor, with remission rates of &lt;40%. The median overall survival after LS diagnosis was 4.8 months. Outcomes were similarly poor for those with rare immunophenotypes of LS or lineage drift. This global initiative robustly categorizes lineage changes after immunotherapy and, through enhanced understanding, establishes a foundation for improving outcomes of LS.

Abstract Background The mechanisms underlying metastatic latency in renal cell carcinoma (RCC) remain poorly understood. Methods This study evaluated 2 large independent cohorts for differences in tumor biology between patients who developed metastases early (≤1 year after nephrectomy) and those with late onset (&gt;3 years). Results In the discovery cohort (n = 161), late metastatic RCC was associated with clear cell histology (88.9% vs 78.7%), lower pathological stage (pT1-2; 40.3% vs 18.0%), and favorable histopathological features including low grade (40.0% vs 2.3%), less sarcomatoid (5.6% vs 21.8%), and reduced necrosis (37.7% vs 78.3%; all P &lt; .02). Late metastatic RCC tumors exhibited increased angiogenesis (63.5% vs 19.4%) and reduced inflammation (78.8% vs 50.0%; all P &lt; .02) profiles. Genomic driver analyses revealed comparable rates of PBRM1 and SETD2 loss in late and early metastatic RCC, while BAP1 loss was significantly less common in late metastatic RCC (7.5% vs 27.1%; P &lt; .02). In multivariable models, BAP1/PBRM1/SETD2 status and tumor necrosis emerged as key discriminators of late metastatic RCCs. These findings were confirmed in the second cohort (n = 307). Late metastatic RCC was enriched for fatty acid oxidation and angiogenesis pathways, supporting a less aggressive phenotype. This was further evidenced by a lower engraftment rate in murine models (0% vs 36.5%; P &lt; .001) and significantly longer overall survival from the time of metastasis (median survival doubled, P &lt; .001). Interestingly, late metastatic RCC shared genomic and phenotypic features with RCC that metastasizes to the pancreas, suggesting a common underlying biology influencing both metastatic latency and pancreatic tropism. Conclusions Overall, these findings advocate for recognition of late metastatic RCC because of its distinct biology and improved prognosis.

Study Design Retrospective Cohort. Objectives Craniovertebral instability can arise from various congenital or acquired conditions, but definitive management often requires craniocervical fusion. This study evaluates whether postoperative clivo-axial angle (CXA) can predict distal junctional failure in patients undergoing craniocervical fusion. While postoperative alignment of the head and cervical spine can be quantified via the CXA, it is unclear whether the CXA can predict distal junctional failure. Methods All patients undergoing craniocervical decompression and fusion (CCF) for craniovertebral instability between 2012 and 2023 at a single institution were identified. Patients experiencing adjacent segment disease (ASD) were identified and compared to those without said pathology based on CXA, Grabb-Oakes line (pBC2), and the presence of cervical kyphosis, cervical disc degeneration, or subluxation on pre- and postoperative imaging. Statistical analysis included Shapiro-Wilk tests for normality, followed by independent t-tests or Mann-Whitney U tests with FDR adjusted P values as appropriate, and univariable logistic regression. Results 71 patients were included, of whom ten (14.3%) developed distal junctional kyphosis and 3 (4.3%) developed cervical spondylolisthesis. The median postoperative CXA was significantly lower in non-ASD patients (144° [IQR: 140-148°] vs 158° [IQR: 153-162°]; P < .001) and logistic regression showed that each 10° degree increase in CXA was associated with a 6.7-fold higher odds of ASD. Conclusions We found craniocervical alignment, as assessed by CXA, independently predicted distal junctional disease in patients undergoing craniocervical fusion, possibly due to low preoperative CXA in these patients. Large increases in CXA may contribute to postoperative instrumentation failure.

PURPOSE Idecabtagene vicleucel (ide-cel) and ciltacabtagene autoleucel (cilta-cel), two B-cell maturation antigen–directed chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapies have demonstrated remarkable efficacy in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). We compare safety, efficacy, and survival among patients with RRMM treated with standard-of-care (SOC) ide-cel or cilta-cel. METHODS Data were from a retrospective chart review of patients with RRMM leukapheresed by December 31, 2022, with the intent to receive SOC ide-cel or cilta-cel at 19 institutions. An inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) approach was used to compare outcomes by therapy type. RESULTS A total of 641 patients were leukapheresed by December 31, 2022, with ide-cel (n = 386) and cilta-cel (n = 255). Five hundred eighty-six patients were infused (n = 350 for ide-cel; n = 236 for cilta-cel) with a median follow-up of 12.6 and 13.0 months for ide-cel and cilta-cel, respectively. After IPTW, patient characteristics were well balanced. Cilta-cel was associated with higher likelihood of grade ≥3 cytokine release syndrome (CRS; odds ratio [OR], 6.80 [95% CI, 2.28 to 20.33]), infections (OR, 2.03 [95% CI, 1.41 to 2.92]), second primary malignancies (OR, 1.77 [95% CI, 0.89 to 3.56]), and delayed neurotoxicity (OR, 20.07 [95% CI, 4.46 to 90.20]). Cilta-cel was also associated with better treatment responses (≥complete response: OR, 2.42 [95% CI, 1.63 to 3.60]), longer progression-free survival (hazard ratio [HR], 0.48 [95% CI, 0.36 to 0.63]), and longer overall survival (HR, 0.67 [95% CI, 0.46 to 0.97]). No associations were observed between therapy type and immune effector cell–associated neurotoxicity syndrome, any CRS, severe cytopenia at days 30 and 90, or nonrelapse mortality. We observed consistent findings when repeating the analyses restricting the ide-cel cohort to patients infused during the same time period as Food and Drug Administration approval for cilta-cel (≥March 2022). CONCLUSION Cilta-cel demonstrated superior efficacy and survival, with higher incidence of certain toxicities, compared with ide-cel.