Citations

This guideline has been updated. This ASCO Living Guideline is reviewed on an eight-week cycle. Please see the online dynamic version for the latest updates. Living guidelines are developed for selected topic areas with rapidly evolving evidence that drives frequent change in recommended clinical practice. Living guidelines are updated on a regular schedule by a standing expert panel that systematically reviews the health literature on a continuous basis, as described in the ASCO Guidelines Methodology Manual . ASCO Living Guidelines follow the ASCO Conflict of Interest Policy Implementation for Clinical Practice Guidelines . Living Guidelines and updates are not intended to substitute for independent professional judgment of the treating clinician and do not account for individual variation among patients. See appendix for disclaimers and other important information (Appendix I and Appendix II). Updates are published regularly and can be found on the ASCO Publications website .

e17004 Background: Living clinical practice guidelines offer the opportunity to keep recommendations aligned with the latest evidence, but they also present a fundamental challenge: as evidence accumulates, panelists cannot sustainably query and synthesize a growing body of literature. In developing ASCO's living metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) guideline, we encountered this challenge firsthand. To address it, we developed and evaluated an interactive agentic framework that enables guideline panelists to query evidence in natural language and retrieve structured facts, tables, and figures—with the goal of extending this tool as a clinician-facing companion to enhance guideline accessibility. Methods: The mCRPC systematic review dataset supporting ASCO's clinical practice guideline was used, comprising 212 structured columns capturing trial characteristics, patient populations, and outcomes extracted from 188 references across 88 clinical trials. A large language model (LLM)-based agentic framework was developed employing a coding agent that translates natural language queries into executable scripts for structured evidence retrieval. Claude (Haiku 4.5, Sonnet 4.5, and Opus 4.5) served as the core LLM agents. We constructed a benchmark of 50 fact-based queries with gold-standard answers targeting trial identification, treatment modalities, and endpoint characteristics (e.g., "Which trials evaluated systemic monotherapy?"). Performance was evaluated using exact-match accuracy for final answers, and precision, recall, and F1 score for trial-level retrieval. Results: Across 50 queries, exact-match accuracy ranged from 82% to 86%. Haiku 4.5 and Sonnet 4.5 each achieved 82% (42/50), while Opus 4.5 achieved 86% (43/50). Precision ranged from 0.93–0.97, recall from 0.94–0.96, and F1 scores from 0.91–0.94. Conclusions: This agentic framework enables scalable, auditable, natural language interrogation of guideline evidence, addressing a critical bottleneck in living guideline maintenance. For panelists, it supports rapid, reproducible evidence surveillance during recommendation development. For clinicians, it offers a foundation for an interactive companion tool that transforms static guidelines into queryable resources—enabling personalized evidence retrieval at the point of care. LLM EM Precision Recall F1 claude-haiku-4-5 0.82(42/50) 0.95 0.94 0.91 claude-sonnet-4-5 0.82(42/50) 0.97 0.96 0.93 claude-opus-4-5 0.86(43/50) 0.93 0.96 0.94

This guideline has been updated. This ASCO Living Guideline is reviewed on an eight-week cycle. Please see the online dynamic version for the latest updates. Living guidelines are developed for selected topic areas with rapidly evolving evidence that drives frequent change in recommended clinical practice. Living guidelines are updated on a regular schedule by a standing expert panel that systematically reviews the health literature on a continuous basis, as described in the ASCO Guidelines Methodology Manual . ASCO Living Guidelines follow the ASCO Conflict of Interest Policy Implementation for Clinical Practice Guidelines . Living Guidelines and updates are not intended to substitute for independent professional judgment of the treating clinician and do not account for individual variation among patients. See appendix for disclaimers and other important information ( Appendix 1 and Appendix 2 ). Updates are published regularly and can be found at www.asco.org/genitourinary-cancer-guidelines .

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 .

270 Background: Inconsistent reporting of subgroup data across clinical trials makes interpretation and application of the evidence from trials challenging. We conducted a living systematic review to summarize evidence for American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) guidelines for management of metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). Here, we provide an overview of reporting patterns of subgroup data across mCRPC trials. Methods: MEDLINE and EMBASE were systematically searched from each database's inception through September 20 th , 2024, to identify phase II/III/IV randomized clinical trials assessing the efficacy and safety of treatment options in mCRPC. For outcomes of overall survival (OS) and progression free survival (PFS), data from the subgroup analyses was collected and compared across trials to assess heterogeneity in the reporting of subgroups. Results: This analysis included 141 trials (phase II: 83; phase III: 56; phase IV: 2). OS was reported by 113 (80%) trials; 32 (28%) reported OS by any subgroups with 95 unique subgroup categories. PFS was reported by 110 (78%) trials; 23 (21%) reported PFS by any subgroups with 63 unique subgroup categories. Even among consistently reported subgroups, such as age, ECOG performance status, race, geographical area, and Gleason score, considerable heterogeneity in different subgroup levels/thresholds was observed across trials. Top ten most commonly reported subgroups are summarized (Table). Conclusions: Lack of consistent reporting for subgroup analysis in mCRPC trials preclude meaningful conclusions about clinically relevant subgroup and synthesizing evidence for clinical guidelines. A standardized framework for consistent reporting of subgroup data across trials can help inform clinical practice and clinical practice guidelines. OS PFS Number of trials 113 110 Reporting subgroup analysis – N (%) 32 (28) 23 (21) Commonly reported subgroups – (N) Age (26)ECOG-PS (26)LDH (21)PSA (18)Geographic area (15)Alkaline phosphatase (14)Visceral disease (14)Gleason score (9)Race (9)Brief pain inventory level (8) Age (21) ECOG-PS (19)PSA (18)LDH (14)Geographic area (13)Visceral disease (11)Gleason score (10)Alkaline phosphatase (9)Bone metastasis (9)Disease location (9) Age – (N) <65 (14); ≥65 (9); ≤68 (1); ≥69 (1); <70 (5); ≥70 (5); ≤74 (4); 65-75 (5); ≤ 71 (1); >71 (1); ≥75 (11); >Median (1); <Median (1) <65 (12); 65-74 (6); ≥65 (6); <70 (5); ≥70 (5); <75 (4); ≥75 (10); 76-80 (1); >80 (1) ECOG-PS – (N) 0 (15); 0-1 (11), 1 (11); 1-2 (5); 2 (12) 0 (15); 0-1 (5), 1 (12); 1-2 (2); 2 (6) Race – (N) White (9)Non-white (6)African American/black (2)Asian (2) White (8)Non-white (5)African American/black (2)Asian (4) Geographic Area – (N) Europe (8)North America (14)United States (1)Australia (1)Asia (2) Europe (11)North America (13)United States (1)Australia (1)Asia (2)North and South America (2) Gleason Score – (N) 2-6 (1); 7 (1); 8 (1); <8 (8); ≥ 8 (8); 9-10 (1) <8 (10); ≥ 8 (10)

Abstract Objective Data extraction from the published literature is the most laborious step in conducting living systematic reviews (LSRs). We aim to build a generalizable, automated data extraction workflow leveraging large language models (LLMs) that mimics the real-world 2-reviewer process. Materials and Methods A dataset of 10 trials (22 publications) from a published LSR was used, focusing on 23 variables related to trial, population, and outcomes data. The dataset was split into prompt development (n = 5) and held-out test sets (n = 17). GPT-4-turbo and Claude-3-Opus were used for data extraction. Responses from the 2 LLMs were considered concordant if they were the same for a given variable. The discordant responses from each LLM were provided to the other LLM for cross-critique. Accuracy, ie, the total number of correct responses divided by the total number of responses, was computed to assess performance. Results In the prompt development set, 110 (96%) responses were concordant, achieving an accuracy of 0.99 against the gold standard. In the test set, 342 (87%) responses were concordant. The accuracy of the concordant responses was 0.94. The accuracy of the discordant responses was 0.41 for GPT-4-turbo and 0.50 for Claude-3-Opus. Of the 49 discordant responses, 25 (51%) became concordant after cross-critique, increasing accuracy to 0.76. Discussion Concordant responses by the LLMs are likely to be accurate. In instances of discordant responses, cross-critique can further increase the accuracy. Conclusion Large language models, when simulated in a collaborative, 2-reviewer workflow, can extract data with reasonable performance, enabling truly “living” systematic reviews.

PURPOSE This guideline updates recommendations of the ASCO guideline on chemotherapy and targeted therapy for patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–negative metastatic breast cancer (MBC) that is either endocrine-pretreated or hormone receptor (HR)–negative. METHODS An Expert Panel conducted a targeted systematic literature review guided by a signals approach to identify new, potentially practice-changing data that might translate into revised guideline recommendations. RESULTS The Expert Panel reviewed abstracts from the literature review and retained 14 articles. RECOMMENDATIONS Patients with triple-negative, programmed cell death ligand-1–positive MBC may be offered the addition of immune checkpoint inhibitor to chemotherapy as first-line therapy. Patients with triple-negative, programmed cell death ligand-1–negative MBC should be offered single-agent chemotherapy rather than combination chemotherapy as first-line treatment, although combination regimens may be offered for life-threatening disease. Patients with triple-negative MBC who have received at least two prior therapies for MBC should be offered treatment with sacituzumab govitecan. Patients with triple-negative MBC with germline BRCA mutations previously treated with chemotherapy may be offered a poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor rather than chemotherapy. Patients with HR-positive human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–negative MBC for whom chemotherapy is being considered should be offered single–agent chemotherapy rather than combination chemotherapy, although combination regimens may be offered for highly symptomatic or life-threatening disease. Patients with HR-positive MBC with disease progression on an endocrine agent may be offered treatment with either endocrine therapy with or without targeted therapy or single-agent chemotherapy. Patients with HR-positive MBC with germline BRCA mutations no longer benefiting from endocrine therapy may be offered a poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor rather than chemotherapy. No recommendation regarding when a patient's care should be transitioned to hospice or best supportive care alone is possible. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/breast-cancer-guidelines .

PURPOSE Provide evidence- and expert-based recommendations for optimal use of imaging in advanced prostate cancer. Due to increases in research and utilization of novel imaging for advanced prostate cancer, this guideline is intended to outline techniques available and provide recommendations on appropriate use of imaging for specified patient subgroups. METHODS An Expert Panel was convened with members from ASCO and the Society of Abdominal Radiology, American College of Radiology, Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, American Urological Association, American Society for Radiation Oncology, and Society of Urologic Oncology to conduct a systematic review of the literature and develop an evidence-based guideline on the optimal use of imaging for advanced prostate cancer. Representative index cases of various prostate cancer disease states are presented, including suspected high-risk disease, newly diagnosed treatment-naïve metastatic disease, suspected recurrent disease after local treatment, and progressive disease while undergoing systemic treatment. A systematic review of the literature from 2013 to August 2018 identified fully published English-language systematic reviews with or without meta-analyses, reports of rigorously conducted phase III randomized controlled trials that compared ≥ 2 imaging modalities, and noncomparative studies that reported on the efficacy of a single imaging modality. RESULTS A total of 35 studies met inclusion criteria and form the evidence base, including 17 systematic reviews with or without meta-analysis and 18 primary research articles. RECOMMENDATIONS One or more of these imaging modalities should be used for patients with advanced prostate cancer: conventional imaging (defined as computed tomography [CT], bone scan, and/or prostate magnetic resonance imaging [MRI]) and/or next-generation imaging (NGI), positron emission tomography [PET], PET/CT, PET/MRI, or whole-body MRI) according to the clinical scenario.