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 .

AbstractCurrent US clinical practice guidelines for advanced prostate cancer management contain recommendations based on high‐level evidence from randomized controlled trials; however, these guidelines do not address the nuanced clinical questions that are unanswered by prospective trials but nonetheless encountered in day‐to‐day practice. To address these practical questions, the 2024 US Prostate Cancer Conference (USPCC 2024) was created to generate US‐focused expert clinical decision‐making guidance for circumstances in which level 1 evidence is lacking. At the second annual USPCC meeting (USPCC 2024), a multidisciplinary panel of experts convened to discuss ongoing clinical challenges related to 5 topic areas: biochemical recurrence; metastatic, castration‐sensitive prostate cancer; poly [ADP‐ribose] polymerase inhibitors; prostate‐specific membrane antigen radioligand therapy; and metastatic, castration‐resistant prostate cancer. Through a modified Delphi process, 34 consensus recommendations were developed and are intended to provide clinicians who manage prostate cancer with guidance related to the implementation of novel treatments and technologies. In this report, the authors review the areas of consensus identified by the USPCC 2024 experts and evaluate ongoing unmet needs regarding translational application of the current clinical evidence.

Background: Management strategies for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) have rapidly shifted in recent years. As novel imaging and therapeutic approaches have made their way to the clinic, providers are encountering increasingly challenging clinical scenarios, with limited guidance from the current literature. Materials and Methods: The US Prostate Cancer Conference (USPCC) is a multidisciplinary meeting of prostate cancer experts intended to address the many challenges of prostate cancer management. At the first annual USPCC meeting, areas of controversy and consensus were identified during a 2-day meeting that included expert presentations, full-panel discussions, and postdiscussion responses to questions developed by the USPCC cochairs and session moderators. Results: This narrative review covers the USPCC expert discussion and perspectives relevant to mCRPC, including neuroendocrine/aggressive-variant prostate cancer (NEPC/AVPC). Areas of broad agreement identified among USPCC experts include the benefits of poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors for patients with BRCA1/2 mutations, the use of radioligand therapy in patients with prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA)–positive mCRPC, and the need for clinical trials that address real-world clinical questions, including the performance of novel therapies when compared with modern standard-of-care treatment. Ongoing areas of controversy and uncertainty included the appropriateness of PARP inhibitors in patients with non-BRCA1/2 mutations, the optimal definition of PSMA positivity, and systemic therapies for patients with NEPC/AVPC after progression on platinum-based therapies. Conclusions: The first annual USPCC meeting identified several areas of controversy in the management of mCRPC, highlighting the urgent need for clinical trials designed to facilitate treatment selection and sequencing in this heterogeneous disease state.

Purpose: Castration-sensitive prostate cancer (CSPC) is a complex and heterogeneous condition encompassing a range of clinical presentations. As new approaches have expanded management options, clinicians are left with myriad questions and controversies regarding the optimal individualized management of CSPC. Materials and Methods: The US Prostate Cancer Conference (USPCC) multidisciplinary panel was assembled to address the challenges of prostate cancer management. The first annual USPCC meeting included experts in urology, medical oncology, radiation oncology, and nuclear medicine. USPCC co-chairs and session moderators identified key areas of controversy and uncertainty in prostate cancer management and organized the sessions with multidisciplinary presentations and discussion. Throughout the meeting, experts responded to questions prepared by chairs and moderators to identify areas of agreement and controversy. Results: The USPCC panel discussion and question responses for CSPC-related topics are presented. Key advances in CSPC management endorsed by USPCC experts included the development and clinical utilization of gene expression classifiers and artificial intelligence (AI) models for risk stratification and treatment selection in specific patient populations, the use of advanced imaging modalities in patients with clinically localized unfavorable intermediate or high-risk disease and those with biochemical recurrence, recommendations of doublet or triplet therapy for metastatic CSPC (mCSPC), and consideration of prostate and/or metastasis-directed radiation therapy in select patients with mCSPC. Conclusions: CSPC is a diverse disease with many therapeutic options and the potential for adverse outcomes associated with either undertreatment or overtreatment. Future studies are needed to validate and clinically integrate novel technologies, including genomics, AI, and advanced imaging, to optimize outcomes among patients with CSPC.

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 .

ImportanceSystematic data on the association between anticancer therapies and thromboembolic events (TEEs) in patients with COVID-19 are lacking.ObjectiveTo assess the association between anticancer therapy exposure within 3 months prior to COVID-19 and TEEs following COVID-19 diagnosis in patients with cancer.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis registry-based retrospective cohort study included patients who were hospitalized and had active cancer and laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. Data were accrued from March 2020 to December 2021 and analyzed from December 2021 to October 2022.ExposureTreatments of interest (TOIs) (endocrine therapy, vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors/tyrosine kinase inhibitors [VEGFis/TKIs], immunomodulators [IMiDs], immune checkpoint inhibitors [ICIs], chemotherapy) vs reference (no systemic therapy) in 3 months prior to COVID-19.Main Outcomes and MeasuresMain outcomes were (1) venous thromboembolism (VTE) and (2) arterial thromboembolism (ATE). Secondary outcome was severity of COVID-19 (rates of intensive care unit admission, mechanical ventilation, 30-day all-cause mortality following TEEs in TOI vs reference group) at 30-day follow-up.ResultsOf 4988 hospitalized patients with cancer (median [IQR] age, 69 [59-78] years; 2608 [52%] male), 1869 had received 1 or more TOIs. Incidence of VTE was higher in all TOI groups: endocrine therapy, 7%; VEGFis/TKIs, 10%; IMiDs, 8%; ICIs, 12%; and chemotherapy, 10%, compared with patients not receiving systemic therapies (6%). In multivariable log-binomial regression analyses, relative risk of VTE (adjusted risk ratio [aRR], 1.33; 95% CI, 1.04-1.69) but not ATE (aRR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.56-1.16) was significantly higher in those exposed to all TOIs pooled together vs those with no exposure. Among individual drugs, ICIs were significantly associated with VTE (aRR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.01-2.07). Also noted were significant associations between VTE and active and progressing cancer (aRR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.01-2.03), history of VTE (aRR, 3.10; 95% CI, 2.38-4.04), and high-risk site of cancer (aRR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.14-1.75). Black patients had a higher risk of TEEs (aRR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.03-1.50) than White patients. Patients with TEEs had high intensive care unit admission (46%) and mechanical ventilation (31%) rates. Relative risk of death in patients with TEEs was higher in those exposed to TOIs vs not (aRR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.91-1.38) and was significantly associated with poor performance status (aRR, 1.77; 95% CI, 1.30-2.40) and active/progressing cancer (aRR, 1.55; 95% CI, 1.13-2.13).Conclusions and RelevanceIn this cohort study, relative risk of developing VTE was high among patients receiving TOIs and varied by the type of therapy, underlying risk factors, and demographics, such as race and ethnicity. These findings highlight the need for close monitoring and perhaps personalized thromboprophylaxis to prevent morbidity and mortality associated with COVID-19–related thromboembolism in patients with cancer.

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 .

ImportanceCytokine storm due to COVID-19 can cause high morbidity and mortality and may be more common in patients with cancer treated with immunotherapy (IO) due to immune system activation.ObjectiveTo determine the association of baseline immunosuppression and/or IO-based therapies with COVID-19 severity and cytokine storm in patients with cancer.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis registry-based retrospective cohort study included 12 046 patients reported to the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19) registry from March 2020 to May 2022. The CCC19 registry is a centralized international multi-institutional registry of patients with COVID-19 with a current or past diagnosis of cancer. Records analyzed included patients with active or previous cancer who had a laboratory-confirmed infection with SARS-CoV-2 by polymerase chain reaction and/or serologic findings.ExposuresImmunosuppression due to therapy; systemic anticancer therapy (IO or non-IO).Main Outcomes and MeasuresThe primary outcome was a 5-level ordinal scale of COVID-19 severity: no complications; hospitalized without requiring oxygen; hospitalized and required oxygen; intensive care unit admission and/or mechanical ventilation; death. The secondary outcome was the occurrence of cytokine storm.ResultsThe median age of the entire cohort was 65 years (interquartile range [IQR], 54-74) years and 6359 patients were female (52.8%) and 6598 (54.8%) were non-Hispanic White. A total of 599 (5.0%) patients received IO, whereas 4327 (35.9%) received non-IO systemic anticancer therapies, and 7120 (59.1%) did not receive any antineoplastic regimen within 3 months prior to COVID-19 diagnosis. Although no difference in COVID-19 severity and cytokine storm was found in the IO group compared with the untreated group in the total cohort (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.80; 95% CI, 0.56-1.13, and aOR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.41-1.93, respectively), patients with baseline immunosuppression treated with IO (vs untreated) had worse COVID-19 severity and cytokine storm (aOR, 3.33; 95% CI, 1.38-8.01, and aOR, 4.41; 95% CI, 1.71-11.38, respectively). Patients with immunosuppression receiving non-IO therapies (vs untreated) also had worse COVID-19 severity (aOR, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.36-2.35) and cytokine storm (aOR, 2.32; 95% CI, 1.42-3.79).Conclusions and RelevanceThis cohort study found that in patients with cancer and COVID-19, administration of systemic anticancer therapies, especially IO, in the context of baseline immunosuppression was associated with severe clinical outcomes and the development of cytokine storm.Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04354701