Citations

129 Background: Androgen receptor pathway inhibitors (ARPIs) improve metastasis-free and overall survival in men with non-metastatic hormone-resistant prostate cancer (nmHRPC). Apalutamide and darolutamide were approved by the Federal Drug Administration in 2018 and 2019, respectively, based on pivotal clinical trials showing similar efficacy. However, no head-to-head comparisons exist in real-world settings. We compared prescription patterns and survival outcomes between apalutamide and darolutamide in men with nmHRPC using the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER)-Medicare data. Methods: We identified men aged ≥66 years with localized or locoregional prostate cancer between 2000 and 2021 using the SEER-Medicare linked database. Eligible patients initiated apalutamide or darolutamide between January 2019 and December 2021, defined by Medicare Part D claims. The index date was the first prescription of either agent. Men with distant metastases, prior malignancies and age ≤65 were excluded. Baseline demographics and clinical characteristics were compared using chi-square and Wilcoxon rank-sum tests. Survival was assessed using Kaplan-Meier analysis with log-rank tests. Cox proportional hazards regression was used to estimate adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) for mortality. Results: Among 582 men with nmHRPC, 435 (74.7%) received apalutamide and 147 (25.3%) received darolutamide. The mean age at diagnosis was 73.8 vs 74.1 years (p=0.95). Most patients were White (84.6% vs 81.0%, p=0.21) and resided in metropolitan areas (85.0% vs 88.4%, p=0.39). Darolutamide use was more frequent in the Northeast (42.9% vs 24.6%, p<0.001), while apalutamide was more common in the South (28.7% vs 15.6%, p<0.001). Patients receiving darolutamide had higher-grade tumors (68.0% grade III vs 51.3%, p=0.002) and a longer median time from diagnosis to prescription (93 vs 64 months, p<0.001). Kaplan-Meier curves and adjusted Cox models showed no significant difference in overall survival (HR 1.00; 95% CI 0.51–1.98; p=1.00). Age was independently associated with mortality (HR 1.05 per year; 95% CI 1.00–1.10; p=0.04). Conclusions: Apalutamide and darolutamide demonstrated comparable real-world survival outcomes in nmHRPC. Geographic and clinical factors influenced prescribing patterns, but survival did not differ between agents. Treatment choice may therefore be guided by patient comorbidities, tolerability, and clinician preference. Variable Comparison HR (95% CI) P-Value Treatment Darolutamide vs Apalutamide 1.00 (0.51,1.98) 1.00 Age at Diagnosis 1.05 (1.00, 1.10) 0.04* Race White vs Non-White 0.71 (0.28, 1.80) 0.47 Marital Status Married vs Unmarried 1.29 (0.60, 2.75) 0.51 Geographic Region -Midwest vs West 1.18 (0.34, 4.15) 0.79 -Northeast vs West 1.92 (0.92, 3.88) 0.07 -South vs West 1.01 (0.43, 2.36) 0.99

127 Background: Bone metastases affect up to 90 % of patients with metastatic hormone-resistant prostate cancer (mHRPC) and cause substantial morbidity from skeletal-related events (SREs) such as fracture, spinal-cord compression, and palliative interventions. Bone-modifying agents (BMAs) including bisphosphonates and denosumab reduce SRE risk and are NCCN-recommended, however, real-world use remains inconsistent. Methods: Patients with mHRPC treated from January 2017-September 2024 across Mayo Clinic sites were identified using SQL-based EHR queries confirmed by manual chart review. Bone Metastases were detected through keyword searchers of radiology reports and confirmed through manual chart review. SRE-prevention dosing was defined as zoledronic acid 4mg IV or denosumab 120mg SC; osteoporosis dosing was excluded. SREs were identified using diagnosis codes and text-pattern searches for radiotherapy, surgery, fracture, and spinal-cord compression. Descriptive statistics summarized BMA utilization and SRE incidence. Categorical variables were compared using Chi-square tests, and a risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals was calculated to evaluate association between early BMA initiation and SRE risk. Results: Among 778 patients with mHRPC, 685 (88 %) had bone metastases (mean age 70.5 years). Of these, 169 (24.7 %) had an SRE, and 261 (38.1 %) received BMAs at SRE-prevention doses (denosumab n = 157 [60 %]; zoledronic acid n = 104 [40 %]). Based on a chi-square test, combined SRE incidence did not differ significantly (No BMA 23 %, denosumab 23 %, zoledronic 33 %; p = 0.069). Bone pain at baseline was more common in patients who later received a BMA (136 [68 %]) than in those who did not (82 [41 %]; p < 0.001). Among 200 randomly sampled non-BMA patients, 83 had no recorded BMA discussion (66 also lacked bone pain), 38 lacked dental clearance, 32 had uncompleted plans and 18 declined therapy. Early BMA initiation (before first bone metastases) was associated with fewer SREs (16 % vs 29 %; RR 0.56, 95 % CI 0.33–0.96). Conclusions: Less than half of bone-metastatic mHRPC patients received BMAs. Non-initiation was often linked to modifiable factors such as delayed dental clearance or lack of treatment discussions, highlighting the need for system-level strategies to improve timely bone-directed care. SREs were common, affecting one quarter of patients. Small sample size precluded meaningful comparison of the impact of BMAs on SRE incidence however early BMA initiation may lower SREs. Incidence of SREs stratified by no BMA vs BMA treatment. SRE No BMA BMA Overall Pathological Fracture 6.4% (27/424) 4.9% (13/261) 5.8% (40/685) Radiotherapy to Bone 13.9% (59/424) 18.8% (49/261) 15.7% (108/685) Spinal Cord Compression 0.7% (3/424) 3.1% (8/261) 1.6% (11/685) Surgery to Bone 2.1% (9/424) 0.3% (1/261) 1.5% (10/685) Combined 23% (98/424) 27.2% (71/261) 24.7% (169/685)

483 Background: Sarcomatoid dedifferentiation (sRCC) in metastatic clear-cell renal cell carcinoma (mccRCC) confers aggressive disease and poor prognosis. We maintain a living meta-analysis of first-line immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI)–based combinations in mccRCC (Riaz et al., Eur Urol Oncol 2021), which demonstrated improved survival with ICI-based regimens over sunitinib. Here, we present an updated synthesis focused on the comparative efficacy of ICI combinations in the sarcomatoid subset. Methods: A systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL through October 2025 was performed as part of our living meta-analysis of first-line mccRCC therapy. Eligible phase III RCTs compared ICI combinations (IO/IO or IO/TKI) versus sunitinib, including CheckMate 214, CheckMate 9ER, KEYNOTE-426, CLEAR/KEYNOTE-581, JAVELIN Renal 101, and IMmotion151. Extracted outcomes included overall (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS), and objective (ORR), complete (CR), and partial (PR) response rates. Random-effects meta-analyses generated pooled hazard ratios (HRs) for time-to-event outcomes and risk ratios (RRs) for response rates with 95% confidence intervals. Subgroup interaction analyses compared sarcomatoid versus non-sarcomatoid subgroups, with p < 0.1 considered significant. Results: Six phase III RCTs (n = 5,121; 624 sarcomatoid) were included. Across all ICI-based combinations, ICI therapy improved outcomes versus sunitinib in both sarcomatoid and non-sarcomatoid disease. In the pooled analysis, the OS interaction favored sRCC meeting the prespecified significance threshold for subgroup analyses (HR 0.53 vs 0.68; p-interaction = 0.06 < 0.10), while no significant interaction was seen for PFS. Response outcomes showed the strongest differential benefit, particularly with IO/TKI regimens. IO/IO results were directionally consistent but limited by smaller non-sarcomatoid samples. Conclusions: ICI-based combinations significantly improve survival and response outcomes versus sunitinib in mccRCC. Using a prespecified α = 0.10 for interaction testing, the pooled analysis showed a significant OS interaction and higher response rates in sRCC, indicating enhanced ICI sensitivity. These updated meta-analysis data support ICI regimens as the preferred first-line therapy for mRCC with sarcomatoid de-differentiation. Endpoint Regimen Subgroup (S = sarcomatoid; NS = non-sarcomatoid) Effect (95% CI) p-interaction PFS IO/IO S 0.51 (0.40–0.65) – IO/TKI S vs NS 0.48 (0.36–0.64) vs 0.46 (0.39–0.52) 0.81 OS IO/IO S 0.54 (0.07–4.42) – IO/TKI S vs NS 0.51 (0.17–1.48) vs 0.68 (0.30–1.58) 0.24 ORR IO/IO S 2.93 (0.49–17.37) – IO/TKI S vs NS 2.43 (1.84–3.21) vs 1.95 (1.67–2.28) 0.03 CR IO/IO S 3.81 (0.82–17.71) – IO/TKI S vs NS 5.93 (4.73–7.42) vs 2.85 (0.10–83.73) 0.007 PR IO/IO S 3.48 (1.70–7.11) – IO/TKI S vs NS 2.10 (1.78–2.47) vs 1.75 (1.18–2.61) <0.001

464 Background: Based on LITESPARK-005 trail, Belzutifan was FDA-approved to treat advanced RCC following ICI and a VEGF-TKI. We conducted a retrospective cohort study to report the real-world outcomes of Belzutifan in pre-treated RCC patients. Methods: A retrospective chart review of all patients who received Belzutifan at the Mayo Clinic Comprehensive Cancer Center between Dec 2023 and Sep 2025 was conducted. Patients treated for sporadic RCC were eligible; those with von Hippel–Lindau disease, non-RCC pathologies (e.g., Pheochromocytoma, ovarian cancer) were excluded. Radiologic response was assessed by trained curators using RECIST-defined criteria, approximated through systematic review of radiology reports with clinician adjudication when needed. Progression-free survival (PFS), defined as the time from treatment initiation to radiographic progression or death, was estimated using the Kaplan–Meier method. Non-progressors were censored at the last radiology assessment. Patients who discontinued therapy for non-progression reasons were censored at the last radiology assessment prior to discontinuation. Any-cause hypoxia and anemia were reported using CTCAEv5 definitions. Results: A total of 158 patients were identified; 83 (52.5%) who received Belzutifan for sporadic RCC were included. The remaining were excluded for VHL disease (68, 43%) or other pathologies (7, 4.4%). Median follow up was 12 months, 67% were male, median age was 70 (range 39, 94) with 57 patients (69%) were ≥ 65. 28 patients (34%) had a poor IMDC score at baseline. The cohort received a median of 3 previous lines of therapy (range 1,8). Median treatment duration was 3 months (IQR: 1-9.5). Median PFS was 5.7 months (95% CI, 3.8–8.7). At 12 and 18 months, 23.1% and 13.9% of patients, respectively, remained alive and progression-free. Corresponding OS rates at these time points were 60.2% and 51.5%. A confirmed ORR occurred in 12 patients (14.4%). Hypoxia occurred in 44 (53%) patients, median onset 31 days (range 1–270) and 29 (34.9%) required hospitalizations. Median hemoglobin (Hb) levels at baseline were 12.65 g/dl (range, 7.2-15.5), and 68 (82%) patients developed Hb decline on Belzutifan, 27 (32.5%) required transfusions. Conclusions: In an older, high-risk cohort with higher number of prior lines of therapy, Belzutifan yielded PFS/OS and ORR landmarks comparable to the trial supporting its effectiveness in the real world. Outcomes compared with LITESPARK-005 trial. Variable Real world cohort (Mayo Clinic) LITESPARK-005, Belzutifan arm Median PFS (months, 95% CI) 5.7 (3.8-8.7) 5.6 (3.9-7) 12-month PFS rate (%, 95% CI) 23.1% (14.4-33.4) 33.4% (28.4-33.5) 18-month PFS rate (%, 95% CI) 13.9% (7.7-23.9) 24% (19-29.4) 12-month OS rate (%, 95% CI) 60.2% (48.9-70.8) 67.9% (62.9-72.4) 18-month OS rate (%, 95% CI) 51.5% (40.6-62.9) 55.2% (50-60.1) ORR (%, 95% CI) 14.4% (7.7-23.9) 21.9% (17.8-26.5)

405 Background: Clinical trials are critical to advancing prostate cancer treatment, yet patient enrollment remains a major bottleneck. Despite strong interest in AI for trial matching, real-world use remains limited due to reasons such as complex infrastructure requirements. To address this, we developed a lightweight, scalable AI framework leveraging the Google Healthcare Search API—requiring minimal technical expertise—to automate trial eligibility screening. Methods: We used a pre-trained GPT-5 large language model (LLM) to decompose the eligibility criteria of 13 prostate cancer clinical trials into 269 YES/NO questions, such that for an eligible patient of a given trial, the chart review would yield YES for inclusion and NO for exclusion questions. From 348 patients enrolled in one of the trials, we built a dataset linking each eligibility question to each patient, resulting in 4,947 patient–question pairs (2,034 inclusion pairs with YES labels and 2,913 exclusion pairs with NO labels). The task was framed as binary classification. During evaluation, for each patient–question pair, the LLM extracted search phrases from the question to retrieve relevant EHR information via the Google Healthcare Search API, then used the question and retrieved information to predict YES or NO responses. Performance was measured using accuracy, precision, recall, specificity, and F1 score. Results: Across 4,947 question–patient pairs, our framework achieved 0.81 accuracy, 0.85 precision, 0.65 recall, 0.92 specificity and a F1 score of 0.74. Results for different phases of trials is reported in Table 1, which demonstrates the approach’s robustness across trial phases. Predictions for exclusion criteria were highly precise, while inclusion criteria were more challenging. Most errors were observed in criteria involving complex nested logical conditions, interpretable clinical definitions and data not explicitly measurable or recorded in the EHR (e.g., planned treatments or clinician-assessed scores). Conclusions: This work demonstrates a practical AI framework to support clinical trial matching. The system can identify complex disease states (biochemical recurrence vs radiographic metastasis), castration status (sensitive, resistant) and genomics. Future work should focus on developing human-in-the-loop supervision and improving question decomposition to reduce errors in complex eligibility criteria. Screening performance of the proposed framework across different phases of trials. Trial Phase #Patient-Question Pairs #YES/NO labels Accuracy Precision Recall Specificity F1 score I, II, I/II 4,227 Yes: 1,735 No: 2,492 0.80 0.84 0.66 0.92 0.74 III 720 Yes: 299 No: 421 0.82 0.90 0.63 0.95 0.74 All 4,947 Yes: 2,034 No: 2,913 0.81 0.85 0.65 0.92 0.74 #YES/NO labels: The number of patient-question pairs that are labeled YES/NO among total patient-question pairs of the same row.

Abstract Background The ability of large language models (LLMs) to work collaboratively and screen studies in a systematic review (SR) is under-explored. Hence, we aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of LLMs in automating the process of screening in systematic reviews. Methods This is an observational study which included labeled data (title and abstracts) for five SRs. Originally, two reviewers screened the citations independently for eligibility. A third reviewer cross-checked each citation for quality assurance. GPT-4, Claude-3-Sonnet, and Gemini-Pro-1.0 were used using zero-shot chain-of-thought prompting. Collaborative approaches included (i): conflict resolution using benefit of the doubt, (ii) majority voting using an independent third LLM and (iii) conflict resolution using an informed third LLM. Performance was assessed using accuracy, precision for exclusion, and recall for inclusion. Work saved over samples (WSS) was computed to estimate the reduction in manual human effort. Results A total of 11300 articles were included in this study. The individual models, GPT-4, Claude-3-Sonnet, and Gemini-Pro-1.0 exhibited a high precision for exclusion, achieving 99.7%, 99.7%, and 99.2% and high recall for inclusion achieving 95.5%, 96.6% and 85.7%, respectively. However, the collaborative approach utilizing the two best-performing models (GPT-4 and Claude-3S) achieved an average precision of 99.9% and a recall of 98.5% (across all collaborative approaches). Furthermore, the proposed collaborative approach resulted in an average WSS of 63.5%, compared to the average WSS of 45.2% for individual models. Conversational LLM interactions showed a consistent pattern of results. Limitations This study was limited due to reliance on proprietary models, and evaluation on oncology datasets. Conclusion Evidence shows that collaborative LLMs enable efficient, high-performing screening in systematic reviews, supporting continuous evidence updates. Primary funding source NIH (U24CA265879-01-1) and Carolyn-Ann-Kennedy-Bacon Fund.

Abstract The adoption of electronic health records (EHRs) has transformed health care, improving efficiency and chart accessibility. However, the widespread reliance on unstructured data entry and the lack of standardized documentation frameworks have resulted in significant data fragmentation across health care systems. The prevalence of unstructured data in EHRs limits their potential for clinical decision support, trial matching, real‐world evidence (RWE) generation, and quality measurement. Data fragmentation in health care triggers a cascade of challenges that ultimately compromise patient care. Clinicians face an excessive documentation burden and struggle to locate critical information buried in unstructured notes. Researchers encounter difficulties in extracting reliable clinical data. EHR vendors grapple with standardizing unstructured information for interoperability, and payers are unable to process unstructured clinical data efficiently to support value‐based care models. These challenges are particularly acute in oncology, where complex clinical elements like cancer staging, disease status, and treatment changes require precise, structured documentation. Emerging artificial intelligence (AI) technologies, such as large language models (LLMs) and ambient listening, offer a path to automate structured data generation while reducing the workload on providers. Here, the authors propose LLM‐based workflows that balance automation with clinician verification, streamlining data entry without compromising accuracy. Realizing these benefits requires coordinated efforts among clinicians, researchers, EHR vendors, payers, and policymakers to align regulatory frameworks with AI‐driven innovations. This article outlines a strategy to enhance structured data capture within EHRs, ultimately improving patient care, research, and health care efficiency.

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 .

Abstract INTRODUCTION: Prostate cancer (PC) shows marked heterogeneity in clinical outcomes, from indolent to highly aggressive disease. Alterations in TP53, PTEN, RB1, and DNA damage repair genes are linked to poor patient outcomes, yet how the interaction and co-occurrence of these alterations impact prognosis remains unclear. We leveraged the AACR Project GENIE prostate cancer cohort to assess the prognostic impact of individual and concomitant gene alterations, focusing on key PC drivers (BRCA2, TP53, PTEN, RB1). METHODS: the study was conducted in two stages: (i) identification of candidate alterations at individual gene level through a systematic literature review, followed by analyzing the prevalence and co-occurrence of genes in the AACR Project GENIE Public Release (PR) dataset. (ii) Prognostic analysis of the pre-selected biomarkers in the AACR Project GENIE Biopharma Collaborative (BPC) cohort. Analyses were performed in three clinical settings (entire BPC cohort, n=1114; subgroup of patients with localized disease at diagnosis, n=837; and subgroup of patients with metastatic PC with a biopsy collected before or at the time of mPC, n=455) using two statistical approaches: univariate analysis (UA) and inverse probability weighting using propensity scores (PS). Cox models were applied to estimate overall survival hazard ratios (HRs). RESULTS: after integrating the findings from the systematic review with the analysis of the GENIE PR (n=5684), 107 individual genes and 122 co-occurring alterations were selected for study. In the GENIE BPC (n=1114 patients) 75% were M0 at diagnosis, and 67% presented metastatic PC at any time. Alteration prevalence was: TP53, 25%; PTEN, 15%; BRCA2, 4%; RB1, 4%; co-alterations included, PTEN-TP53 (6.4%), RB1-TP53 (2.1%), PTEN-RB1 (1.3%), and BRCA2-TP53 (1.2%). All four key genes showed a statistically significant prognostic impact in the entire cohort with UA (BRCA2, HR:1.9; TP53, HR:2.6; PTEN, HR:2.4; RB1, HR:4.1, all p&lt;0.001). Results were consistent in the subgroup analysis and when using PS. Additional genes such as FANCA, PIK3CA, and MYC were also associated with poor outcomes. Among co-alterations, BRCA2-TP53 (HR:2.0, p=0.05), RB1-TP53 (HR:3.6, p&lt;0.001), PTEN-TP53 (HR:2.4, p&lt;0.001); PTEN-RB1 (HR:5.5, p&lt;0.001), and PTEN-TP53-RB1 (HR:9.0, p&lt;0.001) were the strongest predictors of poor survival, with consistent effects across subgroups and analytical methods. Other combinations including MYC-TP53 (HR 2.2, p&lt;0.001) and PIK3CA-TP53 (HR 3.2, p&lt;0.001), also showed independent prognostic value. CONCLUSIONS: Genomic alterations in TP53, PTEN, RB1, and BRCA2, alone and in combination, independently associate with poor prognosis. Co-alteration patterns such as PTEN-TP53-RB1 define aggressive molecular subsets. This evidence supports integrating genomic interaction patterns for enhancing clinical risk models and guiding precision patient management. Furthermore, this study highlights the potential of AACR Project GENIE to enable data-driven development of biomarker-informed patient care strategies. Citation Format: Pablo Cresta Morgado, Victor Navarro, Guillermo Vilacampa, Haitham Alatoom, Manuel Ramos del Rio, Irbaz Riaz, Shawn Sweeney, Nikolaus Schultz, Ken Kehl, Gregory Riely, Wasim Abida, Katherine Panageas, Deborah Schrag, Philippe Bedard, Christine Micheel, Xindi Guo, Chelsea Nayan, Rodrigo Dientsmann, Joaquin Mateo. Genomic prognostic biomarkers in prostate cancer from the AACR GENIE cohort [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the AACR Special Conference in Cancer Research: Innovations in Prostate Cancer Research and Treatment; 2026 Jan 20-22; Philadelphia PA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2026;86(2_Suppl):Abstract nr A013.

399 Background: The standard of care for resectable GEA adenocarcinomas is perioperative chemotherapy with the FLOT (fluorouracil, leucovorin, oxaliplatin, docetaxel) regimen. Recent studies investigating the addition of checkpoint inhibitors (CPIs) to perioperative chemotherapy have shown mixed results. An NMA can leverage both direct and indirect comparisons to evaluate the relative efficacies of available regimens in this setting. Methods: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Science and CENTRAL were searched until August 27th, 2025. Eligible studies included phase 3 randomized trials evaluating perioperative or neoadjuvant chemotherapy +/- CPIs ± radiation in resectable GEA. The primary outcomes were disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS). Hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated using a frequentist NMA framework. Results: Fifteen trials including 8072 patients were analyzed. For DFS, perioperative durvalumab + FLOT (dFLOT) ranked highest (P-score = 0.99), followed by FLOT (P-score = 0.84) (HR for dFLOT vs. FLOT was 0.71, 95% CI 0.58-0.86). dFLOT also ranked higher than perioperative pembrolizumab + cisplatin and fluorouracil/capecitabine (KN-585), though this comparison was not statistically significant (HR 0.65, 95% CI 0.40-1.04). Compared with CROSS, dFLOT showed superior DFS (HR of 0.48, 95% CI 0.36-0.63). For OS, dFLOT ranked the highest (P-score=0.95) and was superior to CROSS (HR 0.57, 95% CI 0.42-0.77). While dFLOT appeared favorable versus FLOT (HR 0.78, 95% CI 0.62-0.98), this finding was primarily driven by MATTERHORN, which did not meet its prespecified OS significance boundary (P = 0.03 vs threshold P < 0.0001), and the proportional hazards assumption was violated. Similarly, no significant OS difference was observed between dFLOT and the KN-585 arms (HR 0.75, 95% CI 0.45-1.23). Conclusions: In this NMA, perioperative FLOT remained the benchmark regimen for resectable GEA. dFLOT has shown promising early results, ranking the highest for DFS and showing favorable, but not statistically definitive OS trends in comparison to FLOT. Importantly, the network enabled indirect comparisons not tested in head-to-head trials, demonstrating that dFLOT ranked above pembrolizumab+CF/CX (KN-585) without reaching statistical significance, and also outperformed CROSS. However, these findings should be interpreted with caution, as they are primarily driven MATTERHORN data in which OS did not cross the prespecified threshold and proportional hazards assumptions were violated. Perioperative immunotherapy combinations appear promising, but final MATTERHORN results and further confirmatory studies are needed before dFLOT can be considered as a new standard of care.