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 .

e13661 Background: The process of data abstraction and curation represents a significant proportion of clinical trial costs, requiring up to $30,000 per patient depending on the data complexity. Research variables such as stage, performance status (PS), and cancer disease status are typically present in the electronic health record (EHR) in free text but require abstraction for research use. Structuring these real-world data (RWD) in an exportable format utilizing minimum common oncology data elements (mCODE) could reduce the need for abstraction and the potential for erroneous transcription that has been shown to be 5.51-7.72% in a meta-analysis. We assessed the feasibility, availability, and accuracy of RWD for use across Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology sites by comparing RWD to matched electronic case report form data (CRF data) at 2 sites where EHR-integrated tools collect structured RWD for all solid tumor patients. Methods: Stage, PS, and cancer disease status (CDS) were extracted from the EHR as RWD and from eCRFs for 100 patients enrolled in National Clinical Trials Network trials across multiple disease sites from 2022 through 2025. Data from baseline and day 1 of cycles 1-4 were compared (500 encounter timepoints). Results: Stage, PS, and CDS were available from RWD more often than CRFs (85 vs 70 / 100 patients, 436 vs 416 / 500 encounters, and 345 vs 83 / 500 encounters respectively). When stage was present in both (n = 58), there were 5 mismatches (8.6%). PS had 22 mismatches (4%) and CDS had 45 mismatches (11.4%). After correcting for differences in CRF vs RWD definitions, CDS mismatches dropped to 1.2% (n = 4). Discordance between RWD and CRF data was related to differences in the timepoint of data collection (e.g., systemic staging scans completed after the initial consult), CRF data obtained from other EHR notes (e.g., oncology research nurse notes containing PS), inherent discordance between RWD and CRF data choices (e.g., responding vs complete or partial response), and failure to update EHR data capture tool fields. RWD were available 21 days (median) before CRF data. Conclusions: Our results suggest that RWD captured directly within clinical notes match CRF data, are more often present, and are available sooner. RWD could serve as a data source for trials, decreasing the need for manual curation and cost. Although some discordance exists, overall rates are low and close to the published error rate for abstraction.

TPS577 Background: Pembrolizumab (pembro) for one year following resection of localized high risk clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) in a phase 3 trial resulted in improvement in relapse-free survival and overall survival (Choueiri, NEJM 2024). However, 20% of patients still experienced a relapse within 2 years with no biomarker yet identified to predict who will respond to or needs adjuvant therapy. Addition of a tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) to immunotherapy (IO) is a standard of care in metastatic ccRCC, but to date no studies have addressed the addition of a TKI to IO in the adjuvant setting. Subsequently, phase 3 STRIKE! was developed to explore the benefit of 6 months of tivozanib (tivo) added to pembro vs pembro alone in the adjuvant setting for resected high risk ccRCC. Methods: Eligible patients have an ECOG performance status ≤2 and a histologically confirmed diagnosis of RCC with clear cell component with or without sarcomatoid features after complete resection of the primary tumor, with pathology revealing pT2 grade 4 disease or any grade ≥ T3 or TxN1. Patients are also eligible if they developed metastasis within a year after resection and then underwent resection, definitive radiation or ablation of solid, isolated, soft tissue metastases (excluding brain and bone lesions) with no evidence of active disease (M1NED). Patients will be randomized 1:1 to intravenous pembro for 48 weeks with or without the addition of tivo 1.34 mg by mouth daily D1-21 q28D for 6 months stratified by stage (T2T3 vs T4/N1 vs M1NED) . With no limit on dose holds or interruptions of tivo, dose reductions of tivo to 0.89 mg D1-21 q28D or tivo 0.89 mg every other day are allowed. No dose reductions of pembro are permitted. Following baseline imaging to confirm no disease, imaging is performed every 12 weeks for first year, every 16 weeks for second year, every 24 weeks for third year and then annually until 5 years after registration or progression. The primary endpoint will be disease-free survival (DFS) as assessed by investigator, with secondary endpoints being overall survival, safety and tolerability. The study will enroll 1040 patients to detect a minimum detectable hazard ratio of 0.67 (24-month DFS 84% in experimental arm) with 90% power. Quality of life analysis will compare global quality of life and fatigue between the two arms. Imaging and specimens will be banked for future research. The study opened to accrual in April 2025 and at this time 106 patients have enrolled. Clinical trial information: NCT06661720 .

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 .

4516 Background: Ipilimumab/nivolumab (ipi/nivo) is a standard of care first-line treatment (tx) for patients (pts) with mccRCC; however, ideal timing of subsequent immunotherapy txs are not well defined. We performed an analysis of patients initially treated with ipi/nivo and subsequent cohort assignments on PDIGREE (A031704). Methods: The PDIGREE trial treated pts with IMDC intermediate/poor risk mccRCC with first-line ipi/nivo (Step 1) at NCTN sites (categorized as academic (A), academic regional (R), and community (C)). Subsequent management was based on iRECIST responses at 12 weeks: pts with complete response (CR) received 1-year nivo maintenance; pts with progressive disease (PD) received cabozantinib (cabo) monotherapy, pts with non-CR/non-PD were randomized to nivo with or without cabo (for primary endpoint of overall survival [OS], target sample size was 1175). Enrollment was held when the randomized sample target was reached. Pts with unresolved toxicity at week 22 were managed off protocol. Step 1 pt demographics, assignments into Step 2, and adverse event (AE) data are presented. Descriptive statistics were used, and cohorts were compared using a chi-square test. These data were released with DSMB approval and do not inform the primary OS endpoint (1EP). Results: From May 2019 to May 2024, 1111 pts were enrolled and treated with ipi/nivo. Pt characteristics included median age 64.0 years (range 29.0-86.0); 819 (73.7%) males; White (85.1%), Hispanic (10.4%), Black (4.2%), and American Indian/Native Hawaiian (1.3%); 849 (76.8%) intermediate risk/257 (23.2%) poor risk; 458 (41.2%) at Academic, 113 (10.2%) at Regional, and 540 (48.6%) at Community centers; and 603 (54.3%) with de novo metastases. 364 pts (33%) stopped tx in Step 1: 160 (44%) for AEs, 46 (13%) for PD/clinical PD/suspected PD, 42 (12%) withdrawals, 39 (11%) alternative txs, 37 (10%) deaths on the study, 12 (3%) other complicating disease, 8 (2%) MD decision and 19 (5%) other reasons. Of the 37 deaths, 15 (1.4%) grade 5 SAEs were reported, 6 of which were due to PD. Of 747 (67%) pts registered to Step 2 at 3 months, 9 (1.2%) achieved CR, and 141 (18.9%) pts were assigned to the PD cohort. 597 pts (80%) were randomized for the 1EP, notable with fewer pts with poor risk [(21 vs 27%, p = 0.01] and bone metastases [24.5% vs 34.2%, p = 0.0007] compared to Step 1 pts who discontinued tx. Gr 3/4 tx-related AEs in 314/1093 (29%) evaluable pts included diarrhea/colitis (8%), transaminase elevation (3%), rash (2%), adrenal insufficiency (2%), fatigue (2%), and hypophysitis (1%). Conclusions: The PDIGREE trial enrolled a representative US-based population with mccRCC. Step 1 pt characteristics and associated outcomes with induction ipi/nivo reveal new insights into the tolerability and tx response of 1L ipi/nivo. Clinical trial information: NCT03793166 .

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

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 .

The NCCN Guidelines for Testicular Cancer provide recommendations for the multidisciplinary approach to the diagnostic workup, treatment, and follow-up for testicular germ cell tumors, including both seminoma and nonseminoma. These NCCN Guidelines Insights discuss the current treatment recommendations and supporting clinical data for seminomas as presented in Version 2.2025 of the NCCN Guidelines for Testicular Cancer.