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 .

Despite curative-intent radical cystectomy (RC), patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) are at high risk of recurrence. Biomarkers are urgently needed to refine prognostication and selection of appropriate perioperative systemic therapies. Our aim was to evaluate the prognostic and predictive value of tumor-informed circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) results in a multicenter cohort of patients with bladder cancer who underwent RC. We performed a retrospective analysis of real-world data for a commercial ctDNA test (Signatera; Natera, Austin, TX, USA) performed in 167 patients (852 plasma samples) before RC and during molecular residual disease (MRD; adjuvant decision) and surveillance windows. We assessed the correlation between recurrence and ctDNA status before and after RC using Cox regression analysis. During study-defined postoperative MRD and surveillance windows, detectable ctDNA was associated with shorter disease-free survival (DFS) when compared to undetectable ctDNA (MRD: hazard ratio 6.93; p < 0.001; surveillance: hazard ratio 23.02; p < 0.001). Of note, patients with undetectable ctDNA did not appear to benefit from adjuvant therapy (p = 0.34). Detectable ctDNA in the pre-RC (p = 0.045), MRD (p = 0.002), and surveillance (p < 0.001) windows was the only risk factor independently associated with shorter DFS. Limitations include the retrospective and nonrandomized nature of the study. ctDNA testing in patients with bladder cancer undergoing RC was prognostic and potentially predictive. Identification of patients at high risk of recurrence may aid in patient counseling and decision-making. We found that outcomes for patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer are strongly linked to detection of tumor DNA in blood samples. The results show the value of tumor-informed testing for tumor DNA in blood for decisions on the best treatment for each individual patient.

In the recent decade, analysis of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) has improved cancer care by allowing for rapid detection of actionable molecular targets. A new generation of circulating DNA tests is now becoming available commercially. These tests are characterized by a superior limit of detection of 0.01% vaF or better, allowing for the detection of radiologically occult molecular residual disease (MRD). MRD tests have the potential to revolutionize neoadjuvant and adjuvant treatment. In addition, these tests can be used as tumor markers to assess disease response. We reviewed the current evidence for the use of high-sensitivity MRD assays with particular focus on the genitourinary tumors. Multiple studies have now been reported in urothelial, renal, and recently testicular carcinoma. We find that the sensitivity varies across tumor types in the adjuvant setting and may reach a high of 100% in urothelial cancer. Specificity in tumor-informed MRD appears to be preserved across tumor types (98%-100%). Several trials are now prospectively validating MRD testing in biomarker integral studies, mainly in urothelial carcinoma.

Multiple studies have confirmed a high prevalence of prognostic germline mutations in prostate cancer. In recognition, the NCCN guidelines and recommendations for genetic counselling (GC) in prostate cancer patients were expanded. Data on prostate cancer patients at a single tertiary cancer center from January 2019 - June 2019 were queried. The cohort of patients from the queried list were evaluated for their eligibility for genetic testing. From the patients that were eligible for testing, the rate of referrals was ascertained. A 10-item questionnaire was concurrently sent to providers to understand germline genetic testing patterns and potential barriers. Only 39% of the eligible prostate cancer patients were referred, with testing completed in 11% with indications. 30% of providers reported they would be comfortable completing genetic counseling themselves. The identified barriers to provide genetic testing themselves were lack of time and expertise (50%). Other barriers included: lack of genetic counselor workforce (70%), lack of knowledge of genetic testing and the inadequate co-ordination of referrals (60%). In this retrospective study, many patients met the criteria for GC, however, the referrals for this patient population are inconsistent, and only a handful of the eligible patients completed testing. Identified barriers were provider's knowledge and comfort with guidelines and testing, systemic bottlenecks such as limited capacity of genetic counsellors, and the creation of improved workflows.

Molecular profiling of clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) tumors of patients in a clinical trial has identified distinct transcriptomic signatures with predictive value, yet data in non–clear cell variants (nccRCC) are lacking. We examined the transcriptional profiles of RCC tumors representing key molecular pathways, from a multi-institutional, real-world patient cohort, including ccRCC and centrally reviewed nccRCC samples. ccRCC had increased angiogenesis signature scores compared with the heterogeneous group of nccRCC tumors, while cell cycle, fatty acid oxidation/AMPK signaling, and fatty acid synthesis/pentose phosphate signature scores were increased in one or more nccRCC subtypes. Among both ccRCC and nccRCC tumors, T effector scores statistically correlated with increased immune cell infiltration and were more commonly associated with immunotherapy-related markers (PD-L1 ⁺ /TMB ^hi /MSI ^hi ). In conclusion, this study provides evidence of differential gene transcriptional profiles among ccRCC versus nccRCC tumors, providing insights for optimizing personalized and histology-specific therapeutic strategies for patients with advanced RCC.

PURPOSE: Tumor-informed circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) has shown promise as a biomarker for treatment response monitoring (TRM) in a variety of tumor types, with the potential to improve clinical outcomes. We evaluated ctDNA status and dynamics during surveillance and as part of TRM with clinical outcomes in both patients with clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) and non–clear cell renal cell carcinoma (nccRCC) treated with standard-of-care immunotherapy or targeted therapy regimens. METHODS: This was a multicenter retrospective analysis of real-world data obtained from commercial ctDNA testing (Signatera, Natera, Inc) in patients with metastatic RCC. Clinical data were collected on International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium (IMDC) risk category, pathologic subtype, and grade. RESULTS: The cohort comprised 92 patients (490 plasma samples) including both clear cell and non–clear cell histological subtypes (ccRCC: 79.3%; nccRCC: 14.1%; unclassified: 6.5%). Most of the patients belonged to the IMDC intermediate-risk category (75%, 69/92). Median follow-up was 10 months (range, 4.2-25.8). ctDNA dynamics were assessed in 56 patients on treatment, and ctDNA status was analyzed in the surveillance cohort (n = 32 patients). Serial ctDNA negativity or clearance correlated with improved progression-free survival (PFS) compared with those who became or were persistently ctDNA positive on therapy (hazard ratio [HR], 3.2; P = .012). In the surveillance cohort, patients with positive ctDNA longitudinally experienced significantly inferior PFS (HR, 18; P = .00026) compared with those who were serially negative. CONCLUSION: Collectively, we show that serial ctDNA monitoring provides prognostic information for patients undergoing treatment or surveillance, and our findings demonstrate high concordance between ctDNA status/dynamics and subsequent clinical outcomes.