Search

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

BackgroundEnfortumab vedotin (EV) is an antibody-drug conjugate approved for patients with treatment-refractory advanced urothelial carcinoma (aUC), however data on biomarkers of response is lacking.MethodsWe retrospectively identified all aUC patients at our institution who received EV monotherapy and had next-generation sequencing (NGS) data available. Patients were considered responders if they had a complete response or partial response on restaging scans during treatment. Observed response rate (ORR) was evaluated by local investigator and compared between responders and non-responders using Chi-squared test. A univariable analysis was conducted using the Cox proportional hazard test to assess for associations between baseline characteristics and most common somatic alterations (in ≥10% of patients) with patient survival outcomes [progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS)]. Somatic alterations were then individually evaluated in separate multivariate models while accounting for patient and clinical characteristics using Cox regression models.ResultsAmong 29 patients treated with EV monotherapy, 27 had available NGS data. Median age was 70, 24 (83%) were men, 19 (62%) were Caucasian, 15 (52%) had pure urothelial histology and 22 (76%) had primary tumor in the bladder. ORR was 41%, and PFS and OS for the overall cohort were 5.1 months and 10.2 months. Responders were enriched among patients with TP53, KDM6A and MDM2 alterations. Patients with these alterations, as well as those with composite TP53/MDM2 alterations (alterations in either TP53 or MDM2), also had increased ORR with EV treatment compared to patients without these alterations. In the univariable analysis, baseline albumin level ≥ 3.0g/dL and presence of composite TP53/MDM2 alterations were associated with a prolonged OS. Baseline ECOG 0/1, TP53 alterations and TP53/MDM2 alterations were associated with a prolonged PFS. In the multivariable analysis, TP53 and TP53/MDM2 alterations were genomic markers predictive of improved PFS after accounting for the relevant clinical characteristics.ConclusionIn this single-center retrospective analysis of aUC patients treated with EV, presence of TP53 or MDM2 somatic alterations, lower ECOG PS scores (ECOG 0 or 1) and higher albumin levels (≥3 g/dL) were associated with improved outcomes with EV treatment. Prospective and external validation of these findings in larger cohorts is warranted.

Background Exercise may improve clinical and quality of life outcomes for men with prostate cancer. No randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have examined the feasibility, safety, and acceptability of remote exercise training in men with metastatic castrate‐resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). Methods We conducted a pilot RCT (1:1:1 aerobic or resistance exercise 3x/week or usual care) to determine the feasibility, safety, and acceptability of remotely monitored exercise over 12 weeks in 25 men with mCRPC. A prescribed exercise program was based on baseline testing including high‐ and moderate‐intensity aerobic exercise or resistance exercise completed at a local exercise facility. Feasibility was based on attendance, adherence, and tolerance; safety on adverse events; and acceptability on participant interviews. Results Between March 2016 and March 2020, 25 patients were randomized (8 aerobic, 7 resistance, and 10 control). Twenty‐three men (82%) completed the 12‐week study. Men who completed the remote intervention attempted 90% and 96% of prescribed aerobic and resistance training sessions, respectively, and 86% and 88% of attempted sessions were completed as or more than prescribed. We observed changes in performance tests that corresponded with the exercise prescription. No safety concerns were identified. Ninety percent of participants interviewed were satisfied with the program and would recommend it to others. Conclusions Remotely monitored exercise training is feasible, safe, and acceptable in men with mCRPC; there was no difference in these outcomes by mode of exercise. Through this research, we provide direction and rationale for future studies of exercise and clinical outcomes in patients with metastatic prostate cancer., We conducted a 3‐arm pilot randomized controlled trial to determine the feasibility, safety, and acceptability of two modes of remotely monitored exercise (resistance or aerobic) over 12 weeks compared to usual care in 25 men with metastatic castrate‐resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). We report that remotely monitored exercise training is feasible, safe, and acceptable in this patient population, with a high satisfaction rate. Through this research we provide direction and rationale for future studies of exercise and clinical outcomes for people with metastatic cancer.

BackgroundUrothelial carcinoma (UC) is a common malignancy with significant associated mortality. Recent clinical trials suggest an emerging role for HER2-targeted therapy. Testing for HER2 expression in UC is not part of current routine clinical practice. In consequence, the prevalence of HER2 expression in UC is not well defined.MethodsA systematic literature review (SLR) was conducted to characterize HER2 expression in both locally advanced unresectable or metastatic (LA/mUC) and earlier stage UC, classified as HER2+, HER2-low, HER2-. HER2+ was defined as an immunohistochemistry (IHC) score of 3+ or IHC 2+ and ISH/FISH+. HER2-low was defined as an IHC score of 2+ and ISH/FISH- or IHC 1+. HER2- was defined as an IHC score of 0. Weighted averages were calculated to generate an estimate of the population prevalence.ResultsA total of 88 studies were identified, with 45, 30, and 13 studies investigating LA/mUC, earlier stage UC, and mixed stage/unspecified, respectively. The most common assays used were Dako HercepTest and Ventana Pathway anti-HER2/neu (4B5) for IHC to assess HER2 protein expression; Abbott PathVysion HER-2 DNA Probe Kit, FoundationOne CDx, and Guardant360 CDx for assessing HER2 gene amplification. The most frequently cited scoring guidelines were ASCO/CAP guidelines for breast cancer and gastric cancer, though most studies defined their own criteria for HER2 expression. Using the pre-specified definition, HER2+ prevalence ranged from 6.7% to 37.5% with a weighted average of 13.0% in LA/mUC. Only 1 study presented data that could be classified as HER2+ based on pre-specified criteria in earlier stage UC patients, and this study represented a likely outlier, at 76.0%.ConclusionThe results from this SLR help to shed light on HER2 expression in UC, a potentially clinically relevant biomarker-driven subpopulation for emerging HER2-directed regimens. Results of this SLR illuminate the variability in how HER2+ status expression levels are being assessed and how HER2+ is defined. Consensus on standardized HER2 testing and scoring criteria is paramount to better understand the clinical relevance in patients with UC.

Key Points Question Is convalescent plasma therapy associated with improved outcomes of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and hematologic cancer? Findings In this cohort study of 966 patients with hematologic cancer and COVID-19, after adjustment for potential confounding factors, convalescent plasma treatment was associated with a significantly improved 30-day mortality in the 143 individuals who received it. This association remained significant after propensity score matching. Meaning These findings suggest a potential survival benefit in the administration of convalescent plasma to patients with hematologic cancers and COVID-19., Importance COVID-19 is a life-threatening illness for many patients. Prior studies have established hematologic cancers as a risk factor associated with particularly poor outcomes from COVID-19. To our knowledge, no studies have established a beneficial role for anti–COVID-19 interventions in this at-risk population. Convalescent plasma therapy may benefit immunocompromised individuals with COVID-19, including those with hematologic cancers. Objective To evaluate the association of convalescent plasma treatment with 30-day mortality in hospitalized adults with hematologic cancers and COVID-19 from a multi-institutional cohort. Design, Setting, and Participants This retrospective cohort study using data from the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium registry with propensity score matching evaluated patients with hematologic cancers who were hospitalized for COVID-19. Data were collected between March 17, 2020, and January 21, 2021. Exposures Convalescent plasma treatment at any time during hospitalization. Main Outcomes and Measures The main outcome was 30-day all-cause mortality. Cox proportional hazards regression analysis with adjustment for potential confounders was performed. Hazard ratios (HRs) are reported with 95% CIs. Secondary subgroup analyses were conducted on patients with severe COVID-19 who required mechanical ventilatory support and/or intensive care unit admission. Results A total of 966 individuals (mean [SD] age, 65 [15] years; 539 [55.8%] male) were evaluated in this study; 143 convalescent plasma recipients were compared with 823 untreated control patients. After adjustment for potential confounding factors, convalescent plasma treatment was associated with improved 30-day mortality (HR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.37-0.97). This association remained significant after propensity score matching (HR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.29-0.92). Among the 338 patients admitted to the intensive care unit, mortality was significantly lower in convalescent plasma recipients compared with nonrecipients (HR for propensity score–matched comparison, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.20-0.80). Among the 227 patients who required mechanical ventilatory support, mortality was significantly lower in convalescent plasma recipients compared with nonrecipients (HR for propensity score–matched comparison, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.14-0.72). Conclusions and Relevance The findings of this cohort study suggest a potential survival benefit in the administration of convalescent plasma to patients with hematologic cancers and COVID-19., This cohort study evaluated the association of convalescent plasma treatment with 30-day mortality in hospitalized adults with hematologic cancers and COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Over the past decade, immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have increasingly become the standard of care for various advanced malignancies, including metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma (mccRCC). Most ICIs currently used in clinical practice inhibit the interaction between the programmed cell death protein-1 (PD-1) and programmed death ligand-1 (PD-L1) complex. A deeper understanding of this interaction and PD-L1 expression in tumors has led to more effective therapies in the treatment of advanced cancers, but the debate regarding the utility of PD-L1 as a biomarker continues. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to systematically evaluate the role of PD-L1 in mccRCC in terms of expression and treatment implications. METHODS: Following PRISMA guidelines, we performed a systematic literature search using PubMed and Embase through August 31, 2020. Titles and abstracts were screened to identify articles for full-text review. A hand search was also performed using Google Scholar and the bibliography to relevant studies. RESULTS: A total of 26 articles were identified, and relevant data were extracted and organized. The available information regarding PD-L1 expression in mccRCC from both prospective clinical trials and retrospective studies were summarized. We discussed the utility of PD-L1 as a predictive and prognostic biomarker in mccRCC, its association with other potential biomarkers, and the pattern and level of expression of PD-L1 in primary versus metastatic tumors. CONCLUSIONS: Although significant progress has been made, much more remains to be learned regarding the differences between PD-L1+ and PD-L1- ccRCC tumors, in terms of both the underlying biology and clinical responses to immunotherapy and other agents.

Background DNA damage repair mutations (DDRm) are common in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). The optimal standard therapy for this population is not well described. Methods A multi-institutional, retrospective study of patients with mCRPC and DDRm was conducted. Patient data, including systemic therapies and responses, were collected. The decline in prostate-specific antigen ≥ 50% from baseline (PSA50) and overall survival (OS) from the treatment start were compared by mutation and treatment type. A multivariable Cox proportional hazards model for OS was created that controlled for DDRm, first-line treatment received for mCRPC, and clinical factors. Results The most common DDRm observed among 149 men with mCRPC were BRCA1/2 (44%), CDK12 (32%), and ATM (15%). The majority received first-line abiraterone (40%) or enzalutamide (30%). The PSA50 rate with first-line abiraterone was lower for CDK12 (52%) than BRCA1/2 (89%; P = .02). After first-line abiraterone or enzalutamide, the median OS was longest with second-line carboplatin-chemotherapy (38 months) in comparison with abiraterone or enzalutamide (33 months), docetaxel (17 months), or cabazitaxel (11 months; P = .02). PSA50 responses to carboplatin-based chemotherapy were higher for BRCA1/2 (79%) than ATM (14%; P = .02) or CDK12 (38%; P = .08). In a multivariable analysis, neither the specific DDRm type nor the first-line treatment was associated with improved OS. Conclusions Responses to standard therapies were generally superior in patients with BRCA1/2 mutations and inferior in patients with ATM or CDK12 mutations. The DDRm type did not independently predict OS. After progression on first-line abiraterone or enzalutamide, carboplatin-based chemotherapy was associated with the longest OS. These findings may inform treatment discussions and clinical trial design and require prospective validation.

PURPOSE: Current first-line treatment options in patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC) unfit to receive cisplatin-containing chemotherapy include PD-1/L1 inhibitors and carboplatin-containing chemotherapy. However, the optimal sequencing of these therapies remains unclear. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We conducted a multicenter retrospective analysis. Consecutive cisplatin-ineligible patients with mUC treated with first-line carboplatin-containing chemotherapy followed sequentially by second-line PD-1/L1 inhibitor, or the reverse order, were included. Patient demographics, objective response, time to treatment failure for first-line (TTF1) and second-line (TTF2) therapy, interval between end of first-line and initiation of second-line treatment (Interval(1L-2L)), and overall survival (OS) were collected. Multivariate analysis was conducted to examine the association of sequencing on OS. RESULTS: In this multicenter retrospective study, we identified 146 cisplatin-ineligible patients with mUC treated with first-line (1L) PD-1/L1 inhibitor therapy followed by second-line (2L) carboplatin-containing chemotherapy (Group 1, n=43) or the reverse sequence (Group 2, n=103). In the overall cohort, median age was 72, 76% were men, and 18% had liver metastasis. In both groups, objective response rates were higher with carboplatin-containing chemotherapy (45.6% 1L, 44.2% 2L) compared to PD-1/L1 inhibitors (9.3% 1L, 21.3% 2L). On multivariate analysis, treatment sequence was not associated with overall survival (HR 1.05, p=0.85). Site of metastasis was the only factor significantly associated with overall survival (p=0.002). CONCLUSIONS: In this biomarker-unselected cohort of cisplatin-ineligible patients with mUC, PD-1/L1 inhibitor followed by carboplatin-containing chemotherapy and the reverse sequence had comparable OS.

IntroductionTumor mutational burden (TMB) and APOBEC mutational signatures are potential prognostic markers in patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma (aUC). Their utility in predicting outcomes to specific therapies in aUC warrants additional study.MethodsWe retrospectively reviewed consecutive UC cases assessed with UCSF500, an institutional assay that uses hybrid capture enrichment of target DNA to interrogate 479 common cancer genes. Hypermutated tumors (HM), defined as having TMB ≥10 mutations/Mb, were also assessed for APOBEC mutational signatures, while non-HM (NHM) tumors were not assessed due to low TMB. The logrank test was used to determine if there were differences in overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) among patient groups of interest.ResultsAmong 75 aUC patients who had UCSF500 testing, 46 patients were evaluable for TMB, of which 19 patients (41%) had HM tumors and the rest had NHM tumors (27 patients). An additional 29 patients had unknown TMB status. Among 19 HM patients, all 16 patients who were evaluable for analysis had APOBEC signatures. HM patients (N=19) were compared with NHM patients (N=27) and had improved OS from diagnosis (125.3 months vs 35.7 months, p=0.06) but inferior OS for patients treated with chemotherapy (7.0 months vs 13.1 months, p=0.04). Patients with APOBEC (N=16) were compared with remaining 56 patients, comprised of 27 NHM patients and 29 patients with unknown TMB, showing APOBEC patients to have improved OS from diagnosis (125.3 months vs 44.5 months, p=0.05) but inferior OS for patients treated with chemotherapy (7.0 months vs 13.1 months, p=0.05). Neither APOBEC nor HM status were associated with response to immunotherapy.ConclusionsIn a large, single-institution aUC cohort assessed with UCSF500, an institutional NGS panel, HM tumors were common and all such tumors that were evaluated for mutational signature analysis had APOBEC signatures. APOBEC signatures and high TMB were prognostic of improved OS from diagnosis and both analyses also predicted inferior outcomes with chemotherapy treatment.

556 Background: Recent clinical trials suggest an emerging role for HER2-targeted therapy in locally advanced and metastatic UC (LA/mUC). The prevalence of HER2 expression and gene amplification (encoded by ERBB2) in LA/mUC has not been well defined, as testing for HER2 expression in LA/mUC is not part of current routine practice and is not standardized. We report (1) findings of a systematic literature review (SLR) of HER2 status in LA/mUC and (2) preliminary results of an ongoing evaluation of HER2 status in UC assaying HER2 protein expression by immunohistochemistry (IHC) and gene amplification by in situ hybridization (ISH). Methods: (1) The SLR used databases PubMed and EMBASE to identify English-language studies of LA/mUC HER2 status published Jan2000 – Oct2021. We used the following definitions: HER2-positive (HER2+) was defined as IHC 3+, or IHC 2+ with HER2 gene amplification (Amp+). HER2-low was defined as IHC 2+/Amp–, or as IHC 1+. HER2-zero was defined as IHC 0. Weighted averages were calculated to estimate population prevalence. (2) Commercially sourced, formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded surgical resections of primary UC were evaluated by trained readers for HER2 protein expression using the VENTANA HER2/neu (4B5) Rabbit Monoclonal Primary Antibody IHC assay and for HER2 gene amplification using the VENTANA HER2 Dual ISH DNA Probe Cocktail that detects both ERBB2 and its residing chromosome, chromosome 17 (Chr17), using a two-color chromogenic stain. HER2 IHC staining was scored based on an established scoring algorithm for gastric cancer. HER2 gene amplification was defined by a HER2/Chr17 ratio ≥2.0. Results: (1) Of 744 records screened for the SLR, 45 studies reported HER2 status, including 10,602 patients (pts) with LA/mUC. A variety of assays and scoring guidelines were used. In the 4 studies (862 pts) reporting data applicable to our predefined criteria for HER2 status, the percentage of HER2+ ranged from 6.7% to 37.5% (weighted average, 13.1%; 95% CI, 7.3%–18.8%). (2) Of 252 UC samples evaluated, 38 were HER2+ (15.1%; 95% CI, 11.2%–20.0%), 74 were HER2-low (29.4%; 95% CI, 24.1%–35.3%), and 140 were HER2-zero (55.5%; 95% CI: 49.4%–61.6%; Table). The HER2 gene was amplified in 31 (12.3%), among them 24 (77.4%) at stage III or IV muscle-invasive UC (MIUC). Conclusions: The SLR revealed wide variability of HER2 status in LA/mUC, highlighting a lack of standardized methods for assessing and defining HER2 status. In our large study using standardized laboratory methods, 44% of UC samples were HER2+ or HER2-low, and HER2 status distribution was consistent with that reported for pts with LA/mUC. Results suggest a potentially important role for HER2-targeted therapy for UC. [Table: see text]

478 Background: Erdafitinib is FDA-approved for patients (pts) with advanced urothelial carcinoma (aUC) with FGFR2/3 mutation or fusion and progression after platinum-based chemotherapy. It is postulated that FGFR3-altered aUC may be a “cold tumor” and associated with non-T cell-inflamed phenotype and, thus, may be less responsive to ICI. We hypothesized that pts with aUC that harbor FGFR2/3 alterations would have lower response and shorter survival on ICI. Methods: We performed a retrospective cohort study of pts with aUC treated with ICI and available genomic data in 11 institutions; pts with pure non-UC, treated with combinations or on clinical trial were excluded. Outcomes (overall response rate [ORR], progression free survival [PFS] and overall survival [OS] were compared in pts with and without FGFR2/3 alterations. PFS and OS was compared using Cox proportional hazards. All analyses were performed in the overall population and also categorized by treatment line (1st line [1L] vs salvage [2+L]). Multivariable models were adjusted for an internally developed risk score for 1L and Bellmunt risk score for 2+L; p

534 Background: ICIs are frequently used as therapy in mUC, but only a minority of patients (pts) respond to treatment. High TMB is associated with improved outcomes to ICIs. However, much is unknown about biomarkers associated with ICI outcomes in pts with high and low TMB respectively. Methods: We retrospectively identified mUC pts with known TMB status and available next generation sequencing (NGS) results treated with ICI monotherapy at our institution. TMB high was defined as ≥ 10 mutations/Mb, with the rest being TMB low. Somatic alterations present in ≥10% pts ( ARID1A, CCND1, CDKN2A, CDKN2B, ERBB2, FGF3, FGF4, FGF19, FGFR3, KDM6A, MDM2, MLL2, PIK3CA, RB1, TERTp, TP53, TSC1), and presence of DNA damage response (DDR) alterations were assessed as biomarkers of interest. Within the TMB-high and TMB-low pt groups we separately assessed patients based on the presence or absence of these somatic alterations, APOBEC mutational signature and high PD-L1 expression. Log rank test was used to determine differences in overall survival (OS) and progression free survival (PFS) among these groups. P-value ≤0.05 was considered significant. Results: Among 107 mUC pts treated with ICI monotherapy between 12/2014 and 3/2022 who had NGS data (UCSF500, FoundationOne, Strata), 85 pts had TMB data, including 47 TMB high pts and 38 TMB low pts. Among 85 pts with known TMB status, median age was 76 yrs, the majority were male (55, 65%), Caucasian (57, 67%), had pure urothelial histology (46, 55%) and were treated with ICIs in frontline setting (47, 55%). Median OS was 17.2 mos and median PFS was 3.42 mos. In TMB high pts, presence of DDR , MLL2, KDM6A, PIK3CA and TERTp alterations were each associated with improved outcomes, while presence of CDKN2B alterations was associated with inferior outcomes (Table). Among TMB low pts, those with RB1 alterations had shorter mOS (11.3 months vs 17.2 months; p=0.04) compared to wild-type pts. Conclusions: In this single-center retrospective analysis of mUC pts, we identified somatic alterations that were predictive of outcomes with ICI treatment in TMB high and TMB low pts respectively. Further exploration of biomarkers in patients stratified by TMB status is warranted in larger cohorts. [Table: see text]

229 Background: Aberrant Wnt signaling has been implicated in prostate cancer tumorigenesis, progression, and metastasis in preclinical models. While studies have identified recurrent molecular alterations in the Wnt signaling components in about 20% of aPC pts, the clinical significance of these alterations has been incompletely characterized. Methods: PROMISE is a multi-institutional, retrospective, clinical-genomic database - inclusive of aPC pts who had tissue and/or blood-based genomic testing by commercially available CLIA-certified platforms. We evaluated outcomes in pts with alterations leading to the activation of the canonical Wnt pathway, specifically activating mutations in CTNNB1 or RSPO2 or inactivating mutations in APC, RNF43, or ZNRF3 (Wnt altered), compared to those lacking such alterations (Wnt wild type). Multiple endpoints were evaluated, including the frequency of metastatic disease to different sites and co-occurring alterations. Results: 1596 pts with aPC were included with a median age of 63 years at diagnosis. Wnt pathway alterations were identified in 12.4% (198/1596). Wnt altered pts had a statistically significant increase in liver and lung metastases compared with Wnt wild type pts at diagnosis (4.5% vs 2.1%, p=0.0438; 6.1% vs 2.9%, p=0.0292), at first metastatic disease (11.6% vs 5.4%, p= 0.0015; 14.8% vs 6.6%, p

TPS594 Background: Urothelial carcinoma (UC) is the 10th most diagnosed cancer worldwide, and nearly 50% of patients cannot tolerate the current first-line (1L) standard of care. There is a need to improve outcomes in 1L and later lines of therapy. HER2 is overexpressed in UC and may be associated with poor outcomes. Despite this, no HER2-directed therapies are currently approved for UC. Disitamab vedotin (DV; RC48-ADC) is an investigational antibody-drug conjugate comprising a novel HER2-directed monoclonal antibody, disitamab, conjugated to monomethyl auristatin E (MMAE) via a protease-cleavable mc-vc linker. DV elicits antitumor activity through multimodal mechanisms of action including MMAE-mediated direct cytotoxicity, bystander effect, and immunogenic cell death. Methods: RC48G001 (NCT04879329) is a phase 2, multi-cohort, open-label, multicenter trial to evaluate DV in patients with HER2-expressing locally advanced/metastatic UC (LA/mUC). Patients are enrolled in 3 cohorts based on prior treatment and tumor HER2 expression by immunohistochemistry (IHC) and gene amplification (via in situ hybridization [ISH]), assessed centrally. Cohorts A and B are enrolling patients who have received prior systemic therapy (1 or 2 lines, including platinum-containing chemotherapy) and whose tumors are HER2-positive (IHC 3+, or 2+ and ISH-positive) or HER2-low (IHC 2+ and ISH-negative, or IHC 1+), respectively. Cohort C is enrolling 1L treatment-naive patients in the LA/mUC setting, whose tumors have HER2-positive or HER2-low expression. Cohorts A and B will evaluate DV as monotherapy (intravenous [IV] administration, once every 2 weeks [Q2W]). Cohort C will evaluate DV (IV, Q2W) +/– pembrolizumab (IV, Day 1 of each 6-week cycle). Patients in all cohorts must have measurable disease per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) v1.1 and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status of 0–1 in Cohorts A and B, and 0–2 in Cohort C. The primary endpoint is confirmed objective response rate (cORR) per blinded independent central review (BICR). Secondary endpoints include cORR by investigator assessment, overall survival, duration of response, progression-free survival, disease control rate per RECIST v1.1 by BICR and investigator, safety, and pharmacokinetic parameters. Enrollment for all cohorts is ongoing in North America and Europe, and planned in Latin America, Asia-Pacific, and Israel. Clinical trial information: NCT04879329 .

532 Background: ICIs form the backbone of treatment for mUC. However, only a minority of pts benefit and additional biomarkers of ICI response are needed. Methods: In our institution, we identified mUC pts treated with ICI monotherapy who had next generation sequencing (NGS). Somatic alterations present in ≥10% of pts ( ARID1A, CCND1, CDKN2A, CDKN2B, ERBB2, FGF3, FGF4, FGF19, FGFR3, KDM6A, MDM2, MLL2, PIK3CA, RB1, TERTp, TP53, TSC1), as well as DNA-damage response (DDR) alterations and tumor mutational burden (TMB) were analyzed as biomarkers. These biomarkers were individually evaluated in separate multivariate models while accounting for clinical factors including age, BMI, ECOG PS, primary tumor location, histology, hemoglobin, neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio and albumin. Multivariate cox regression and logistic regression models were used to measure hazard ratios (HR) and odds ratios (OR) for overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS) and observed response rate (ORR). Results: Among 152 mUC ICI-treated pts, 107 had NGS data (FoundationOne, UCSF500, Strata), including 85 with TMB data. For the 107 pts with NGS, median age was 70 yrs, majority were male (69, 64%), Caucasian (70, 65%), had pure urothelial histology (57, 53%), and had first-line ICI (55, 51%). ORR was 35%, median PFS was 3.9 mos (95% CI: 2.6-7.5 mos), and median OS was 17.4 mos (95% CI: 14.1-30.6 mos). Biomarkers associated with improved outcomes to ICI, independent of relevant clinical factors, included alterations in ARID1A and DDR, as well as high TMB (>10 Mut/Mb). Inferior outcomes were seen in pts with CDKN2B, KDM6A, FGF3, FGF4, and FGF19 alterations (Table). Conclusions: In this large retrospective multivariate analysis controlling for clinical factors in ICI-treated mUC pts, we found multiple biomarkers associated with improved or inferior outcomes. These hypothesis-generating findings can inform clinical decision making and trial design for mUC pts treated with ICIs, and should be validated in larger cohorts. [Table: see text]

514 Background: EV is FDA-approved in pts with aUC and ≥1 prior therapy line. Data from EV-103 trial indicate robust response to first-line EV/pembrolizumab, suggesting potentially at least additive treatment effect with EV/ICI combination. Given the long half-life of ICIs, pts who start EV treatment immediately after ICI may potentially derive benefit from that therapy sequence. We hypothesized that the last systemic therapy prior to EV would impact outcomes, as pts treated with ICI immediately prior to EV would have superior outcomes relative to pts treated with chemotherapy (chemo). Methods: UNITE is a retrospective study of pts treated with EV at 16 US sites. Pt characteristics and outcomes were abstracted from EMR review at each site. Observed response was determined by investigators for evaluable pts with scans following ≥1 EV dose. Pts treated with EV monotherapy were divided into two groups based on whether they received chemo or ICI as the line of therapy immediately prior to EV, regardless of other therapy received. Chi-squared test was used to assess differences in pt characteristics and ORR while log-rank tests were used for OS and PFS measured from EV start. Results: Among 325 pts treated with EV monotherapy, 247 had chemo or ICI as immediate prior treatment, with 186 pts receiving ICI (Group A) and 61 pts receiving platinum-based chemo (Group B). In 247-pt cohort, ORR to EV was 52% and mPFS and mOS were 6 and 13 mos. Group B pts were younger, had more bone mets and higher Bellmunt risk factors, but were otherwise similar to Group A (Table). Most pts had both prior chemo and ICI in both group A (58%) and group B (84%). Group A pts had shorter time from last treatment (median 1.2 vs 3.2 mo, p

450 Background: EV, an antibody-drug conjugate (ADC) targeting Nectin-4, is used widely in treatment-refractory aUC, but limited data are available on biomarkers predictive of EV outcomes. We investigated potential biomarkers of response to EV in a pt cohort in the UNITE dataset. Methods: We included the retrospective UNITE study pts from 16 sites, with available next generation sequencing using institutional or commercial platforms, treated with EV alone outside clinical trials. Observed response (ORR) was determined by investigators for evaluable pts with scans after ≥1 dose of EV. Assessed molecular biomarkers included tumor mutation burden (TMB), PD-L1 status, somatic alterations (alts) in ≥ 10% of pts ( TERTp, TP53, ARID1A, CDKN2A, CDKN2B, FGFR3, ERBB2, CCND1, KDM6A, MTAP, PIK3CA, RB1, TSC1) and presence of ≥1 DNA damage response mutations ( ATM, BARD1, BRCA1, BRCA2, CDK12, CHEK2, PALB2, PPP2R2A, or RAD51B). ORRs were compared using Chi-squared test, while median progression-free and overall survival (mPFS, mOS) from EV start were compared with log-rank test and Cox proportional hazards in pts with and without biomarker presence. Results: A total of 170 pts had outcomes and NGS data available. Median age was 70, 133 (78%) were men, 144 (85%) Caucasian, 110 (65%) with pure urothelial histology, 118 (69%) with primary bladder tumor, and 116 (68%) had ≥ 2 lines of therapy before EV. For all pts, ORR 47%, mPFS 6 mos, mOS 12 mos. ORRs were higher in pts with ERBB2 (67% vs 44%; p = 0.05) and TSC1 (68% vs 25%; p=0.04) alts vs wild-type. Shorter mPFS was noted in pts with CDKN2A, CDKN2B, and MTAP alts, and longer mOS in pts with high TMB (table). Conclusions: This large, multi-site, retrospective cohort of pts with aUC identified several potential biomarkers associated with differential outcomes to EV. These findings, upon external validation, may help inform clinical decision making and potential therapy sequencing with available ADCs. Limitations include retrospective nature, pt selection, and confounding biases. [Table: see text]

Enfortumab vedotin (EV) is a novel antibody-drug conjugate approved for advanced urothelial cancer (aUC) refractory to prior therapy. In the Urothelial Cancer Network to Investigate Therapeutic Experiences (UNITE) study, the authors looked at the experience with EV in patient subsets of interest for which activity had not been well defined in clinical trials.UNITE was a retrospective study of patients with aUC treated with recently approved agents. This initial analysis focused on patients treated with EV. Patient data were abstracted from chart reviews by investigators at each site. The observed response rate (ORR) was investigator-assessed for patients with at least 1 post-baseline scan or clear evidence of clinical progression. ORRs were compared across subsets of interest for patients treated with EV monotherapy.The initial UNITE analysis included 304 patients from 16 institutions; 260 of these patients were treated with EV monotherapy and included in the analyses. In the monotherapy cohort, the ORR was 52%, and it was40% in all reported subsets of interest, including patients with comorbidities previously excluded from clinical trials (baseline renal impairment, diabetes, and neuropathy) and patients with fibroblast growth factor receptor 3 (FGFR3) alterations. Progression-free survival and overall survival were 6.8 and 14.4 months, respectively. Patients with a pure urothelial histology had a higher ORR than patients with a variant histology component (58% vs 42%; P = .06).In a large retrospective cohort, responses to EV monotherapy were consistent with data previously reported in clinical trials and were also observed in various patient subsets, including patients with variant histology, patients with FGFR3 alterations, and patients previously excluded from clinical trials with an estimated glomerular filtration rate30 mL/min and significant comorbidities.Enfortumab vedotin, approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2019, is an important new drug for the treatment of patients with advanced bladder cancer. This study looks at the effectiveness of enfortumab vedotin as it has been used at multiple centers since approval, and focuses on important patient populations previously excluded from clinical trials. These populations include patients with decreased kidney function, diabetes, and important mutations. Enfortumab vedotin is effective for treating these patients. Previously reported clinical trial data have been replicated in this real-world setting, and support the use of this drug in broader patient populations.

397 Background: Real-world data (RWD) is playing an increasingly important role in cancer research. Surrogate endpoints such as metastasis-free survival play an important role in prostate cancer research, leading to interest in its computational extraction, typically with use of International Classification of Disease (ICD) metastatic codes. While prior studies have suggested that ICD codes are valid for identification of patients (pts) with metastatic prostate cancer (MPC), delays in coding may impact their accuracy. The objective of this informatics-based study is to quantify the time delay between diagnosis of MPC and entry of ICD MPC-related code and its interaction with changing institutional healthcare processes. Methods: A single institutional EHR data warehouse was queried to identify a random sample of 100 pts with MPC diagnosis based on ICD codes (ICD10 C79 or ICD9 198.5) from 2013-2021 who were also seen in the genitourinary medical oncology program (GUMOP). Of note, in 6/2018, the GUMOP adopted EHR-specific MPC visit diagnosis identifiers (Dx ID) to improve MPC coding during clinic independent of ICD codes typically used by RWD researchers. Thus, the study cohort was designed to include pts whose first follow up after being diagnosed with MPC was before (n = 50) or after (n = 50) Dx ID implementation. Date of first MPC ICD code entry at any point in the EHR was compared against true date of MPC, based on physician review of definitive imaging or pathology. Data analysis was performed with Wilcox Signed rank test, bivariate analyses, and multivariable linear regression. Covariates included modality of diagnosis confirmation and timing with Dx ID implementation. Results: One hundred pts with MPC ICD coded in the EHR were included, with 29 pts diagnosed by PSMA PET and 71 by conventional imaging. Median time from true MPC diagnosis to first subsequent clinic follow up was < 1 month (IQR 0-2), while median time from true MPC diagnosis to entry of ICD MPC-related code was longer at 4mo (IQR 0-15). 5 pts had C79 applied for N1 disease and 10 pts for work-up of biochemical recurrence. On multivariable analysis of potential factors affecting time interval to MPC ICD entry, Dx ID implementation (b = -6.5 mo [95% CI -1.8 to -11.2], p = 0.007) and non-PSMA based diagnosis (b = -5.7 mo [95% CI -0.5 to -10.8], p = 0.03) were independently associated with shorter time to ICD coding. In subset analysis of the cohort after Dx ID implementation, use of both ICD and Dx ID to identify pts with MPC reduced the median time from true MPC diagnosis to EHR coding (1mo, IQR 0-6.3) compared to ICD alone (2mo, IQR 0-8) (p = 0.003). Conclusions: Timing of MPC ICD entry is highly variable and may carry biases derived from healthcare processes, including data entry and diagnostic testing. This may be improved with EHR workflow interventions. It is essential to have domain knowledge of clinical coding practices to improve information retrieval and recognize potential limitations and biases.

Background The outcomes of metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC) have significantly improved through treatment intensification, yet Black representation in those studies is suboptimal. Methods A multi-institutional, retrospective analysis of Black men with mHSPC was conducted, focusing on baseline demographics, treatment patterns, genomic profiles, clinical outcomes including prostate-specific antigen response, time to castrate-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC), and subsequent treatments. Results A total of 107 patients, median age 64 years, 62% with de novo metastases at diagnosis and 64% with high-volume disease, were included. Twenty-nine patients (27%) were treated with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) with and without first generation anti-androgens, while 20%, 38% and 5% received chemotherapy, abiraterone, and enzalutamide, respectively. At time of data cut-off, 57 (54%) patients had developed CRPC, with a median time to CRPC of 25.4 months (95% CI 20.3-30.4). The median time to CRPC was 46.3 months (18.9-73.7) and 23.4 months (18.6-28.2) for patients who received ADT with or without first-generation anti-androgens and treatment intensification, respectively. The 2-year survival rate was 93.3%, and estimated median overall survival of was 74.9 months (95% CI, 68.7-81.0). Most patients (90%) underwent germline testing; the most frequent known alterations were found within the DNA repair group of genes. Somatic testing revealed pathogenic alterations of interest, notably TP53 (24%) and CDK12 (12%). Conclusion In our cohort, Black men with mHSPC presented with a high proportion of de novo metastases and high-volume disease. Treatment outcomes were very favorable with ADT-based regimens. The genomic landscape suggests different molecular profile relative to White patients with potential therapeutic implications.

BackgroundThe risks associated with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and its associated illness, coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), among patients with a cancer diagnosis have not been fully characterized. This study leverages data from a multi-institutional cohort study, the University of California Cancer COVID Consortium, to evaluate outcomes associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection among patients with cancer.MethodsClinical data were collected from March to November 2020 and included patient demographics, cancer history and treatment, SARS-CoV-2 exposure and testing, and COVID-19 clinical management and outcomes. Multivariate ordinal logistic regression permitting unequal slopes was used to evaluate the impact of demographic, disease, and treatment factors on SARS-CoV-2 related hospitalization, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, and mortality.FindingsAmong all evaluated patients (n = 303), 147 (48%) were male, 118 (29%) were older adults (≥65 years old), and 104 (34%) were non-Hispanic white. A subset (n = 63, 21%) had hematologic malignancies and the remaining had solid tumors. Patients were hospitalized for acute care (n = 79, 26%), ICU-level care (n = 28, 9%), or died (n = 21, 7%) due to COVID-19. Patients with ≥2 comorbidities were more likely to require acute care (odds ratio [OR] 2.09 [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.23-3.55]). Cough was identified as a significant predictor of ICU hospitalization (OR 2.16 [95% CI, 1.03-4.57]). Importantly, mortality was associated with an active cancer diagnosis (OR 3.64 [95% CI, 1.40-9.5]) or advanced age (OR 3.86 [95% CI, 1.2-12.44]).InterpretationThis study observed that patients with active cancer or advanced age are at an increased risk of death from COVID-19. These study observations can inform risk counseling related to COVID-19 for patients with a cancer diagnosis.

BackgroundImmune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) can achieve durable responses in a subset of patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma (aUC). The use of tumor genomic profiling in clinical practice may help suggest biomarkers to identify patients most likely to benefit from ICI.MethodsWe undertook a retrospective analysis of patients treated with an ICI for aUC at a large academic medical center. Patient clinical and histopathological variables were collected. Responses to treatment were assessed for all patients with at least one post-baseline scan or clear evidence of clinical progression following treatment start. Genomic profiling information was also collected for patients when available. Associations between patient clinical/genomic characteristics and objective response were assessed by logistic regression; associations between the characteristics and progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were examined by Cox regression. Multivariable analyses were performed to identify independent prognostic factors.ResultsWe identified 119 aUC patients treated with an ICI from December 2014 to January 2020. Genomic profiling was available for 78 patients. Overall response rate to ICI was 29%, and median OS (mOS) was 13.4 months. Favorable performance status at the start of therapy was associated with improved OS (HR 0.46, p=0.025) after accounting for other covariates. Similarly, the presence of a TERT promoter mutation was an independent predictor of improved PFS (HR 0.38, p=0.012) and OS (HR 0.32, p=0.037) among patients who had genomic profiling available. Patients with both a favorable performance status and a TERT promoter mutation had a particularly good prognosis with mOS of 21.1 months as compared with 7.5 months in all other patients (p=0.03).ConclusionsThe presence of a TERT promoter mutation was an independent predictor of improved OS in a cohort of aUC patients treated with an ICI who had genomic data available. Most of the clinical and laboratory variables previously shown to be prognostic in aUC patients treated with chemotherapy did not have prognostic value among patients treated with an ICI. Genomic profiling may provide important prognostic information and affect clinical decision making in this patient population. Validation of these findings in prospective patient cohorts is needed.

Purpose Prostate cancer is a heterogeneous disease with variable clinical outcomes. Despite numerous recent approvals of novel therapies, castration-resistant prostate cancer remains lethal. A “real-world” clinical-genomic database is urgently needed to enhance our characterization of advanced prostate cancer and further enable precision oncology. Methods The Prostate Cancer Precision Medicine Multi-Institutional Collaborative Effort (PROMISE) is a consortium whose aims are to establish a repository of de-identified clinical and genomic patient data that are linked to patient outcomes. The consortium structure includes a (1) bio-informatics committee to standardize genomic data and provide quality control, (2) biostatistics committee to independently perform statistical analyses, (3) executive committee to review and select proposals of relevant questions for the consortium to address, (4) diversity/inclusion committee to address important clinical questions pertaining to racial disparities, and (5) patient advocacy committee to understand patient perspectives to improve patients’ quality of care. Results The PROMISE consortium was formed by 16 academic institutions in early 2020 and a secure RedCap database was created. The first patient record was entered into the database in April 2020 and over 1000 records have been entered as of early 2021. Data entry is proceeding as planned with the goal to have over 2500 patient records by the end of 2021. Conclusions The PROMISE consortium provides a powerful clinical-genomic platform to interrogate and address data gaps that have arisen with increased genomic testing in the clinical management of prostate cancer. The dataset incorporates data from patient populations that are often underrepresented in clinical trials, generates new hypotheses to direct further research, and addresses important clinical questions that are otherwise difficult to investigate in prospective studies.

445 Background: Different metastatic sites have variable prognostic implications in aUC. However, details on response and outcomes with ICI for particular mets is still unknown. We hypothesized that bone and liver mets would have poor response and outcomes with ICIs. Methods: We performed a retrospective cohort study in patients (pts) with aUC who received ICI. We compared overall response rate (ORR) and overall survival (OS) between pts with different mets at ICI initiation. We developed 4 different models: 1) lymph node (LN) only vs other; 2) visceral mets (bone, lung, liver) vs other; 3) bone + liver mets vs bone without liver vs liver without bone vs neither and 4) 6 factor model: a. LN +/- soft tissue/locoregional recurrence b. lung +/- (a) c. bone +/- (b) d. liver +/- (c) e. central nervous system (CNS) +/- (d) and f. other. ORR and OS were compared among groups using multivariable (adjusting for ECOG PS and hemoglobin

Introduction: The treatment landscape of metastatic renal cell carcinoma has advanced significantly with the approval of combination regimens containing an immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) for patients with treatment-naive disease. Little information is available regarding the activity of single-agent ICIs for patients with previously untreated mRCC not enrolled in clinical trials. Methods: This retrospective, multicenter cohort included consecutive treatment-naive mRCC patients from six institutions in the United States who received ≥1 dose of an ICI outside a clinical trial, between June 2017 and October 2019. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze outcomes including objective best response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), and tolerability. Results: The final analysis included 27 patients, 70% men, median age 64 years (range 42-92), 67% Caucasian, and 33% with ECOG 2 or 3 at baseline. Most patients had intermediate risk (85%, IMDC) with clear cell (56%), papillary (26%), unclassified (11%), chromophobe (4%), and translocation (4%) RCC. All patients had evidence of metastatic disease involving the lungs (59%), lymph node (41%), CNS (19%), liver (11%), adrenal gland (11%), and bone (11%). The median time on ICI was 3.1 (0.1-26.8) months, and the median PFS was 6.3 (95% CI, 0-18.6) months. Among the 21 patients with an evaluable response, the best ORR was 33%, including two complete responses and five partial responses. The ORR was 29% (n = 1 complete response, n = 5 partial response) in clear cell and 5% (n = 1 complete response) in non-clear cell RCC. Adverse events (AEs) of any cause were reported in 37% and included fatigue (11%), dermatitis (11%), diarrhea (7%), and shortness of breath (7%). Significant AEs (30%) included shortness of breath (7%), acute kidney injury (4%), dermatitis (4%), Clostridium difficile infection (4%), cerebrovascular accident (4%), and fatigue (7%). Three patients discontinued therapy due to grade 4 AEs. Conclusions: In this multi-institutional case series, single-agent ICI demonstrated objective responses and was well tolerated in a heterogeneous treatment-naive mRCC cohort. ICI monotherapy is not the standard of care for patients with mRCC, and further investigation is necessary to explore predictive biomarkers for optimal treatment selection in this setting.

Background Molecular imaging with novel radiotracers is changing the treatment landscape in prostate cancer (PCa). Currently, standard of care includes either conventional and molecular imaging at time of biochemical recurrence (BCR). This study evaluated the determinants of and cost associated with utilization of molecular imaging for BCR PCa. Methods This is a retrospective observational cohort study among men with BCR PCa from June 2018 to May 2019. Multivariate logistic regression models were employed to analyze the primary outcome: receipt of molecular imaging (e.g. Fluciclovine PET and Prostate Specific Membrane Antigen PET) as part of diagnostic work‐up for BCR PCa. Multivariate linear regression models were used to analyze the secondary outcome: overall healthcare cost within a 1‐year time frame. Results The study sample included 234 patients; 79.1% White, 2.1% Black, 8.5% Asian/Pacific Islander, and 10.3% Other. The majority were 55 years or older (97.9%) and publicly insured (74.8%). Analysis indicated a one‐unit reduction in PSA is associated with 1.3 times higher likelihood of receiving molecular imaging (p, This study evaluated the determinants of and cost associated with utilization of molecular imaging for biochemically recurrent prostate cancer. Higher prostate‐specific antigen level was associated with lower likelihood for molecular imaging and higher cost in a 1‐year timeframe.

Purpose: Transcriptomic profiling can shed light on the biology of small-cell bladder cancer (SCBC), nominating biomarkers, and novel therapeutic targets. Experimental Design: Sixty-three patients with SCBC had small-cell histology confirmed and quantified by a genitourinary pathologist. Gene expression profiling was performed for 39 primary tumor samples, 1 metastatic sample, and 6 adjacent normal urothelium samples (46 total) from the same cohort. Protein levels of differentially expressed therapeutic targets, DLL3 and PDL1, and also CD56 and ASCL1, were confirmed by IHC. A SCBC PDX model was utilized to assess in vivo efficacy of DLL3-targeting antibody–drug conjugate (ADC). Results: Unsupervised hierarchical clustering of 46 samples produced 4 clusters that correlated with clinical phenotypes. Patients whose tumors had the most “normal-like” pattern of gene expression had longer overall survival (OS) compared with the other 3 clusters while patients with the most “metastasis-like” pattern had the shortest OS (P = 0.047). Expression of DLL3, PDL1, ASCL1, and CD56 was confirmed by IHC in 68%, 30%, 52%, and 81% of tissue samples, respectively. In a multivariate analysis, DLL3 protein expression on >10% and CD56 expression on >30% of tumor cells were both prognostic of shorter OS (P = 0.03 each). A DLL3-targeting ADC showed durable antitumor efficacy in a SCBC PDX model. Conclusions: Gene expression patterns in SCBC are associated with distinct clinical phenotypes ranging from more indolent to aggressive disease. Overexpression of DLL3 mRNA and protein is common in SCBC and correlates with shorter OS. A DLL3-targeted ADC demonstrated in vivo efficacy superior to chemotherapy in a PDX model of SCBC.

4545 Background: Despite recent advances in the treatment of clear cell RCC, there is a paucity of data to guide management of nccRCC due to the heterogeneity and rarity of these tumors. The clinical activity of combination therapies (including IO-IO, IO-VEGF, VEGF-mTOR) in subtypes of advanced nccRCC is unknown. Methods: In this multicenter retrospective analysis, we evaluated the efficacy of combination systemic therapies in patients with nccRCC. Eligible patients included those with nccRCC as determined by local genitourinary pathology review and receipt of one of three combination regimens during any line treatment (IO-IO, IO-VEGF, mTOR-VEGF). The primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR) assessed by investigator review. Secondary endpoints were progression- free survival (PFS), disease control rate (DCR), and overall survival (OS). Results: Among 128 included patients, median age was 57 years; 66% were male and 65% white. Histologies included papillary (37%), unclassified (33%), chromophobe (16%), translocation (9%), and other (5 %). Among all patients, 69% had prior nephrectomy; 80% were IMDC intermediate/poor risk; 20% had sarcomatoid and/or rhabdoid differentiation, 27% and 29% had liver and bone metastasis respectively and 63% received combination treatment as first line. Comparison of outcomes based on treatment regimen, line of treatment and subtype is shown in the table. Median PFS and OS were longer with IO/IO and IO/VEGF compared to VEGF/ mTOR at 8.5, 9.5 and 3.7 months and 24.4, 18.2 and 15.4 months respectively. Conclusions: Antitumor activity was observed with novel combinations in nccRCC in both frontline and later line setting. Optimal management of nccRCC remains an unmet need and prospective data is warranted to guide treatment selection for this population. [Table: see text]

3059 Background: Fibroblast Activation Protein (FAP) is a transmembrane protein overexpressed on cancer associated fibroblasts (CAFs), and is abundantly present in many epithelial cancers, suggesting FAP is an attractive imaging and therapeutic target. FAP-2286 is a cyclic peptide that binds to FAP and is currently being evaluated as a radioligand therapy to treat patients (pts) with FAP-positive solid tumors. The role of 68Ga-FAP-2286 as a diagnostic agent is unknown. We present an interim analysis of the ability of 68Ga-FAP-2286 to detect metastatic disease across multiple cancer types. Methods: This is a first in human Phase I/II study of 68Ga-FAP-2286 (NCT04621435) with a planned total enrollment of 65 pts across 3 cohorts: dosimetry cohort (n = 5), cohort with RECIST measurable disease (n = 30) and a cohort at risk for metastases without measurable disease (n = 30). By the cutoff date of February 12, 2022, 27 pts were enrolled (3 in cohort 1, 15 in cohort 2 and 9 in cohort 3). For each pt, the five largest lesions were included for analysis, and for each lesion, the maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax) of the 68Ga-FAP-2286 and the size (short axis for lymph nodes) were documented. In pts who had an available FDG PET performed within 8 weeks of 68Ga-FAP-2286 PET, uptake on the two scans was compared. Results: Of the 27 enrolled pts, 9 had bladder cancer, 5 sarcoma, 4 head and neck squamous cell cancer (HNSCCA), 3 breast cancer (BC), and 3 castration resistant prostate cancer (CRPC). Most pts (89%, 24/27) had tumors positive for uptake on 68Ga-FAP-2286 PET, including 30 lesions < 1.5 cm, and 17 less than 1.0 cm. 16 pts had a paired FDG PET. In these pts, the average SUVmax on 68Ga-FAP-2286 PET was 244% higher than on FDG PET. Only two pts had higher uptake on FDG PET than on 68Ga-FAP-2286 PET (HNSCCA and DSRCT). The highest relative uptake was seen in 2 pts with BC (both 3.4 times higher on 68Ga-FAP-2286 PET); the average SUVmax in BC was 16.6. The lowest uptake on 68Ga-FAP-2286 PET was CRPC with an average SUVmax of 7.0. Sarcoma had variable uptake with one pt having an SUVmax of 4.5 (Ewing’s), while two pts had an SUVmax over 30 (both undifferentiated pleomorphic). Although sarcoma had high uptake on 68Ga-FAP-2286 PET, it was similar to FDG PET uptake across the 5 pts (ratio to FDG PET = 1.0). Conclusions: 68Ga-FAP-2286 is a promising imaging agent across cancers, although its benefit is not seen equally. BC had the highest absolute uptake and highest relative uptake compared to FDG PET; prostate cancer had the lowest uptake. Further work should be undertaken to define the settings where 68Ga-FAP-2286 PET may inform clinical decision making, and which pts may benefit from FAP-targeted radioligand therapy. Clinical trial information: NCT04621435.

5013 Background: Black men have been underrepresented in large-scale molecular prostate cancer (PC) surveys, despite having higher PC incidence and mortality. Since molecular profiling to guide the use of targeted agents is increasingly important in mCRPC, we compared precision medicine data and utilization in a cohort of black and white men with mCRPC. Methods: The PROMISE precision medicine database is an academic collaboration to compile clinical and genomic data from men with PC. All patients have had germline and/or somatic genetic testing performed. Eligibility criteria for this analysis included a diagnosis of mCRPC with available race and biomarker data. The primary outcome was the proportion of non-Hispanic black (NHB) and non-Hispanic white (NHW) men with actionable molecular data, defined as the presence of mismatch repair deficiency (MMRd/MSI-H), homologous recombination repair deficiency (HRRd), tumor mutational burden (TMB) ≥ 10 mut/MB, or AR-V7. Secondary outcomes included the proportion of NHB and NHW men with other alterations, the type and timing of genomic testing performed, and the use of targeted therapy. Results: A total of 962 mCRPC patients (21.2% NHB; 78.8% NHW) met inclusion criteria of 1619 in the overall database. Median age (NHB/NHW) was 61/63; 77.5/68.8% had Gleason 8-10; 52.5/56.7% presented with de novo metastatic disease (33.8/29.9% LN, 36.2/32.2% bone and 8.3/6.1% viscera). The median time from diagnosis to first molecular result was 56.3 mo for NHB v 58.7 mo for NHW (p = 0.45). Use of blood-based molecular testing was more common in NHB men (48.7% v 36.4%, p < 0.001). Overall, 32.8% of NHB men harbored actionable molecular data compared to 30.3% of NHW men (Table). MMRd/MSI-H was more common in NHB men (9.1 v 4.9%, p = 0.04). Other than PTEN (12.7/23.8% NHB/NHW, p = 0.0001), no significant differences were seen in the 15 most frequently mutated genes, including TP53, AR, CDK12, RB1, and PIK3CA. Tumor suppressor co-mutations (PTEN/TP53/RB1) were found in 13.1% of NHB and 18.0% NHW (p = 0.13). Delivery of targeted therapy was reported in 19.6% of NHB and 23.7% of NHW men (p = 0.25) after a median of 2 CRPC lines. Median OS from development of mCRPC was 41.5 mo (95% CI, 34.7-51.3) and 44.7 mo (95% CI, 41.1-51.5) for NHB and NHW men, respectively (p = 0.14). Conclusions: In a real-world mCRPC molecular profiling cohort, we found similar overall rates of actionable molecular alterations in NHB and NHW men, but higher rates of MMRd/MSI-H and lower frequency of PTEN alterations in NHB men. We did not find differences in delivery of targeted therapy. [Table: see text]

Background Expert knowledge is often shared among multidisciplinary academic teams at tumor boards (TBs) across the country, but these conversations exist in silos and do not reach the wider oncology community. Objective Using an oncologist-only question and answer (Q&A) website, we sought to document expert insights from TBs at National Cancer Institute–designated Comprehensive Cancer Centers (NCI-CCCs) to provide educational benefits to the oncology community. Methods We designed a process with the NCI-CCCs to document and share discussions from the TBs focused on areas of practice variation on theMednet, an interactive Q&A website of over 13,000 US oncologists. The faculty translated the TB discussions into concise, non–case-based Q&As on theMednet. Answers were peer reviewed and disseminated in email newsletters to registered oncologists. Reach and engagement were measured. Following each Q&A, a survey question asked how the TB Q&As impacted the readers’ practice. Results A total of 23 breast, thoracic, gastrointestinal, and genitourinary programs from 16 NCI-CCC sites participated. Between December 2016 and July 2021, the faculty highlighted 368 questions from their TBs. Q&As were viewed 147,661 times by 7381 oncologists at 3515 institutions from all 50 states. A total of 277 (75%) Q&As were viewed every month. Of the 1063 responses to a survey question on how the Q&A affected clinicians’ practices, 646 (61%) reported that it confirmed their current practice, 163 (20%) indicated that a Q&A would change their future practice, and 214 (15%) reported learning something new. Conclusions Through an online Q&A platform, academics at the NCI-CCCs share knowledge outside the walls of academia with oncologists across the United States. Access to up-to-date expert knowledge can reassure clinicians’ practices, significantly impact patient care in community practices, and be a source of new knowledge and education.

Little is known about the outcomes, safety, and response to subsequent therapies of patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC) treated with atezolizumab outside clinical trials. The objectives of the study include to report the clinical efficacy and safety of atezolizumab, and the response to future therapies in clinical practice outside clinical trials. This is a retrospective, single-center study including consecutive patients with confirmed mUC who received at least one dose of atezolizumab 1200 mg every 3 weeks between May 2016 and April 2017. Seventy-nine patients, median age 72 years (range 29–93), 71% men and 76% ECOG PS 0–1, were identified. Most patients (79%) had primary cancer in the bladder, 62% had prior surgery, and 75% received at least one prior line of treatment (34 patients had prior cisplatin-based chemotherapy). Best response included 18% partial response, 29% stable disease, and 53% progressive disease. Patients were on atezolizumab for a median of 2.7 months (95%CI, 1.8–3.6) and median PFS was 3.2 months (95%CI, 1.6–4.8). A total of 33 (42%) patients had significant (any cause) AEs, including grade 4 hyperbilirubinemia in two patients; no toxic deaths were reported. At time of data analysis, only 18% of patients received at least one subsequent line of treatment for a median of 1.8 months (95%CI, 0.0–5.0) while 42% were referred to palliative care/hospice or died. Patients with mUC who progressed on atezolizumab were unlikely to receive subsequent systemic treatments and the benefit of those treatments appeared limited in our cohort. The findings may impact timing and designs of clinical trials in mUC.

531 Background: EV is an antibody-drug conjugate which recently received full FDA approval for treatment-refractory aUC. Molecular biomarkers and characteristics of patients (pts) most likely to respond to EV therapy have not been well defined. Methods: We retrospectively identified all aUC pts treated with EV at our institution. Clinicopathologic, treatment and response data were abstracted from pt charts. Pts were considered responders to EV if they had a complete response on initial scans after 2-3 months of treatment, or were treated with EV for ≥ 6 months. Responders and non-responders were compared in terms of their molecular and clinical characteristics using Chi-squared test. Most common somatic alterations present in ≥10 pts ( TERTp, TP53, CDKN2A, CDKN2B) were also used to divide pts with available next-generation sequencing (NGS) results into groups with and without these alterations. Log rank test was used to determine differences in overall survival (OS) and progression free survival (PFS) among these groups. Results: Between 1/2020 and 8/2021 a total of 32 pts received EV and 28 had NGS data available with either FoundationOne (14 pts), UCSF500 (13 pts) or Strata (1). Median age was 69.5 years, 24 (75%) were male, 22 (69%) Caucasian, 22 (69%) had pure urothelial histology and 22 (69%) primary tumor location in the bladder. At EV start, 24 (75%) had visceral metastases (mets), 8 (25%) had liver mets, and 13 (41%) had bone mets. Median follow-up from EV start was 12.5 months (range 0.5-36); 20 (63%) pts received EV monotherapy, and 12 (37%) received EV as part of a combination regimen. Non-responders were more likely to have bone metastases (69% vs 21%, p

129 Background: Pathogenic HRR gene mutations may confer sensitivity to PARP inhibitors (PARPi) and/or platinum chemotherapy (chemo). While pts harboring mutations in BRCA1/2 appear to benefit from these DNA damaging therapeutics, outcomes data for those with non- BRCA1/2 mutations are less robust. We evaluated outcomes in men with HRR gene-mutated PC who received treatment with PARPi and/or platinum-based chemo stratified by type of HRR alteration. Methods: Retrospective data from the PROMISE Consortium was utilized (PMID: 34363009). PC pts with pathogenic HRR mutations who received PARPi and/or platinum-based chemo were included. Differences in PSA progression-free survival (PFS), clinical/radiographic PFS (rPFS), and overall survival (OS) between those with BRCA1/ 2 mutations (Cohort A) and those with mutations in HRR genes that do not directly interact with the BRCA complex (Cohort B: ATM, CDK12, CHEK1, CHEK2, FANCL) were evaluated. We also evaluated outcomes in pts with HRR gene mutations known to interact with the BRCA complex aside from BRCA1/2 (Cohort C: RAD51B/C/D, RAD54L2, BARD1, GEN1, PALB2, FANCA, BRIP1). Results: Of 361 pts identified with HRR gene alterations, 89 received PARPi and 70 received platinum-based chemo. Prior therapy and metastatic disease sites were similar between cohorts. PSA PFS, rPFS, and OS were significantly improved in Cohort A vs. Cohort B with PARPi but not platinum-based chemo (Table). Sample size in cohort C was too small to allow for statistical comparison, although PSA PFS, PFS and OS were reasonably long. Conclusions: PC pts with BRCA1/2 mutations had improved outcomes to PARPi compared to those with mutations in HRR genes not directly interacting with the BRCA complex. Platinum-based chemo appeared effective regardless of which HRR gene was affected. [Table: see text]

109 Background: Radiopharmaceuticals, including Ga-68-prostate specific membrane antigen (PSMA)-11, F-18-fluciclovine, and choline C-11, are increasingly used to stage and inform therapies for PCa. Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) to PET-detected oligometastatic PCa has been shown to improve progression free survival (PFS) compared to observation. However, for men who subsequently develop oligorecurrent disease, outcomes following second SBRT are unknown. Methods: A retrospective, single-center, cohort study was conducted. Pts were identified through electronic health records. Inclusion criteria included pts with oligometastatic (1-5 lesions) PCa detected on PSMA, fluciclovine, or choline C-11 PET who underwent 2 consecutive courses of SBRT to tracer-avid oligometastatic disease between 7/2013 and 7/2021. Exclusion criteria included presence of visceral metastases and pure small cell neuroendocrine PCa. Data on stage, tracer type, concurrent systemic therapy, and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) responses for first SBRT (SBRT1) and second SBRT (SBRT2) were collected. Outcomes included PSA decline of ≥50% (PSA50), ≥90% (PSA90), and PSA-PFS. SBRT2 outcomes were compared based on change of concurrent systemic therapy with SBRT2 (e.g., addition of abiraterone or anti-androgen withdrawal) and PSA50 to SBRT1 using Fisher’s exact text and Wilcoxon rank sum test, respectively. Results: A total of 12 pts met eligibility criteria. At SBRT1, 10 (83%) pts had hormone-sensitive PCa (HSPC) and 2 (17%) had castration-resistant PCa (CRPC). For PET tracers, 7 (58%) used PSMA, 4 (33%) fluciclovine, and 1 (8%) choline. After SBRT1, 12 pts (100%) had a PSA decline, 8 (67%) had a PSA50 response, and 6 (50%) a PSA90 response. Median PSA PFS after SBRT1 was 30mo (95%CI 9-65mo). Six (50%) SBRT1 pts had a concurrent change in systemic therapy. At SBRT2, 8 (67%) pts had HSPC and 4 (33%) had CRPC; 7 (58%) used PSMA and 5 (42%) fluciclovine. After SBRT2, 12 (100%) pts had a PSA decline, 8 (67%) had a PSA50 response, and 8 (67%) a PSA90 response. After SBRT2, median PSA PFS was 23mo (95%CI 12-35mo). Among 7 pts who had a concurrent change in systemic therapy with SBRT2, all (100%) had a PSA50 response; among 5 who did not (4 of whom did not receive any systemic therapy), 1 (20%) had a PSA50 response (P=0.01). Among 8 pts who had a PSA50 response to SBRT1, 7 (88%) had one to SBRT2; among 4 who did not have a PSA50 response to SBRT1, 1 (25%) had one to SBRT2 (P=0.01). No complications related to SBRT were documented. Conclusions: Serial SBRT for oligometastatic PCa detected on fluciclovine, PSMA, or choline PET is feasible and can achieve PSA declines independent of systemic therapy. PSA responses were greater when systemic therapy was changed. This preliminary evidence of benefit, based on PSA responses and PSA PFS, provides rationale for larger, prospective studies of serial SBRT for oligometastatic PCa.

138 Background: AR alterations such as ligand binding domain mutations and amplification evolve under the selective pressure of testosterone suppression and AR targeted agents (ARTA) such as abiraterone or enzalutamide, but their relevance to ARTA treatment outcomes remain unclear. Methods: PROMISE is a multi-institutional retrospective clinical-genomic database inclusive of aPC pts who had tissue and/or blood based genomic testing by commercially available CLIA-certified platforms. We analyzed men who received second generation ARTA and stratified patients according to genomic testing timing (pre-/post-ARTA), castration resistance, type of AR alteration, and PSA decline ≥50% on first ARTA. Time to progression (TTP) from first ARTA initiation was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and differences between subgroups defined by AR alteration status were assessed using the log-rank test. Results: 854 pts who received ARTA and had tissue-based (n = 600) or blood-based (n = 335) genomic testing were included. Median age was 62 (range, 33-93). Pre- and post-ARTA genomic testing was available in 387 and 467 pts, respectively. AR alterations were identified in 16% (61/387) of pre-ARTA and 48% (226/467) of post-ARTA pts with AR amplifications in 10% (38/387) and 35% (161/467) of the pts, respectively. 15/52 pts who had pre- and post-ARTA testing developed a new AR alteration. In pre-ARTA cohort; castration status, median TTP, and PSA response for 1st ARTA according to alteration status are summarized in the table. In the post-ARTA group, the most common AR mutations were L702H (53%), followed by T878A (33%); whereas, in the pre-ARTA group, the H875Y (26%) mutation was most common. AR mutations in post-ARTA group were seen at similar rates regardless of prior docetaxel exposure (14.3% vs 18.0%, p = 0.46) and following first abiraterone vs enzalutamide/apalutamide exposure (48.6% vs 48.3%, p = 1.0). Conclusions: AR mutations, unlike amplifications, were associated with shorter TTP on abiraterone. Genomic testing should be considered before second line ARTA.[Table: see text]

MUSTAFA, OZGUROGLU/0000-0002-8417-8628; huddart, robert/0000-0003-3604-1990; Balar, Arjun/0000-0003-3949-5656 WOS:000570162100001 PubMed ID: 32938232 The choice of first-line therapy for patients with metastatic urothelial cancer (mUC) is based on cisplatin-eligibility and programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) status. For patients with mUC who are ineligible for cisplatin and with low PD-L1 expression, chemotherapy-based regimens are the only approved first-line option. In a Phase I/II trial of the chemotherapy-free regimen, bempegaldesleukin (BEMPEG; NKTR-214) plus nivolumab, patients with locally advanced or mUC experienced tumor responses regardless of baseline PD-L1 expression (objective response rates: 50 and 45% in patients with PD-L1-positive and -negative tumors, respectively). The Phase II PIVOT-10 study (NCT03785925), evaluates efficacy and safety of first-line BEMPEG plus nivolumab in cisplatin-ineligible patients with locally advanced or mUC. Most patients will have low PD-L1 expression. Primary end point: objective response rates (including complete response). Lay abstract When people are diagnosed with advanced urothelial (bladder) cancer, they are often given a type of chemotherapy, called cisplatin, as their first treatment. However, some people are not able to receive cisplatin. For these people, especially if their cancer has a low level of the protein called programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1), treatment options are limited. This protein helps the body's natural immune system to defend itself against infections and disease, including cancer. Patients with a low level of PD-L1 protein in their cancer typically have a poor outlook. This article presents information on a clinical trial called PIVOT-10. This trial will test how well a new drug that modifies the immune system, called bempegaldesleukin (BEMPEG; NKTR-214) combined with a drug that blocks PD-1, nivolumab, works as an initial treatment for patients with advanced urothelial cancer who cannot receive cisplatin. Most patients will have a low PD-L1 tumor expression level. The main assessment will be overall response rate, which measures the percentage of patients experiencing shrinkage or disappearance of their cancer after receiving treatment. PIVOT-10 will also check the safety of BEMPEG and nivolumab and the impact of the treatment combination on survival. Nektar Therapeutics, San Francisco, CA, USA; Bristol-Myers SquibbBristol-Myers Squibb; JanssenJohnson & Johnson USAJanssen Biotech Inc; Merck Sharp DohmeMerck & Company; BioClin Therapeutics; Michael and Sherry Sutton Fund for Urothelial Cancer; Nektar; US National Institutes of HealthUnited States Department of Health & Human ServicesNational Institutes of Health (NIH) - USA; TakedaTakeda Pharmaceutical Company Ltd; AstraZeneca/MedImmuneAstraZeneca; F Hoffmann-La Roche/GenentechHoffmann-La RocheRoche HoldingGenentech; MerckMerck & Company; Seattle Genetics; AAA; AstraZenecaAstraZeneca; BayerBayer AG; Exelixis; Incyte; Peleton; PfizerPfizer; Tricon Pharmaceuticals; Xencor; F Hoffmann-La RocheHoffmann-La Roche; NovartisNovartis; Sanofi; Janssen Oncology; Astellas PharmaAstellas Pharmaceuticals; Medivation; Boehringer IngelheimBoehringer Ingelheim; Clovis Oncology; CureVac; MSD Oncology; Oncogenex; Nektar Therapeutics This study is sponsored by Nektar Therapeutics, San Francisco, CA, USA. RA Huddart has received institutional research funding from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen and Merck Sharp & Dohme; honoraria from Janssen Oncology; royalties for drug discovery from Janssen; and travel expenses from Janssen Oncology; MSD Oncology; F Hoffmann-La Roche/Genentech. RA Huddart has also served as an advisor/consultant to Bristol-Myers Squibb, F Hoffmann-La Roche, Janssen Oncology, Merck Sharp & Dohme and Nektar and on the Speaker's Bureau for F Hoffmann-La Roche and MSD. AO Siefker-Radtke has received research funding from BioClin Therapeutics, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Michael and Sherry Sutton Fund for Urothelial Cancer, Nektar, US National Institutes of Health and Takeda. AO Siefker-Radtke has also served as an advisor/consultant to AstraZeneca, Bavarian Nordic, BioClin Therapeutics, Bristol-Myers Squibb, EMD Serono, Genentech, Inovio Pharmaceuticals, Janssen, Merck, US National Comprehensive Cancer Network, Nektar and Seattle Genetics. AV Balar has received institutional research funding from AstraZeneca/MedImmune, F Hoffmann-La Roche/Genentech, Merck and Seattle Genetics; and honoraria from AstraZeneca/MedImmune, F Hoffmann-La Roche/Genentech and Merck. AV Balar has also served as an advisor/consultant to AstraZeneca/MedImmune, Cerulean Pharma, F Hoffmann-La Roche/Genentech, Incyte, Merck, Nektar, Pfizer/EMD Serono and Seattle Genetics/Astellas. MA Bilen has received institutional research funding from AAA, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Exelixis, F Hoffmann-La Roche/Genentech, Incyte, Nektar, Peleton, Pfizer, Seattle Genetics, Tricon Pharmaceuticals and Xencor. MA Bilen has also served as an advisor/consultant to Eisai, EMD Serono, Exelixis, Genomic Health, Janssen, Nektar and Sanofi. T Powles has received research funding from AstraZeneca/MedImmune and F Hoffmann-La Roche/Genentech; honoraria from AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, F Hoffmann-La Roche/Genentech, Ferring, GLG Group, Janssen Research & Development, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer and Seattle Genetics/Astella; and travel expenses from AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, F Hoffmann-La Roche/Genentech, Ferring, MSD, Novartis/Ipsen, Pfizer and Research to Practice. T Powles has also served as an advisor/consultant to AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, F Hoffmann-La Roche/Genentech, Incyte, Ipsen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer and Seattle Genetics. A Bamias has received research funding from AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, F Hoffmann-La Roche, Novartis, Pfizer and Sanofi; honoraria from Bristol-Myers Squibb and Novartis; and travel expenses from Novartis and Pfizer. A. Bamias has also served as an advisor/consultant to AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, MSD, Pfizer and Pierre Fabre; and on the Speaker's Bureau for AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis and Pfizer. DE Castellano received institutional research funding from Janssen Oncology and travel expenses from AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, F Hoffmann-La Roche and Pfizer. DE Castellano has also served as a consultant/advisor to Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, F Hoffmann-La Roche/Genentech, Ipsen, Janssen Oncology, Lilly, MSD Oncology, Novartis, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre and Sanofi. MF Khalil has received research funding from and has also served as a consultant/advisor to Bristol-Myers Squibb.; MS Van Der Heijden has received institutional research funding from Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb and F Hoffmann-La Roche; and travel expenses from Astellas Pharma, F Hoffmann-La Roche, MSD Oncology and Novartis. MS Van Der Heijden has also served as a consultant/advisor to Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca/MedImmune, Bristol-Myers Squibb, F Hoffmann-La Roche, Janssen, MSD Oncology and Seattle Genetics. VS Koshkin has served as a consultant/advisor to Janssen. DW Pook has received institutional research funding from Astellas Pharma, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Exelixis, F Hoffmann-La Roche, Medivation, Merck Sharp & Dohme and Pfizer; honoraria from Astellas Pharma, Ipsen and Novartis; and travel expenses from Astellas Pharma, Bristol-Myers Squibb and Pfizer. DW Pook has also served as a consultant/advisor to Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme and Pfizer. M ozgurolu has no financial interests to disclose. L Santiago, B Zhong, D Chien, W Lin and MA Tagliaferri are employees of and have ownership interest (including stock, patents, etc.) in, Nektar Therapeutics. Y Loriot has received institutional research funding from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Clovis Oncology, CureVac, Exelixis, Incyte, Janssen Oncology, Medivation, MSD Oncology, Nektar, Oncogenex, Pfizer and Sanofi; honoraria from Pfizer and Sanofi; and travel expenses from Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, F Hoffmann-La Roche, Janssen Oncology, MSD Oncology and Seattle Genetics. Y Loriot has also served as an advisor/consultant to Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Clovis Oncology, F Hoffmann-La Roche, Janssen, MSD Oncology and Seattle Genetics. The authors have no other relevant affiliations or financial involvement with any organization or entity with a financial interest in or financial conflict with the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript apart from those disclosed.; Medical writing assistance was provided by N Nkwor at BOLDSCIENCE Inc. and was funded by Nektar Therapeutics.

4518 Background: Neoadjuvant cisplatin-based chemotherapy (CT) prior to radical cystectomy (RC) improves overall survival (OS) in MIBC, but about half of pts are cisplatin-unfit or refuse it. Neoadjuvant immune checkpoint inhibitors can induce high pathologic complete response rate (ypT0N0). The combination of anti-PD-1 (N) and anti-KIR (L) is hypothesized to be safe and have significant activity based on the complementary and possibly synergistic roles in regulating adaptive and innate immune response in MIBC. Methods: This is a phase Ib multi-institutional trial in pts with localized MIBC treated with 2 neoadjuvant doses (4 weeks apart) of N alone (480 mg) in cohort 1 or N (480 mg) + L (240 mg) in cohort 2 prior to RC without adjuvant therapy (NCT03532451). Cohorts were enrolled sequentially and were not randomized. Key eligibility criteria included stage cT2-4aN0-1M0, ≥20% tumor content at TURBT and cisplatin-ineligibility (Galsky criteria) or refusal. Primary endpoint was safety manifested as rate of ≥G3 treatment related adverse events (TRAE) assessed in each cohort with CTCAE v5.0. Key secondary endpoints included the % of pts who had RC > 6 weeks after last neoadjuvant dose due to TRAE, CD8+ T cell density at RC, ypT0N0 and < ypT2N0 rates, CD8+ T cell density change between TURBT and RC, recurrence-free survival (RFS) and biomarkers in tumor tissue, blood and urine. Results: Among 43 pts enrolled (13 cohort 1, 30 cohort 2), median age was 75 (51-89), 67% were men, all had PS ECOG 0-1. Pts were cisplatin-ineligible due to impaired renal function (47%) and hearing loss (37%), while 14 % refused cisplatin. At baseline, 37 pts had cT2 stage, 2 had cN1 and 3 cNx. In cohort 1 and 2, 13 and 29 pts, respectively, completed intended neoadjuvant treatment, and 41/43 underwent RC (12/13 cohort 1, 29/30 cohort 2). One pt progressed to metastatic disease prior to RC (cohort 1) and 1 withdrew consent prior to being treated (cohort 2). Additionally, 1 patient was found to have cervical cancer at RC. Median time from last neoadjuvant dose to RC was 27 (95%CI: 24-29) days. There was no RC delayed > 6 weeks from treatment completion due to TRAE. G3 TRAEs occurred in 0% with N and 6.7% (90%CI 1.2-19.5%) in N+L (1: arthralgia, 1: gout, 2: hip pain) that all resolved. No G4/5 TRAEs occurred. Of 40 pts with MIBC and RC, ypT0N0 rates for N and N+L were 8% and 18%, while < ypT2N0 rates were 17% and 29%, respectively. Data on RFS and OS, and biomarker data were not yet mature. Conclusions: Neoadjuvant N alone and N+L combination prior to RC were safe, feasible and well tolerated in cisplatin-ineligible pts with MIBC, but ypT0N0 rates were unexpectedly low, especially with N alone. Two phase 3 trials (NCT03661320; NCT04209114) are evaluating the peri-operative role of N + chemotherapy +/- Linrodostat in cisplatin-fit and N +/- Bempeg in cisplatin unfit patients and are also assessing biomarkers. Clinical trial information: NCT03532451.

e16510 Background: Patients (pts) with muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) ineligible for cisplatin-based chemotherapy have no standard systemic therapy options and are prioritized for radical cystectomy (RC) alone. This prospective clinical trial investigated the safety and efficacy of escalating doses of neoadjuvant atezolizumab (N-ATZ) prior to RC in MIBC pts. Methods: This is a single-institution, phase II trial of escalating doses of N-ATZ (1200 mg IV every 3 weeks) in pts with MIBC. Key inclusion criteria were resectable urothelial carcinoma of the bladder (T2-T4a,N0-1,M0) and inability to receive cisplatin-based treatment (eGFR < 60 mL/min, G≥2 neuropathy/hearing loss, pt decision). Pts with high-risk disease at RC were eligible to receive adjuvant ATZ for up to 16 total doses. Pts were followed for up to 2 years following RC. Primary efficacy endpoint was pathologic complete response (pCR; pT0N0). Secondary endpoints were safety of treatment, rate of pathologic downstaging (≤pT1N0), response based on PD-L1 status, and overall survival (OS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS) at 1 and 2 years from RC. Results: A total of 20 pts were enrolled and sequentially treated with one (n=6), two (n=5), and three (n=9) cycles of N-ATZ prior to RC. Median age was 69 (range 61-81), 75% were male and 85% Caucasian. Pts were cisplatin-ineligible due to low GFR (35%), hearing loss (25%) or neuropathy (10%); the rest refused cisplatin (30%). Most pts had pT2 disease (80%); the remainder, pT3/pT4 (15%/5%), and 10% had cN1. Among 17 pts with available tumor PD-L1 status, 76% had PD-L1 positive (CPS≥10) tumors. pCR was observed in 2 pts (10%) with 1 and 2 ATZ doses, whereas pathologic downstaging was observed in 5 pts (25%) across all 3 doses (Table). All pts completed intended treatment and RC within the trial-defined timeframe. Perioperative TRAEs of any grade occurred in 75%, but only 10% had G3 TRAEs (diarrhea, fecal incontinence). There were no G4/G5 events. Median follow-up from RC was 23.6 months and 75% were still followed at the time of data cutoff in 2/2021. Among evaluable pts, 1-year RFS and OS were 72% and 94% while 2-year RFS and OS were 64% and 69%. PD-L1 positive pts had superior OS (logrank p=0.06) and RFS (p=0.10) relative to PD-L1 negative pts. Conclusions: N-ATZ was well tolerated at all three dose levels and did not delay or prevent surgery. As few as 1 to 2 ATZ doses resulted in pathologic downstaging, including pCR. Although pCR rate in this trial was lower than expected, most pts had a durable recurrence-free period and all evaluable pts with tumor downstaging were alive and recurrence-free at 2 years following RC. Increased tumor PD-L1 expression was suggestive of improved outcomes and further biomarker analyses are ongoing. Clinical trial information: NCT02451423. [Table: see text]

e17038 Background: Skeletal-related events are common in men with prostate cancer, and are associated with significant morbidity and mortality. AA and ENZ are novel androgen signaling inhibitors used in the treatment of metastatic prostate castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). As directly comparative efficacy data do not exist between AA and ENZ, the differing toxicity profiles inform treatment selection. It is unknown whether SRE rates differ in a real-world population between AA, which is given with corticosteroids, and ENZ, which is associated with imbalance and falls. Methods: The national SEER-Medicare linked database was used to identify men with prostate cancer who received AA or ENZ between 2011-2015; approval during this period was solely for mCRPC. Inclusion criteria included Medicare Part A+B coverage 1 year before and after first receipt of AA/ENZ, without any HMO enrollment. Baseline demographic and comorbidity data were gathered. Diagnosis and procedure claims codes were used to identify SREs, defined as pathologic fracture, surgery to bone, radiation to bone, or spinal cord compression. The time to SRE was defined as time from first receipt of AA/ENZ to the first SRE of any type. A multivariable competing risk regression analysis including death as a competing risk was performed. Results: 5,856 men with prostate cancer who first received AA (N = 4,207) or ENZ (N = 1,649) were identified. The median age at initiation of AA/ENZ was 70 years (range 65-101); 78% were White, 12% Black, 4% Hispanic, 3% Asian, and 4% Other. The median follow-up was 14 months. The overall SRE rate was 13.1% after AA/ENZ start: 574 (13.6%) AA and 194 (11.8%) ENZ, with a cumulative incidence of 11.9% at 2 years. Median overall survival was 16 months (14.4 months for AA and 18.3 months for ENZ). Age, stage at diagnosis, race/ethnicity, baseline comorbidities, and prior history of SRE were balanced between AA vs ENZ, aside from baseline osteoarthritis or rheumatoid arthritis (48.0% AA vs 53.2% ENZ, P < 0.001) and baseline Alzheimer’s dementia (9.2% AA vs 11.1% ENZ, P = 0.03). After controlling for these potential risk factors, receipt of AA versus ENZ was not associated with time to SRE (relative risk ratio [RR] = 0.90, 95% CI 0.77-1.06, P = 0.22). Osteoporosis (RR 1.22, 95% CI 1.01-1.49, P = 0.04), osteoarthritis or rheumatoid arthritis (RR 1.23, 95% CI 1.06-1.43, P < 0.01), and prior history of SRE (RR 1.31, 95% CI 1.07-1.59, P < 0.01) were statistically significant risk factors for SRE. Conclusions: In this real-world population of men with prostate cancer, there was no difference in time to SRE between AA and ENZ. Clinical decision-making on whether to prescribe AA or ENZ should be informed by other potential toxicities as well as cross-resistance with sequencing of these therapies. Analysis of impact of bone protective agent use is underway.

1535 Background: The COVID-19 pandemic affected oncology practice in ways that are still evolving. In particular, COVID-19 has led to changes in cancer treatment for patients (pts) infected with COVID, which may have long-term implications for both COVID and cancer-related outcomes. In this retrospective analysis, we describe changes in cancer management over time for cancer pts diagnosed with COVID-19 at two academic institutions in Northern California. Methods: Adult and pediatric pts diagnosed with COVID-19 receiving active cancer management, defined as therapy/surgery/diagnostics within 3 weeks of COVID diagnosis, were identified through the EMR. Patients whose care was affected by COVID-19 were identified and analyzed for significant intra-group differences with regards to management type, treatment intent, and the time of COVID-19 diagnosis (“early” was defined as March to June 2020 and “late” as July 2020 to January 2021). The duration and characteristics of such changes were compared across subgroups. Chi-squared test was used to compare the incidence of delays between subgroups. Results: Among 134 COVID-positive pts on active cancer management, 83 (62%) had significant changes in management that consisted primarily of treatment delays. More delays were identified in patients treated with curative intent earlier in the course of the pandemic compared to later (OR 4.1, p=0.022). This difference was not seen among pts treated with palliative intent. In addition, pts on oral (PO) therapy were significantly less likely to have treatment changes than those on IV/IM therapy (OR 0.32, p=0.005). This difference was driven by a decrease in management changes for those on PO therapy in the later time period (OR 0.27, p=0.026). Pts diagnosed later were more likely to have delays due to clinical reasons rather than institutional policy (OR 6.2, P

5053 Background: Immune checkpoint inhibitors have limited single agent activity in microsatellite-stable mCRPC. 177Lu-PSMA-617 (Lu) is a PSMA-targeting radioligand therapy that has demonstrated promising anti-tumor activity. We sought to determine whether a single dose of Lu can induce an immunogenic priming effect to improve outcomes of men with mCRPC subsequently treated with pembrolizumab (P). Methods: We undertook a phase 1b, single arm trial enrolling chemotherapy-naïve mCRPC patients (pts) with progression (PD) on at least one prior androgen signaling inhibitor (NCT03805594). Pts were required to have ≥ 3 PSMA-avid lesions on 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET and measurable disease by RECIST 1.1 criteria. No genomic selection was undertaken. Pts were enrolled sequentially on one of three schedules: A) Single dose of Lu (7.4 GBq) followed by initiation of P (200 mg IV q 3 weeks) 28 days later; B) Lu x 1 dose given concomitantly with first P administration; C) Lu x 1 dose given on C2D1 following initiation of P on C1D1. Pts were treated with P until confirmed radiographic or clinical PD. The primary endpoint was safety; key secondary endpoints included PSA response, objective response rate by RECIST 1.1 criteria (ORR), median duration of response (DOR), and radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS). Results: 18 pts were enrolled, 6 per schedule. The median age was 64 (range 51 – 80) and 44% of pts had visceral metastases. The median baseline number of PSMA-avid metastatic lesions was 20 (range 6 – 50+). Six pts (33%) had progressed on prior abiraterone, 4 (22%) on enzalutamide, and 8 (44%) on both. There were no dose-limiting toxicities and one Grade ≥ 3 treatment-related adverse event (AE) (inflammatory arthritis, schedule B). There were no grade ≥ 3 hematologic AEs. The ORR was 8/18 (44%) and median DOR has not been reached (range 1.9+ – 15.9+ months). Four pts (2 on schedule A, 1 on schedule B, 1 on schedule C) with durable partial responses remain on study treatment for 5.4+, 8.9+, 9.2+, and 17.8+ months, respectively. The median rPFS was 6.5 months (95% CI: 2.5 – 9.8). PSA30, PSA50, and PSA90 response rates were 44%, 28%, and 17%, respectively. Fourteen pts (78%), including all durable responders, had somatic genomic data available. One (7%) harbored a DNA repair mutation ( BRCA1, non-responder), none were MSI-high, and all carried low tumor mutational burden (≤ 5 mutations/MB). Single cell sequencing of the immune microenvironment from paired metastatic tumor biopsies is underway. Conclusions: 177Lu-PSMA-617 as a priming dose followed by pembrolizumab was well tolerated and leads to durable responses in a subset of mCRPC without high mutational burden or microsatellite instability, suggesting a possible immunogenic priming effect of radioligand therapy. Further evaluation of the combination is ongoing in a phase 2 study. Clinical trial information: NCT03805594.

4537 Background: Little is known regarding response and outcomes to ICI for patients (pts) with aUC who were previously treated with BCG for non-muscle invasive bladder cancer. We hypothesized that prior intravesical BCG would not be associated with changes in objective response or survival in pts with aUC treated with ICI. Methods: We performed a retrospective cohort study across 25 institutions. Demographic, intravesical BCG history, treatment and outcomes data were collected for pts with aUC who received ICI. Pts with aUC treated with ICIs were included, pts with pure non-UC, those treated with combination or on clinical trials, pts with multiple ICI treatment lines and those with upper tract UC were excluded. Pts were stratified to prior exposure versus no exposure to BCG. We compared overall response rate (ORR) using logistic regression; and progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) using Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional hazards. All analyses were performed in the overall population and further stratified by treatment line (first-line [1L] vs salvage [2+L]) and multivariable models. The stratified analysis was also adjusted for an internally developed risk score for 1L and Bellmunt risk score for 2+L; p

4580 Background: Despite advances in the treatment of clear cell RCC, there is a paucity of data to guide management of nccRCC due to the heterogeneity and rarity of these tumors. The clinical activity of new combination therapies (including immunotherapy (IO), anti-vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors (VEGF), and mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitors) in metastatic nccRCC is not known. Methods: In this multicenter retrospective analysis, we explored the efficacy of combination systemic therapies in patients with nccRCC. Baseline and follow-up demographic, clinical, treatment, and radiographic data were collected. The primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR) assessed by investigator review. Secondary endpoints include progression- free survival (PFS), disease control rate (DCR), median duration of response (DOR), overall survival (OS), and biomarker correlates. Results: Among 66 included patients, median age was 59 yr; 60% were male and 62% white. Histologies included papillary (38%), chromophobe (17%), unclassified (24%), translocation (12%), and other (9 %). Sarcomatoid and/or rhabdoid differentiation was present in 18%, 70% had prior nephrectomy, 86% were IMDC intermediate/poor risk, 29% and 32% had liver and bone metastasis respectively. 67% received combination treatment in the first line. Comparison of outcomes based on treatment regimen is shown in the table. Conclusions: Antitumor activity was observed with novel combinations in nccRCC which warrants further prospective studies. Response rates and survival with combination therapy in this dataset remain inferior to rates seen in clear cell RCC.[Table: see text]

4541 Background: Radical cystectomy (RC) is the standard of care for patients with BCG-unresponsive high risk non-muscle invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC), but many patients are unfit for surgery or elect bladder preservation. This trial was designed to evaluate the activity of atezolizumab in BCG-unresponsive high risk NMIBC. Methods: This single arm phase II registration trial testing systemic atezolizumab (1200 mg IV) every 3 weeks for one year aimed to enroll 135 (70 CIS and 65 non-CIS) eligible patients with histologically proven BCG-unresponsive high risk NMIBC who were unfit for or declined RC. Here we report the 18 month results for all eligible patients who received at least one protocol treatment. The co-primary endpoints were pathological complete response (CR) rate at 6 months in patients with CIS (reported at ASCO 2020), and event-free survival (EFS) in all patients at 18 months using Kaplan-Meier methods (KM), conditional on a positive CIS response rate. A sample size of 135 evaluable patients provided 93% statistical power for detecting a 30% 18-month EFS rate versus 20% using a one-sided alpha = 0.05. EFS in the subset with Ta/T1 disease and duration of response in CIS patients were secondary endpoints. Results: 172 patients were enrolled, 166 received at least one dose of atezolizumab and are included in the safety analysis, and, of those, 128 were eligible and included in the efficacy analysis. As previously reported, 20 (27%) out of 74 patients with CIS attained a pathologic CR at 6 months. The KM estimate of 12 month (actual 11.9 mo) duration of response after 6 month CR for CIS patients was 54% (95% CI 30%, 78%) and the median duration of response was 16.5 months. The KM EFS rate at 18 months in 74 patients with CIS was 17% (90% CI 9%, 25%). The 18 month KM EFS rate in the overall population of 128 patients with Ta, T1 and CIS was 29% (90% CI 22%, 36%). The 18 month actuarial EFS rate in 54 patients with Ta/T1 disease was 45% (90% CI 34, 57%). Any possibly or probably treatment-related adverse event (TRAE) was observed in 142 out of 166 (86%) patients who received any atezolizumab regardless of eligibilty. The most frequent TRAEs were fatigue 72 (43%), diarrhea 34 (20%), and anemia 38 (23%). Grade 3-5 TRAEs occurred in 28 (17%) patients, including rash in 4 (2%), hyponatremia in 4 (2%), hypertension in 3 (2%) and elevated liver function tests in 3 (2%). There were two treatment-related deaths (sepsis and respiratory failure due to myasthenia gravis). Conclusions: The observed response of atezolizumab at 6 and 18 months in patients with BCG-unresponsive CIS suggests that this could be a valuable treatment to address a critical unmet need in this patient population. The 18 month EFS in patients with Ta/T1 disease suggests activity in this patient subset. This trial provided no new safety concerns. Funding: NIH/NCI grants: CA180888, CA180819, CA180820, CA180821, CA180863 and in part by Genentech. Clinical trial information: NCT02844816.

Purpose Despite the rapidly increasing use of [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) –positron emission tomography (PET), the comparison of anatomic and functional imaging in the assessment of clinical outcomes has been lacking. In addition, there has not been a rigorous evaluation of how common radiologic criteria or the location of the radiology reader (local v central) compare in the ability to predict benefit. In this study, we aimed to compare the effectiveness of various radiologic response assessments for the prediction of overall survival (OS) within the same data set of patients with sarcoma. Methods We analyzed assessments made during a clinical trial of a novel IGF1R antibody in Ewing sarcoma: PET Response Criteria in Solid Tumors (PERCIST) for functional imaging and WHO criteria (performed locally and centrally), RECIST, and volumetric analysis for anatomic imaging. We compared the effectiveness of the various criteria for the prediction of progression and survival. Results For volume analysis, progression—defined as cumulative lesion volume increase of 100% at 6 weeks—was the optimal cutoff for decreased OS (P < .001). Assessment of the day-9 FDG-PET scan was associated with reduced OS in progressors compared with nonprogressors (P = .001) and with improved OS in responders compared with nonresponders. Significant variations in response (18% to 44%) and progression (9% to 50%) were observed between the different criteria. The comparison of central and local interpretation of anatomic imaging produced similar outcomes. PET was superior to anatomic imaging in identification of a response. Volume analysis identified the most responders among the anatomic imaging criteria. Conclusion An early signal with FDG-PET on day 9 and volume analysis were the best predictors of benefit. Validation of the volumetric analysis is required.

406 Background: Despite anatomical and biological differences, upper and lower tract UC (UTUC; LTUC) are usually managed similarly. Modern era clinical trial data comparing their outcomes with ICI are conflicting. We hypothesized that response and outcomes would be similar in patients (pts) with advanced UTUC and LTUC. Methods: We performed a retrospective cohort study collecting demographic, clinicopathologic, treatment, and outcome data for pts with advanced UC receiving ICI (2013-2020) across 24 centers (US; Europe). We compared objective response rate (ORR), overall survival (OS), and progression-free survival (PFS) between pts with UTUC and LTUC. Uni- / multi- variable logistic and Cox regression were used to assess the effect of UTUC on ORR, OS, and PFS. Stratified subgroup analyses were performed according to histology (pure, mixed) and line of treatment (first-line, subsequent). Results: A total of 984 pts were identified, and 707, 717, and 738 were included in ORR, OS, and PFS analyses, respectively. After exclusions, the UTUC group comprised of 130 pts (vs. 616 in LTUC) with median age 71 (40-92) (vs. 70 [32-93]), 62% men (vs. 76%), 41% never smokers (vs. 29%), 62% with history of prior radical surgery for primary tumor (vs. 52%), and 29% with liver metastases (vs. 18%). Table shows results of ORR, OS, and PFS analyses. In the overall population, pts with UTUC and LTUC receiving ICI had comparable ORR, OS, and PFS. Pts with mixed-histology UTUC had significantly lower ORR (adjusted OR 0.20, 95%CI 0.05-0.91) and shorter PFS (adjusted HR 1.66, 95%CI: 1.06-2.59) vs. mixed-histology LTUC. Conclusions: Pts with advanced UTUC and LTUC receiving ICI have similar response and outcomes, except for pts with mixed-histology UTUC vs LTUC. Subset analysis of primary tumor location in ongoing clinical trials can validate our data, while biomarker work is ongoing. [Table: see text]