Khaki, Ali Raza

4584 Background: EVP is the preferred frontline regimen in pts with aUC. Despite initial response to treatment, many pts treated with EVP ultimately have progression. We hypothesized that recurrence patterns would differ between pts with and without baseline liver metastases. Methods: UNITE is a multi-institutional retrospective database capturing clinical and treatment characteristics of pts with aUC receiving systemic therapies. We queried this database to identify pts who achieved an observed response (OR) to EVP. Pts were grouped by initial metastatic sites using a non-mutually exclusive approach. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize observed response rates (ORR) and recurrence patterns at time of progression. Progression-free survival (PFS) from start of EVP was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. The effect of liver metastases on PFS was assessed via multivariable Cox regression. Median-follow up time was estimated using the reverse Kaplan-Meier method. Statistical analyses were conducted in RStudio. Results: We identified 464 pts treated with EVP (median age 72; 74% male, 80% White). Best ORR in pts with baseline liver metastases (n=77) were complete response 9%, partial response 35%, stable disease 18%, and progressive disease 21%, compared with 18%, 37%, 27%, and 18%, respectively, in pts without baseline liver metastases (n=325). The estimated median follow-up time was 52 weeks (95% CI 48-62). Among pts with initial OR to EVP, those with baseline liver metastases showed a non-significant trend toward shorter PFS (HR 1.35; 95% CI 0.67–2.75; p=0.40) versus those without baseline liver metastases. Among pts with initial OR to EVP and subsequent progression the distribution of sites of recurrences at progression for those with (n = 10) and without (n = 40) baseline liver metastases were: liver (50% vs. 10%), lymph nodes (60% vs. 55%), lungs (50% vs. 38%), bone (20% vs 20%), and primary tumor (20% vs 25%). EVP responders with baseline liver metastases had a numerically higher rate of site-specific metastasis resolution at progression versus those with lymph node or lung metastases (Table). Conclusions: Our analysis suggests that liver metastases may be associated with shorter PFS among EVP responders, though these pts frequently do not retain liver metastases at time of progression. Study limitations include retrospective analysis, investigator-assessed response, small sample size, selection and confounding biases. Patterns of recurrence following EVP merits further evaluation. Metastatic Site Pts with Site-Specific Baseline Metastases (n) Pts with Resolution of Site-Specific Metastases at Progression, n (%) Pts without Baseline Metastases at Site (n) Pts who Remained Free of Site-Specific Metastases at Progression, n (%) Liver 10 5 (50%) 40 36 (90%) Lymph Nodes 37 12 (32%) 13 10 (77%) Lungs 26 8 (31%) 24 22 (92%)

4565 Background: EVP is the preferred 1 st -line regimen for patients (pts) with aUC. EV-related toxicities are often managed with dose adjustments, such as reductions and holds. Analysis of EV monotherapy trials showed consistent survival outcomes despite dose adjustments. We hypothesized that on-treatment EV dose adjustments would not impact survival in these pts. Methods: Pts with aUC treated with EVP in the multisite UNITE study were analyzed. Early dose reductions (DR) and holds were defined as occurring < 9 weeks from EVP start, with the remainder classified as late. Pts with DR at treatment start were excluded. Survival endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) from EVP start, assessed by Kaplan-Meier analysis and Cox models. Multivariable Cox analysis (MVA) included age (≥ 75 vs < 75), ECOG performance status (0-1 vs 2-3), Hgb level (< 10 vs ≥ 10) and liver metastases (present vs not). A time-dependent covariate was used to reduce immortal time bias. Complementary MVA landmark analyses were performed, aligned to the total number of treatment cycles received, with six analyses from cycles 2 to 7. Results: 360 pts from 17 sites were included (median age 70; 78% Caucasian; 76% male; 27% upper tract primary; 35% histology subtype component; 17% with liver metastasis; 78% frontline); median follow-up was 11.7 months (95% CI [10.79, 13.08]). Median number of cycles was 6 in pts with DR and 3 with no DR. Early DRs (100 pts [28%]) and holds (18 pts [5%]) were most commonly due to rash (28% of all early DRs and holds). Late DR (75 pts [21%]) and holds (50 pts [14%]) were most commonly due to neuropathy (52% of all late DRs and holds). Pts with early or late DR had longer PFS and OS vs those who did not (Table); however, there was no significant PFS or OS difference with dose hold vs no hold (PFS HR 0.65, 95%CI (0.40, 1.05), p = 0.08; OS HR 0.70, 95%CI (0.39, 1.27), p=0.24). In landmark analyses, about 50% of pts had DR; no significant difference in PFS or OS was observed at most landmarks, except for longer OS in the DR cohort at cycle 4 (HR 0.53, 95% CI (0.29, 0.98), p = 0.042) and cycle 5 (HR 0.43, 95% CI (0.19, 0.99), p = 0.048). Conclusions: In this real-world retrospective analysis, EVP efficacy was maintained despite DR and dose holds. Survival difference noted in the time-dependent analyses were not consistently reproduced in landmark analyses, suggesting exposure-related selection bias rather than causal effect. Prospective studies are warranted to validate these hypothesis-generating findings. Association of EV DR with PFS/OS (time-dependent analyses). Early DR Late DR DR vs no DR outcomes UVAHR (95% CI), p MVAHR (95% CI), p UVAHR (95% CI), p MVAHR (95% CI), p PFS 0.50 (0.35, 0.72), <.001 0.56 (0.38, 0.84), 0.005 0.32 (0.21, 0.49), <.001 0.36 (0.23, 0.57), <.001 OS 0.51 (0.32, 0.79), 0.003 0.57 (0.35, 0.92), 0.022 0.26 (0.15, 0.45), <.001 0.31 (0.17, 0.55), <.001

4562 Background: Approximately 50-80% of patients (pts) with la/mUC have tumors with HER2 protein expression. As HER2-directed therapies enter development, a robust understanding of HER2 prevalence and real-world outcomes with standard-of-care (SOC) therapies across HER2 expression subgroups is needed. SGNDV-003 (NCT05902494) is a global retrospective chart review study in which HER2 status was assessed via central lab testing and outcomes were analyzed by HER2 status in pts with la/mUC. Methods: SGNDV-003, conducted 6/2023-7/2025, included pts with la/mUC who received ≥1 prior treatment (tx) (incl. 1 line of platinum-based chemotherapy [chemo]). HER2 status was centrally tested using a UC-specific investigational immunohistochemistry [IHC] and in situ hybridization (ISH) assays. HER2 status was defined as: HER2-positive (IHC3+ or IHC2+/ISH+), HER2-low (IHC2+/ISH- or IHC1+), HER2-expressing (IHC3+, 2+, 1+), and HER2-zero (IHC0). Index line of therapy (LOT) was defined as the first LOT received after platinum-based chemo. Outcomes included real-world objective response rate (rwORR) (per RECIST 1.1 or physician-assessed response) to index LOT, real-world progression-free survival (rwPFS), and overall survival (OS) from start of index LOT. Data was analyzed via descriptive statistics. Results: A total of 353 pts with la/mUC and available HER2 status were analyzed (male, 76%; median age, 70 years). 70% of pts were HER2 expressing (19% HER2-positive, 51% HER2-low); 30% were HER2-zero. Disease characteristics were well balanced by HER2 status. Index LOT tx and real-world outcomes are shown in the Table. Immuno-oncology therapies (IO) and enfortumab vedotin (EV) were the most common index LOTs. For IO, rwORRs were 21% for HER2-expressing and 17% for HER2-zero. For EV mono, rwORRs were 36% (HER2-expressing) and 38% (HER2-zero), respectively. Conclusions: This global study provides a robust estimate of HER2 distribution in la/mUC based on standardized central lab testing, showing high prevalence of HER2 expression. Real-world outcomes with current SOC therapies were broadly consistent across HER2 subgroups, establishing an important benchmark for the clinical development of HER2-directed therapies in this setting. HER2-positive (n=67) HER2-low (n=181) HER2-expressing (n=248) HER2-zero (n=105) Total (n=353) Real-world Outcomes rwORR, n (%)[95% CI] 17 (25.4)[15.5, 37.5] 50 (27.6)[21.3, 34.7] 67 (27.0)[21.6, 33.0] 22 (21.0)[13.6, 30.0] 89 (25.2)[20.8, 30.1] Median rwPFS (95% CI), mo 2.8(2.0, 4.1) 3.7(2.7, 5.1) 3.0(2.7, 4.5) 2.6(2.1, 3.4) 2.9 (2.6, 3.5) Median OS(95% CI), mo 12.2(9.3, 16.5) 11.5(9.5, 13.5) 11.9(10.3, 13.4) 7.7(5.9, 9.9) 10.8(9.1, 12.3) Index LOT, n% IO EV monoChemoOther tx 37 (55)17 (25)10 (15)3 (5) 94 (52)51 (28)24 (13)14 (8) 131 (53)68 (27)34 (14)17 (7) 65 (62)21 (20)12 (11)7 (7) 196 (56)89 (25)46 (13)24 (7)

696 Background: EVP is the preferred 1st-line therapy for patients (pts) with aUC. Upfront EV dose reductions may be utilized to enhance tolerance and minimize treatment-related toxicities when intolerance is anticipated. Prior studies of EV monotherapy suggest that starting dose 1.25 mg/kg resulted in exposure that maximized chance of response. We hypothesize that upfront EV dose reductions would not compromise EVP efficacy. Methods: Pts with aUC treated with EVP in the multi-site UNITE database were analyzed. Upfront dose reduction was defined as starting dose < 1.25 mg/kg. Correlation between clinical features and EV dose reduction were assessed using Fisher’s Exact test. Endpoints include progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) from EVP initiation, assessed by Kaplan-Meier analysis and Cox models. Multivariable Cox analysis (MVA) included age (< 75 vs ≥ 75), ECOG performance status (PS) (0-1 vs 2-3), hemoglobin level (< 10 vs ≥ 10), and liver metastases (present vs absent), chosen in accordance with Bellmunt criteria. Correlation with investigator-assessed observed response rate (ORR) was determined using logistic regressions. All tests were 2-sided with p < 0.05 considered significant. Results: A total of 456 pts across 17 sites were included (median age 72; 77% Caucasian; 75% male; 26% upper tract primary; 66% pure UC; 77% ECOG PS 0-1; 17% with liver metastasis; 89% 1 st line EVP). Upfront dose reduction occurred in 96 pts (21%); 76 pts (79%) started at 1.0 mg/kg and 20 pts (21%) at 0.75 mg/kg. Upfront dose reduction was significantly associated with age ≥ 75 (p = 0.002), ECOG PS 2/3 (p = 0.04), and hemoglobin < 10 (p = 0.01) but not with liver metastasis (p = 0.9). Lower starting EV dose correlated with shorter median PFS (5 vs 6 months) and OS (9 vs 10 months), and lower ORR (28% vs. 60%) when compared to full dose (Table). In MVA adjusting for prognostic factors for PFS and OS, these associations were no longer statistically significant. Conclusions: In this real-world analysis, upfront EV dose reductions were most frequently used in pts with factors associated with frailty and poor prognosis, e.g. older age and ECOG PS 2/3, and were associated with lower ORR. When adjusted for these factors, upfront EV dose reductions were not associated with shorter PFS/OS though a trend towards inferior outcomes persisted. These differences in outcomes may reflect baseline risk factors rather than dose intensity; however, prospective investigation is required to validate our hypothesis-generating results. Association of upfront EV dose reduction with outcomes. Outcome (Upfront dose reduction vs no upfront dose reduction) Univariable analysis Multivariable analysis PFS: HR (95% CI), p 1.50 (1.11 – 2.02), 0.008 1.33 (0.95-1.86), 0.09 OS: HR (95% CI), p 1.56 (1.11-2.20), 0.01 1.41 (0.96-2.06), 0.08 ORR: OR (95% CI), p 0.35 (0.21-0.60), 0.0001 0.38 (0.21-0.67), 0.0009

Importance Trimodal therapy (TMT) is included as an alternative to radical cystectomy (RC) for definitive management of muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) in current clinical guidelines. Moreover, a 2023 retrospective analysis reported similar oncologic outcomes between these treatments among patients deemed fit for RC. Data regarding the comparative value of these treatments are lacking. Objective To evaluate the comparative cost-effectiveness of TMT and RC for treatment of MIBC. Design, Setting, and Participants This economic evaluation compared cost-effectiveness of treatments using a health transition state microsimulation model of patients with bladder cancer treated between 2005 and 2017 with 5- and 10-year horizons from a Medicare perspective. Model probabilities were informed by multicenter retrospective analyses published in 2023 comparing TMT with RC. The index patient was aged 71 years, with clinical stage T2-4aN0M0 MIBC, solitary tumor smaller than 7 cm, no or unilateral hydronephrosis, adequate bladder function, and lack of multifocal or extensive carcinoma in situ. Patients unfit for RC, radiation, or cisplatin-based chemotherapy were excluded. Exposures TMT and RC. Main Outcome and Measures Primary outcomes included effectiveness measured in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) using a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100 000 per QALY. Sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the robustness of the model. Results For the index patient, at 5 years, the average cost was $30 525 higher for TMT than RC. Average QALYs were 3.87 and 3.94 for RC and TMT, respectively. As such, TMT was not cost-effective at 5-year (ICER, $464 291 per QALY) or 10-year (ICER, $308 638 per QALY) time horizons. On 1-way sensitivity analyses, TMT would become cost-effective if (1) TMT costs were less than $17 605; or (2) TMT resulted in an 11.6% improvement in metastasis-free survival relative to RC. Conclusions and Relevance In this economic evaluation study of TMT and RC for treatment of MIBC, TMT was associated with improved quality of life but was not cost-effective relative to RC at 5 and 10 years given higher treatment costs. These findings highlight the importance of developing policy initiatives that help reduce TMT costs and of providing patients with accurate expectations of long-term toxic effects to help guide preference-sensitive care.

4580 Background: ICIs are used for UC in different settings. Most cases have pure urothelial carcinoma (PUC) but about a third have UC mixed with SH. We examined pts with UC treated with ICI and hypothesized that outcomes would not differ between PUC and mixed with SH. Methods: We retrospectively included pts with PUC and any SH component treated with ICI as adjuvant, 1st line [1L] upfront, maintenance avelumab [mAV], ≥2nd line [2+L] therapy; pts were divided by SH type. Pts with multiple SH were included as separate group. We excluded pts with pure non-UC histology and pts treated with neoadjuvant ICI. We calculated overall response rate (ORR), median overall, progression-free and disease-free survival [mOS, mPFS, mDFS] using KM method from ICI start. Analysis was stratified by therapy line; multivariable models were adjusted by Khaki factors for 1L/upfront, mAV and Bellmunt factors for 2+L; reference group was PUC. We used descriptive statistics for small subsets. Results: We included 1525 pts from 26 sites; n=752 1L, n=609 2+L; 76% men, 80% White, 69% smoking history, 80% lower urinary tract primary, 28% SH. Median f/u time from 1L ICI start 24 months (mo): mPFS was 3 (95%CI 2.8-3.2) mo for PUC (n=340), 3 (95%CI 2-4) mo for squamous (n=60) (HR=1, [95%CI 0.7-1.4]), 2 (95%CI 1.4-3.2) mo for micropapillary (n=36) (HR=1.3 [95% 0.9-2]) and 4 (3.5-4.5) mo for ≥2 SH (n=20) (HR=0.9 [95%CI 0.6-1.5]). Median f/u time from 2+L ICI start 26 mo: mPFS was 3 (95%CI 2.4-3.2) mo for PUC (n=264), 4 (95%CI 2-5) mo for squamous (n=33) (HR=0.8, [95%CI 0.6-1.2]), 3 (95%CI 1.6-3.7) mo for micropapillary (n=17) (HR=0.9 [95% 0.6-1.7]) and 3 (2.5-3.1) mo for ≥2 SH (n=10) (HR=1.2 [95%CI 0.6-2.2]); Table shows ORR/OS data. Data on adjuvant and mAV settings will also be presented. Conclusions: We found no significant survival difference between PUC and SH. ORR was numerically higher with sarcomatoid SH and ≥2 SH in the 1L upfront setting. Limitations: retrospective design, small sample size in a few subsets, lack of randomization and central scan/path (% SH) review, selection bias, unmeasured confounders. [Table: see text]

11079 Background: Phase 3 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) inform the standard of care in cancer treatment yet have a mixed track record of success. In this study, we sought to 1) determine the overall success rate of phase 3 RCTs; 2) assess whether authorship patterns differ between successful (positive) and unsuccessful (negative) trials; and 3) explore if individual authors have distinct track records of success. Methods: The HemOnc knowledgebase (KB) was queried for initial publications of phase 3 RCTs of systemic anticancer therapy; those without primary outcome described were excluded. RCTs were labeled positive if the primary endpoint was met per HemOnc standard criteria (P value ≤ 0.05 or hazard ratio upper bound ≤ 1 for any experimental arm[s]) and negative if they did not meet these criteria or if the experimental arm was statistically inferior. Trial metadata and author information were extracted from the HemOnc KB. Author positive publication rate (PPR) was defined as % of publications reporting a positive result divided by total number of eligible publications. Prolific authors were defined as those with 6+ eligible publications. Author count for manuscripts reporting positive vs negative results was evaluated with the Mann-Whitney U test; other statistics were descriptive. Results: 3328 studies met criteria as of February 5, 2024; these were associated with 3305 initial publications between 1960-2023, involving 25,412 unique authors. 1474 (44.3%) of the studies were positive. Publications reporting positive trial results had, on average, 3 more authors, median (interquartile range) of 18 (12-23) vs 15 (11-20), p<0.0001. The mean (±SD) PPR for n=1967 prolific authors was 47.7% (±22.3%). The PPR was not related to individual author output; mean PPR for non-prolific authors was 48.0% (SD not reported). Differences in PPR were apparent by the disease under study and the years of publication (Table). Among the 46 prolific authors who had a PPR 2+ SD above the mean, 26 (55%) were from China followed by Italy with 3 (6%). Conclusions: Despite known positive publication bias, the success rate of published phase 3 RCTs remains <50%. Publications reporting positive results had significantly more authors; this finding requires further study including adjustment for trial sample size. Significant variation in PPR amongst fields could be due to watershed therapeutic advances, differential selection of primary endpoints, and/or selective reporting of results. Finally, a signal for geographic association of outlier PPRs suggests the need for further investigation. [Table: see text]

11030 Background: Drug regulators operate on their own timelines to assess the safety and efficacy of new drugs and/or extensions to existing indications, such that there are delays between regulators. During such a gap, patients in the “early” domain have access to the approved drug, while those in the “late” domain do not, outside of compassionate use. Our study aimed to quantify the “opportunity lost” for new therapies approved by FDA and EMA, assuming patients in the late domain receive standard-of-care (SOC) therapy – which is presumably inferior to the new drug – during the gap. Methods: Anticancer drugs approved by both FDA and EMA were identified through the HemOnc knowledgebase. Inclusion criteria included: 1) drugs approved in both domains based on the same randomized clinical trial (RCTs) for the same indication; 2) a primary time-to-event endpoint; and 3) a quantitated median time-to-event for the primary endpoint. For each included trial, the approval gap between FDA and EMA in days and the ratio of approval gap to median control arm time-to-event duration was calculated. A ratio ≥2 implies that, on average, no late domain patients starting treatment in the first half of the gap would be expected to have access to the new drug prior to an event. Results: Of 60 eligible RCTs, 59 had calculable median event durations. 25 (42%) had a primary overall survival endpoint; the most common surrogate endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS; 29/59; 49%). The median (interquartile range [IQR]) approval gap was 186 (124-271) days, with FDA being the first approver in 56/59 (95%) cases. The median (IQR) ratio of approval gap to median control arm event duration was 0.63 (0.35-1.11). Drugs with ratio ≥2 (Table) were targeted or immunotherapies; 7/8 (88%) were approved with PFS endpoint; 5/8 (62.5%) were approved for second line or later. Conclusions: Our study shows that FDA approves most drugs prior to EMA and a nontrivial number of patients may experience progression or death events while awaiting access to anticancer therapies already approved in another domain. The analysis does not take into consideration scenarios in which the new therapy is inferior to SOC or delays in patient access (due to slow uptake; regulatory barriers [in Europe/UK]; or patient affordability [in US]). Further regulatory collaboration (e.g., Project Orbis) between FDA and EMA could help to reduce and potentially ameliorate this differential in access to new cancer drugs in the future. [Table: see text]

654 Background: MSI and TMB correlate with ICI efficacy. We assessed the association between TMB and MSI with outcomes in pts with aUC treated with anti-PD1/L1 in a ‘real-world’ cohort. We hypothesize that pts with high TMB and MSI-high (H) have better outcomes with ICI. Methods: In this retrospective study we included pts from 13 sites treated with ICI for aUC. We calculated overall response rate (ORR), median overall and progression-free survival (mOS, mPFS) using KM method from ICI start. TMB and MSI were assessed by NGS. TMB was analyzed as dichotomous (≥10 vs <10 mut/Mb) and continuous variable. The analysis was stratified by therapy line (1L/upfront, 2+L). Multivariable models were adjusted by Khaki factors for 1L/upfront and Bellmunt factors for 2+L. We separately analyzed pts on maintenance avelumab (mAV). MSI is reported with descriptive statistics only. Results: 342 pts were treated with ICI 1L/upfront or 2+L (69% pure UC, median age at ICI start 69, 77% men, 90% White, 16% upper tract primary, 12% liver metastases [mets], 78% ECOG PS 0-1). Median f/u from ICI start was 34 months (mo). ORR was 36% (95%CI 26-46%) in pts with TMB≥10 vs 30% (95%CI 23-36%) with TMB<10 (OR=1.4 [95%CI 0.8-2.5] p=0.3). ORR was 75% (6/8) in pts with MSI-H and 30% (60/200) with MSI stable (MSI-S). mPFS was similar between TMB≥10 and <10 groups (6 vs 4 mo; HR=0.88 [95%CI 0.61-1.26] p=0.48) and between MSI-H and MSI-S (5 mo). mOS was numerically longer (not significant) in pts with TMB≥10 vs TMB<10: 25 vs 21 mo; (HR=0.7 [95%CI 0.50-1.09] p=0.12) and with MSI-H and MSI-S (NR and 20 mo). A significant association was found between TMB (continuous variable) and OS (HR=0.97 [95%CI 0.95-0.99] p=0.01). TMB analyses by therapy line are shown in Table. In the 1L/upfront setting (N=144), ORR 71% (5/7) vs 33% (45/135), mPFS 5 and 4 mo, mOS NR and 22 mo for MSI-H and MSI-S, respectively. Pts on mAV (n=77) were 77% men, 92% White, 16% upper primary, 13% liver mets, 84% ECOG PS 0-1 with median f/u 15 mo from avelumab start; mOS was NR for MSI-H and 24 mo for MSI-S; mPFS was 4 mo for both groups. Of 3 pts on mAV with MSI-H: 1 CR, 2 SD; of 58 pts with MSI-S: 4CR, 4PR, 24 SD, 21 PD, 5 unknown. Conclusions: MSI-H had numerically higher ORR and higher TMB was associated with longer OS with ICI, but further validation is needed. Limitations: retrospective design, small sample size for MSI-H cases, lack of randomization and central scan review, selection/confounding. [Table: see text]

572 Background: Bladder preservation with trimodal therapy (TMT), which consists of maximal transurethral resection of bladder tumors followed by chemoradiation, is now included in guidelines with radical cystectomy (RC) as options for definitive management of muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC). Prospective randomized controlled trial data to help guide treatment selection are lacking, and prior efforts to bridge this knowledge gap have failed primarily due to poor accrual. A recent retrospective analysis comparing TMT to RC reported similar oncologic outcomes between these treatments when performed in highly selected patients. However, treatment toxicities and costs vary significantly between these management options. To investigate the impact of these outcomes on relative treatment value, we evaluated the comparative cost-effectiveness of TMT and RC for treatment of MIBC. Methods: Cost-effectiveness was compared between TMT and RC for patients with a solitary, muscle-invasive tumor less than 7cm, no or unilateral hydronephrosis, limited carcinoma in situ, and adequate bladder function (criteria utilized in a recent retrospective comparative series) using a microsimulation model with a 5-year horizon from a Medicare payer perspective. Additionally, a 10-year lifetime horizon was evaluated to better understand the impact of long-term outcome uncertainty on cost-effectiveness. Based on recently published multicenter retrospective propensity score matched data, metastatic progression and survival probabilities were assumed to be equivalent between treatments. Utility values and additional probabilities, including both short and long-term treatment toxicities, were obtained from published literature. Primary outcomes of interest included effectiveness measured in quality adjusted life years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) using a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000/QALY. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the robustness of the model. Results: At 5 years, the average cost was $32,286.35 higher for TMT versus RC. The average QALYs were 3.88 and 3.96 for RC and TMT respectively. TMT was not cost-effective at 5-year (ICER: $379,917.21/QALY) or 10-year (ICER: $222,704.78/QALY) time horizons. On one-way sensitivity analyses, TMT would become cost effective if: 1) TMT costs were less than $16,152; or 2) TMT resulted in a 13.3% improvement in metastasis free survival relative to RC. Conclusions: Although it resulted in similar quality and duration of life, TMT was not cost-effective relative to RC at 5 and 10 years given higher treatment costs. These findings support the role of both TMT and RC in management of MIBC and highlight the need for continued efforts to reduce healthcare costs associated with TMT.