Naqvi, Syed Arsalan Ahmed

e17155 Background: Localized PCa is classified into six NCCN risk categories, each with specific treatment recommendations. However, treatment concordance across these categories and its variation by race in clinical practice remain unexplored. Therefore, we aim to describe patterns of guideline-concordant treatment receipt for localized PCa across risk groups and race. Methods: Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database (2018–2020) was queried to identify patients with localized PCa from 17 registries. Data regarding clinical T stage, Gleason patterns, PSA level, biopsy cores and initial treatment received (radiation, radical prostatectomy, systemic therapy) was obtained. Each patient was then stratified into one of six NCCN-based risk categories using a rule-based algorithm. Using the stratified risk category of each patient, treatment recommendations were obtained from the NCCN guidelines. Concordance was assessed by comparing the received treatment and guideline-recommended treatment. A focused bi-variate logistic regression analysis was performed adjusting for risk groups, and race. Odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were computed to quantify the magnitude of guideline-discordant treatment receipt. Results: This analysis included 69,584 patients with localized PCa (White: 53,875 [77.4%]; Black: 11,265 [16.2%]; Asian/Pacific Islander: 4,133 [5.9%]; American Indian/Alaska Native: 311 0.5%]). In terms of risk groups, patients in higher risk categories had increased odds of discordance compared to the lower risk groups (Table). In terms of race, Black men had significantly higher odds of receiving guideline-discordant therapy (OR:1.67, 95% CI:1.58–1.76), while no statistically significant difference was observed with American Indian/Alaska Native men (OR:1.21, 95% CI: 0.92–1.61) and Asian/Pacific Islander men (OR:1.05, 95% CI:0.97–1.14) compared to White men. Conclusions: Population level data, based on limited sample size in some groups, suggests that treatment concordance with NCCN guidelines varies by risk group and race in localized PCa. Black patients, and those with higher risk groups were more likely to receive guideline-discordant therapy. These findings highlight the need for strategies and prospective studies at individual patient level to evaluate and enhance guideline adherence to promote personalized care for these patients. Variable Discordant Treatment (%) OR (95% CI) White 22168 (41.1) REF Black 5653 (47.5) 1.67 (1.58-1.76) * Asian/Pacific Islander 1822 (44.1) 1.05 (0.97-1.14) American Indian/Alaska Native 191 (61.4) 1.22 (0.92- 1.61) Very Low Risk 770 (9) REF Low Risk 146 (2) 0.16 (0.13-0.19) * Favorable Risk 35 (0.4) 0.03 (0.02-0.04) * Unfavorable Risk 15125 (83.2) 36.30 (33.72-39.25) * High/Very High Risk 13441 (50) 7.32 (6.83-7.86) * * p <0.05.

e16157 Background: The optimal treatment for resectable gastric/GEJ AC is unclear due to limited direct comparisons among chemotherapy and chemoradiation regimens. Addressing this gap is critical to improve patient outcomes. We performed this network meta-analysis (NMA) to determine the relative efficacy of multimodality regimens for resectable gastric/GEJ AC. Methods: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, and CENTRAL were searched from inception till September 20, 2024, to identify phase III trials evaluating perioperative/neoadjuvant systemic therapy ± radiation in resectable gastric/GEJ AC. Primary outcomes were disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS). A frequentist NMA was conducted to compare hazard ratios (HR) and 95% CI for each outcome. Relative treatment rankings were assessed using P-scores. Results: Fifteen trials (8,072 patients) were analyzed. pFLOT (perioperative fluorouracil, leucovorin, oxaliplatin, and docetaxel) ranked highest for DFS in the overall population (P score 91%) (Table), significantly outperforming surgery alone (HR 0.48, 95% CI 0.38-0.60) and nCROSS (neoadjuvant paclitaxel, carboplatin and radiotherapy) (0.67, 0.56-0.81). For OS, nPLF+nCRT(EP) (neoadjuvant cisplatin, leucovorin and fluorouracil for induction, followed by etoposide, cisplatin, and radiotherapy) (P score 90%) and pFLOT (P score 87%) were the top regimens, with pFLOT significantly outperforming surgery alone (0.57, 0.45-0.72), and nCROSS (0.73, 0.60-0.89). Adding neoadjuvant chemoradiation to pFLOT provided no additional OS (1.14, 0.76-1.72) or DFS (1.22, 0.83-1.82) benefit. Similarly, adding pembrolizumab to perioperative chemotherapy (CF/CX) (cisplatin and fluorouracil/capecitabine) was not superior to pFLOT in terms of DFS (1.10, 0.71-1.69) or OS (1.09, 0.69-1.72). Conclusions: pFLOT demonstrated superior efficacy in resectable gastric/GEJ AC, surpassing surgery alone, nCROSS, and other perioperative regimens. The additive role of immunotherapy to pFLOT requires further investigation to refine patient selection and optimize outcomes. Regimen Overall Population GEJ cohort OS DFS OS DFS nPLF+nCRT(EP) 1 (90) 2 (84) 1 (85) NA pFLOT 2 (87) 1 (91) 2 (79) 2 (88) pPembrolizumab+CF/CX 3 (75) 3 (81) 5 (41) - nECX 4 (61) 5 (55) - - pCF 5 (59) 8 (51) 3 (72) - pECF/ECX 6 (47) 6 (55) 7 (40) 3 (57) nECX+aCRT(CX) 7 (45) 7 (52) 9 (31) - nCF 8 (42) 10 (28) 6 (40) - nCROSS 9 (41) 9 (35) 8 (34) 4 (43) pECF/ECX/FLOT+nCRT(F/X) 10 (38) 4 (57) 4 (72) 1 (90) nCRT(CF) 11 (9) 11 (6) - 5 (14) Surgery 12 (7) 12 (5) 10 (5) 6 (9) Data reported as rank (P-score). Abbreviations: n: neoadjuvant; p: perioperative; ECX: epirubicin + cisplatin + capecitabine; CF: cisplatin + fluorouracil; ECF: epirubicin + cisplatin + fluorouracil; aCRT(CX): adjuvant radiotherapy + cisplatin + capecitabine; CRT(F/X): fluorouracil/capecitabine + radiotherapy; CRT(CF): cisplatin + fluorouracil + radiotherapy.

Abstract Background Optimal treatment for resectable gastric and gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) adenocarcinoma remains unclear due to limited head-to-head comparisons among chemotherapy and chemoradiation regimens. This network meta-analysis aimed to determine the relative efficacy of available multimodality treatment regimens in these patients. Methods MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Science, and CENTRAL were searched till September 20, 2024. Phase 3 randomized trials evaluating perioperative/neoadjuvant systemic therapy ± radiation in resectable gastric/GEJ adenocarcinoma were included. Primary outcomes were disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS). Frequentist network meta-analysis was conducted to compare hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results Fifteen trials (8072 patients) were analyzed. pFLOT (perioperative fluorouracil, leucovorin, oxaliplatin, and docetaxel) ranked highest for DFS in the overall population (P-score 91%), achieving significant improvements compared to surgery alone (HR 0.48, 95% CI, 0.38-0.60) and nCROSS (neoadjuvant paclitaxel, carboplatin, and radiotherapy) (0.67, 0.56-0.81). For OS, nPLF + nCRT(EP) (neoadjuvant cisplatin, leucovorin, and fluorouracil for induction, followed by etoposide, cisplatin, and radiotherapy) (P-score 90%) and pFLOT (P-score 87%) were the top regimens. pFLOT significantly outperformed surgery alone (0.57, 0.45-0.72) and nCROSS (0.73, 0.60-0.89). Based on the limited data available, adding neoadjuvant chemoradiation to pFLOT provided no additional OS (1.14, 0.76-1.72) or DFS (1.22, 0.83-1.82) benefit. Similarly, adding pembrolizumab to perioperative chemotherapy (cisplatin and fluorouracil/capecitabine) was not superior to pFLOT (DFS: 1.10, 0.71-1.69; OS: 1.09, 0.69-1.72). Conclusions pFLOT demonstrated superior efficacy in resectable gastric/GEJ adenocarcinoma, outperforming surgery alone, nCROSS, and alternative perioperative regimens. The additive role of immunotherapy requires further investigation to optimize patient selection and outcomes.

ASCO Guidelines provide recommendations with comprehensive review and analyses of the relevant literature for each recommendation, following the guideline development process as outlined in the ASCO Guidelines Methodology Manual . ASCO Guidelines follow the ASCO Conflict of Interest Policy for Clinical Practice Guidelines . Clinical Practice Guidelines and other guidance (“Guidance”) provided by ASCO is not a comprehensive or definitive guide to treatment options. It is intended for voluntary use by clinicians and should be used in conjunction with independent professional judgment. Guidance may not be applicable to all patients, interventions, diseases or stages of diseases. Guidance is based on review and analysis of relevant literature, and is not intended as a statement of the standard of care. ASCO does not endorse third-party drugs, devices, services, or therapies and assumes no responsibility for any harm arising from or related to the use of this information. See complete disclaimer in Appendix 1 and 2 (online only) for more . PURPOSE To provide evidence-based recommendations for patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). METHODS An Expert Panel including patient representation completed a systematic review of the evidence and made recommendations. RESULTS Depending upon prior treatment received, androgen receptor pathway inhibitors (ARPIs: enzalutamide, abiraterone with prednisone), poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors (PARPi), chemotherapeutic agents (docetaxel, cabazitaxel), radiopharmaceuticals (radium 223, 177 Lu-prostate-specific membrane antigen [PSMA]-617), and sipuleucel-T have demonstrated an overall survival (OS) benefit for patients with mCRPC. For patients with BRCA1 / 2 alterations who did not receive prior ARPI, the combination of PARPi and ARPI (talazoparib + enzalutamide, olaparib and/or niraparib + abiraterone) has shown clinical benefit. For patients with BRCA1 / 2 alterations who received prior ARPI or ARPI followed by docetaxel, olaparib showed OS benefit. In select patients with microsatellite instability-high/mismatch repair-deficient, pembrolizumab showed clinical efficacy. RECOMMENDATIONS Prior systemic therapy for castration-sensitive prostate cancer will determine subsequent therapy used for mCRPC. Continue androgen-deprivation therapy for patients with mCRPC indefinitely. Early adoption of somatic genetic testing and palliative care is recommended. Patients with mCRPC and bony metastases should receive a bone-protective agent. The panel recommends the combination of ARPI with PARPi in patients with BRCA1 / 2 alterations who did not receive prior ARPI. For patients who received prior ARPI, the panel recommends docetaxel chemotherapy. The panel recommends 177 Lu-PSMA-617 or cabazitaxel chemotherapy for patients who receive prior ARPI and docetaxel chemotherapy. For patients with BRCA1 / 2 alterations who received prior ARPI, the panel recommends PARPi monotherapy. Radium 223 is recommended for patients with symptomatic bone–only disease. Evidence for optimal sequencing for mCRPC regimens is lacking. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/genitourinary-cancer-guidelines .

ABSTRACTBackgroundThis study investigates the association between thromboembolic events (TE) and castration‐resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) patients receiving oral androgen receptor pathway inhibitors (ARPi) compared to those undergoing chemotherapy, both with and without a pre‐existing history of cardiovascular disease (CVD).MethodsA total of 2779 men diagnosed with CRPC were identified using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Medicare Linked Database from 2012 to 2016. Patients were stratified based on their CVD history. Within each CVD stratum (pre‐existing CVD vs. no pre‐existing CVD), patients were further categorized into two treatment groups: those receiving oral ARPi and those undergoing chemotherapy. Unadjusted and inverse probability treatment weight (IPTW)‐adjusted proportional hazards models, using Fine and Gray's method, were applied to evaluate the potential association between ARPi treatment and TE.ResultsPatients with pre‐existing CVD treated with ARPi exhibited a significantly lower crude hazard ratio (HR) for TE compared to chemotherapy (HR 0.39, 95% CI 0.27–0.58, p < 0.001). However, after adjustment using IPTW, this association was no longer significant (adjusted hazard ratio [AHR] 1.00, 95% CI 0.75–1.32, p = 0.99). For patients without CVD, ARPi use was also associated with a reduced risk of TE in the crude analysis (HR 0.53, 95% CI 0.32–0.87, p = 0.01), but this effect was not statistically significant after IPTW adjustment (HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.69–1.41, p = 0.94).ConclusionARPi demonstrated no significant effect on TE risk compared to chemotherapy, regardless of pre‐existing CVD status. Similarly, when excluding patients with a prior history of TE, ARPi use remained non‐significantly associated with new TE in the IPTW‐adjusted competing risk analysis, highlighting the need for further investigation.

ABSTRACTBackgroundThe treatment landscape for multiple myeloma continues to evolve. Recently, the addition of anti‐CD38 monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) to the triplet regimen, comprising a proteasome inhibitor, an immunomodulatory agent, and a steroid, for transplant‐eligible newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (TENDMM) has shown promising results.AimsTo evaluate the overall efficacy and safety of quadruplet therapy with an anti‐CD38 mAb compared to a triplet regimen.MethodsA systematic search of Medline, Scopus, and EMBASE databases from inception to July 2024 identified relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Efficacy and safety outcomes were derived using random‐effects meta‐analysis. Summarized outcomes include hazard ratios (HR) for progression‐free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS), odds ratios (OR) for response rates, measurable residual disease (MRD) negativity rate, and grade 3 or higher adverse events (G ≥ 3 AEs).ResultsFive RCTs involving 2963 patients were included. A statistically significant PFS was observed for quadruplet therapy when compared to the triplet regimen (HR 0.44; 95% Confidence Interval [CI] 0.35–0.56). PFS benefit was consistent for the standard risk (SR) group (HR 0.38; 95% CI 0.27–0.52) and high risk (HiR) group (HR 0.62; 95% CI 0.41–0.92). No statistically significant benefit was observed for OS (HR 0.55; 95% CI 0.28–1.08). A statistically significant benefit was observed for the overall response rate (OR 1.77; 95% CI 1.02–3.06) and MRD negativity rate (OR 2.67; 95% CI 1.79–3.99). No significant differences were observed for G ≥ 3 AE (OR 1.21; 95% CI 0.92–1.58), lymphopenia (OR 1.09; 95% CI 0.62–1.89), and anemia (OR 1.06; 95% CI 0.83–1.37). However, a significantly increased risk was observed for all‐grade thrombocytopenia (OR 1.64; 95% CI 1.37–1.97), neutropenia (OR 2.24; 95% CI 1.67–3.02) and infections (OR 1.88; 95% CI 1.07–3.31).ConclusionQuadruplet therapy demonstrated a favorable efficacy and safety profile, with consistent benefit across subgroups. The findings support its potential as the new standard of care for TENDMM.

261 Background: Clinicians use next-generation sequencing (NGS) to tailor targeted treatments for PCa patients. However, the results are often available in unstructured formats and are saturated with technical jargon, making them inaccessible for patients. Therefore, we aimed to assess the efficacy of LLMs to accurately extract genomic characteristics from unstructured reports and generate patient-friendly summaries for ease of variant interpretation in PCa patients. Methods: This retrospective study included patients with PCa who underwent NGS from 2023-2024. The GPT4 model was utilized using structured zero-shot prompts to extract genomic characteristics from unstructured reports in a non-decomposed manner. Prompt development was conducted iteratively using a 2% random sample of the dataset. Genomic characteristics ascertained by LLM were assessed against held out vendor-curated test dataset for evaluation. Performance was assessed using weighted evaluation metrics (precision, recall, and F1-score). Additionally, the extracted variables were organized using rule-based criterion and presented as a separate prompt to GPT4 to generate summaries for interpretation at the level of each biologically relevant variant. Mean Flesch-Kincaid scores and Vocd-D statistic with standard deviations were computed to assess readability and lexical diversity of LLM-generated variant interpretation summaries. Results: A total of 331 patients (370 NGS reports) were included in the study. Evaluation on the held-out test dataset (Table) showed that the weighted average precision ranged from 80% for extracting tumor mutational burden to 100% for extracting the CtDNA fraction from unstructured reports. The weighted average recall ranged from 85% for extracting CtDNA tumor fraction to 99% for ascertaining variant/alteration. The weighted average F1-scores varied from 0.83 for extracting tumor mutational burden to 1.0 for extracting specimen site from NGS reports. The mean Flesch-Kincaid score was 8.29 ± 1 indicating average/standard readability ease. The mean Vocd-D statistic was 7.55 ± 1 indicating focused summaries, however, with limited lexical diversity. Conclusions: This study suggests that large language models can effectively extract genomic characteristics from unstructured reports and can potentially improve genomic literacy among prostate cancer patients by providing easy-to-interpret variant summaries. However, targeted prompting may be required to increase lexical diversity for improved engagement. Performance across different genomic characteristics. Category Precision Recall F1-Score Altered gene 0.86 0.97 0.89 Variant/alteration type 0.98 0.99 0.98 Variant allele fraction 0.96 0.96 0.96 Test name/type 1 0.99 1 Specimen site 1 0.99 1 Tumor mutational burden 0.8 0.93 0.83 CtDNA tumor fraction 1 0.85 0.92 MSI status 0.99 0.97 0.98

454 Background: Limited data exist on outcomes in mRCC patients with major venous involvement (MVI). Assessment of impact of a given variable on prognosis in cancer patients is challenging given competing causes of death (PMID: 25417239). This analysis aims to estimate cancer prognosis in mRCC patients with MVI, considering death from competing causes. Methods: Data from the Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) database (2010-2020) were analyzed for survival and mortality in mRCC patients with MVI. 5-year (y) overall survival (OS) and 5-y probability of cancer death were calculated using the actuarial method in SEER*Stat 8.4.4, reported as percentages with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Results were based on the site of MVI (renal vein, inferior vena cava [IVC]) and stratified by age (<65, >65 years), gender (male, female), and race/ethnicity (Non-Hispanic [NH] White, NH Black, NH Asian/Pacific Islander [API], Hispanic). Results: A total of 89047 mRCC patients were included in our analysis of whom 10785 (12%) had major venous involvement (MVI). Overall, patients who experienced MVI had worse prognosis as compared to those who did not have MVI (5-y OS: 53.2% vs 84.4% and 5-y cancer death: 38.6% vs 8.2% respectively). Among cohort with MVI, prognosis was poor with IVC involvement as compared to involvement of renal vein (5-y OS: 36% vs 57%; 5-y cancer death: 56% vs 35% respectively). Patients who had the worst prognosis with MVI included older adults (>65 y) (5-y OS: 47.8%; 5-y cancer death: 40.8%) and NH Black (5-y OS: 41.5%; 5-y cancer death: 49.8%) (Table). Conclusions: Prognosis in mRCC with MVI, especially with IVC involvement, was poor, particularly for older adults (>65 y) and NH Black patients. Further research is needed for better prognostication and risk stratification to improve outcomes for high-risk patients. Subgroup No MVI MVI N 5-year OS (%), 95% CI 5-year Cancer death (%), 95% CI N 5-year OS (%), 95% CI 5-year Cancer death (%), 95% CI Overall population 78,262 84.4 (84.1-84.7) 8.2 (8.0-8.4) 10,785 53.2 (52.0-54.3) 38.6 (37.5-39.7) Age <65 y 49,217 89.0 (88.6-89.2) 6.5 (6.3-6.8) 5,897 57.5 (56.0-59.0) 36.8 (35.4-38.3) >65 y 29,045 77.0 (76.1-77.2) 10.9 (10.5-11.4) 4,888 47.8 (46.0-49.5) 40.8 (39.2-42.4) Gender Male 49,221 83.0 (82.7-83.5) 8.9 (8.6-9.2) 7,503 53.2 (51.8-54.6) 38.3 (37.0-39.6) Female 29,041 86.5 (86.0-86.9) 7.0 (6.7-7.4) 3,282 53.0 (51.0-55.0) 39.4 (37.4-41.3) Race/ethnicity NH White 49,520 84.0 (83.7-84.4) 8.3 (8.0-8.5) 7,182 53.5 (52.1-54.8) 38.0 (36.7-39.3) NH Black 8,878 82.0 (81.0-82.9) 8.1 (7.5-8.8) 685 41.5 (37.1-45.9) 49.8 (45.4-54.1) NH API 4,747 86.0 (85.1-87.4) 8.5 (7.6-9.4) 713 52.9 (48.2-57.3) 39.9 (35.5-44.1) Hispanic (All Races) 13,826 86.5 (85.8-87.2) 7.9 (7.4-8.4) 2,014 56.2 (53.4-58.8) 36.7 (34.1-39.2) N: number of cases; OS: overall survival; CI: confidence interval; NH: Non-Hispanic; API: Asian/Pacific Islander; MVI: major venous involvement.

270 Background: Inconsistent reporting of subgroup data across clinical trials makes interpretation and application of the evidence from trials challenging. We conducted a living systematic review to summarize evidence for American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) guidelines for management of metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). Here, we provide an overview of reporting patterns of subgroup data across mCRPC trials. Methods: MEDLINE and EMBASE were systematically searched from each database's inception through September 20 th , 2024, to identify phase II/III/IV randomized clinical trials assessing the efficacy and safety of treatment options in mCRPC. For outcomes of overall survival (OS) and progression free survival (PFS), data from the subgroup analyses was collected and compared across trials to assess heterogeneity in the reporting of subgroups. Results: This analysis included 141 trials (phase II: 83; phase III: 56; phase IV: 2). OS was reported by 113 (80%) trials; 32 (28%) reported OS by any subgroups with 95 unique subgroup categories. PFS was reported by 110 (78%) trials; 23 (21%) reported PFS by any subgroups with 63 unique subgroup categories. Even among consistently reported subgroups, such as age, ECOG performance status, race, geographical area, and Gleason score, considerable heterogeneity in different subgroup levels/thresholds was observed across trials. Top ten most commonly reported subgroups are summarized (Table). Conclusions: Lack of consistent reporting for subgroup analysis in mCRPC trials preclude meaningful conclusions about clinically relevant subgroup and synthesizing evidence for clinical guidelines. A standardized framework for consistent reporting of subgroup data across trials can help inform clinical practice and clinical practice guidelines. OS PFS Number of trials 113 110 Reporting subgroup analysis – N (%) 32 (28) 23 (21) Commonly reported subgroups – (N) Age (26)ECOG-PS (26)LDH (21)PSA (18)Geographic area (15)Alkaline phosphatase (14)Visceral disease (14)Gleason score (9)Race (9)Brief pain inventory level (8) Age (21) ECOG-PS (19)PSA (18)LDH (14)Geographic area (13)Visceral disease (11)Gleason score (10)Alkaline phosphatase (9)Bone metastasis (9)Disease location (9) Age – (N) <65 (14); ≥65 (9); ≤68 (1); ≥69 (1); <70 (5); ≥70 (5); ≤74 (4); 65-75 (5); ≤ 71 (1); >71 (1); ≥75 (11); >Median (1); <Median (1) <65 (12); 65-74 (6); ≥65 (6); <70 (5); ≥70 (5); <75 (4); ≥75 (10); 76-80 (1); >80 (1) ECOG-PS – (N) 0 (15); 0-1 (11), 1 (11); 1-2 (5); 2 (12) 0 (15); 0-1 (5), 1 (12); 1-2 (2); 2 (6) Race – (N) White (9)Non-white (6)African American/black (2)Asian (2) White (8)Non-white (5)African American/black (2)Asian (4) Geographic Area – (N) Europe (8)North America (14)United States (1)Australia (1)Asia (2) Europe (11)North America (13)United States (1)Australia (1)Asia (2)North and South America (2) Gleason Score – (N) 2-6 (1); 7 (1); 8 (1); <8 (8); ≥ 8 (8); 9-10 (1) <8 (10); ≥ 8 (10)

745 Background: The combination of EV-P therapy has recently been approved as first-line (1L) therapy for patients with LA/mUC based on the results of the EV-302 trial. Herein, we report the updated results from a cohort of patients with LA/mUC who received EV-P in real world clinical setting. Methods: This retrospective study included patients with LA/mUC (07/2022-08/2024) at the Mayo Clinic who completed at least one cycle of EV-P. The best overall response (BOR) was evaluated using radiographic imaging and was adjudicated as complete response (CR), partial response (PR), stable disease (SD), mixed response (MR), or progressive disease (PD). The median progression-free survival (PFS), defined as the time from treatment initiation to disease progression or death, was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Patients who had not experienced disease progression by their last follow-up were censored for the PFS analysis. Results: A total of 120 patients were included; 79 (65.8%) were males, 41 (34.1%) females, 109 (91%) White, and 119 (99%) were non-Hispanic/Latino. The median age was 72 years (IQR: 65-77). Of these, only 22 (18.3%) had locally advanced disease while the remaining had mUC; 62 (51.6%) had lower tract urothelial carcinoma (LUTC), 36 (30%) had upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC). The median follow-up time was 7.1 months (IQR: 4.93-9.26). In terms of BOR, 56 patients (46.6%) experienced PR, 34 (28.3%) CR, 12 (10%) PD, 7 (5.8%) MR, and 8 (6.6%) experienced SD. 3 (2.5%) patients were not evaluable. The BOR across subgroups, LA and mUC, including LUTC and UTUC, is summarized in the table. Among the responders, the median number of treatment cycles to first response was 3 (IQR: 2.25–4). Within the follow-up, 28 patients (23.3%) experienced eventual radiographic disease progression; death was observed in 25 patients (20.8%). The median PFS was 12.7 months (95% CI: 9.8-NE), and OS was 25.1 months (16.3-NE). Conclusions: In real world setting, the combination of EV-P in LA/mUC demonstrated clinical efficacy compatible with the findings from the EV-302 trial. Our results showed comparable efficacy with EV-P in both UTUC and LUTC, highlighting it's broad therapeutic potential. However, clinical data at longer follow-up is required to fully evaluate overall survival and the durability of response. mUC LA Overall LUTC UTUC Total patients 98 62 36 22 BOR CR 23 (23.4%) 13 (20.9%) 10 (28.5%) 11 (50%) PR 49 (52.6%) 31 (50%) 18 (50%) 7 (31.8%) SD 6 (6.4%) 2 (3.2%) 4 (11.4%) 2 (9.0%) PD 10 (10.7%) 9 (15.5%) 1 (2.8%) 2 (9.0%) MR 7 (7.5%) 5 (8.6%) 2 (5.7%) 0 (0%)