Burgess, Earle F.

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)

TPS4201 Background: Poorly differentiated, extrapulmonary NEC are rare cancers with median overall survival (OS) <1 year. Treatment is extrapolated from small cell lung cancer (SCLC) with use of P (cisplatin or carboplatin) + E. More effective treatment regimens and predictive biomarkers are needed to improve outcomes. In SCLC, induction therapy with combination of P/E + PD-L1 checkpoint inhibitor atezolizumab and maintenance atezolizumab improved OS (12.3 months vs 10.3 months; HR 0.70, 95% CI 0.54 – 0.91, P=0.007) vs P/E alone (1). No study to date has compared PD-1/PD-L1 inhibition during induction only vs during induction and maintenance therapy. In SCLC, distinct molecular subtypes can be identified by the presence of specific transcription factors (e.g., ASCL1, NEUROD1, POU2F3) or an inflamed gene signature (SCLC-I), with SCLC-I pts more likely to benefit clinically from the addition of immunotherapy (2). In this study we plan to test the benefit of adding atezolizumab to induction P/E as well as the role of adding maintenance atezolizumab after induction P/E plus atezolizumab. We also plan to correlate tumor- and blood-based subtype biomarkers with response to therapy. Methods: Eligible pts ≥18 years old have evaluable, histologically confirmed extrapulmonary NEC, Zubrod PS ≤2, and are allowed to have up to 1 cycle of P/E prior to enrollment. P (cisplatin 75 mg/m2 or carboplatin AUC 5, iv) on day 1, E 100 mg/m2 iv on days 1-3, and atezolizumab 1200 mg iv on day 1 of q21 day cycles. Pts are randomized to 1 of 3 arms: A) Induction P/E + atezolizumab -> maintenance atezolizumab B) Induction P/E + atezolizumab -> observation C) Induction P/E -> observation. The primary objective is to compare the overall survival (OS, from randomization) between arms in a fixed sequence: A vs C -> B vs C -> A vs B. Secondary objectives include comparing OS (from start of maintenance/observation), progression free survival, response rate, duration of response, and safety/tolerability across arms. Tumor and blood samples will be banked for future biomarker analyses, including immunohistochemistry of transcription factors on tissue and whole exome sequencing on tumor and circulating tumor DNA. With 189 pts (168 eligible), the study has 84% power to detect an improvement in 12-months OS from 35% to 57.5% (HR 0.53). This study was activated December 2021 with 3 pts enrolled over 1 year due to restricting enrollment of NEC of small cell histology only. The protocol was amended in January 2023 to broaden eligibility to all NEC subtypes (small cell, large cell, and undefined histology with Ki-67 ≥55%). As of January 2024, 35 patients have been enrolled. A protocol amendment is planned to remove the need for Ki-67 index for NEC of genitourinary origin to improve accrual. 1. Horn L, et al. N Engl J Med 2018. 2. Gay CM, et al. Cancer Cell 2021. Clinical trial information: NCT05058651 .

AbstractBackgroundThe goal of this study is to evaluate germline genetic variants in African American men with metastatic prostate cancer as compared to those in Caucasian men with metastatic prostate cancer in an effort to understand the role of genetic factors in these populations.MethodsAfrican American and Caucasian men with metastatic prostate cancer who had germline testing using multigene panels were used to generate comparisons. Germline genetic results, clinical parameters, and family histories between the two populations were analyzed.ResultsA total of 867 patients were included in this retrospective study, including 188 African American and 669 Caucasian patients. There was no significant difference in the likelihood of a pathogenic or likely‐pathogenic variants (PV/LPVs) between African American and Caucasian patients (p = .09). African American patients were more likely to have a variant of unknown significance than Caucasians (odds ratio [OR] = 1.95; p < .0001). BRCA1 PV/LPVs were higher in African Americans (OR = 4.86; p = .04). African American patients were less likely to have a PV/LPV in non‐BRCA DNA repair genes (OR = 0.30; p = .008). Family history of breast (OR = 2.09; p = .002) or ovarian cancer (OR = 2.33; p = .04) predicted PV/LPVs in Caucasians but not African‐Americans. This underscores the limitations of family history in AA men and the importance of personal history to guide germline testing in AA men.ConclusionsIn metastatic prostate cancer patients, PV/LPVs of tested genes did not vary by race, BRCA1 PV/LPVs were more common in the African American subset. However, PV/LPVs in non‐BRCA DNA repair genes were less likely to be encountered in African Americans. Family history associated with genetic testing results in Caucasians only.