Brown, Jason R.

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]

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]

Otolaryngology is a small and highly sought‐after surgical subspecialty with sparse residency positions, making it competitive to match into. Allopathic (MD) students without home otolaryngology residency programs, osteopathic (DO) medical students, and underrepresented minorities have historically faced additional challenges in matching into otolaryngology. These specific populations generally experience limited opportunities in establishing mentors, engaging in scholarly activity, and gaining early exposure to clinical settings. Even though the American Osteopathic Association and the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education merger was in part established to create equity among applicants, there remains a substantial disparity among the match rates of medical students of various educational and cultural backgrounds. The National Otolaryngology Interest Group is a student‐led interest group created to provide all medical students, especially those facing barriers, with the resources needed to best prepare for matching into an otolaryngology residency program and ultimately a career in otolaryngology.