Moreno, Blanca Homet

4614 Background: Enfortumab vedotin (EV) + pembrolizumab (pembro) is the established first-line standard of care for locally advanced/metastatic urothelial carcinoma and represents a novel neoadjuvant and adjuvant treatment strategy for patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) who are ineligible for cisplatin-based chemotherapy. The randomized phase 3 KEYNOTE-B15/EV-304 study (NCT04700124) evaluates neoadjuvant EV + pembro followed by radical cystectomy plus pelvic lymph node dissection (RC + PLND) and adjuvant EV + pembro vs neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by RC + PLND in participants (pts) with MIBC who are eligible for cisplatin-based therapy. Methods: Pts with clinical stage T2-T4aN0M0 or T1-T4aN1M0 MIBC (confirmed by central pathology and central imaging assessment) who were eligible for cisplatin-based chemotherapy and RC + PLND were randomized 1:1 to receive either 4 cycles neoadjuvant EV 1.25 mg/kg IV on days 1 and 8 + pembro 200 mg IV on day 1 Q3W, followed by RC + PLND, and adjuvant 5 cycles EV + 13 cycles pembro (EV + pembro arm) vs 4 cycles neoadjuvant gemcitabine 1000 mg/m 2 on days 1 and 8 + cisplatin 70 mg/m 2 on day 1 Q3W, followed by RC + PLND (cis + gem arm). The primary endpoint was event-free survival (EFS) by blinded independent central review. Key secondary endpoints were pathological complete response (pCR) rate by blinded central pathological review and overall survival (OS). Safety was a secondary endpoint; AEs of special interest were based on distinct prespecified lists for each drug. Results: A total of 405 and 403 pts were randomized to EV + pembro and cis + gem, respectively. Median time from randomization to the data cutoff date of October 27, 2025 was 33.6 months (range, 22.5–53.6). Baseline characteristics were generally balanced between groups. EV + pembro significantly improved EFS (median NR vs 48.5 mo; 24-mo estimated EFS rate 79.4% vs 66.2%; HR 0.53, 95% CI 0.41–0.70; 1-sided P <.0001), OS (median NR vs NR; 24-mo estimated OS rate 86.9% vs 81.3%; HR 0.65, 95% CI 0.48–0.89; 1-sided P =.0029), and pCR rate (55.8% vs 32.5%; estimated difference 23.4%, 95% CI 16.7–29.8; 1-sided P <.0001) vs cis + gem. Grade ≥3 treatment-emergent AEs occurred in 75.7% of pts with EV + pembro and 67.2% with cis + gem. Most common grade ≥3 drug-related AE of special interest for EV was skin reactions (14.1%); most common grade ≥3 AE of special interest for pembro was severe skin reactions (13.9%). Conclusions: Neoadjuvant and adjuvant EV + pembro significantly improved EFS, OS, and pCR rate compared with neoadjuvant gem + cis in pts with MIBC who were eligible for cisplatin-based chemotherapy. The safety profile of EV + pembro was consistent with prior experience with the combination. These results support EV + pembro as an effective perioperative treatment option in this setting. Clinical trial information: NCT04700124 .

LBA630 Background: Enfortumab vedotin (EV) + pembrolizumab (pembro) is the established first-line standard of care for locally advanced/metastatic urothelial carcinoma and represents a novel neoadjuvant and adjuvant treatment strategy for patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) who are ineligible for cisplatin-based chemotherapy. The randomized phase 3 KEYNOTE-B15/EV-304 study (NCT04700124) evaluates neoadjuvant and adjuvant EV + pembro followed by radical cystectomy plus pelvic lymph node dissection (RC + PLND) vs neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by RC + PLND in participants (pts) with MIBC who are eligible for cisplatin-based therapy. Methods: Pts with clinical stage T2-T4aN0M0 or T1-T4aN1M0 MIBC (confirmed by central pathology and central imaging assessment) who were eligible for cisplatin-based chemotherapy and RC + PLND were randomized 1:1 to receive either 4 cycles neoadjuvant EV 1.25 mg/kg IV on days 1 and 8 + pembro 200 mg IV on day 1 Q3W, followed by RC + PLND, and adjuvant 5 cycles EV + 13 cycles pembro (EV + pembro arm) vs 4 cycles neoadjuvant gemcitabine 1000 mg/m 2 on days 1 and 8 + cisplatin 70 mg/m 2 on day 1 Q3W, followed by RC + PLND (cis + gem arm). The primary endpoint was event-free survival (EFS) by blinded independent central review. Key secondary endpoints were pathological complete response (pCR) rate by blinded central pathological review and overall survival (OS). Safety was a secondary endpoint; AEs of special interest were based on distinct prespecified lists for each drug. Results: A total of 405 and 403 pts were randomized to EV + pembro and cis + gem, respectively. Median time from randomization to the data cutoff date of October 27, 2025 was 33.6 months (range, 22.5–53.6). Baseline characteristics were generally balanced between groups. EV + pembro significantly improved EFS (median NR vs 48.5 mo; 24-mo estimated EFS rate 79.4% vs 66.2%; HR 0.53, 95% CI 0.41–0.70; 1-sided P <.0001), OS (median NR vs NR; 24-mo estimated OS rate 86.9% vs 81.3%; HR 0.65, 95% CI 0.48–0.89; 1-sided P =.0029), and pCR rate (55.8% vs 32.5%; estimated difference 23.4%, 95% CI 16.7–29.8; 1-sided P <.0001) vs cis + gem. Grade ≥3 treatment-emergent AEs occurred in 75.7% of pts with EV + pembro and 67.2% with cis + gem. Most common grade ≥3 drug-related AE of special interest for EV was skin reactions (14.1%); most common grade ≥3 AE of special interest for pembro was severe skin reactions (13.9%). Conclusions: Neoadjuvant and adjuvant EV + pembro significantly improved EFS, OS, and pCR rate compared with neoadjuvant gem + cis in pts with MIBC who were eligible for cisplatin-based chemotherapy. The safety profile of EV + pembro was consistent with prior experience with the combination. These results support EV + pembro as an effective perioperative treatment option in this setting. Clinical trial information: NCT04700124 .

Abstract Purpose: The three-arm, phase III KEYNOTE-361 study did not meet its dual primary endpoints of progression-free survival (PFS) or overall survival (OS) with first-line pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy in advanced urothelial carcinoma. This prespecified exploratory analysis assessed the association of tumor mutational burden (TMB) and PD-L1 combined positive score (CPS) with clinical outcomes. Patients and Methods: TMB and PD-L1 CPS were determined via whole-exome sequencing and PD-L1 IHC 22C3 pharmDx, respectively. The association was evaluated in each treatment arm using logistic regression [objective response rate (ORR)] and Cox proportional hazards regression models (PFS and OS); one-sided (pembrolizumab monotherapy; pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy) and two-sided (chemotherapy) nominal P values were calculated. Significance was prespecified at α = 0.05 without multiplicity adjustment. Efficacy was evaluated by prespecified cutoffs of 175 mutations/exome (TMB) and CPS 10 (PD-L1). Results: Of the 993 treated patients, 820 (82.6%) and 993 (100%) had evaluable TMB and CPS data, respectively. Continuous TMB was positively associated with ORR, PFS, and OS for pembrolizumab monotherapy (one-sided P &lt; 0.001, P &lt; 0.001, and P = 0.007, respectively); PFS and OS for pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy (one-sided P = 0.007 and P = 0.010, respectively); and OS for chemotherapy alone (two-sided P = 0.040). Continuous PD-L1 CPS showed evidence of anticipated association with ORR and PFS for pembrolizumab monotherapy. The subgroup with TMB ≥175 mutations/exome and PD-L1 CPS ≥10 had the highest PFS and OS improvements with pembrolizumab alone or with chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone. Conclusions: These data suggest that TMB may be predictive of the response to pembrolizumab alone or with chemotherapy in advanced urothelial carcinoma.

540 Background: The 3-arm, open-label, phase 3 KEYNOTE-361 study (NCT02853305) evaluated first-line pembro ± chemo vs chemo in advanced UC regardless of PD-L1 status. The trial did not meet its primary end points of superior PFS and OS with pembro + chemo vs chemo and thus analysis of pembro monotherapy (mono) vs chemo was exploratory. We explored the association of TMB status and PD-L1 combined positive score (CPS) with clinical outcomes in KEYNOTE-361. Methods: In pts with TMB and/or PD-L1 data, the association between TMB (via whole exome sequencing) and PD-L1 (via PD-L1 IHC 22C3 pharmDx) and clinical outcomes (ORR, PFS, and OS) was evaluated. In each treatment arm, the hypotheses regarding the associations were evaluated using logistic regression (ORR) and Cox proportional hazards regression (PFS; OS), and 1-sided (pembro; pembro + chemo) and 2-sided (chemo) P values were calculated; significance was prespecified at α = 0.05 without multiplicity adjustment. Clinical utility was assessed using prespecified cutoffs of 175 mut/exome (TMB) and CPS 10 (PD-L1). Clinical data cutoff was April 29, 2020. Results: 820/993 pts (82.6%) had evaluable TMB data (pembro, 252; pembro + chemo, 282; chemo, 286). TMB (log10) was significantly positively associated with ORR, PFS, and OS for pembro ( P < 0.001, < 0.001, and 0.007, respectively) and PFS and OS for pembro + chemo ( P= 0.007 and 0.010, respectively). The area under the receiver operating characteristics (AUROC) curve (95% CI) for discriminating response was 0.64 (0.56-0.71) for pembro, 0.53 (0.46-0.60) for pembro + chemo, and 0.52 (0.45-0.59) for chemo. Efficacy by TMB cutoff is reported in the Table. All 993 pts had PD-L1 data (pembro, 302; pembro + chemo, 349; chemo, 342). PD-L1 was significantly positively associated with PFS for pembro ( P= 0.006) and ORR for pembro + chemo ( P= 0.042) but not chemo. Efficacy by PD-L1 CPS is reported in the Table. Conclusions: Strong associations were observed between TMB and all 3 clinical outcomes (ORR, PFS, and OS) with pembro mono in the first-line setting and a reduced association was observed between TMB and clinical outcomes with pembro + chemo. No consistent associations were observed between PD-L1 and clinical outcomes with pembro mono or pembro + chemo. Clinical trial information: NCT02853305. [Table: see text]