Jang, Albert

Abstract Enfortumab vedotin (EV), pembrolizumab, and EV plus pembrolizumab (EV/P) have rapidly reshaped the treatment landscape of advanced urothelial carcinoma, but toxicity increasingly determines treatment delivery, treatment continuity, and real-world benefit. As EV/P moves into broader clinical use, clinicians must distinguish adverse events related to antibody-drug conjugate exposure from immune-mediated toxicities and recognize syndromes in which both mechanisms may contribute. In this practical, mechanism-informed review, we synthesize pivotal trials, mature follow-up reports, and representative real-world cohorts describing the safety of EV monotherapy, pembrolizumab monotherapy, and EV/P in urothelial carcinoma. Because adverse-event reporting and ascertainment are heterogeneous across studies, including differences in preferred terms, composite categories, grading frameworks, and treatment-related versus all-cause reporting, we emphasize clinically interpretable patterns rather than pooled estimates. EV monotherapy is characterized by cutaneous toxicity, peripheral neuropathy, hyperglycemia, dysgeusia, and ocular events, including early epithelial/metabolic events and cumulative neuropathy. Pembrolizumab monotherapy has a lower overall high-grade toxicity burden but is defined by immune-mediated endocrinopathies, pneumonitis, hepatitis, colitis, and nephritis. Combination therapy produces a predictable overlap of these toxicity domains, creating diagnostic and management challenges for syndromes such as skin toxicity, diarrhea, fatigue, and pulmonary symptoms. We provide comparative visual toxicity signatures, regimen-specific summary tables, temporal toxicity mapping, and a pragmatic attribution framework that classifies events as EV-predominant, immune-predominant, overlap/indeterminate, or high-risk requiring initial interruption of both agents. This review aims to support bedside recognition, provisional attribution, early management, and safer implementation of EV/P in contemporary urothelial carcinoma practice.

Abstract Background and Objective Management of von Hippel–Lindau (VHL) disease is challenging due to multisystem involvement and limited systemic treatment options. Belzutifan has shown promising efficacy in clinical trials; however, real-world data remain limited. We aimed to evaluate its effectiveness and safety in a real-world cohort. Methods We conducted a retrospective study of 59 patients with VHL disease treated with belzutifan between August 2021 and January 2026. Objective response rates (ORR) for renal cell carcinoma (RCC), central nervous system hemangioblastomas (CNS HB), and pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (pNET) were assessed by an independent radiologist. Retinal hemangioblastoma outcomes were evaluated through ophthalmology records by chart review. Results Median follow-up was 29 months. ORR was 27.6%, 39.6%, and 85.7% for RCC, CNS HB, and pNET, respectively. Among 13 patients with retinal hemangioblastomas (20 eyes), 17 eyes (85%) showed improvement. At data cutoff, 47 patients (79.6%) remained on treatment, while 12 (20.3%) discontinued (7 due to adverse events, 3 to disease progression, and 2 to other reasons). The most common adverse event was anemia (86.4%). Grade ≥3 events occurred in 10 patients (16.9%). The procedure rate per patient-year decreased from 0.35 in the 3 years prior to treatment to 0.08 during follow-up (Incidence Rate Ratio, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.12–0.47; P < 0.001) Conclusions Belzutifan demonstrated efficacy across VHL-associated lesions, with favorable safety profile. Most adverse events were grade 1–2. A reduction in procedure rate was observed after treatment initiation.

Aim: Despite advances with immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI)-based regimens in the past decade, patients with metastatic urothelial cancer (mUC) face a poor prognosis with few approved options. Platinum-based chemotherapy with paclitaxel and carboplatin (TC) +/– ICI may be a feasible choice. Methods: We generated an IRB-approved, HIPAA-compliant retrospective database of patients at Mayo Clinic Cancer Center with mUC who started TC +/– ICI after disease progression on ICI from January 2018 through December 2024. Baseline demographics, clinicopathologic features, and treatment outcomes were extracted from the electronic health record. Kaplan-Meier method was used to calculate median duration of response (DOR), progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Results: There were 32 patients who fit inclusion criteria, including 31 patients who had disease progression on ICI in the metastatic setting and 1 patient who developed metastatic disease on adjuvant nivolumab. Patients received a median of 4 cycles (range 1–14) of TC over median 12 weeks (range 3–53). Overall, 81% of patients received TC concurrently with an ICI, and 28% continued maintenance ICI after TC discontinuation (at the treating oncologist’s discretion due to adequate response or toxicity). The best objective response rate was 41% and disease control rate was 75%, with median DOR of 4.8 months (IQR 2.7–10.4), median PFS of 4.6 months (IQR 3.3–10.2), and median OS of 9.4 months (IQR 6.3–15.9). Some patients in this series had very durable responses with PFS > 12 months and OS > 24 months. TC +/– ICI was overall well tolerated with expected type and severity of adverse events. Conclusions: Strategies to overcome ICI resistance are needed, and TC +/– ICI after disease progression on an ICI shows promising tolerability and efficacy in this setting for patients with mUC. Our series was notable for some patients having a durable response. Validation in larger cohorts is warranted.

5068 Background: 177 Lu-PSMA-617 (LuPSMA) is a groundbreaking therapy for mPC, but biomarkers are urgently needed to improve patient selection. Plasma-derived EVs are emerging blood-based markers of tumor burden. Here, we analyzed levels of EVs of 123 patients (pts) from 4 cohorts: a pre- and during LuPSMA treatment for a contemporary prospective Mayo Clinic cohort, pre-treatment plasma levels of EVs for a historical Tulane cohort, localized prostate cancer (LPC) after radical prostatectomy (RP), and male healthy donors (HD). Methods: Blood samples were collected from 51 pts pre-cycles (pre-C) 1-3 of LuPSMA at Mayo Clinic from 12/2024-12/2025 and 26 pts pre-C1 at Tulane Cancer Center between 12/2018-1/2025. Small and large EVs were incubated with fluorescently conjugated antibodies (PSMA, STEAP1, CEACAM5, and TROP2) and enumerated using nanoscale flow cytometry. EVs from blood samples of 10 HD and 36 LPC post-RP from 6/2020-8/2024 at Mayo Clinic as controls. AUC-ROC and logistic regression analyses were performed to identify marker signatures associated with PSA50 response. Results: Baseline demographics are shown in the table. Median levels of PSMA, STEAP1, CEACAM5, and TROP2 EV/milliliter (mL) were all significantly higher for pts with mPC (pooled Tulane and Mayo cohorts) compared to LPC post-RP (p<0.001) and HD (p<0.001). In the Mayo cohort, 10 of 51 pts (20%) had undetectable PSA pre-C1. There were no significant differences in median pre-C1 plasma EV levels for these 4 different types of EVs comparing pts with undetectable vs detectable PSA. For 41 Mayo pts with detectable PSA pre-C1, 20 achieved PSA50 response at time of data cutoff (49%), while 7 pts (17%) had persistent PSA rise on LuPSMA. For pts who achieved PSA50, there was a significant decline in both CEACAM5 and TROP2 EVs/mL pre-C1 compared to pre-C3 (19 x 10 6 vs 5.8 x 10 6 , p=0.003 and 16 x 10 6 vs 5.5 x 10 6 , p<0.001, respectively), while no significant changes occurred for the 7 pts with no PSA response. A composite score of pre-C1 CEACAM5 and TROP2 EVs (large- and small-sized EVs) demonstrated the strongest association with PSA50 response (OR=2.96, 95% CI: 1.27-6.44, p=0.038), achieving AUC of 0.73. PSMA and STEAP1 EVs did not show any significant changes from pre-C1 to pre-C3. Conclusions: Plasma-derived EVs are a promising biomarker to identify patients who will benefit from LuPSMA. Longer follow-up and enrolling a larger cohort are underway. Clinical trial information: NCT06200103 . Median values for pre-LuPSMA (Mayo and Tulane), post-RP for LPC, and HD. Mayo mPC (n=51) Tulane mPC (n=26) LPC (n=36) HD (n=10) Age (range) 73 (57-87) 71 (54-83) 66 (56-77) 55 (50-57) Prior lines (range) 1 (1-3) 4 (1-11) - - Gleason score 9 8 7 - PSA (range) 1.0 (0-182) 75 (0.8-503) - - PSMA EV/mL 3.7 x 10 6 14 x 10 6 2.0 x 10 6 1.4 x 10 6 STEAP1 EV/mL 30 x 10 6 45 x 10 6 12 x 10 6 12 x 10 6 CEACAM5 EV/mL 17 x 10 6 5.1 x 10 6 3.7 x 10 6 3.9 x 10 6 TROP2 EV/mL 13 x 10 6 5.2 x 10 6 4.5 x 10 6 3.6 x 10 6

142 Background: LuPSMA is a life-prolonging radioligand therapy that is widely considered to have favorable tolerability. SPPADE symptoms (Sleep disturbance, Pain, Physical dysfunction, Anxiety, Depression, low Energy) are common in prostate cancer, yet data on patient-reported outcomes with LuPSMA in real-world settings remain limited. Methods: The E2C2 study (NCT03892967) evaluates the impact of a collaborative care intervention on patient-centered outcomes and healthcare utilization. This analysis includes mCRPC patients who initiated LuPSMA at Mayo Clinic (June 2022-July 2023) and completed at least one symptom survey within 6 weeks before or 2 weeks after the first LuPSMA treatment (baseline survey). SPPADE symptoms were rated on 0-10 scales; scores of 4-6 indicate moderate and 7-10 severe burden. A composite z-score was derived by standardizing each SPPADE domain to the cohort mean and averaging z-scores across domains per patient. Patients were stratified by composite symptom burden using cohort median and upper-tertile cutoffs. Associations with PSA50 response and overall survival (OS, from start of LuPSMA) were assessed using chi-square and Kaplan-Meier methods. In a longitudinal subgroup of patients completing a baseline survey plus at least one additional PRO survey while receiving LuPSMA (≥2 surveys), scores were compared from baseline to best during-treatment using Wilcoxon and Mann-Whitney U tests. Results: Of 373 patients starting LuPSMA, 51 patients met inclusion criteria. Median age was 71 years, 31% had visceral metastases, and median baseline PSA was 42.1 ng/mL. Overall, 85% of patients reported at least one moderate symptom and 46% at least one severe symptom. The most common moderate-to-severe symptoms were low energy (58%), pain (52%), and sleep disturbance (49%). Using an upper-tertile cutoff of the composite SPPADE score, 17 patients had high and 34 had low/moderate symptom burden prior to LuPSMA. PSA50 response was achieved in 17.6% of patients with high vs 47.1% with low/moderate composite symptom scores (p = 0.08). Median OS was 9.2 vs 16.7 months for high vs low symptom groups (p = 0.15, median split). The longitudinal subgroup included 24 patients with serial ePRO assessments while on LuPSMA. Composite SPPADE scores improved from baseline to the best during-treatment assessment in both PSA50 responders (n=10) and non-responders (n=14), with median composite z-score Δ of 0.35 vs 0.20, respectively (p = 0.68). Conclusions: Among patients with mCRPC receiving LuPSMA, baseline SPPADE symptom burden was high. Though not statistically significant in this underpowered cohort, PSA response and OS were numerically inferior in those with higher baseline burden. These findings suggest that ePRO-captured symptom burden may provide prognostic and patient-centered insights beyond traditional clinical variables. Clinical trial information: NCT03892967 .

TPS892 Background: Enfortumab Vedotin (EV) plus pembrolizumab (Pembro) is now first-line therapy for advanced urothelial carcinoma (UC), yielding ~30% complete response (CR) rates; nevertheless, most patients (pts) progress within 1 year and median overall survival (OS) remains < 3 years. In muscle invasive bladder cancer, local consolidation after systemic therapy improves outcomes, suggesting that residual, treatment-refractory intravesical disease drives relapse. We hypothesize that cytoreductive cystectomy/nephroureterectomy (CC/U)—with metastasis-directed therapy (MDT) as needed—can consolidate responses to EV/Pembro and extend benefit in regionally advanced or metastatic UC. CAST-AI prospectively evaluates this multimodal strategy and integrates correlative studies of exosomal Nectin-4 and circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) from blood and urine as predictive/MRD biomarkers. Methods: CAST-AI is a phase II, decentralized single-arm trial enrolling pts with histologically confirmed UC of the bladder or upper urinary tract with ≥N1 and/or M1 disease and ECOG PS 0–2 who are potential surgical candidates (planned n = 75). Treatment: EV 1.25 mg/kg IV D1 & D8 + Pembro 200 mg IV D1 q21d, ≥4 cycles; MDT permitted any time pre-surgery. Response assessments occur q9 weeks (±4) to 18 months, then q12 weeks (±4). Surgical eligibility requires: (A) fitness for surgery; (B) complete or partial response (CR/PR) or, for select low-burden/unmeasurable disease, urologist-adjudicated candidacy; (C) all distant sites addressed; and (D) procedure in pt’s best interest. Post-CC/U maintenance EV/Pembro is encouraged per clinical discretion and guided by definitive surgical pathology results, which provide true pathologic staging often unattainable through imaging after systemic therapy. Primary endpoint: 12-month progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints: Objective response rate (ORR), CR rate, down-staging at CC/U, PFS, OS, and safety (using CTCAE). Exploratory endpoints: longitudinal exosomal Nectin-4 and ctDNA dynamics as MRD and early relapse indicators; tissue–blood–urine Nectin-4 concordance; pt-reported tolerability (using CIPN20). Key exclusions: > 20% variant histology or disallowed subtypes (e.g., micropapillary, plasmacytoid, sarcomatoid, neuroendocrine); prior chemotherapy for UC; contraindications to surgery/EV/ICI; or active uncontrolled comorbidities/infections. Status: Enrollment is open and ongoing, with 25 of 75 pts enrolled as of September 2025. The trial uses a decentralized model, allowing pts to receive EV/Pembro at their local facility, with central coordination, biospecimen shipping, and surgical evaluation at Mayo Clinic or affiliated sites. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT06764095. Clinical trial information: NCT06764095 .

TPS283 Background: Emerging evidence suggests that metastasis-directed therapy (MDT) with stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) can delay systemic therapy in oligometastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (omCSPC). However, the optimal timing of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) and androgen receptor pathway inhibitor (ARPI) initiation in this setting remains undefined. While deferred ADT following MDT may preserve quality of life, early short-course ADT/ARPI may eradicate micrometastatic disease and extend progression-free survival. Extracellular vesicles (EVs) carrying PSMA-positive prostate cancer (PC) signals and circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) may serve as real-time biomarkers of MRD and treatment response. Methods: DIVINE [NCT06378866] is an open-label, phase II, randomized trial enrolling men with omCSPC defined by 1–5 metastases (≥1 extrapelvic) on conventional imaging (CT/MRI and bone scan) and testosterone >100 ng/dL. PSMA PET may be obtained for correlative purposes but does not determine eligibility. Participants (N = 220) are randomized 1:1 to: Arm A (Early systemic): SBRT plus 6 months of ADT + ARPI. Arm B (Deferred systemic): SBRT alone with observation, reserving systemic therapy until radiographic progression not amenable to further SBRT (mrPD). SBRT is delivered per institutional standard; repeat SBRT is allowed until lesions become non-addressable. The primary endpoint, modified radiographic progression-free survival (mrPFS), is the time from randomization to death or radiographic progression not amenable to further MDT, defined by PCWG3 (bone) and modified RECIST 1.1 (soft tissue) criteria on conventional imaging. Soft-tissue progression requires ≥ 20% increase in measurable disease or a new lesion; bone progression requires ≥ 2 new confirmed lesions. Secondary endpoints include OS, biochemical PFS, time to local and distant progression, and grade 3–5 adverse events during systemic therapy. Exploratory endpoints evaluate EV and ctDNA kinetics as MRD markers, correlation of PSMA-positive EV burden with outcomes, and duration of response after short-course ADT/ARPI. Correlative analyses will longitudinally quantify PSMA-positive EVs and ctDNA at baseline, on treatment, and at progression to define MRD dynamics and resistance patterns. The trial uses Pocock–Simon dynamic allocation by EV strata and metastatic burden to ensure balance across arms. The trial is open and actively enrolling across all Mayo Clinic sites; as of October 2025, 35 of the planned 220 patients have been accrued. Clinical trial information: NCT06378866 .

815 Background: EV, alone or combined with pembrolizumab (EVP), is a standard of care for patients (pts) with aUC. Markers predictive of early or durable treatment response in aUC remain limited. Here, we investigate serial ctDNA monitoring and TP53 VAF as complementary predictors of early EV/EVP response. Methods: This single-institution IRB-approved study included pts with aUC treated with EV/EVP between 1/2021 and 9/2025. Pt demographics, clinicopathologic features, serial Signatera ctDNA results, and somatic tissue next-generation sequencing (NGS) data were abstracted from medical records. Primary refractory disease (PRD) was defined as progressive disease on first restaging scan or earlier clinical progression resulting in death from disease. PRD and progression-free survival (PFS) were assessed using Fisher’s exact and log-rank tests. Results: Out of 158 pts, 67 pts were included in study cohort. Median follow-up was 13.2 months, with 52% of pts alive at time of data cutoff. Clinical characteristics at EV start include median age 69 years (range 41-99), 78% male, 91% white, 15% variant-predominant histologic subtype, 15% upper tract disease, 43% with visceral metastasis (24 lung, 7 liver), 66% frontline treatment (42 EVP, 2 EV), and 34% refractory setting (6 EVP, 17 EV). At first restaging scan, observed response rate was 50%; 23% had PRD. TP53 alterations on NGS were identified in 39 pts (58%); TP53 VAF was available for 36 pts (92%), with median VAF 50.7% (range 8-82%). While TP53 mutation presence did not significantly associate with PFS (hazard ratio [HR] 1.28, 95% CI 0.68-2.42; log-rank p = 0.45), pts with TP53 VAF ≥ 50% had significantly longer PFS compared with TP53 VAF < 50% (HR 0.44, 95% CI 0.18-1.04; log-rank p = 0.03). PRD was more commonly observed with TP53 VAF < 50% than with TP53 VAF ≥ 50% (odds ratio [OR] 0.06, 95% CI 0.01-0.48, p = 0.01). 23 pts (21 EVP, 2 EV) had ≥ 2 serial ctDNA draws ≤ 120 days apart, including baseline draw within 2 months of EV start. Median time between 1 st and 2 nd ctDNA draws was 43 days. 70% (16 pts) had ≥ 90% ctDNA decline and 17% (4 pts) had ctDNA rise. The 2 pts with PRD exhibited ctDNA rise, whereas no pts with ctDNA decline had PRD (p = 0.04). 10 of these pts (43%) had TP53 mutations with available VAF. Of those 5 pts with TP53 VAF ≥ 50%, 3 had ctDNA clearance over 90%, 1 had 0-90% ctDNA clearance, and 1 had ctDNA rise. Of those 5 pts with TP53 VAF < 50%, 2 had ctDNA clearance over 90%, 1 had 0-90% ctDNA clearance, and 2 had ctDNA rise. Conclusions: Integrated serial ctDNA monitoring and tumor TP53 VAF may capture early treatment sensitivity to EV/EVP. Limitations include retrospective analysis, small sample size/power, combined EV/EVP cohort, and lack of centralized imaging review. Further validation in large, prospective cohorts is warranted.

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