Oh, Eugene

794 Background: HER2 protein, encoded by ERBB2 gene, is the target of emerging therapies for patients (pts) with advanced urothelial carcinoma (aUC). High HER2 IHC expression (IHC 3+) is present in ~15% of pts with aUC, while >50% of pts have HER2 IHC 1+/2+/3+ expression. EVP is the preferred 1 st line regimen for pts with aUC, but the impact of HER2 status on EVP outcomes is unclear. Methods: We identified pts from the UNITE study with tumor samples tested for HER2 by IHC and another cohort with next-generation sequencing (NGS) data available. Outcomes were compared by HER2 IHC status (HER2 IHC 0/1+ vs 2+/3+) and separately based on ERBB2 status (alteration vs wild-type). X 2 test was used to compare observed response rate (ORR) and logistic regression was used to compare disease control rate (DCR). Duration of response (DOR), progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) from EVP start were evaluated using log-rank test and Cox proportional hazards models. Multivariate analysis (MVA) included age, sex, race, ECOG PS, neutrophil:lymphocyte ratio, albumin, hemoglobin, primary tumor site, tumor histology, prior lines of treatment, and metastatic sites as covariates. Results: Among 521 pts treated with EVP from 16 sites, 112 had HER2 IHC data and 313 had NGS. Median age was 71, 74% were men, 84% Caucasian, 82% had ECOG PS 0-1, 65% pure urothelial histology, and 73% received frontline EVP. HER2 IHC distribution (n=112) was 27%/21%/37%/15% for 0/1+/2+/3+, respectively. ERBB2 alterations were present in 14% (44/313). Baseline characteristics were similar in HER2 0/1+ and 2+/3+ pts, except more primary bladder tumors in 2+/3+ pts (83% vs 63%, p=0.01). For the overall cohort (n=521), with a median follow up of 7.3 mos from EVP start, ORR was 54%, DCR 81%, median DOR (mDOR) 8.5 mos, median PFS (mPFS) 8.5 mos, and median OS (mOS) 19.8 mos. Pt outcomes by HER2 IHC status are shown (Table). In univariate analysis (UVA), pts with HER2 IHC 0/1+ had longer mOS compared to HER2 IHC 2+/3+, but this was not significant in MVA (HR: 0.5; CI: 0.2–1.3, p=0.17). No significant differences were observed in other outcomes. Evaluating clinical outcomes by ERRB2 status, no significant differences were seen for ERBB2 -altered vs wild-type pts. Conclusions: In this retrospective study, no significant differences were seen in EVP treatment outcomes based on HER2 IHC status or ERBB2 status. These findings are hypothesis-generating and require validation in larger and prospective cohorts. HER2 0/1+ (n=54)* HER2 2+/3+ (n=58) OR (95%CI, p) HR UVA (95%CI, p) HR MVA (95%CI, p) ORR 49% (23/47) 55% (27/49) 1.3 (0.6-2.9, p=0.5) - - DCR 79% (37/47) 88% (43/49) 1.9 (0.7-6.2, p=0.2) - - mDOR 11.7 mos 10.4 mos - 1.3 (0.7-2.4, p=0.4) 1.2 (0.4-3.3, p=0.8) mPFS 5.9 mos 7.1 mos - 0.8 (0.5-1.4, p=0.5) 1.1 (0.5-2.5, p=0.9) mOS 42.4 mos 18.7 mos - 2.3 (1.1-4.5, p=0.02) 2.0 (0.8-5.4, p=0.2) *HER2 0/1+ used as reference.

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