Alhalabi, Omar

4584 Background: EVP is the preferred frontline regimen in pts with aUC. Despite initial response to treatment, many pts treated with EVP ultimately have progression. We hypothesized that recurrence patterns would differ between pts with and without baseline liver metastases. Methods: UNITE is a multi-institutional retrospective database capturing clinical and treatment characteristics of pts with aUC receiving systemic therapies. We queried this database to identify pts who achieved an observed response (OR) to EVP. Pts were grouped by initial metastatic sites using a non-mutually exclusive approach. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize observed response rates (ORR) and recurrence patterns at time of progression. Progression-free survival (PFS) from start of EVP was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. The effect of liver metastases on PFS was assessed via multivariable Cox regression. Median-follow up time was estimated using the reverse Kaplan-Meier method. Statistical analyses were conducted in RStudio. Results: We identified 464 pts treated with EVP (median age 72; 74% male, 80% White). Best ORR in pts with baseline liver metastases (n=77) were complete response 9%, partial response 35%, stable disease 18%, and progressive disease 21%, compared with 18%, 37%, 27%, and 18%, respectively, in pts without baseline liver metastases (n=325). The estimated median follow-up time was 52 weeks (95% CI 48-62). Among pts with initial OR to EVP, those with baseline liver metastases showed a non-significant trend toward shorter PFS (HR 1.35; 95% CI 0.67–2.75; p=0.40) versus those without baseline liver metastases. Among pts with initial OR to EVP and subsequent progression the distribution of sites of recurrences at progression for those with (n = 10) and without (n = 40) baseline liver metastases were: liver (50% vs. 10%), lymph nodes (60% vs. 55%), lungs (50% vs. 38%), bone (20% vs 20%), and primary tumor (20% vs 25%). EVP responders with baseline liver metastases had a numerically higher rate of site-specific metastasis resolution at progression versus those with lymph node or lung metastases (Table). Conclusions: Our analysis suggests that liver metastases may be associated with shorter PFS among EVP responders, though these pts frequently do not retain liver metastases at time of progression. Study limitations include retrospective analysis, investigator-assessed response, small sample size, selection and confounding biases. Patterns of recurrence following EVP merits further evaluation. Metastatic Site Pts with Site-Specific Baseline Metastases (n) Pts with Resolution of Site-Specific Metastases at Progression, n (%) Pts without Baseline Metastases at Site (n) Pts who Remained Free of Site-Specific Metastases at Progression, n (%) Liver 10 5 (50%) 40 36 (90%) Lymph Nodes 37 12 (32%) 13 10 (77%) Lungs 26 8 (31%) 24 22 (92%)

4565 Background: EVP is the preferred 1 st -line regimen for patients (pts) with aUC. EV-related toxicities are often managed with dose adjustments, such as reductions and holds. Analysis of EV monotherapy trials showed consistent survival outcomes despite dose adjustments. We hypothesized that on-treatment EV dose adjustments would not impact survival in these pts. Methods: Pts with aUC treated with EVP in the multisite UNITE study were analyzed. Early dose reductions (DR) and holds were defined as occurring < 9 weeks from EVP start, with the remainder classified as late. Pts with DR at treatment start were excluded. Survival endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) from EVP start, assessed by Kaplan-Meier analysis and Cox models. Multivariable Cox analysis (MVA) included age (≥ 75 vs < 75), ECOG performance status (0-1 vs 2-3), Hgb level (< 10 vs ≥ 10) and liver metastases (present vs not). A time-dependent covariate was used to reduce immortal time bias. Complementary MVA landmark analyses were performed, aligned to the total number of treatment cycles received, with six analyses from cycles 2 to 7. Results: 360 pts from 17 sites were included (median age 70; 78% Caucasian; 76% male; 27% upper tract primary; 35% histology subtype component; 17% with liver metastasis; 78% frontline); median follow-up was 11.7 months (95% CI [10.79, 13.08]). Median number of cycles was 6 in pts with DR and 3 with no DR. Early DRs (100 pts [28%]) and holds (18 pts [5%]) were most commonly due to rash (28% of all early DRs and holds). Late DR (75 pts [21%]) and holds (50 pts [14%]) were most commonly due to neuropathy (52% of all late DRs and holds). Pts with early or late DR had longer PFS and OS vs those who did not (Table); however, there was no significant PFS or OS difference with dose hold vs no hold (PFS HR 0.65, 95%CI (0.40, 1.05), p = 0.08; OS HR 0.70, 95%CI (0.39, 1.27), p=0.24). In landmark analyses, about 50% of pts had DR; no significant difference in PFS or OS was observed at most landmarks, except for longer OS in the DR cohort at cycle 4 (HR 0.53, 95% CI (0.29, 0.98), p = 0.042) and cycle 5 (HR 0.43, 95% CI (0.19, 0.99), p = 0.048). Conclusions: In this real-world retrospective analysis, EVP efficacy was maintained despite DR and dose holds. Survival difference noted in the time-dependent analyses were not consistently reproduced in landmark analyses, suggesting exposure-related selection bias rather than causal effect. Prospective studies are warranted to validate these hypothesis-generating findings. Association of EV DR with PFS/OS (time-dependent analyses). Early DR Late DR DR vs no DR outcomes UVAHR (95% CI), p MVAHR (95% CI), p UVAHR (95% CI), p MVAHR (95% CI), p PFS 0.50 (0.35, 0.72), <.001 0.56 (0.38, 0.84), 0.005 0.32 (0.21, 0.49), <.001 0.36 (0.23, 0.57), <.001 OS 0.51 (0.32, 0.79), 0.003 0.57 (0.35, 0.92), 0.022 0.26 (0.15, 0.45), <.001 0.31 (0.17, 0.55), <.001

4515 Background: Adenocarcinomas of the urinary tract are rare malignancies with limited prospective data. Outcomes of triplet chemotherapy remain poorly defined. Methods: This was a prospective, single-arm, phase II study (NCT00082706) conducted at MD Anderson. Between 2005 and 2010, patients (pts) aged ≥18 years with ECOG 0–2 and metastatic or unresectable urachal (UA) or non-urachal adenocarcinoma (NUA) received frontline GemFLP (5-fluorouracil 200 mg/m² continuous infusion ×5 days with leucovorin 23 mg IV daily ×5; cisplatin 20 mg/m² IV daily ×5; gemcitabine 200 mg/m² IV on days 1 and 5). Best overall response (BOR) was assessed by imaging. Primary endpoints were objective response rate (ORR) and overall survival (OS); secondary endpoint was toxicity. PFS was calculated from treatment initiation and duration of response (DoR) from first CR/PR to progression or death; time-to-event endpoints were estimated by Kaplan–Meier (KM). Post hoc analyses evaluated baseline tumor markers (CEA, CA19-9, CA125, β-hCG) Treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) were graded per CTCAE v5. Results: Forty-six pts were enrolled (28 UA, 18 NUA). Median age was 58 years; 41% were de novo metastatic, and 78% had visceral metastases. ORR was 44% (20/46). Among responders, median DoR was 8.6 months (95% CI 4.6–30.8). median PFS was 3.3 months (95% CI 2.3–8.4) and median OS (mOS) was 21.0 months (95% CI 15.9–35.3) There was no difference in PFS (p=0.39) or OS (p=0.99) between UA and NUA. Baseline CEA, CA19-9, CA125, and β-hCG were not associated with ORR or PFS. Higher baseline CA125 was associated with inferior OS (HR 1.33, 95% CI: 1.12–1.58; p =0.001) Subsequent systemic therapy was administered to 28 pts (60.9%); median number of subsequent treatment lines was 2 (range 1–5). The most common hematologic TRAEs were anemia (28.1%; grade ≥3 [G3] 12.5%), thrombocytopenia (21.9%; G3 12.5%), and neutropenia (12.5%; G3 9.4%). The most frequent non-hematologic TRAEs were dehydration (21.9%; G3: 6.2%), diarrhea (9.4%; G3 6.2%) and catheter-related thrombosis (9.4%; G3 9.4%). No grade 5 events occurred. Conclusions: In this prospective phase II study, frontline GemFLP achieved a 44% ORR with durable responses (mDoR 8.6 mo) and 21 mo mOS in advanced UA and NUA. Survival did not differ between UA and NUA subtypes. Baseline CA125 was associated with OS. Toxicity was manageable. These data provide a prospective benchmark for this rare disease. Clinical trial information: NCT00082706 . Variable UA (n=28) NUA (n=18) Characteristics Age, median [ICR] 58 [54– 62] 58 [54– 62] 67 [ 62-72] Race, n (%) White 22 (79) 11 61) Black 6 (21) 6 (33) Other 0 1 (6) Prior surgery for localized disease, n (%) 18 (64) 5 (28) Mets at baseline Any 24 (86) 7 (39) Lung 6 (21) 4 (22) Liver 3 (11) 0 Peritoneum 17 (61) 0 Bone 3 (11) 3 (17) Nodal-only mets 1 (3) 2 (10) Outcomes ORR (%) 43.5 35.7 55.6 BOR n (%) CR 4 (14) 2 (11) PR 6 (21) 8 (44) SD 11 (39) 4 (22) PD 6 (21) 3 (17) NE 1 (4) 1 (6)

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

Small cell bladder cancer (SCBC) is a rare and aggressive disease, often treated with platinum/etoposide-based chemotherapy. Key molecular drivers include the inactivation of onco-suppressor genes (TP53, RB1) and amplifications in proto-oncogenes (MYC). We report a patient with SCBC who achieved an objective and prolonged response to lurbinectedin, which has been approved for metastatic small cell lung cancer, after developing disease progression on cisplatin/etoposide and nivolumab/ipilimumab. A genomic analysis of a metastatic biopsy prior to lurbinectedin initiation revealed a TP53 mutation and amplification of the cell cycle regulators E2F3 and MYCL. A repeat biopsy following the development of lurbinectedin resistance showed a new actionable ERBB2 alteration without significant change in the tumor mutation burden (six mutations/Mb). The present report suggests that lurbinectedin may be active and should be further explored in SCBC harboring TP53 mutations and amplifications in E2F3 and MYC family complexes.

601 Background: Neuroendocrine carcinomas (NEC) of the genitourinary (GU) tract, including small cell (SC) NEC and large cell (LC) NEC, are rare aggressive malignancies. Although highly sensitive to cisplatin-based chemotherapy, GU metastatic NEC (mNEC) have limited data to support next therapies. Lurbinectedin, a marine-derived alkylating drug and a selective inhibitor of oncogenic transcription and DNA repair pathways, is FDA-approved for small cell lung cancer (SCLC) after progression on frontline platinum-based therapy, with a disease control rate (DCR) of 68.6%. It is unknown whether DCR is similar in SCLC and GU mNEC. Methods: We report the first multi-institutional series (n=14) of lurbinectedin in GU mNEC. Imaging-based best overall responses (BOR) were noted as complete (CR), partial (PR), stable (SD), progressive (PD) or non-evaluable (NE). DCR includes CR, PR, and SD. We use the Kaplan-Meier method for overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) from lurbinectedin start date. We define duration of response (DoR) from response date to progression or last contact date for patients (pts) with CR or PR. Results: Most pts had a median age at metastasis of 70.5 years (ICR: 64-74.5) [Table]. Primary locations were bladder (7/14, 50%), prostate (5/14, 35.7%) and ureter (2/14, 12.3%). Histology at diagnosis mostly consisted of mixed or pure SCNEC, with one exception of LCNEC. Most pts had visceral disease, prior immunotherapy and at least 2 prior lines of therapy for mNEC before lurbinectedin (8/14, 57.1%). DCR was 6/14 (42.8%), including 5 bladder pts and 1 prostate pt. Among bladder pts, BOR included one CR (1/7, 14.3%) for the LCNEC case, 2 PR (2/7, 28.6%), 2 SD (2/7, 28.6%) and 2 PD (2/7, 28.6%). Most prostate and ureteral pts either progressed on lurbinectedin or were NE (Prostate: 1 PR, 2 PD, and 2 NE; Ureteral: 1 PD and 1 NE). For all 14 pts, median OS was 11.47 months (95% CI: 2.17-13.63) and median PFS was 2.8 mo (1.4-10.9). Median DoR was 7.38 mo (2.3-9.53) for 4 responding pts (CR or PR). Treatment was stopped due to progression (9/14, 64.3%), three adverse events [thrombocytopenia, electrolyte abnormalities, cerebrovascular accident] (3/14, 21.4%), and pt preference (1/14, 7.1%). Conclusions: Lurbinectedin offers encouraging responses (DCR: 5/7, 71.4%) close to those in SCLC, in previously treated bladder mNEC. One CR was noted for a bladder pt with LCNEC. Responses were less appreciated in prostate and ureteral mNEC due to NE responses and limited number. Larger cohorts are needed to confirm survival benefit and genetic analyses are warranted to identify characteristics of responders. [Table: see text]

BACKGROUND: Cisplatin-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy is the standard of care for muscle invasive bladder cancer (MIBC). OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy and safety of the two most commonly used cisplatin-based regimens; gemcitabine, and cisplatin (GC) vs. accelerated (dose-dense: dd) or conventional methotrexate, vinblastine, adriamycin, and cisplatin (MVAC). METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus and other sources. Outcomes of interest included overall survival, downstaging to pT≤1, pathologic complete response (pCR), recurrence, and toxicity. Meta-analysis was conducted using the random-effects model. RESULTS: We identified 24 studies. Efficacy outcomes were comparable between MVAC and GC for MIBC. dd-MVAC was associated with favorable efficacy compared to GC in terms of downstaging (OR 1.45; 95%CI 1.15–1.82) and all-cause mortality at longest follow-up (OR 0.63; 95%CI 0.44–0.81). However, GC was associated with a better safety profile in terms of febrile neutropenia (OR 0.32; 95%CI 0.13–0.80), anemia (OR 0.32; 95%CI 0.18–0.54), nausea and vomiting (OR 0.27; 95%CI 0.12–0.65) compared to dd-MVAC. Compared to MVAC, patients receiving GC had an increased risk of developing grade 3–4 thrombocytopenia (OR 4.70; 95%CI 1.59–13.89) and a lower risk of nausea and vomiting (OR 0.05; 95%CI 0.01–0.31). Certainty in the estimates was very low for most outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Efficacy and safety outcomes were comparable between MVAC and GC for MIBC. Including non-peer-reviewed studies showed higher efficacy with dd-MVAC. A phase III randomized trial comparing the two regimens is needed to guide clinical practice.

e16522 Background: Cisplatin-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy is the standard of care for muscle invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) in cisplatin-eligible patients. This systematic review and meta-analysis provide an updated efficacy and safety comparison between the two most commonly used cisplatin-based regimens; dose-dense (dd) or conventional MVAC versus GC. Methods: We searched different databases for studies comparing MVAC versus GC in the neoadjuvant setting. Outcomes of interest included overall survival, downstaging to pT≤1, pathologic complete response (pCR), recurrence, and toxicity. Meta-analysis was conducted using the random-effects model. Results: We identified 24 studies from inception to March 2020; among them 17 were peer reviewed and 7 were only reported as abstracts in national or international meetings, including a phase 3, randomized-controlled clinical trial. Among peer-reviewed published studies, efficacy outcomes such as OS, downstaging and pCR were comparable between conventional MVAC and GC for MIBC. If including non-peer-reviewed studies, dd-MVAC was associated with favorable efficacy compared to GC in terms of downstaging (OR 1.45; 95% CI 1.15–1.82), and OS at longest follow-up (OR 0.63; 95% CI 0.44–0.81). However, GC was associated with a better safety profile in terms of febrile neutropenia (OR 0.32; 95% CI 0.13–0.80), anemia (OR 0.32; 95% CI 0.18–0.54), nausea and vomiting (OR 0.27; 95% CI 0.12–0.65) compared to dd-MVAC. Compared to MVAC, patients receiving GC had an increased risk of developing grade 3–4 thrombocytopenia (OR 4.70; 95% CI 1.59–13.89) and a lower risk of nausea and vomiting (OR 0.05; 95% CI 0.01-0.31). Certainty in the estimates was very low for most outcomes. Conclusions: Among peer-reviewed published studies, efficacy and safety outcomes were comparable between conventional MVAC and GC for MIBC. However, If including non-peer-reviewed studies, this analysis showed higher efficacy with dd-MVAC. A phase III randomized trial comparing the two regimens is needed to guide clinical practice