Zakharia, Yousef

4558 Background: In the past 7 years, 4 immuno-oncology (IO) based combinations have been approved for mRCC. However, QOL data on these combinations are limited to trials in which collection and reporting was not standardized, which further limits cross trial comparisons. Real-world QOL data with multiple treatment regimens are needed to understand how these regimens are tolerated in practice. Methods: ODYSSEY is a multi-site, prospective observational study of 500 US pts with mRCC. Pts must have mRCC (any histology), no prior ST, and follow up at a PCORnet study site. Exclusion criteria include treatment for cancer except mRCC. The primary objective is to determine patterns of change in QOL and symptom burden of pts with mRCC. Minimally important differences (MID) are 3 points for FKSI-19 total score, 1 point for the FKSI-Disease Related Symptoms (DRS) subscale and 7 points for FACT-G. Results: As of 1/6/25, 392 pts were enrolled of whom 299 were managed with ST. Of pts on ST, 114 were treated with IO-IO, 108 with IO-TKI, 33 with IO alone, 27 with Other, and 18 with TKI alone. Median follow up for all pts is 8.8 months (IQR 2.9, 16.2). IO-IO pts are median age 64 yrs, 81% male, 84% white, 56% prior nephrectomy, 84% clear cell; IO-TKI pts median age 66 yrs, 76% male, 92% white, 43% prior nephrectomy, 66% clear cell; IMDC risk profiles are similar. IO-IO pts are more likely to be KPS 100; whereas, IO-TKI pts have a higher median number of metastatic sites and are more likely to have bone or liver metastasis. With median follow-up of 6.0 (IQR 1.8, 14.9) and 8.8 months (4.5, 17.8) in the IO-IO and IO-TKI cohorts, 17 (15%) and 21 (19%) pts had died with a median time to death of 5.4 (2.5, 6.4) and 5.7 months (4.4, 12.8), respectively. 20 (18%) and 16 (15%) pts on IO-IO and IO-TKI had discontinued therapy at a median of 3.0 (IQR 2.0, 4.0) and 6.4 months (2.4, 13.0), respectively. Rates of discontinuation for disease progression and toxicity are similar. Baseline PROs for pts on ST are shown in the Table (higher score indicates better QOL), with RCT data for reference (NA, not assessed). Conclusions: In our prospective multi-center ODYSSEY study, we demonstrate that real world pts treated with contemporary ST have worse baseline QOL than those enrolled on pivotal RCTs. One-third of IO-IO and IO-TKI pts died or discontinued therapy within 6 months of initiation. Our data on real world vs RCT differences in baseline QOL may partially explain the limitations of current IO combination regimens in practice and support development of alternative treatment approaches. Instrument, Mean (SD) ODYSSEYIO-IO(N=114) CheckMate214(N=425) ODYSSEYIO-TKI(N=108) KEYNOTE426(N=402) CheckMate9ER(N=323) CLEAR(N=351) FKSI-19 total 56.0 (12.5) 60.1 (9.8) 53.8 (11.8) NA 58.7 (10.6) NA FKSI-DRS 27.5 (6.3) 30.7 (4.5) 27.0 (5.8) 32 (4.2) 30.2 (5.2) 31.3 (4.4) FACT-G 82.4 (16.7) 82.6 (15.0) 78.5 (16.0) NA NA NA

4553 Background: AS is a recognized strategy in select pts with mRCC to maximize QOL and delay potential toxicity of systemic therapy (ST); however, only 2 prospective studies of AS in mRCC have been published: only 1 with patient-reported outcomes (PRO) and none in the IO-TKI era. Methods: ODYSSEY is a prospective observational study of 500 US pts with mRCC. Eligible pts must have mRCC (any histology), no prior ST, age ≥19. Pts were excluded if treated for non-mRCC cancers or if not followed at a PCORnet study site. Pts completed QOL surveys at baseline, by phone every 3 months for 2 years and then every 6 months until end of follow up. The primary objective is to determine patterns of change in QOL and symptom burden of pts with mRCC. Minimally important differences (MID) are 3 points for FKSI-19 total score, 1 point for the FKSI-Disease Related Symptoms (DRS) subscale and 7 points for FACT-G. Here we report baseline pt characteristics in AS pts compared to ST pts, and baseline QOL differences between these cohorts. Results: As of 1/6/25, 392 pts were enrolled of whom 299 were managed with ST, and 93 pts deferred ST; of these, 53 pts (57%) were classified as AS. Pts on AS are median age 68 yrs, 66% male, 94% white, 81% clear cell, 50% favorable risk, 44% intermediate risk. Compared with ST pts, AS pts were more likely to have undergone nephrectomy (91% vs 53%), favorable risk profile (50% vs 15%), pancreatic metastasis (15% vs 5%), and longer time since RCC diagnosis (median 58 vs 3.3 months); and less likely to have bone, brain, or liver metastasis. After median 8.8 months follow-up (IQR 2.9, 16.2), 2 pts (4%) on AS had died compared with 45 pts (15%) on ST. One pt (2%) on AS started first-line therapy and 45 pts (15%) discontinued ST. Mean baseline QOL (FKSI-19 total, DRS and FACT-G) for AS and ST ODYSSEY pts is shown in the Table (higher score indicates better QOL), with RCT data for reference (NA, not assessed). ODYSSEY pts on AS had higher QOL for all measures compared with ODYSSEY pts on ST. FSKI-DRS was the same or lower for pts on AS compared to the pivotal trials, while ODYSSEY pts on ST had both lower FKSI-19 total and DRS. Conclusions: In our large prospective cohort from ODYSSEY, pts on AS had higher median QOL scores than pts on ST, but similar to those included in RCTs. These results suggest that some RCT pts could have benefitted from AS. Further follow up is needed to determine long term outcomes in pts on AS and how they respond to deferred ST. Clinical trial information: NCT04919122 . Instrument, Mean (SD) ODYSSEY AS (N=53) ODYSSEY ST (N=299) ODYSSEY Difference, AS vs ST (95% CI) CheckMate 214 (N=425) KEYNOTE 426 (N=402) CheckMate 9ER (N=323) CLEAR (N=351) FKSI-19 total 63.4 (9.2) 56.3 (12.5) 7.0(4.0, 10.1) 60.1 (9.8) NA 58.7 (10.6) NA FKSI-DRS 30.8 (4.2) 27.9 (6.0) 2.9(1.5, 4.7) 30.7 (4.5) 32 (4.2) 30.2 (5.2) 31.3 (4.4) FACT-G 87.9 (14.0) 82.4 (16.7) 5.6(1.1, 10.0) 82.6 (15.0) NA NA NA

4545 Background: The treatment landscape of front-line nccRCC has evolved with recent trials demonstrating the efficacy of combination systemic therapy. However, the efficacy of treatment after combination therapy is unknown. This study evaluates the efficacy of VEGF-based regimens in nccRCC patients (pts) previously treated with combination regimens. Methods: ORACLE is a real-world, multi-center, retrospective database that includes nccRCC patients that received combination systemic therapies (IO+IO, IO+VEGF and VEGF+ mTOR) in any line. Subsequent treatments were categorized as VEGF only regimens (cabozantinib vs other VEGF), IO+ VEGF and VEGF+ mTOR. The primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR) assessed by investigator review using RECIST 1.1. Secondary endpoints included disease control rate (DCR), defined as the proportion of patients achieving complete or partial responses or stable disease, time to treatment progression (TTP), calculated from the date of VEGF-based initiation to progression or last follow-up using the Kaplan-Meier method. Differences between groups were estimated with the log-rank test, and categorical outcomes were compared with the chi-square test. Results: 105 pts who received VEGF – based regimens after combination therapy were included in the analysis. Baseline characteristics: median age: 59years, 71 % male, 58% white, 25% black, 87% ECOG 0-2. IMDC-risk categories included:21% favorable, 59% intermediate and 20% poor risk. Histology included papillary (40%), unclassified (32%), chromophobe (16%) and other rare subtypes (12%). Prior combination therapies included IO+IO: 62%, IO+ VEGF: 34% and VEGF+ mTORi:4%. 70% pts received combination therapy in the first line setting while the remainder received combination therapy in a second or later line. Outcomes with subsequent treatments are described in Table1. IMDC risk score correlated with TTP. Conclusions: Modest antitumor activity was observed with VEGF- based approaches in combination therapy refractory nccRCC. Optimal management of nccRCC remains an unmet need. Outcomes of nccRCC patients by treatment and histologic type. Outcomes per Treatment n ORR (%) DCR (%) mTTP (mo.) Cabozantinib 56 18 47 3.6 VEGF/mTOR 19 16 42 9.3 IO+VEGF 17 29 47 5.6 Other VEGF 13 15 46 5.5 Outcomes per Histology Papillary 42 19 43 6.5 Unclassified 33 21 42 6.1 Chromophobe 17 29 59 8.9 Other * 13 0 46 NR

Abstract Background: Leukocyte immunoglobulin-like receptor B2 (LILRB2) suppresses immune cell activation, particularly within myeloid cells in the tumor microenvironment (TME), while the PD-1/PD-L1 axis serves as a key immune checkpoint that inhibits T-cell function. SPX-303 is a novel bispecific antibody designed to simultaneously block LILRB2 and PD-L1, thereby revitalizing antitumor immune responses. Here, we present initial findings from the ongoing first-in-human Phase 1 trial of SPX-303 in patients with advanced solid tumors, including safety, pharmacokinetics (PK), and receptor occupancy (RO). Methods: This is an open-label, multicenter Phase 1 study for patients with advanced solid malignancies with 3+3 dose-escalation design, followed by an expansion cohort at the recommended Phase 2 dose (RP2D). SPX-303 is administered intravenously every three weeks and safety is assessed through CTCAE v5.0 criteria. Primary Objectives of this study are to determine the safety, tolerability, and RP2D of SPX-303. Secondary endpoints include antitumor activity as well as characterization of the PK and PD of SPX-303. This study is currently open and enrolling in escalation cohorts. Citation Format: Justin Moser, Hao Xie, Yujie Zhao, Yousef Zakharia, Dongdong Li, Brandon William, Dinh-Duc Nguyen, Jack Hovey, Tiffany Li, Robert Cai, Jichun Ma, Jingdong Qin, Martin Siekierzycki, Anthony Haight, Hua Jin, Weiwei Mao, Kevin Bin Li, Gui-Dong Zhu. A first-in-human phase 1 study on the safety, PK, receptor occupancy, and pharmacodynamic markers of SPX-303, a first-in-class LILRB2×PD-L1 bispecific antibody [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2025; Part 2 (Late-Breaking, Clinical Trial, and Invited Abstracts); 2025 Apr 25-30; Chicago, IL. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2025;85(8_Suppl_2):Abstract nr CT116.

261 Background: Clinicians use next-generation sequencing (NGS) to tailor targeted treatments for PCa patients. However, the results are often available in unstructured formats and are saturated with technical jargon, making them inaccessible for patients. Therefore, we aimed to assess the efficacy of LLMs to accurately extract genomic characteristics from unstructured reports and generate patient-friendly summaries for ease of variant interpretation in PCa patients. Methods: This retrospective study included patients with PCa who underwent NGS from 2023-2024. The GPT4 model was utilized using structured zero-shot prompts to extract genomic characteristics from unstructured reports in a non-decomposed manner. Prompt development was conducted iteratively using a 2% random sample of the dataset. Genomic characteristics ascertained by LLM were assessed against held out vendor-curated test dataset for evaluation. Performance was assessed using weighted evaluation metrics (precision, recall, and F1-score). Additionally, the extracted variables were organized using rule-based criterion and presented as a separate prompt to GPT4 to generate summaries for interpretation at the level of each biologically relevant variant. Mean Flesch-Kincaid scores and Vocd-D statistic with standard deviations were computed to assess readability and lexical diversity of LLM-generated variant interpretation summaries. Results: A total of 331 patients (370 NGS reports) were included in the study. Evaluation on the held-out test dataset (Table) showed that the weighted average precision ranged from 80% for extracting tumor mutational burden to 100% for extracting the CtDNA fraction from unstructured reports. The weighted average recall ranged from 85% for extracting CtDNA tumor fraction to 99% for ascertaining variant/alteration. The weighted average F1-scores varied from 0.83 for extracting tumor mutational burden to 1.0 for extracting specimen site from NGS reports. The mean Flesch-Kincaid score was 8.29 ± 1 indicating average/standard readability ease. The mean Vocd-D statistic was 7.55 ± 1 indicating focused summaries, however, with limited lexical diversity. Conclusions: This study suggests that large language models can effectively extract genomic characteristics from unstructured reports and can potentially improve genomic literacy among prostate cancer patients by providing easy-to-interpret variant summaries. However, targeted prompting may be required to increase lexical diversity for improved engagement. Performance across different genomic characteristics. Category Precision Recall F1-Score Altered gene 0.86 0.97 0.89 Variant/alteration type 0.98 0.99 0.98 Variant allele fraction 0.96 0.96 0.96 Test name/type 1 0.99 1 Specimen site 1 0.99 1 Tumor mutational burden 0.8 0.93 0.83 CtDNA tumor fraction 1 0.85 0.92 MSI status 0.99 0.97 0.98

454 Background: Limited data exist on outcomes in mRCC patients with major venous involvement (MVI). Assessment of impact of a given variable on prognosis in cancer patients is challenging given competing causes of death (PMID: 25417239). This analysis aims to estimate cancer prognosis in mRCC patients with MVI, considering death from competing causes. Methods: Data from the Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) database (2010-2020) were analyzed for survival and mortality in mRCC patients with MVI. 5-year (y) overall survival (OS) and 5-y probability of cancer death were calculated using the actuarial method in SEER*Stat 8.4.4, reported as percentages with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Results were based on the site of MVI (renal vein, inferior vena cava [IVC]) and stratified by age (<65, >65 years), gender (male, female), and race/ethnicity (Non-Hispanic [NH] White, NH Black, NH Asian/Pacific Islander [API], Hispanic). Results: A total of 89047 mRCC patients were included in our analysis of whom 10785 (12%) had major venous involvement (MVI). Overall, patients who experienced MVI had worse prognosis as compared to those who did not have MVI (5-y OS: 53.2% vs 84.4% and 5-y cancer death: 38.6% vs 8.2% respectively). Among cohort with MVI, prognosis was poor with IVC involvement as compared to involvement of renal vein (5-y OS: 36% vs 57%; 5-y cancer death: 56% vs 35% respectively). Patients who had the worst prognosis with MVI included older adults (>65 y) (5-y OS: 47.8%; 5-y cancer death: 40.8%) and NH Black (5-y OS: 41.5%; 5-y cancer death: 49.8%) (Table). Conclusions: Prognosis in mRCC with MVI, especially with IVC involvement, was poor, particularly for older adults (>65 y) and NH Black patients. Further research is needed for better prognostication and risk stratification to improve outcomes for high-risk patients. Subgroup No MVI MVI N 5-year OS (%), 95% CI 5-year Cancer death (%), 95% CI N 5-year OS (%), 95% CI 5-year Cancer death (%), 95% CI Overall population 78,262 84.4 (84.1-84.7) 8.2 (8.0-8.4) 10,785 53.2 (52.0-54.3) 38.6 (37.5-39.7) Age <65 y 49,217 89.0 (88.6-89.2) 6.5 (6.3-6.8) 5,897 57.5 (56.0-59.0) 36.8 (35.4-38.3) >65 y 29,045 77.0 (76.1-77.2) 10.9 (10.5-11.4) 4,888 47.8 (46.0-49.5) 40.8 (39.2-42.4) Gender Male 49,221 83.0 (82.7-83.5) 8.9 (8.6-9.2) 7,503 53.2 (51.8-54.6) 38.3 (37.0-39.6) Female 29,041 86.5 (86.0-86.9) 7.0 (6.7-7.4) 3,282 53.0 (51.0-55.0) 39.4 (37.4-41.3) Race/ethnicity NH White 49,520 84.0 (83.7-84.4) 8.3 (8.0-8.5) 7,182 53.5 (52.1-54.8) 38.0 (36.7-39.3) NH Black 8,878 82.0 (81.0-82.9) 8.1 (7.5-8.8) 685 41.5 (37.1-45.9) 49.8 (45.4-54.1) NH API 4,747 86.0 (85.1-87.4) 8.5 (7.6-9.4) 713 52.9 (48.2-57.3) 39.9 (35.5-44.1) Hispanic (All Races) 13,826 86.5 (85.8-87.2) 7.9 (7.4-8.4) 2,014 56.2 (53.4-58.8) 36.7 (34.1-39.2) N: number of cases; OS: overall survival; CI: confidence interval; NH: Non-Hispanic; API: Asian/Pacific Islander; MVI: major venous involvement.

270 Background: Inconsistent reporting of subgroup data across clinical trials makes interpretation and application of the evidence from trials challenging. We conducted a living systematic review to summarize evidence for American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) guidelines for management of metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). Here, we provide an overview of reporting patterns of subgroup data across mCRPC trials. Methods: MEDLINE and EMBASE were systematically searched from each database's inception through September 20 th , 2024, to identify phase II/III/IV randomized clinical trials assessing the efficacy and safety of treatment options in mCRPC. For outcomes of overall survival (OS) and progression free survival (PFS), data from the subgroup analyses was collected and compared across trials to assess heterogeneity in the reporting of subgroups. Results: This analysis included 141 trials (phase II: 83; phase III: 56; phase IV: 2). OS was reported by 113 (80%) trials; 32 (28%) reported OS by any subgroups with 95 unique subgroup categories. PFS was reported by 110 (78%) trials; 23 (21%) reported PFS by any subgroups with 63 unique subgroup categories. Even among consistently reported subgroups, such as age, ECOG performance status, race, geographical area, and Gleason score, considerable heterogeneity in different subgroup levels/thresholds was observed across trials. Top ten most commonly reported subgroups are summarized (Table). Conclusions: Lack of consistent reporting for subgroup analysis in mCRPC trials preclude meaningful conclusions about clinically relevant subgroup and synthesizing evidence for clinical guidelines. A standardized framework for consistent reporting of subgroup data across trials can help inform clinical practice and clinical practice guidelines. OS PFS Number of trials 113 110 Reporting subgroup analysis – N (%) 32 (28) 23 (21) Commonly reported subgroups – (N) Age (26)ECOG-PS (26)LDH (21)PSA (18)Geographic area (15)Alkaline phosphatase (14)Visceral disease (14)Gleason score (9)Race (9)Brief pain inventory level (8) Age (21) ECOG-PS (19)PSA (18)LDH (14)Geographic area (13)Visceral disease (11)Gleason score (10)Alkaline phosphatase (9)Bone metastasis (9)Disease location (9) Age – (N) <65 (14); ≥65 (9); ≤68 (1); ≥69 (1); <70 (5); ≥70 (5); ≤74 (4); 65-75 (5); ≤ 71 (1); >71 (1); ≥75 (11); >Median (1); <Median (1) <65 (12); 65-74 (6); ≥65 (6); <70 (5); ≥70 (5); <75 (4); ≥75 (10); 76-80 (1); >80 (1) ECOG-PS – (N) 0 (15); 0-1 (11), 1 (11); 1-2 (5); 2 (12) 0 (15); 0-1 (5), 1 (12); 1-2 (2); 2 (6) Race – (N) White (9)Non-white (6)African American/black (2)Asian (2) White (8)Non-white (5)African American/black (2)Asian (4) Geographic Area – (N) Europe (8)North America (14)United States (1)Australia (1)Asia (2) Europe (11)North America (13)United States (1)Australia (1)Asia (2)North and South America (2) Gleason Score – (N) 2-6 (1); 7 (1); 8 (1); <8 (8); ≥ 8 (8); 9-10 (1) <8 (10); ≥ 8 (10)

524 Background: Antiangiogenic tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) play a key role in treating renal cell carcinoma and other solid organ malignancies, but TKIs cause bothersome side effects that frequently necessitate dose reductions or treatment holds. Olanzapine has been useful for palliating symptoms from classical chemotherapies and advanced cancer, but its effect on TKI-related symptoms is largely unknown. This retrospective study aimed to estimate the efficacy of olanzapine for TKI-induced nausea, vomiting, anorexia, weight loss, and insomnia. Methods: All patients prescribed olanzapine with lenvatinib, cabozantinib, axitinib, or tivozanib at Mayo Clinic between January 1, 2018, and June 30, 2024 were assessed for inclusion. For baseline symptom assessment, clinical care team notes documenting the presence or absence of symptoms and indication(s) for starting olanzapine were reviewed. For response assessment, clinical notes and patient portal messages from the first three months after starting olanzapine were evaluated for qualitative descriptions of change in symptom burden. Relevant data were extracted as direct quotations, which were reviewed by the research team and categorized as “improved,” “worsened,” “stable,” or “missing data.” Each symptom domain was analyzed independently when olanzapine was prescribed for multiple interrelated symptoms. Results: A total of 60 patients who received olanzapine for the treatment of TKI-related adverse effects were included. The most common documented indication for olanzapine was nausea without vomiting (n=35), followed by anorexia (n=25), nausea with vomiting (n=16), weight loss (n=16), and insomnia (n=11). In 32 cases (53%), olanzapine was prescribed for multiple, simultaneous symptoms. Response rates for each symptom domain are shown in the table. In addition, prior to olanzapine, 34 patients (57%) had documented weight loss. Following olanzapine, 50% (n=17) gained weight (median increase: 6.1 kg; range: 2.0 - 10.7 kg), 26% (n=9) stabilized their weight (±1 kg), and 24% (n=8) continued to lose weight. Clinicians utilized a TKI dose reduction within one week of olanzapine initiation in 5 cases (8.3%), and 3 of these patients could resume the higher dose of TKI after starting olanzapine. Only 4 patients (7%) discontinued olanzapine within 3 months due to perceived side effects. Conclusions: Olanzapine appears to be effective in treating TKI-induced nausea, vomiting, anorexia, insomnia, and weight loss. Prospective randomized placebo-controlled studies are needed to confirm these findings. Improvedn (%) Worsened n (%) Stablen (%) Missing Datan (%) Nausea without emesis 32 (84) 3 (8) 1 (3) 2 (5) Nausea with emesis 13 (93) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (7) Anorexia 26 (74) 2 (6) 4 (11) 3 (9) Insomnia 11 (85) 0 (0) 2 (15) 0 (0)

520 Background: The annual incidence of renal cancer is 0.02% among the general United States population. End stage renal disease (ESRD) and exposure to dialysis are thought to be the primary drivers of increased risk of renal cancer in renal transplant patients rather than immunosuppression. This has been evidenced by how the incidence of RCC in heart transplant recipients is no different than the normal population. In this study, we aim to characterize RCC incidence among kidney transplant patients (usually exposed to ESRD/dialysis) versus other solid organ transplant patients (usually unexposed to ESRD/dialysis). Methods: We used CPT codes to search for patients who had received a solid organ transplant (kidney, liver, heart, lung, pancreas) at all Mayo Clinic sites from 1/1/2018 to 1/1/2024. Within this cohort, we identified those who had been diagnosed with kidney cancer after initiating dialysis or receiving a transplant, and retrospectively extracted data related to demographics, cancer diagnosis, and transplant details. Results: We identified 10873 patients who had received a solid organ transplant (Table 1). Of these, 178 (1.76%) were diagnosed with kidney cancer after either starting dialysis or receiving a transplant. These 178 patients were of median age 56 years at time of cancer diagnosis (STD 12), 71% male, 70% white, 20% black, 4.5% Asian, 2.8% American Native. Of 5792 patients who had received a kidney transplant (with or without another solid organ transplant), 172 (2.97%) were diagnosed with kidney cancer after having started dialysis or receiving a kidney transplant. Of these 172, 156 (91%) were exposed to dialysis (107 primarily hemodialysis and 48 peritoneal). Of 4392 patients who had received a solid organ transplant other than kidney (liver, heart, lung, and/or pancreas), 6 (0.14%) were diagnosed with kidney cancer after having received a kidney transplant. Of these 6, none underwent dialysis. Conclusions: Patients with kidney transplants are at increased risk of kidney cancer compared to patients with non-kidney solid organ transplants (2.97% vs 0.14%). This supports prior evidence showing ESRD plays a significant role in the pathogenesis of kidney cancer. Patients who received solid organ transplants at Mayo Clinic from 2018-2024 and were subsequently diagnosed with kidney cancer. n % With RCC after TXP 178 1.7587% Cancer Diagnosis after Kidney HD/TXP 172 2.9696% Cancer Diagnosis after Other TXP 6 0.1386% Patients who received solid organ transplants at Mayo Clinic from 2018-2024 n % Unique Patients 10121 100% Kidney Transplant 5792 57.23% Alone 5088 50.27% &Liver 332 3.28% &Heart 119 1.18% &Lung 8 0.08% &Pancreas 245 2.42% Non-kidney Transplant (Liver, Heart, Lung, or Pancreas) 4329 42.77% TXP: Transplant, HD: Hemodialysis.

745 Background: The combination of EV-P therapy has recently been approved as first-line (1L) therapy for patients with LA/mUC based on the results of the EV-302 trial. Herein, we report the updated results from a cohort of patients with LA/mUC who received EV-P in real world clinical setting. Methods: This retrospective study included patients with LA/mUC (07/2022-08/2024) at the Mayo Clinic who completed at least one cycle of EV-P. The best overall response (BOR) was evaluated using radiographic imaging and was adjudicated as complete response (CR), partial response (PR), stable disease (SD), mixed response (MR), or progressive disease (PD). The median progression-free survival (PFS), defined as the time from treatment initiation to disease progression or death, was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Patients who had not experienced disease progression by their last follow-up were censored for the PFS analysis. Results: A total of 120 patients were included; 79 (65.8%) were males, 41 (34.1%) females, 109 (91%) White, and 119 (99%) were non-Hispanic/Latino. The median age was 72 years (IQR: 65-77). Of these, only 22 (18.3%) had locally advanced disease while the remaining had mUC; 62 (51.6%) had lower tract urothelial carcinoma (LUTC), 36 (30%) had upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC). The median follow-up time was 7.1 months (IQR: 4.93-9.26). In terms of BOR, 56 patients (46.6%) experienced PR, 34 (28.3%) CR, 12 (10%) PD, 7 (5.8%) MR, and 8 (6.6%) experienced SD. 3 (2.5%) patients were not evaluable. The BOR across subgroups, LA and mUC, including LUTC and UTUC, is summarized in the table. Among the responders, the median number of treatment cycles to first response was 3 (IQR: 2.25–4). Within the follow-up, 28 patients (23.3%) experienced eventual radiographic disease progression; death was observed in 25 patients (20.8%). The median PFS was 12.7 months (95% CI: 9.8-NE), and OS was 25.1 months (16.3-NE). Conclusions: In real world setting, the combination of EV-P in LA/mUC demonstrated clinical efficacy compatible with the findings from the EV-302 trial. Our results showed comparable efficacy with EV-P in both UTUC and LUTC, highlighting it's broad therapeutic potential. However, clinical data at longer follow-up is required to fully evaluate overall survival and the durability of response. mUC LA Overall LUTC UTUC Total patients 98 62 36 22 BOR CR 23 (23.4%) 13 (20.9%) 10 (28.5%) 11 (50%) PR 49 (52.6%) 31 (50%) 18 (50%) 7 (31.8%) SD 6 (6.4%) 2 (3.2%) 4 (11.4%) 2 (9.0%) PD 10 (10.7%) 9 (15.5%) 1 (2.8%) 2 (9.0%) MR 7 (7.5%) 5 (8.6%) 2 (5.7%) 0 (0%)