Singh, Parminder Pal

PURPOSE Globally, cancer drug expenditure exceeds $185 in US dollars (USD) billion, with the United States contributing $75 (USD) billion. Many cancer drug doses are calculated on the basis of body weight or body surface area, which often results in leftover drug in partially used single-dose vials (SDVs). The cost of wasted drug is a huge financial burden on the US health care system. We evaluated the cost savings resulting from the reduction of SDV wastage, achieved through the implementation of automated dose rounding rules in electronic health records (EHRs). METHODS Mayo Clinic implemented automated dose rounding rules within the EHR. These rules were designed to round calculated doses to the nearest SDV if the vial size closely matched the original calculated dose, within a 10% threshold. We assessed doses administered between January 2019 and December 2021, and computed cost-savings, waste reduction, and cost of waste for chemotherapy drugs. RESULTS In 3 years, 36.1% of doses were rounded down, 35.8% were rounded up, and 28.1% were exact doses. By rounding doses down to a vial size, we achieved cost-savings of $39.75 (USD) million and prevented 62,065 SDV of cancer drugs from going to waste. By rounding doses up, we avoided wasting $9.95 (USD) million worth of drugs. However, there were still instances where the rounding fell outside of the 10%, resulting in wasted drugs worth $25 (USD) million. CONCLUSION The substantial burden imposed on patients and the US health care system because of cancer drug wastage is of significant concern. Although the automated dose rounding system represents a partial solution for this issue, a comprehensive approach involves the imperative development of policy and legislative solutions to effectively mitigate the challenges associated with cancer drug waste.

4574 Background: Mutations of COMPASS-related proteins KMT2D, KMT2C, and KDM6A are observed in 66% of advanced urothelial carcinomas (UC). In vivo, the administration of tazemetostat, an enzymatic EZH2 inhibitor (EZH2i), reduced tumor burden and enhanced the immune response in animal models of UC. We hypothesized that tazemetostat might improve response to immunotherapy in advanced UC. Methods: ETCTN 10183 (NCT03854474) is a multicenter pilot study evaluating the safety and efficacy of tazemetostat 800 mg BID+ pembrolizumab 200 mg given every three weeks for up to two years in patients (pts) with platinum-refractory (Arm A) or cisplatin/chemo-ineligible advanced UC (Arm B). The primary objective was to identify the recommended phase two dose (RP2D) of tazemetostat in combination with pembrolizumab. Secondary objectives included safety, response rate, and progression-free survival. Translational objectives included determining tumor mutational burden in COMPASS-related genes, tumor subtyping, TCR clonality, T cell infiltration, and PDL-1 expression. Results: There were no dose-limiting toxicities in the safety lead-in phase (n=6 pts), and the RP2D for tazemetostat was established at 800 mg BID. Baseline characteristics for Arm A N=12, Arm B N=13: 72% males; 96% white, 4% Black; 88% ECOG PS 0-1; 88% had bladder primary, 20% Stage III, 72% stage IV; 80% had visceral or bone metastases. The median number of cycles was 5 in Arm A (range 1-35) and 4 in Arm B (range 2-12). Treatment related G3/4 adverse events (AEs) were observed in 8 patients, most common were anemia and lymphopenia (n=2 each). Treatment related G1/2 AEs included nausea (n=6); skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders (n=3); anemia, lymphopenia, and thrombocytopenia (n=2 each). Among evaluable patients (n=10 in each arm), partial response rate was: Arm A 30%, Arm B 20%; stable disease: Arm A 30%, Arm B 30%; and progressive disease: Arm A 30%, Arm B 20%. 8 pts were on study treatment for ≥ 9 cycles (5 in Arm A, 3 in Arm B). All pts are off protocol treatment. Median progression-free survival was 3.06 (95% CI: 1.38-7.75) months for Arm A and 3.02 (95%CI: 2.4-5.65) for Arm B. Conclusions: Tazemetostat 800 mg BID and pembrolizumab combination is feasible and well-tolerated in patients with advanced UC. In this pilot study, improvement in efficacy relative to historical controls of pembrolizumab alone appears to be modest. Response in tumors with COMPASS-related mutations and EZH2 activity will be evaluated. Clinical trial information: NCT03854474 .

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.

e17059 Background: It is unclear if patients with different HRR gene-mutated mCRPC derive consistent benefit from treatment with PARPi and API combination. Approval labels for PARPi+API are inconsistent across regulatory bodies in the US (Food and Drug Administration, FDA) and Europe (European Medical Agency, EMA), adding to confusion among practicing clinicians. Therefore, we aimed to assess the differential efficacy of PARP+API therapy by different genes using up-to-date trial evidence. Methods: We maintain a living meta-analysis on mCRPC treatments that is updated when new data becomes available. Here, we report data from phase III randomized control trials (RCTs) assessing PARPi+API in 1L mCRPC. The outcomes of interest included radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) and overall survival (OS). Hazard ratios (HR) for rPFS and OS by different genes were summarized using random effects meta-analysis via inverse variance approach. Results: We have screened 27376 references since the inception of this living review. Here, we report data from three trials (15 references) with a total of 1618 patients. Frequently reported HRR gene mutations in the included trials were BRCA2 (35%), ATM (21%), CDK12 (12.2%), CHEK2 (12.2%), BRCA1 (4.6%), and PALB2 (3.4%). In terms of rPFS, statistical benefit was observed in BRCA (0.28; 95% CI: 0.13-0.59) and CDK12 (0.58; 95% CI: 0.35-0.95) subgroups, whereas no statistically significant benefit was seen in PALB2 (0.53; 95% CI: 0.21-1.32), ATM (0.93; 95% CI, 0.57-1.53), and CHEK2 (0.92; 95% CI: 0.53-1.61) subgroups. For OS, benefit was observed in BRCA (0.47; 95%CI: 0.31-0.71) subgroup. While not statistically significant, a signal of meaningful OS benefit was observed in PALB2 (0.33; 95%CI: 0.10-1.16) but no OS benefit was observed in ATM (0.97; 95% CI: 0.57-1.67), CDK12 (0.80; 95% CI: 0.36-1.78), and CHEK2 (0.81; 95% CI: 0.37-1.75) subgroups. Conclusions: Current results show that mCRPC patients with BRCA and CDK12 alterations had delayed disease progression with PARPi+API as 1L therapy. BRCA mutations are also associated with improved OS, while patients with CHEK2 and ATM derived no significant benefit with PARPi+API combination. [Table: see text]

e16619 Background: Should patients (pts) with MIBC receive aIO given the DFS benefit seen in AMBASSADOR and CheckMate 274 trials is an important clinical question. Thus, we aimed to quantify the magnitude of absolute benefit across different subgroups to aid clinicians in shared decision-making with their patients. Methods: Phase III trials evaluating aIO as compared to observation or placebo (obs/plac) in pts with MIBC were considered eligible. Outcomes of interest included DFS and OS. Pre-specified subgroups included disease location, PDL1 status, neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) receipt, and tumor and nodal (TN) staging. Pairwise comparisons were made using a DerSimonian-Lairds (DL) random-effects meta-analysis. Stratified baseline risks (obtained from clinical trials) and relative effect estimates were used to estimate corresponding intervention risks (CIRs). The difference in CIRs and baseline risk was calculated to present absolute risk differences (ARDs) in each subgroup category. Results: Analysis included three trials with 2220 pts (pembrolizumab, nivolumab, and atezolizumab assessed in each). No significant difference was observed in OS with aIO compared to obs/plac (hazard ratio: 0.91; 0.76-1.09). However, aIO significantly improved DFS compared to obs/plac (0.76; 0.64-0.91) in the overall population. In pts with bladder/lower tract disease, aIO improved DFS compared to obs/plac (0.72; 0.56-0.92); however, no significant difference was observed in DFS in pts with upper tract disease. There was a statistically significant effect modification by disease location (p: 0.01). Adjuvant IO significantly improved DFS in PDL1- (0.78; 0.64-0.94) but not in PDL1+ pts (0.75; 0.52-1.08). Likewise, aIO significantly improved DFS in pts who received NAC (0.69; 0.53-0.90) but not in pts who did not receive NAC (0.89; 0.75-1.05). In terms of TN staging, aIO improved DFS in T2-3N0 (0.73; 0.57-0.94), T4N0 (0.76; 0.61-0.95), and in T2-4N1 patients (0.75; 0.59-0.95). No statistically significant modifications were observed among these subgroups. Stratified ARDs for DFS by each subgroup are outlined (Table). Conclusions: When delayed disease progression is a vital consideration, a risk-adapted strategy for the optimal patient selection to receive aIO should be considered. Disease location (lower tract/bladder), node positivity, and receipt of NAC emerged as groups likely to derive greater benefit with aIO. [Table: see text]

e16579 Background: Recent results from EV 302 and CheckMate 901 have transformed the treatment landscape of untreated locally advanced/metastatic urothelial cancer (Ia/mUC). Here, we present the most up-to-date evidence of comparative efficacy and safety of first line (1L) treatment options in Ia/mUC with emphasis on Enfortumab vedotin (EV)-pembrolizumab (P) and gemcitabine (Gem)-cisplatin (Cis)-nivolumab (N). Methods: This living systematic review used the living interactive evidence (LIvE) synthesis framework. Full-text and abstract publications of phase II/III randomized clinical trials comparing 1L immunotherapy combined with chemotherapy (IO+C) or immunotherapy alone (IO) regimens with platinum-based chemotherapy (Plat) in Ia/mUC were included. Outcomes of interest included overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS) and treatment-related grade 3 or greater adverse events (≥G3 TRAE). Mixed treatment comparisons were made using network meta-analysis. P-scores were computed to assess relative treatment rankings. Results: A total of 5 trials (8 references) with 4,749 patients and 9 unique treatments were included. EV-P and Gem-Cis-N were ranked first and second in terms of OS and PFS improvement. EV-P improved OS compared to Gem-Cis-N (HR: 0.60; 0.45-0.81), Gem-Plat-atezolizumab(A) (0.55; 0.42-0.72), durvalumab(D)- tremelimumab(T) (0.55; 0.42-0.72), Gem-Plat-P (0.55; 0.42-0.72), P (0.51; 0.39-0.68), D (0.47; 0.36-0.63), A (0.48; 0.36-0.63) and Gem-Plat (0.47; 0.38-0.58). EV-P also improved PFS compared to Gem-Cis-N (0.63; 0.48-0.82), Gem-Plat-A (0.55; 0.43-0.69), D-T (0.42; 0.33-0.53), Gem-Plat-P (0.58; 0.45-0.74), P (0.34; 0.26-0.44), D (0.35; 0.27-0.44) and Gem-Plat (0.45; 0.38- 0.54). For ≥G3 TRAE, A was ranked first with the lowest adverse events compared to others. EV-P (rank 5) had significantly fewer events compared to Gem-Plat, Gem-Plat-A, Gem-Cis-N and Gem-Plat-P. Gem-Cis-N was ranked last with significantly greater events compared to A, P, D, D-T, Gem-Plat, EV-P, and Gem-Plat-A (Table with ranks [p-scores]). Conclusions: Current evidence suggests that patients with untreated la/mUC experience improved survival and slower disease progression with EV-P when compared to other contemporary options. Gem-Cis-N may be a reasonable alternative in patients who are cisplatin-eligible. Cost and access to these treatments are crucial and should be considered to facilitate shared decision making. [Table: see text]

98 Background: The risk of secondary primary malignancies (SPM) among the survivors of GU cancer is not well-established. In this study, we attempt to describe the patterns of SPMs in patients diagnosed with GU cancers. Methods: The Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database (SEER*Stat 8.4.2) was searched to obtain data on the incidence of SPM in adult patients (age >18 years) diagnosed with GU cancers, including prostate, renal, and bladder cancer. Standardized incidence ratios (SIRs) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated. SIR was defined as the observed SPMS from each category divided by the expected number of SPMs in the age-matched US population for the same period. The data was further stratified by age (<50y, 50-70y, >70y), race (White, Black, Asian/Pacific Islander), ethnicity (Hispanic, non-Hispanic), chemotherapy, and radiotherapy exposure. Results: A total of 1,041,217 patients were included in this analysis. In patients diagnosed with GU cancer, the incidence of overall SPM was 11%. Particularly, patients with GU cancers were observed to have a high incidence of Endocrine system SPM (1.52; 1.45-1.59), and urinary system SPM (1.51; 1.49-1.53) These results were consistent by different sociodemographic groups. In patients diagnosed with prostate cancer, the incidence of thyroid SPM was increased (1.31; 1.23-1.39). Particularly, prostate cancer patients treated with radiation therapy had increased incidence rates of SPM in the peritoneum, omentum and mesentery (1.57; 0.79-2.81) and urinary bladder (1.36;1.32-1.40) was higher as compared to those with no exposure to radiation therapy (1.11;1.08-1.13 and 1.03;1-1.06 respectively). Bladder cancer patients had an overall increased incidence of SPM in the esophagus (1.21; 1.08-1.35), lung, bronchus, trachea, and other respiratory organs (1.97;1.92-2.01), prostate (3.50;3.4-3.6) and kidney (1.86;1.76-1.97). A higher incidence of renal pelvis, ureter and other urinary organ SPM (11.08;10.48-11.07) was also notable in this population. Similarly, kidney cancer patients had a higher incidence of the endocrine system (3.00;2.74-3.27), prostate (1.24;1.2-1.29) and bladder 1.78;1.68-1.79 SPMs. Conclusions: This population-based study shows an increased risk of SPM development in GU cancer survivors compared to the general population. Clinicians should keep a high index of suspicion for SPMs and initiate appropriate workups at early warning signs.

93 Background: The treatment paradigm for mCSPC patients has rapidly evolved over the last few years with the emergence of triplet therapy and prognostication by volume of disease. However, the health economic implications of triplet therapy by disease volume remain unclear. Methods: A Markov model where patients transitioned between the progression-free, progression and death states was developed. State utilities were derived from the LATITUDE trial. Point probabilities for overall survival, progression-free survival, grade ≥ 3 and 5 toxicities were obtained from the eligible mCSPC phase III clinical trials. Medicare Advantage and commercial total paid amounts (2022 US$) of treatments were obtained from OptumLabs Data Warehouse. Costs and disutilities of adverse events were derived from published literature. Half-cycle corrected costs and utilities were accrued monthly over a 20-year lifetime horizon and were discounted at 3%. Monte Carlo simulation was used to calculate incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). A willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of US$100,000 was used. Results: In terms of Medicare Advantage payer’s perspective (Table), docetaxel (D)+ADT was observed to provide additional 0.068 QALYs compared to ADT at an ICER of US$16,544 per QALY in high volume disease. Compared to D+ADT, abiraterone (AAP) triplet provided additional 1.03 QALYs at US$56,641 per QALY. Compared to AAP triplet, apalutamide (APA)+ADT provided additional 0.048 QALYs at US$5,846,248 per QALY in high volume disease. In low volume disease, D+ADT provided 0.45 more QALYs at US$20,690 per QALY compared to ADT alone. Compared to D+ADT, AAP triplet provided an additional 1.51 QALYS at US$44,267 per QALY. In terms of total paid commercial costs, AAP triplet provided an additional 1.19 QALYs compared to ADT at US$91,952 per QALY in high volume disease. In low volume, D+ADT provided additional 0.38 QALYs at US$22,058 per QALY compared to ADT. Compared to D+ADT, AAP triplet provided a 0.97 QALY gain at US$105,958 per QALY. Compared to AAP triplet, darolutamide (DARO) triplet provided a 0.47 QALY at US$689,196 per QALY. Compared to DARO triplet, APA+ADT provided an additional 0.49 QALYs at an ICER of US$971,389 per QALY. All other treatments (not reported here) were dominated. Conclusions: At the selected WTP of US$100,000 per QALY, AAP triplet therapy was most likely the cost-effective strategy in overall mCSPC population particularly in patients with high volume disease. However, these results should be interpreted with careful accounting for timing of metastases. [Table: see text]

695 Background: Small cell carcinoma of the bladder (SCCB) is a rare variant of bladder cancer with limited data informing prognosis. We present a novel prognostic model for disease specific survival (DSS) for patients with non-metastatic (M0) SCCB, derived from the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) database. Methods: The SEER database (18 registries/November 2020) was queried with the ICD-10 topography codes C67.0-C67.9 (bladder), and the morphologic code 8041 (SCCB). Eligible patients (adults, histologic confirmation, available follow-up/staging data, M0) were randomly divided into a training (TC) and a validation cohort (VC) (7:3 ratio). Variables significantly associated with DSS were identified with multivariate Cox regression and backwards stepwise conditional approach and inserted in the model. Points were assigned to each variable based on the formula: Probability of an event at time t=S0(t)exp(β1x1, β2x2...), (β = regression coefficients, x = observed covariate values, S0(t) = survival function). Cumulative risk points were assigned to each patient and three distinct risk categories for DSS were constructed. Harrel’s C-statistic with bootstrap resampling was used for internal (TC) and external (VC) validation. Model performance was compared to the AJCC 8th edition (likelihood ratio test -LRT). Results: A total of 1039 patients were included (739 TC, 300 VC). No statistically significant differences in baseline characteristics/survival outcomes were identified between TC and VC. Age (years), T/N stage, radical cystectomy, chemotherapy, and radiation were significant variables inserted in the multivariate model (table). Patients were stratified to three risk groups (low, intermediate, high) based on the total cumulative risk points collected. Median DSS was NR (95%CI; NR, NR), 25 (95% CI; 18-32) and 9 months (95% CI; 7-11) for the low, intermediate, and high-risk category, log-rank p<.001. Harrel's C-statistic for the model was 0.70 (95%CI;0.67-0.73) in the TC and 0.66 (95%CI; 0.61-0.71) in the VC. In comparison, C-statistic for the AJCC 8th edition was 0.56 (95% CI; 0.52-0.59) and 0.53 (95% CI; 0.51 to 0.57), respectively. The LRT demonstrated superior performance of the model compared to AJCC (p<.001). Conclusions: We present a novel prognostic model for DSS in patients with locoregional SCCB composed of variables readily available in daily practice, which may serve as a useful tool for individualized risk assessment of patients with this rare malignancy. Further validation in prospective studies/clinical trials is warranted. [Table: see text]

643 Background: The FDA approval of enfortumab (EV) and pembrolizumab (Pembro) combination therapy as a first-line treatment for cisplatin-ineligible patients with locally advanced/metastatic urothelial carcinoma (la/mUC) was based on the EV-103 trial. We aim to assess the clinical response rate of this combination therapy in our institution's patients with locally advanced and metastatic UC. Methods: This retrospective cohort study included 20 patients diagnosed with locally advanced/metastatic UC(la/mUC) who were treated with EV-Pembro combination for at least 2 cycles, from June 2022 to August 2023 at the Mayo Clinic. Patients who were treatment naïve or who progressed one or more lines of therapy were included in the study cohort. Main outcome of interest included imaging-based best overall response rate in terms of complete (CR) and partial (PR) response, stable disease (SD), and progressive disease (PD). Results: Out of 20 patients, the number of males and females were 16 (80%) and 4 (20%) respectively; the median age was 77 years (IQR: 51-92). 3 (15%) of patients had involvement of upper urinary tract disease along with bladder cancer. The common sites of visceral metastasis at the time of initial presentation include liver 2(10%), lung 6(30%) and lymph nodes12(60%). Common toxicities of this regimen included rash, pruritis, peripheral neuropathy, fatigue, transaminitis, dysgeusia, and diarrhea. The treatment was stopped in 10 (50%) patients due to completion of planned therapy (achieved CR or proceeded with resection of residual disease) (30%), 5 patients due to progression (50%), 1 patient due to therapy side effects (10%) and in 1 patient due to death (10%). The objective response was 45% (N =9); 5 (25%) had PR, and 4 (20%) had CR. A total of 2 (10%) had SD while 2 (10%) experienced PD. Histological correlation with clinical benefit is shown in the table. Conclusions: EV-Pembro combination therapy shows promising responses in patients who have progressed after previous lines of therapy, consistent with previously published data on EV 201 in small cohorts. However, ongoing expansion of this cohort and data from larger studies will help further elucidate survival benefits and their correlation with genetic testing. [Table: see text]