Mantia, Charlene M.

481 Background: EV is an anti-Nectin-4 antibody-drug conjugate that has been approved by the US FDA for mUC progressing on platinum and PD1/L1 inhibitor therapy and in cisplatin-ineligible pts following prior therapy. However, prognostic and predictive biomarkers in the setting of EV therapy are unclear. We aimed to investigate baseline and early changes in commonly available clinical and laboratory tests that could help predict survival and toxicities in patients with mUC treated with EV. Methods: Data from patients with mUC who were treated with EV at Dana Farber Cancer Institute between 2017 and 2021 were reviewed retrospectively. We assessed the association of demographic (age, sex), clinical (ECOG-performance status [PS], sites of metastasis) and laboratory variables (hemoglobin, RDW, neutrophil count, lymphocyte count, neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio, platelet count and serum albumin) at baseline as well as after 4-7 weeks of treatment with Overall Survival (OS) by constructing univariate and multivariable Cox proportional-hazards models. Any variables significantly associated with OS at the univariate level (using an alpha-level of 0.1 to determine statistical significance) were then entered into the multivariable model. Predictors were eliminated from the final multivariable models by a backward selection process, retaining only those with a p-value of ≤ 0.05. Results: A total of 49 patients who received EV were included in the analysis. The median age was 72 years (range 48-88) and 36 (73.5%) were male. The median OS was 13.3 months (range: 2.7-38.7) and grade 3-4 toxicities were seen in 11 pts (22.4%). In the final multivariable models, lower serum albumin at 4-7 weeks (HR = 0.18; 95% CI = 0.05-0.71; p = 0.015), and baseline ECOG-PS of 1 vs. 0 (HR = 2.56; 95% CI = 1.05-6.21; p = 0.038) were significantly associated with worse OS (Table). Patients with higher serum albumin levels at 4-7 weeks also had significantly lower odds of experiencing grade 3-4 adverse events on EV (OR = 0.05; 95% CI = 0.002-0.52; p = 0.02). Conclusions: Lower serum albumin appeared to predict worse survival and severe toxicities in mUC pts receiving EV. This information may guide therapy and assist in the prevention of toxicities. Additionally, ECOG-PS was prognostic while the location of metastatic disease was not prognostic in the setting of EV.[Table: see text]

472 Background: Enfortumab Vedotin (EV), an antibody-drug conjugate that targets nectin-4, is approved for metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC) progressing post-platinum and PD1/L1 inhibitor therapy. Erdafitinib is approved in patients for post-platinum mUC with activating genomic alterations in FGFR2/3, but the activity of EV in this subset is unclear. We investigated the activity of EV in patients (pts) with mUC based on FGFR2/3 genotype to inform management. Methods: In this multi-center, retrospective analysis, we assessed the objective response rate (ORR) to EV in mUC pts with and without FGFR2/3 genomic alterations detected by targeted panel next-generation sequencing. Activating gene fusions and known hotspots mutations in the two genes were considered. Descriptive analysis of ORR and patient characteristics was performed. Fisher’s exact test and binomial test with two-tailed p-value were used. Results: 40 pts were available from 4 institutions. Most pts were male (31/40, 78%) and the median age at start of EV was 74.1 (range 49 – 90) years. Ten patients (25%) had upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC), and 33 (82%) had baseline ECOG performance status of 0-1. 31 of 39 patients had received both platinum-based chemotherapy and PD1/L1 inhibitors. Seven patients had confirmed activating hotspot FGFR3 mutations (p.S249C or p.Y373C). One pt had FGFR2 high-level amplification (HA), and one had FGFR3 HA. Of 36 patients evaluable for ORR, 18 had partial response (PR), 12 had stable disease (SD) and 6 had progressive disease (PD). Patients with FGFR2/3 activating mutations exhibited an ORR that was not statistically different compared to patients without no mutations: 2/7 (29%; 90% CI: 5 – 66%) vs. 16/29 (55%; 90% CI: 38 – 71%) respectively ( p-value = 0.4). 3/7 patients with FGFR3 hotspot mutations received an FGFR2/3 inhibitor and none responded; one of them had a sequential response to EV. Conclusions: In this multi-center retrospective cohort, FGFR2/3 activating genomic alterations did not appear to compromise response to EV in mUC. Larger studies are required to confirm our findings and optimal sequencing of EV and erdafitinib in mUC pts with FGFR2/3 genomic alterations requires further assessment.

5077 Background: Several ICIs are used in first and subsequent lines of therapy for mRCC, either alone or in combination with another ICI or targeted therapy (TT). There are no data on the efficacy and safety of using an ICI in patients who have already received an ICI in a prior line of therapy. Methods: We reviewed patients with mRCC at 8 institutions who received 2 separate lines of ICI therapy (ICI-1, ICI-2), including as a single-agent and/or combination with other agents. The primary outcomes were overall response rate (ORR) and time to progression (TTP) with ICI-1 and ICI-2. Immune-related adverse events (irAEs) were graded using CTCAEv5.0. Results: 65 patients were included. Median age at diagnosis of mRCC was 60 years (range 30-86) and the majority had clear cell RCC (n=56, 86%). Median follow-up was 3.5 years (95% CI 2.9-4.4). Median lines at which ICI-1 and ICI-2 were received were 1 (1-6) and 3 (2-8) respectively. Reasons for discontinuing ICI-1 were disease progression (n=47, 72%), toxicity (n=15, 23%) or other (n=3, 5%). Therapies received at ICI-2 were single-agent ICI (n=26, 40%), or combinations of ICI with another ICI (n=20, 31%), TT (n=11, 17%) or other agent (n=8, 12%). Responses to ICI-1 and ICI-2 are shown in the Table; ORR to ICI-2 was significantly lower than to ICI-1 (23% vs. 36%, p=0.044). Amongst those who responded to ICI-2 (n=14), 7 (50%) received single-agent ICI, and the remainder received ICI in combination with another ICI (n=4, 29%) or TT (n=3, 21%); 7 patients (50%) had previously responded to ICI-1. The ORR to ICI-2 was higher in responders to ICI-1 (32%) compared to those with SD (17%) or PD (15%) to ICI-1. Median TTP (mTTP) at ICI-2 was shorter compared to ICI-1 (5.3 months vs. 8.5 months, Wilcoxon p=0.024). 29 patients (45%) experienced an irAE with ICI-2; 8 (12%) and 3 (5%) had a grade 3 or 4 irAE respectively, with 3 (30%) of these patients having previously had ≥grade 3 irAE to ICI-1. There were no treatment-related deaths. Conclusions: The ORR to ICI-2 was 23%, which is comparable to that seen with ICI after prior TT. Responses were seen even amongst those receiving single-agent ICI at ICI-2 and the likelihood of response to ICI-2 was higher if a patient had previously responded to ICI-1. No increase in toxicity with ICI-2 was apparent. Additional data from prospective studies are needed to determine whether sequential ICI has a role in treatment of mRCC. [Table: see text]