Grivas, Petros

5045 Background: Radioligand therapy with radium-223 (Rad) and lutetium-177 (Plu) demonstrates notable hematologic toxicities in patients (pts) with prostate cancer (PC), including myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) and acute myeloid leukemia (AML). Delivery of ionizing radiation to the bone microenvironment is a known risk factor for accelerating clonal hematopoiesis, although the incidence of clonal cytopenias with these agents is not well characterized. We hypothesized that pts treated with Rad and/or Plu would have higher risk of clonal cytopenia of undetermined significance (CCUS) vs matched controls in the “real-world”. Methods: We performed a retrospective study using de-identified aggregate data from the TriNetX US Research Collaborative Network from January 2010 to December 2025. Adult males with PC who received ≥1 administration of Plu and/or Rad were included; pts with prior myeloid malignancy were excluded. Primary outcomes were incidence of CCUS and MDS. Propensity score matching (PSM) was performed based on age, race, prior diagnosis of leukopenia, anemia, thrombocytopenia, or pancytopenia. Risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated. Results: We identified 2,569 pts treated with Plu alone and 2,007 treated with Rad alone and compared them with pts with advanced PC without exposure to either agent (unexposed control) (Table 1). After PSM, the incident risk of CCUS was greater in Rad-exposed pts (RR 2.62, 95% CI 1.45 – 4.73, p < 0.001) while Plu was not associated with a significant increase in CCUS or MDS. Direct comparison after PSM (n=1,433) demonstrated lower risk of pancytopenia (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.37 – 0.56, p <0.001) and CCUS (RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.20 – 0.81, p =0.008) in Plu vs Rad. In unadjusted analysis, pts receiving both Plu and Rad had increased incidence of CCUS vs Plu alone (RR= 3.64, 95% CI 1.87 - 7.07, p <0.001) and higher risk of MDS vs either agent alone. Conclusions: This “real-world” analysis demonstrates that compared with unexposed controls, Rad – but not Plu – is associated with an increased risk of CCUS. Treatment with Plu and Rad portends a higher risk of CCUS than Plu alone, as well higher risk of MDS than either drug alone. Study limitations include its retrospective nature, missing/ unknown data (e.g. bone marrow and mutation analysis), and potential selection and confounding biases. As treatment sequencing evolves for pts with metastatic PC, further evaluation of clonal hematopoiesis, MDS/AML with adequate sample size and follow up in this population is warranted. ¹⁷⁷Lu-PSMA-617 Exposed(n = 2,569) Unexposed(n =2,569 ) Risk Ratio (95% CI) p -value CCUS 1.03% (26) 0.67% (17) 1.54 (0.84 – 2.82) 0.16 MDS 0.94% (24) 0.55% (14) 1.72 (0.89 – 3.32) 0.10 Radium-223 Exposed(n = 2,007) Unexposed(n = 2,007) Risk Ratio (95% CI) p -value CCUS 1.97% (39) 0.75 (15) 2.62 (1.45 – 4.73) <0.001 MDS 0.85% (17) 0.75% (15) 1.13 (0.57 – 2.26) 0.72

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

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

4580 Background: ICIs are used for UC in different settings. Most cases have pure urothelial carcinoma (PUC) but about a third have UC mixed with SH. We examined pts with UC treated with ICI and hypothesized that outcomes would not differ between PUC and mixed with SH. Methods: We retrospectively included pts with PUC and any SH component treated with ICI as adjuvant, 1st line [1L] upfront, maintenance avelumab [mAV], ≥2nd line [2+L] therapy; pts were divided by SH type. Pts with multiple SH were included as separate group. We excluded pts with pure non-UC histology and pts treated with neoadjuvant ICI. We calculated overall response rate (ORR), median overall, progression-free and disease-free survival [mOS, mPFS, mDFS] using KM method from ICI start. Analysis was stratified by therapy line; multivariable models were adjusted by Khaki factors for 1L/upfront, mAV and Bellmunt factors for 2+L; reference group was PUC. We used descriptive statistics for small subsets. Results: We included 1525 pts from 26 sites; n=752 1L, n=609 2+L; 76% men, 80% White, 69% smoking history, 80% lower urinary tract primary, 28% SH. Median f/u time from 1L ICI start 24 months (mo): mPFS was 3 (95%CI 2.8-3.2) mo for PUC (n=340), 3 (95%CI 2-4) mo for squamous (n=60) (HR=1, [95%CI 0.7-1.4]), 2 (95%CI 1.4-3.2) mo for micropapillary (n=36) (HR=1.3 [95% 0.9-2]) and 4 (3.5-4.5) mo for ≥2 SH (n=20) (HR=0.9 [95%CI 0.6-1.5]). Median f/u time from 2+L ICI start 26 mo: mPFS was 3 (95%CI 2.4-3.2) mo for PUC (n=264), 4 (95%CI 2-5) mo for squamous (n=33) (HR=0.8, [95%CI 0.6-1.2]), 3 (95%CI 1.6-3.7) mo for micropapillary (n=17) (HR=0.9 [95% 0.6-1.7]) and 3 (2.5-3.1) mo for ≥2 SH (n=10) (HR=1.2 [95%CI 0.6-2.2]); Table shows ORR/OS data. Data on adjuvant and mAV settings will also be presented. Conclusions: We found no significant survival difference between PUC and SH. ORR was numerically higher with sarcomatoid SH and ≥2 SH in the 1L upfront setting. Limitations: retrospective design, small sample size in a few subsets, lack of randomization and central scan/path (% SH) review, selection bias, unmeasured confounders. [Table: see text]

TPS714 Background: 1st-line induction platinum-based chemotherapy followed by switch maintenance Av is the current preferred standard of care in patients (pts) with aUC who do not progress after platinum-based chemotherapy. There is an significant need to further improve outcomes by combining Av with an effective, non-cross resistant therapy with non-overlapping toxicity. CABO is an oral inhibitor of MET, VEGFR and TAM family receptors involved in tumor growth, angiogenesis and immune cell regulation and has shown efficacy in UC in combination with PD-1/PD-1L1 inhibitor. We hypothesized that CABO-Av combination would improve survival vs Av alone and have an acceptable safety profile as switch maintenance therapy in mUC. Methods: MAIN-CAV is a phase III randomized, multicenter, international trial for pts with locally advanced/metastatic UC (including cN3M0 only)) who do not progress after 4-6 cycles of any platinum-based chemotherapy (gem-cis, gem-carbo, MVAC or ddMVAC). 654 adults are randomized 1:1 within 3-10 weeks (wk) after last dose of chemotherapy to receive Av 800 mg IV every 2 wk or Av and CABO 40 mg daily for up to 2 yrs. Key eligibility criteria include ECOG PS 0-1, no prior use of anti-PD(L)1, no CNS metastases, no major surgery within 4 wks, no uncontrolled hypertension or cardiovascular disorders. Pts are stratified based on 1) best response to 1L chemotherapy: complete vs partial response vs stable disease and 2) presence vs absence of visceral metastases. The primary endpoint is overall survival (OS) with assumptions of 1-sided alpha 0.025, power 80%, median OS 21 months (mo) with Av and hazard ratio 0.75, thus hypothesizing median OS 28 mo on CABO-Av. Key secondary endpoints include progression-free survival, safety, tolerability, and efficacy of CABO-Av vs Av alone based on RECIST 1.1 and iRECIST criteria (and PD-L1 status).Quality of life (QOL) are assessed using EQ-5D-5L, PROMIS-Fatigue 4a, EORTC QLQ-C30, EORTC QLQ-BLM30 between pts on CABO-Av vs Av alone. Biomarkers of response and resistance to Av will be assessed using baseline archival tissues, baseline and serial blood, ctDNA, stool and urine. Imaging studies will test the correlation of established and new radiomic signatures with survival, adverse events and QOL and incorporate both radiologic and biologic features to assess their potential association with outcomes. This trial would be the first to systematically address whether adding the multitargeted TKI, CABO, to Av improves survival vs Av alone as 1L maintenance therapy. https://acknowledgments.alliancefound.org . Support: U10CA180821, U10CA180882; U24CA196171, U10CA180863 (CCTG); Clinical trial information: NCT05092958 .

654 Background: MSI and TMB correlate with ICI efficacy. We assessed the association between TMB and MSI with outcomes in pts with aUC treated with anti-PD1/L1 in a ‘real-world’ cohort. We hypothesize that pts with high TMB and MSI-high (H) have better outcomes with ICI. Methods: In this retrospective study we included pts from 13 sites treated with ICI for aUC. We calculated overall response rate (ORR), median overall and progression-free survival (mOS, mPFS) using KM method from ICI start. TMB and MSI were assessed by NGS. TMB was analyzed as dichotomous (≥10 vs <10 mut/Mb) and continuous variable. The analysis was stratified by therapy line (1L/upfront, 2+L). Multivariable models were adjusted by Khaki factors for 1L/upfront and Bellmunt factors for 2+L. We separately analyzed pts on maintenance avelumab (mAV). MSI is reported with descriptive statistics only. Results: 342 pts were treated with ICI 1L/upfront or 2+L (69% pure UC, median age at ICI start 69, 77% men, 90% White, 16% upper tract primary, 12% liver metastases [mets], 78% ECOG PS 0-1). Median f/u from ICI start was 34 months (mo). ORR was 36% (95%CI 26-46%) in pts with TMB≥10 vs 30% (95%CI 23-36%) with TMB<10 (OR=1.4 [95%CI 0.8-2.5] p=0.3). ORR was 75% (6/8) in pts with MSI-H and 30% (60/200) with MSI stable (MSI-S). mPFS was similar between TMB≥10 and <10 groups (6 vs 4 mo; HR=0.88 [95%CI 0.61-1.26] p=0.48) and between MSI-H and MSI-S (5 mo). mOS was numerically longer (not significant) in pts with TMB≥10 vs TMB<10: 25 vs 21 mo; (HR=0.7 [95%CI 0.50-1.09] p=0.12) and with MSI-H and MSI-S (NR and 20 mo). A significant association was found between TMB (continuous variable) and OS (HR=0.97 [95%CI 0.95-0.99] p=0.01). TMB analyses by therapy line are shown in Table. In the 1L/upfront setting (N=144), ORR 71% (5/7) vs 33% (45/135), mPFS 5 and 4 mo, mOS NR and 22 mo for MSI-H and MSI-S, respectively. Pts on mAV (n=77) were 77% men, 92% White, 16% upper primary, 13% liver mets, 84% ECOG PS 0-1 with median f/u 15 mo from avelumab start; mOS was NR for MSI-H and 24 mo for MSI-S; mPFS was 4 mo for both groups. Of 3 pts on mAV with MSI-H: 1 CR, 2 SD; of 58 pts with MSI-S: 4CR, 4PR, 24 SD, 21 PD, 5 unknown. Conclusions: MSI-H had numerically higher ORR and higher TMB was associated with longer OS with ICI, but further validation is needed. Limitations: retrospective design, small sample size for MSI-H cases, lack of randomization and central scan review, selection/confounding. [Table: see text]

LBA531 Background: Muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma (MIUC) is an aggressive disease with high relapse rates. Neoadjuvant platinum-based chemotherapy (NAC) is the standard of care in patients (pts) who are cisplatin (Cis)-eligible. However, many pts are Cis-ineligible or have persistent muscle-invasive disease after NAC and surgery. We evaluated pembrolizumab (Pembro) as adjuvant therapy in pts with high-risk MIUC following surgical resection. Methods: The AMBASSADOR study is an open-label, randomized, phase III trial that enrolled pts with histologically confirmed MIUC of the bladder, upper tract, or urethra who (1) had ≥ pT2 and/or pN+ or margins+ at surgery (radical cystectomy, nephrectomy, nephroureterectomy, or ureterectomy) following NAC or (2) ≥ pT3 and/or pN+ or margins+ at surgery without NAC and were either Cis-ineligible or declined adjuvant Cis-based therapy. Pts were registered ≥4 to 16 weeks after surgery and randomized 1:1 to receive Pembro 200 mg every 3 weeks for 1 year or observation (Obs). Randomization was stratified by pathologic stage, centrally tested PD-L1 status, and prior NAC. The dual primary endpoints were disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) with a target sample size of 739 pts and required 387 DFS and 320 OS events for final analysis. Secondary objectives included evaluation of DFS and OS in PD-L1-positive and -negative pts and assessing safety. Here we present the interim DFS and OS results. Results: Between 09/2017 and 08/2021 a total of 702 pts were randomized prior to early closure due to US FDA approval of nivolumab for MIUC pts: 354 pts to Pembro and 348 pts to Obs; 13.0% vs 21.6% withdrew from study without event in the Pembro vs Obs arms, respectively. 74 pts (21%) in the Obs arm received an immune checkpoint inhibitor. Median follow-up was 22.3 months (mos) for DFS and 36.9 mos for OS. The DFS endpoint (based on 319 events needed for interim analysis) crossed the efficacy boundary. Median DFS was 29.0 months (95% confidence interval (CI) 21.8‒not evaluable (NE)) with Pembro and 14.0 months (95% CI 9.7‒20.20) with Obs (hazard ratio (HR) 0.69 [95% CI 0.55–0.87]; p=0.0013). At the interim analysis (n = 257 events), median OS was 50.9 months (95% CI 43.9‒NE) with Pembro and 55.8 months (95% CI 53.3‒NE) with Obs (HR 0.98 [95% CI 0.76–1.26]; p=0.88). Grade 3+ adverse events occurred in 48.4% and 31.8% of pts in the Pembro and Obs arms, respectively. Conclusions: Adjuvant Pembro demonstrated a statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in DFS vs Obs for high-risk MIUC pts after radical surgery. The OS endpoint may have been impacted by pts on the Obs arm receiving a checkpoint inhibitor. Pembro was tolerable with no new safety signals. These results support adjuvant Pembro as a new therapeutic option for pts with MIUC with high risk for recurrence. Additional follow-up is ongoing for the final DFS/OS, PD-L1 subgroups, and ctDNA analyses. Clinical trial information: NCT03244384 .