Jaime‐Casas, Salvador

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.