Citations

8000 Background: The NCI’s ALCHEMIST program has screened thousands of patients with resected lung adenocarcinoma for mutations in EGFR and ALK. EA5142 studied the efficacy of adjuvant nivolumab after standard of care adjuvant therapy in patients with resected lung adenocarcinoma without sensitizing EGFR and ALK alterations and squamous cell carcinoma. Methods: Patients enrolled in the ALCHEMIST screening trial (A151216) with resected NSCLC tumors at least 4 cm and/or lymph node positive (N1/2) (for lung adenocarcinoma, without sensitizing EGFR and ALK alterations), were centrally tested for tumor cell PD-L1 expression using the DAKO 28-8 clone. After completion of all planned adjuvant therapy (chemotherapy and/or post-operative radiation) patients were randomized 1:1 to adjuvant nivolumab 480 mg IV every 4 weeks for up to 1 year or best supportive care. Patients were stratified by tumor histology, stage (AJCC 7 th edition IB/IIA vs IIB/IIIA), prior adjuvant treatment, and PD-L1 status (<1% vs ≥1%). The primary study endpoints were disease free survival (DFS) in all patients and in patients with high tumor PD-L1 expression (≥50%). Overall survival was powered to be tested hierarchically, if DFS was positive. Results: Between July 2016 and October 2019, 935 patients were randomized across 378 sites. The treatment arms were balanced for age (median 66 years), sex (52% male), smoking status (10% never smoked), histology (29% squamous), stage and PD-L1 expression (29% PD-L1 high). With a median follow-up of 72.6 months, nivolumab did not improve DFS in the intention to treat population (median DFS 71.3 months vs. 68.8 months in observation arm), hazard ratio (HR) 0.97 (95% CI 0.81-1.17, p=0.78) or the PD-L1 ≥50% subset (median DFS 89.8 months vs. 78.5 months in observation arm), HR 0.86 (95% CI 0.59-1.25, p=0.43). In multivariate analysis, adjusting for age, gender, and smoking history, the DFS HR was 0.99 (95% CI 0.82-1.19, p=0.89) in all randomized patients and 0.82 (95% CI 0.56-1.2, p=0.31) in the PD-L1 ≥50% subset. As the primary recurrence endpoint included any lung cancer, including new primaries, a sensitivity analysis was performed excluding new primary lung cancers, DFS HR 0.97 (95% CI 0.80-1.18, p=0.76) in all patients and HR 0.88 (95% CI 0.60-1.30, p=0.52 in the ≥50% subset. The median duration of treatment with adjuvant nivolumab was 9.4 months (range 0-12.7 months). The most common reasons for nivolumab discontinuation were adverse event (29%), patient withdrawal (11%), and disease progression while on treatment (10%). Treatment related grade 3-5 toxicities were reported in 25% of patients: Grade 3: 23%, Grade 4: 2%, Grade 5: <1%. Conclusions: In patients with resected NSCLC (≥4cm or LN+, EGFR/ALK -) adjuvant nivolumab did not improve DFS, irrespective of tumor PD-L1 expression. Clinical trial information: NCT02595944 .

7563 Background: Subcutaneous (SC) drug delivery options have become more widely available in multiple myeloma (MM). SC delivery of isatuximab (Isa), an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody, has been investigated across clinical trials via a novel hands-free on-body injector (OBI). Isa SC OBI features a small, retractable needle, establishing the first device-enabled delivery of an oncologic treatment. The Phase 3 IRAKLIA, Phase 2 IZALCO, and Phase 1b (TCD15484) trials consistently demonstrated similar efficacy and safety of Isa SC OBI vs Isa IV in relapsed/refractory MM (RRMM) patients (pts). Here, we present a cross-trial analysis exploring safety and reliability of Isa SC OBI in RRMM pts. Methods: Pts with RRMM in IRAKLIA (N=263) and the Phase 1b expansion cohort (N=22) received 1400 mg Isa SC OBI plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone (d). In IZALCO, RRMM pts (N=64) received 1400 mg Isa SC OBI + carfilzomib (K)-d. Pts were monitored for 4 hrs (IRAKLIA) or 1-2 hrs (IZALCO) following first administration and for 1 hr for the following cycle (C) 1 administrations to assess local tolerability. Pre-infusion medications included montelukast (C1), steroids, acetaminophen and H1 antihistamines. Pts without systemic infusion-related reactions (IRRs) after 4 consecutive administrations of Isa SC OBI had subsequent pre-medication reassessed at investigator’s discretion. Safety and device performance explored in this cross-trial analysis of company sponsored studies were assessed in the Isa SC OBI cohorts by the duration of injection, IRRs, local injection-site reactions (ISRs), and injection/device success, which were defined similarly across all trials. Results: The median duration of Isa SC OBI injection was 13 mins in IRAKLIA, 12 mins in IZALCO, and 10 mins in the Phase 1b trial (6426 total injections, N=349 pts). IRRs across trials occurred in 6/6426 (0.09%) injections and 4/349 (1.15%) pts. IRRs were mostly grade 1 (G; 3/6426, 0.05%) with 1 G3 (0.02%); none leading to discontinuation. In IRAKLIA, 80/263 (30.4%) pts did not require premedication (931/5145 injections, 18.1%); no IRRs occurred in this group. Across trials, ISRs occurred in 21/349 (6.02%) pts resulting in 35 (0.54%) ISR events. Most ISRs were G1 (33, 0.51%), the remaining were G2 (2, 0.03%) and generally occurred on the day of injection. 99.9% (6421/6426) of injections in 98.6% (344/349) pts were successful (completed without interruption) across all trials. Conclusions: These findings support overall low, self-limiting rates of IRRs and ISRs across trials, with >6000 (99.9%) Isa SC OBI injections successfully delivered. Isa SC OBI shows reproducible safety and reliability in IRAKLIA, IZALCO and Phase 1b trials, supporting it as a novel administration option for MM pts and its potential for future exploration in at-home administration. Clinical trial information: NCT04045795 , NCT05405166 , and NCT05704049 .

7516 Background: With the growing use of anti-CD38 therapies in early multiple myeloma (MM) management, there is a need for data in patients previously exposed to anti-CD38 therapy to guide decision making. In the Phase 3 IRAKLIA trial (NCT05405166), patients with relapsed/refractory MM (RRMM) received the anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody isatuximab (Isa) subcutaneously (SC) delivered via an innovative on-body injector (OBI) or intravenously (IV), with pomalidomide and dexamethasone (Pd). In this post hoc analysis, we examined outcomes in IRAKLIA patients with vs without prior anti-CD38 exposure. Methods: RRMM patients ≥18 years with ≥1 prior line of therapy including lenalidomide and a proteasome inhibitor were randomized to receive Isa SC (n=263) or IV (n=268) weekly in Cycle 1, then every 2 weeks, with Pd. Patients with prior anti-CD38 exposure <9 months (mos) before randomization or intolerance to anti-CD38 were excluded. Refractory patients were defined as those who failed to achieve minimal response on treatment or had progression within 60 days after last dose. Patients receiving Isa SC or IV were pooled. Results: Overall, 67 patients (12.6%) had prior anti-CD38 exposure with a median washout period of 20.2 mos, of which 26 (38.8%) were anti-CD38 refractory. Baseline characteristics were largely consistent between patients with or without prior anti-CD38 exposure; the median follow-up for the overall population was 12 mos. Patients with prior anti-CD38 exposure had an overall response rate (ORR) of 52.2%, 12-mo progression-free survival (PFS) rate of 40.6%, and median PFS of 8.5 mos. In patients without prior exposure, an ORR of 73.5%, 12-mo PFS of 68.8%, and non-estimable (NE) median PFS were reported. Anti-CD38 non-refractory vs refractory patients had an ORR of 48.8% vs 57.7%, 12-mo PFS of 38.9% vs 42.2%, and median PFS of 9.0 vs 7.5 mos. Patients with a longer washout period (>median of 20.2 mos) had an ORR of 63.6%, 12-mo PFS of 61.8% and NE median PFS, whereas patients whose prior anti-CD38 therapy ended more recently (≤median of 20.2 mos) had an ORR of 41.2%, 12-mo PFS of 19.2%, and median PFS of 6.7 mos. The safety profile of Isa + Pd was similar in patients with vs without prior anti-CD38 exposure. Conclusions: Isa + Pd demonstrated clinical benefit across anti-CD38–naïve, anti-CD38–exposed, and anti-CD38–refractory patients. A washout period >median of 20.2 mos resulted in outcomes comparable to those in anti-CD38–naïve patients, and outcomes were consistent between anti-CD38–exposed and anti-CD38–refractory patients after a >9-mo washout period. Efficacy of Isa + Pd in patients with prior anti-CD38 exposure from the IRAKLIA trial presents an opportunity to address an unmet need in a difficult-to-treat patient population. Clinical trial information: NCT05405166 .

566 Background: Endocrine therapy (ET) resistance (ETR) remains a primary challenge in ER+ breast cancer. Analyzing pretreatment tumor transcriptomes across trials with early response endpoints can reveal shared and specific ETR signatures. This study utilizes baseline RNA data from the Phase III ALTERNATE trial (Alliance A011106, NCT01953588; Anastrozole [A], Fulvestrant [F], or AF) and the ACOSOG Z1031B trial (NCT00824941) to identify predictors of early Ki67 response in postmenopausal ER+/HER2– patients. Methods: ETR was defined as week-4 on-treatment Ki67 >10%. Baseline gene expression from ALTERNATE was analyzed to identify differentially expressed (DE) genes (Wilcoxon test, P<0.05) and Hallmark pathways associated with ETR, both across and within individual treatment arms. Feature selection was performed using mixOmics. A Pan-Endocrine Therapy Signature (PETS) was developed by uniting DE genes identified across all three ALTERNATE arms and Z1031B. All statistical analyses were conducted in R (P<0.05). Results: Overall ETR rate in the ALTERNATE RNA-seq cohort (n=733) was 26%. ETR was associated with high Risk of Recurrence (ROR), Oncotype RS, and Mammaprint scores (calculated from RNA-seq data in research setting). In luminal tumors (n=649), ETR was linked to chr 3q13.33, 8q24.13, and 20q13.12 cytoband upregulation and 17q21, 18q23, 3p21.1, and 10q24.32 cytoband downregulation. ETR tumors showed T-cell, E2F target, and interferon-γ enrichment; sensitive tumors favored early estrogen response and muscle differentiation. At individual gene level, high MYBL2 , PIF1 , TROAP and with low HJURP predicted ETR across all samples (AUC>0.70). A deep learning model using all protein-coding genes achieved AUC 0.82 (training) and 0.79 (test) in predicting ETR. Cross-trial integration identified ETR-associated PETS, enriched for genomic instability. PETS performed comparably to established signatures and strongly correlated with MYBL2 signature (r=0.93). Top ETR predictors were MYBL2 , AURKB , and EME1 for Arm A and IL4I1 , TNFAIP6 , and ANLN for Arm AF. AF-resistant tumors were enriched for systemic lupus and RIG-I–like receptor signaling; sensitive tumors favored PI3K–AKT, EGFR TKI resistance, AMPK, and insulin signaling. Conclusions: Baseline transcriptomics identify shared and therapy-specific ETR markers. The 15-gene PETS defines a convergent resistance signature, performing similar to established signatures in predicting ETR and correlating with MYBL2. Enrichment of cell-cycle and immune pathways in resistant tumors may suggest patient stratification approach for alternative or combinatorial strategies to overcome early ETR in ER+ breast cancer. Acknowledgement: https://acknowledgments.alliancefound.org. Support: U10CA180821, U10CA180882, U24CA1. Clinical trial information: NCT01953588 .

5069 Background: Inhibition of androgen receptor (AR)-signaling results in increases in double-strand DNA breaks and genomic instability. PARP inhibitors (PARPi) are a standard treatment option for patients (pts) with homologous recombination repair mutations (HRRm). Combinations of PARPi and AR pathway inhibitors (ARPI) are associated with synthetic lethality in multiple pre-clinical studies. Clinical trials have suggested potential benefits with co-targeting PARPi and ARPI in pts with and without HRRm. Methods: Alliance A031902 compared radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) and overall survival (OS) as co-primary endpoints with enzalutamide and rucaparib (Enz/Ruca) versus enzalutamide plus placebo (Enz/Plac) for pts with metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) regardless of BRCA/HRRm status. This trial was conducted by the Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology in 36 centers in the US. Target sample size was 1,002 patients. Eligibility required mCRPC with or without measurable metastatic disease and was agnostic regarding HRRm status. The trial was discontinued in 10/2023 due to changes in the treatment landscape for this pt population. Results: Between 10/21 and 4/23, 61 pts were randomized to Enz/Ruca (n=30) or Enz/Plac (n=31). Known BRCA1/2 or PALB2 mutations were present in 1 pt (3.3%) in the Enz/Ruca arm and 1 pt (3.2%) in the Enz/Plac arm; wildtype in 14 (46.7%) vs 15 (48.4%), and unknown in 15 (50%) vs 15 (48.4%), respectively. Three patients (11.5%) in the Enz/Ruca arm discontinued due to an adverse event (AE) vs 0 in the Enz/Plac arm. Among response-evaluable pts, 7/26 (27%) in the Enz/Ruca arm discontinued due to disease progression vs 10/31 (33%) in the Enz/Plac arm. Most common grade 3+ AEs were anemia (33% vs 3%) and hypertension (17% vs 10%) in the Enz/Ruca arm and Enz/Plac arm, respectively. All 61 pts were evaluable for response assessment. PSA declines ≥50% and ≥90% were observed in 79% vs 45% and 60% vs 43% of pts receiving Enz/Ruca versus Enz/Plac, respectively. Median PFS in the Enz/Ruca vs Enz/Plac arms was 17.1 vs 14.2 mos, respectively (HR 1.13 [95% CI: 0.42-3.01], p=0.81), median rPFS (inclusive of unequivocal clinical progression) was 17.1 vs 11.7 mos ( HR 0.72; 95% CI: 0.31-1.67, p = 0.44), and median OS was not reached vs 27.0 mos (HR 0.65; 95% CI: 0.29-1.45, p=0.29). Conclusions: In this prematurely terminated phase III study, Enz/Ruca was generally well tolerated, with the safety profile consistent with prior PARPi/ARPI combinations. Efficacy outcomes for rPFS and OS are inconclusive due to limited sample size. Definitive conclusions regarding the clinical benefit of this combination cannot be determined from this study. Clinical trial information: NCT04455750 .

5054 Background: Rucaparib significantly improved radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) versus physician’s choice of docetaxel or an androgen-receptor pathway inhibitor (ARPI) (abiraterone or enzalutamide) in men with BRCA mutations who were chemotherapy-naïve in the mCRPC setting and had received one prior ARPI in the phase 3 TRITON3 trial (NCT02975934). This post-hoc analysis evaluated whether the timing of prior ARPI therapy impacted the efficacy of rucaparib. Methods: Patients were randomized 2:1 to rucaparib (600 mg BID) or physician’s choice of docetaxel or ARPI, after progression on 1 prior second-generation ARPI in any setting. The primary endpoint was rPFS. Outcomes were analyzed according to whether patients received the prior ARPI in the metastatic castration sensitive (mCSPC) or castration resistant (mCRPC) setting. Data cutoff was August 25, 2022. Results: Of the 302 BRCA1/2 patients, 68 received prior ARPI in the mCSPC setting (42 rucaparib; 26 physician’s choice) and 234 in the mCRPC setting (159 rucaparib; 75 physician’s choice). Baseline characteristics were generally similar. Prior treatments in the mCSPC and mCRPC groups, respectively, included abiraterone (73.5% vs 53.0%), enzalutamide (29.4% vs 48.3%), and docetaxel (17.6% vs 24.8%). Median rPFS favored rucaparib over physician’s choice in both groups (mCSPC: 13.6 vs 8.2 months; HR 0.60 [95% CI, 0.32–1.15]; mCRPC: 11.2 vs 5.8 months; HR 0.43 [95% CI, 0.30–0.61]). Median OS was similar between treatments in both settings (mCSPC: 23.2 vs 21.7 months; HR 0.81 [95% CI, 0.47–1.41]; mCRPC: 23.2 vs 21.0 months; HR 0.91 [95% CI, 0.66–1.25]). Treatment-related adverse events occurred at comparable rates (89.6% vs 86.1%). Conclusions: Rucaparib demonstrated efficacy in patients with BRCA-mutated mCRPC, regardless of whether prior ARPI was administered in the mCSPC or mCRPC setting. Clinical trial information: NCT02975934 .

5005 Background: Androgen receptor pathway inhibitors (ARPIs) may have distinct central nervous system (CNS) penetration and differential effects on cognition or quality of life (QOL). AFT-47, “ARACOG” is a prospective, randomized open-label phase 2 trial comparing objective and patient-reported cognitive and QOL outcomes between patients with metastatic hormone sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC), metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) or non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC) treated with darolutamide (DAR) or enzalutamide (ENZ). Methods: Between 8/17/2021 and 3/11/2025, 111 pts were enrolled and randomized 1:1 to treatment with ENZ or DAR. CANTAB, a validated computer-based platform evaluating 5 cognitive domains (PALFAM-memory recall, SWM- spatial working memory, SSP-short-term visual memory, working memory, RVP-rapid visual processing, and OTSMCC- executive function), was performed at baseline, 12, 24, and 48 weeks. Crossover (Xover) was allowed at 12 or 24 weeks for significant pre-specified decline in cognitive testing or patient reported outcome measures (PROMs), or for CNS-associated adverse events, including falls. The primary endpoint was the percent change in the maximally changed cognitive domain (MCCD) from baseline to 24 weeks and was compared between groups with the Wilcoxon rank sum statistic. Patients crossing over prior to 24 weeks were evaluated at the time of Xover and analyzed with their randomized arm. Secondary endpoints included comparison of Xover rates. Results: Among 111 pts, 55 received DAR and 56 received ENZ; median age was 71, 83% White. 95 pts (48 DAR, 47 ENZ) were evaluable for the primary endpoint. Baseline CANTAB was similar between groups. Median cognitive change in MCCD between baseline and 24 weeks was -15.8% and -36.1% for the DAR and ENZ pts, respectively (p = 0.009) (Table). Individual cognitive domains suggest possible learning effect (increased scores) for DAR and are stable or show mild decline for ENZ treated patients at 24 weeks. 32 DAR (58%) and 33 ENZ (59%) participants were eligible for Xover by 24 weeks, and 23 pts crossed over by 24 weeks. All Xover was pts randomized to ENZ (crossed to DAR), with the most common causes being decline in objective (N = 14) or subjective (N = 11) cognitive testing. Conclusions: In this US randomized trial comparing DAR to ENZ, the primary endpoint of differential cognitive effects was met. ENZ showed significantly greater cognitive score decline than DAR at 24 weeks in the MCCD after treatment initiation. Learning effect was seen with DAR but not ENZ. Longer term follow-up of cognitive change and PROM analyses are ongoing. Clinical trial information: NCT04335682 . Percent change in maximally changed cognitive domain by treatment. DAR (N=48) ENZ (N=47) Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test Result CANTAB domain PALFAM SWM Degree of change -15.8 (-38.8, -2.6) -36.1 (-59.3, -16.7) P=0.009

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

4515 Background: Adenocarcinomas of the urinary tract are rare malignancies with limited prospective data. Outcomes of triplet chemotherapy remain poorly defined. Methods: This was a prospective, single-arm, phase II study (NCT00082706) conducted at MD Anderson. Between 2005 and 2010, patients (pts) aged ≥18 years with ECOG 0–2 and metastatic or unresectable urachal (UA) or non-urachal adenocarcinoma (NUA) received frontline GemFLP (5-fluorouracil 200 mg/m² continuous infusion ×5 days with leucovorin 23 mg IV daily ×5; cisplatin 20 mg/m² IV daily ×5; gemcitabine 200 mg/m² IV on days 1 and 5). Best overall response (BOR) was assessed by imaging. Primary endpoints were objective response rate (ORR) and overall survival (OS); secondary endpoint was toxicity. PFS was calculated from treatment initiation and duration of response (DoR) from first CR/PR to progression or death; time-to-event endpoints were estimated by Kaplan–Meier (KM). Post hoc analyses evaluated baseline tumor markers (CEA, CA19-9, CA125, β-hCG) Treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) were graded per CTCAE v5. Results: Forty-six pts were enrolled (28 UA, 18 NUA). Median age was 58 years; 41% were de novo metastatic, and 78% had visceral metastases. ORR was 44% (20/46). Among responders, median DoR was 8.6 months (95% CI 4.6–30.8). median PFS was 3.3 months (95% CI 2.3–8.4) and median OS (mOS) was 21.0 months (95% CI 15.9–35.3) There was no difference in PFS (p=0.39) or OS (p=0.99) between UA and NUA. Baseline CEA, CA19-9, CA125, and β-hCG were not associated with ORR or PFS. Higher baseline CA125 was associated with inferior OS (HR 1.33, 95% CI: 1.12–1.58; p =0.001) Subsequent systemic therapy was administered to 28 pts (60.9%); median number of subsequent treatment lines was 2 (range 1–5). The most common hematologic TRAEs were anemia (28.1%; grade ≥3 [G3] 12.5%), thrombocytopenia (21.9%; G3 12.5%), and neutropenia (12.5%; G3 9.4%). The most frequent non-hematologic TRAEs were dehydration (21.9%; G3: 6.2%), diarrhea (9.4%; G3 6.2%) and catheter-related thrombosis (9.4%; G3 9.4%). No grade 5 events occurred. Conclusions: In this prospective phase II study, frontline GemFLP achieved a 44% ORR with durable responses (mDoR 8.6 mo) and 21 mo mOS in advanced UA and NUA. Survival did not differ between UA and NUA subtypes. Baseline CA125 was associated with OS. Toxicity was manageable. These data provide a prospective benchmark for this rare disease. Clinical trial information: NCT00082706 . Variable UA (n=28) NUA (n=18) Characteristics Age, median [ICR] 58 [54– 62] 58 [54– 62] 67 [ 62-72] Race, n (%) White 22 (79) 11 61) Black 6 (21) 6 (33) Other 0 1 (6) Prior surgery for localized disease, n (%) 18 (64) 5 (28) Mets at baseline Any 24 (86) 7 (39) Lung 6 (21) 4 (22) Liver 3 (11) 0 Peritoneum 17 (61) 0 Bone 3 (11) 3 (17) Nodal-only mets 1 (3) 2 (10) Outcomes ORR (%) 43.5 35.7 55.6 BOR n (%) CR 4 (14) 2 (11) PR 6 (21) 8 (44) SD 11 (39) 4 (22) PD 6 (21) 3 (17) NE 1 (4) 1 (6)