Singh, Parminder

4589 Background: Recent years have seen a shift in aUC management following approval of enfortumab vedotin–pembrolizumab (EV-P) and gemcitabine/cisplatin plus nivolumab (GC-NIVO) as first-line therapies. Despite improved clinical outcomes, their relative economic value remains uncertain. Herein, we conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis of current 1L regimens in aUC from a U.S. payer perspective using 2026 pricing. Methods: A partitioned survival model with three health states (progression-free [PF], progressed disease [PD], and death) was developed over a 10-year horizon from a U.S. payer perspective. Analyses focused on cisplatin-eligible patients. Survival data were reconstructed from published Kaplan–Meier curves and extrapolated using parametric survival models. Treatment dosing, schedules, and duration were modeled according to trial protocols. Patients receiving gemcitabine/cisplatin without progression were modeled to receive avelumab maintenance (GC→AVEL). Subsequent-line therapy costs were applied at incident progression, and grade ≥3 adverse event costs and disutilities were applied as one-time events. Drug acquisition costs (2026 USD) were based on average sales prices from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were discounted at 3% annually. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) and net monetary benefit (NMB) were evaluated at willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds of $100,000, $150,000, and $200,000 per QALY. Parameter uncertainty was characterized using probabilistic sensitivity analysis. Results: In the base-case analysis, total discounted costs and QALYs were $90,269 and 1.62 for GC→AVEL, $131,836 and 2.09 for GC-NIVO, and $1,451,885 and 2.77 for EV-P. Compared with GC→AVEL, GC-NIVO gained 0.46 QALYs at an incremental cost of $41,567, resulting in an ICER of $89,501 per QALY and positive NMB across all evaluated WTP thresholds. Compared with GC→AVEL, EV-P gained 1.15 QALYs at an incremental cost of $1.36 million (ICER $1.19 million per QALY). Compared with GC-NIVO, EV-P gained 0.68 QALYs at an incremental cost of $1.32 million (ICER $1.93 million per QALY), exceeding all evaluated WTP thresholds. In a scenario analysis limiting EV-P to 10 treatment cycles, total costs decreased to $287,360, with ICERs of $172,000/QALY versus GC→AVEL and $225,000/QALY versus GC-NIVO, remaining above the $150,000/QALY threshold. Conclusions: Using updated 2026 pricing, GC-NIVO is likely to be the most cost-effective first-line regimen for cisplatin-eligible patients with aUC. EV-P offers the greatest clinical benefit but is not cost-effective at current prices. A major limitation of this study is cross-trial variability in study populations and design, limiting the validity of head-to-head economic comparisons.

4514 Background: Maintenance avelumab is a standard of care in patients (pts) with la/mUC who do not progress after first-line PBC. Cabozantinib (CABO) is an oral inhibitor of MET, VEGFR and TAM, active in multiple solid tumors. We hypothesized that an avelumab (Av)-CABO combination would improve outcomes in pts with mUC with an acceptable safety profile compared to avelumab maintenance alone. Methods: MAIN-CAV (NCT05092958) is a phase III randomized, multicenter, international trial for la/mUC pts who did not progress after 4-6 cycles of any PBC (gemcitabine-cisplatin, gemcitabine-carboplatin, MVAC, ddMVAC). Pts were randomized 1:1 to Av 800 mg IV every 2 weeks alone or with CABO 40 mg daily for ≤2 years. Stratification factors were response to first-line PBC (complete response [CR] vs partial response [PR] vs stable disease [SD]) and visceral metastases. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS); secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS), safety and quality of life. The target accrual was 654 pts; the trial closed early after enrollment of 68 pts following adoption of enfortumab vedotin plus pembrolizumab as the new preferred first-line standard in the US. Results: From 3/2022 to 3/2024, 68 pts were randomized (Av n = 33; CABO-Av n = 35). Median OS was 24.8 months (mo) with Av and 23.0 mo with Avb-CABO (Hazard ratio 1.41; 95% CI 0.66–3.01; p = 0.186). Median PFS was 4.6 mo with Av vs 6.0 mo with Av-CABO (p = 0.343). Objective response rate among pts with PR or SD after first-line PBC was 20.8% with Av vs 11.5% with Av-CABO (p = 0.424). Grade ≥3 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 24.2% pts on the Av arm vs 39.4% of pts on the Av-CABO arm and CABO dose reductions occurred in 63% of pts. Conclusions: Addition of CABO to Av did not improve OS or PFS compared with Av alone in this underpowered, prematurely closed phase III trial; safety was consistent with known profiles. U10CA180821,U10CA180882; U24CA196171, U10CA180863. (CCTG);U10CA180888 (SWOG); https://acknowledgments.alliancefound.org. Clinical trial information: NCT05092958 .

4562 Background: Approximately 50-80% of patients (pts) with la/mUC have tumors with HER2 protein expression. As HER2-directed therapies enter development, a robust understanding of HER2 prevalence and real-world outcomes with standard-of-care (SOC) therapies across HER2 expression subgroups is needed. SGNDV-003 (NCT05902494) is a global retrospective chart review study in which HER2 status was assessed via central lab testing and outcomes were analyzed by HER2 status in pts with la/mUC. Methods: SGNDV-003, conducted 6/2023-7/2025, included pts with la/mUC who received ≥1 prior treatment (tx) (incl. 1 line of platinum-based chemotherapy [chemo]). HER2 status was centrally tested using a UC-specific investigational immunohistochemistry [IHC] and in situ hybridization (ISH) assays. HER2 status was defined as: HER2-positive (IHC3+ or IHC2+/ISH+), HER2-low (IHC2+/ISH- or IHC1+), HER2-expressing (IHC3+, 2+, 1+), and HER2-zero (IHC0). Index line of therapy (LOT) was defined as the first LOT received after platinum-based chemo. Outcomes included real-world objective response rate (rwORR) (per RECIST 1.1 or physician-assessed response) to index LOT, real-world progression-free survival (rwPFS), and overall survival (OS) from start of index LOT. Data was analyzed via descriptive statistics. Results: A total of 353 pts with la/mUC and available HER2 status were analyzed (male, 76%; median age, 70 years). 70% of pts were HER2 expressing (19% HER2-positive, 51% HER2-low); 30% were HER2-zero. Disease characteristics were well balanced by HER2 status. Index LOT tx and real-world outcomes are shown in the Table. Immuno-oncology therapies (IO) and enfortumab vedotin (EV) were the most common index LOTs. For IO, rwORRs were 21% for HER2-expressing and 17% for HER2-zero. For EV mono, rwORRs were 36% (HER2-expressing) and 38% (HER2-zero), respectively. Conclusions: This global study provides a robust estimate of HER2 distribution in la/mUC based on standardized central lab testing, showing high prevalence of HER2 expression. Real-world outcomes with current SOC therapies were broadly consistent across HER2 subgroups, establishing an important benchmark for the clinical development of HER2-directed therapies in this setting. HER2-positive (n=67) HER2-low (n=181) HER2-expressing (n=248) HER2-zero (n=105) Total (n=353) Real-world Outcomes rwORR, n (%)[95% CI] 17 (25.4)[15.5, 37.5] 50 (27.6)[21.3, 34.7] 67 (27.0)[21.6, 33.0] 22 (21.0)[13.6, 30.0] 89 (25.2)[20.8, 30.1] Median rwPFS (95% CI), mo 2.8(2.0, 4.1) 3.7(2.7, 5.1) 3.0(2.7, 4.5) 2.6(2.1, 3.4) 2.9 (2.6, 3.5) Median OS(95% CI), mo 12.2(9.3, 16.5) 11.5(9.5, 13.5) 11.9(10.3, 13.4) 7.7(5.9, 9.9) 10.8(9.1, 12.3) Index LOT, n% IO EV monoChemoOther tx 37 (55)17 (25)10 (15)3 (5) 94 (52)51 (28)24 (13)14 (8) 131 (53)68 (27)34 (14)17 (7) 65 (62)21 (20)12 (11)7 (7) 196 (56)89 (25)46 (13)24 (7)