Citations

TPS272 Background: Prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA)-targeting positron emission tomography (PET) radiopharmaceuticals enable early detection of metastatic and recurrent prostate cancer (PCa). High urinary radioactivity of some PSMA-PET agents can affect interpretation of scans in the pelvic region (prostate/prostate bed [PB]; pelvic lymph nodes [PLN]). 18 F-Piflufolastat and 18 F-flotufolastat are FDA-approved, mainly renally cleared, diagnostic PSMA-PET agents; data suggest 18 F-flotufolastat has lower urinary radioactivity than 18 F-piflufolastat, but no clinical differences have been confirmed by head-to-head intra-patient studies. The present study will directly compare the urinary radioactivity of 18 F-piflufolastat with 18 F-flotufolastat in men with low prostate-specific antigen (PSA) biochemical recurrence (BCR) of PCa after radical prostatectomy (RP). Methods: This multicenter, prospective, intra-patient comparator study will include men (≥ 18 years old) with low PSA (≤ 0.5 ng/mL) BCR of PCa who have had RP ≥ 6 months before enrollment (with undetectable PSA post surgery) and are due to have routine 18 F-piflufolastat PET. Men who have had prior 18 F-piflufolastat PET or salvage therapy, or with conditions affecting urinary output, will be excluded. Eligible patients will undergo 18 F-piflufolastat PET followed by 18 F-flotufolastat PET ≥ 24 hours but ≤ 10 days later. No diuretic will be administered for scanning purposes. Each radiopharmaceutical will be administered as a single intravenous bolus per approved US prescribing information (USPI). Scanning (with the same scanner for both scans) will start 50–90 minutes post injection of 18 F-piflufolastat and 50–70 minutes post injection of 18 F-flotufolastat. Each patient will be their own control. The primary endpoint will be difference in mean standardized uptake value (SUV mean ) between 18 F-piflufolastat and 18 F-flotufolastat as assessed in volumes of interest drawn on the urinary bladder. Secondary endpoints for both agents will include detection rates: at the patient level (overall; by baseline PSA); for local recurrences in PB subregions; and for PLN lesions. For secondary endpoints, PET scans will be interpreted per product-specific USPI by 2 specially trained, blinded, central readers (a third reader will adjudicate disagreements). Safety will be monitored until 24 hours after the second scan. Around 60 men will be screened and ≥ 52 with evaluable PET scans for both agents will be included in the primary analysis. The primary endpoint will be assessed for normality and a difference in SUV mean will be tested using 2-sided paired tests (Wilcoxon signed-rank test [non-normal]; t-test [normal]). All further endpoints, including safety, will be summarized descriptively. The trial has been open for enrollment since 10/24. Clinical trial information: NCT06604442 .

686 Background: Blue-light cystoscopy (BLC) is an established procedure for use in the diagnosis and surveillance of patients with non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC). It is associated with improved detection rates compared to white light cystoscopy (WLC); however, limited data is available regarding its role in upstaging and/or upgrading when used alongside WLC. The aim of this study is to assess the incidence and features of patients undergoing upstaging and/or risk-group migration with the implementation of BLC. Methods: Using data from the prospective multi-institutional Cysview Registry (2014-2024), patients with NMIBC who underwent transurethral resection or biopsy of bladder tumors were identified. The patients in whom malignant lesions were exclusively detected by BLC, as well as those experiencing an upward change in risk category (as defined by the American Urological Association [AUA] classification) based on BLC findings, were documented. The clinical features of these patients were subsequently reviewed. Results: In this study, 2,854 patients were enrolled, who collectively underwent 4,158 resections and provided 6,432 separate pathology samples. A total of 201 (7%) patients had at least one malignant lesion detected exclusively by BLC while having negative WLC. These lesions (total 335) included carcinoma in-situ (CIS) in 145 (43%), low-grade Ta in 53 (16%), high-grade Ta in 95 (28%), high-grade T1 in 37 (11%), and high-grade T2 in 5 (1%). In patients with multifocal disease, BLC resulted in AUA risk-group upward migration in 66 (2.3%) patients.Theclinical features of these two groups are presented in the table. Taken together, the total rate of upgrading or upstaging using BLC was 9.3%, including migration to low-risk in 1.2%, intermediate-risk in 2.1%, and high-risk in 6%. Conclusions: Using BLC during transurethral resection or biopsy of bladder tumors results in risk group migration in over 9% of patients with NMIBC. This impacts patient management, including the administration of intravesical therapy when it was not initially planned, an extension in the duration of therapy, or the decision to proceed with radical cystectomy. Clinical features of patients with malignant lesions detected by BLC only (A) and those with risk group migration (B). Clinical features A B Age, median (IQR), year 71 (63-76) 71 (61-77) Gender, n (%) Male Female 140 (74)49 (26) 54 (82)12 (18) History of smoking, n (%) 117 (62) 40 (61) Primary occurrence, n (%) 65 (34) 14 (21) History on intravesical therapy, n (%) 92 (49) 40 (61) Urine cytology * , n (%) Positive Suspicious Atypical Negative/NA 33 (17)21 (10)41 (20)106 (53) 13 (20)7 (11)10 (15)36 (54) IQR: interquartile range; NA: not available. *Detected by either voided urine or bladder wash.

458 Background: Renal angiomyolipoma (AML) is a common benign solid tumor of the kidney, typically found incidentally through imaging. These tumors can also present with symptoms like flank pain, hematuria, or retroperitoneal bleeding. AMLs are usually monitored and treated when they reach sizes between 4 and 6 cm based on clinical judgment, although the timing for intervention remains debated. This study aimed to investigate growth rates, assess radiographic features, and evaluate trends in clinical presentation. Methods: This multicenter, single-institution retrospective study reviewed patients diagnosed with renal AML at three Mayo Clinic locations (Rochester, Arizona, Jacksonville) from 1997 to 2021. Eligible patients had at least three abdominal scans over a minimum of two years and 36 months of follow-up. We reviewed radiologic reports, images, and charts to record demographics, tumor characteristics, imaging modalities, intervention rates, tumor sizes, and growth rates. The Mann-Whitney and Fisher exact tests were used for comparisons. Results: Among 839 patients, most were female (81.6%), with a median age of 58.55 years. Bleeding patients had significantly larger initial tumors (median 6.50 cm) compared to non-bleeding patients (median 1.20 cm), p < 0.001. Treatment with everolimus was more common in bleeding patients (12.2% vs. 2.1%), and the prevalence of tuberous sclerosis was higher in the bleeding group (19.5% vs. 6.3%). All bleeding patients underwent intervention, while 22.3% of the overall cohort received treatment. Follow-up duration and total scans did not differ significantly between groups. Over 12 months, non-bleeding patients had a median growth change of 0.00 cm [IQR: 0.00, 0.30], whereas bleeding patients showed a median growth change of 0.40 cm [IQR: 0.15, 1.00], p = 0.002. Conclusions: This study reveals significant differences in characteristics and growth patterns of renal angiomyolipomas between bleeding and non-bleeding patients. Bleeding patients had larger initial tumors and greater growth changes over time. Further studies on radiographic features may help identify lesions needing earlier intervention. Demographic and clinical characteristics of patients with renal AML: Comparison bleeding vs non-bleeding groups. Overall Non-bleeding Bleeding P-Value N 839 798 41 Gender (%) Female 685 (81.6) 650 (81.5) 35 (85.4) 0.793 Male 152 (18.1) 146 (18.3) 6 (14.6) Unknown 2 (0.2) 2 (0.3) 0 (0.0) Age (median [IQR]) 58.55 [47.04, 66.95] 58.72 [47.32, 67.19] 53.84 [42.88, 60.82] 0.015 Follow up (months) (median [IQR]) 45.30 [37.12, 89.15] 46.45 [36.32, 89.52] 39.70 [36.30, 61.63] 0.233 Total scans (median [IQR]) 3.00 [3.00, 5.00] 4.00 [3.00, 5.00] 3.00 [3.00, 4.00] 0.282 Initial size (cm) (median [IQR]) 1.30 [0.80, 2.70] 1.20 [0.70, 2.50] 6.50 [3.00, 9.30] <0.001 Everolimus (%) Yes 22 (2.6) 17 (2.1) 5 (12.2) 0.001 Tuberous sclerosis (%) Yes 58 (6.9) 50 (6.3) 8 (19.5) 0.003 Intervention (%) Yes 187 (22.3) 147 (18.4) 41 (100) <0.001

454 Background: Limited data exist on outcomes in mRCC patients with major venous involvement (MVI). Assessment of impact of a given variable on prognosis in cancer patients is challenging given competing causes of death (PMID: 25417239). This analysis aims to estimate cancer prognosis in mRCC patients with MVI, considering death from competing causes. Methods: Data from the Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) database (2010-2020) were analyzed for survival and mortality in mRCC patients with MVI. 5-year (y) overall survival (OS) and 5-y probability of cancer death were calculated using the actuarial method in SEER*Stat 8.4.4, reported as percentages with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Results were based on the site of MVI (renal vein, inferior vena cava [IVC]) and stratified by age (<65, >65 years), gender (male, female), and race/ethnicity (Non-Hispanic [NH] White, NH Black, NH Asian/Pacific Islander [API], Hispanic). Results: A total of 89047 mRCC patients were included in our analysis of whom 10785 (12%) had major venous involvement (MVI). Overall, patients who experienced MVI had worse prognosis as compared to those who did not have MVI (5-y OS: 53.2% vs 84.4% and 5-y cancer death: 38.6% vs 8.2% respectively). Among cohort with MVI, prognosis was poor with IVC involvement as compared to involvement of renal vein (5-y OS: 36% vs 57%; 5-y cancer death: 56% vs 35% respectively). Patients who had the worst prognosis with MVI included older adults (>65 y) (5-y OS: 47.8%; 5-y cancer death: 40.8%) and NH Black (5-y OS: 41.5%; 5-y cancer death: 49.8%) (Table). Conclusions: Prognosis in mRCC with MVI, especially with IVC involvement, was poor, particularly for older adults (>65 y) and NH Black patients. Further research is needed for better prognostication and risk stratification to improve outcomes for high-risk patients. Subgroup No MVI MVI N 5-year OS (%), 95% CI 5-year Cancer death (%), 95% CI N 5-year OS (%), 95% CI 5-year Cancer death (%), 95% CI Overall population 78,262 84.4 (84.1-84.7) 8.2 (8.0-8.4) 10,785 53.2 (52.0-54.3) 38.6 (37.5-39.7) Age <65 y 49,217 89.0 (88.6-89.2) 6.5 (6.3-6.8) 5,897 57.5 (56.0-59.0) 36.8 (35.4-38.3) >65 y 29,045 77.0 (76.1-77.2) 10.9 (10.5-11.4) 4,888 47.8 (46.0-49.5) 40.8 (39.2-42.4) Gender Male 49,221 83.0 (82.7-83.5) 8.9 (8.6-9.2) 7,503 53.2 (51.8-54.6) 38.3 (37.0-39.6) Female 29,041 86.5 (86.0-86.9) 7.0 (6.7-7.4) 3,282 53.0 (51.0-55.0) 39.4 (37.4-41.3) Race/ethnicity NH White 49,520 84.0 (83.7-84.4) 8.3 (8.0-8.5) 7,182 53.5 (52.1-54.8) 38.0 (36.7-39.3) NH Black 8,878 82.0 (81.0-82.9) 8.1 (7.5-8.8) 685 41.5 (37.1-45.9) 49.8 (45.4-54.1) NH API 4,747 86.0 (85.1-87.4) 8.5 (7.6-9.4) 713 52.9 (48.2-57.3) 39.9 (35.5-44.1) Hispanic (All Races) 13,826 86.5 (85.8-87.2) 7.9 (7.4-8.4) 2,014 56.2 (53.4-58.8) 36.7 (34.1-39.2) N: number of cases; OS: overall survival; CI: confidence interval; NH: Non-Hispanic; API: Asian/Pacific Islander; MVI: major venous involvement.

270 Background: Inconsistent reporting of subgroup data across clinical trials makes interpretation and application of the evidence from trials challenging. We conducted a living systematic review to summarize evidence for American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) guidelines for management of metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). Here, we provide an overview of reporting patterns of subgroup data across mCRPC trials. Methods: MEDLINE and EMBASE were systematically searched from each database's inception through September 20 th , 2024, to identify phase II/III/IV randomized clinical trials assessing the efficacy and safety of treatment options in mCRPC. For outcomes of overall survival (OS) and progression free survival (PFS), data from the subgroup analyses was collected and compared across trials to assess heterogeneity in the reporting of subgroups. Results: This analysis included 141 trials (phase II: 83; phase III: 56; phase IV: 2). OS was reported by 113 (80%) trials; 32 (28%) reported OS by any subgroups with 95 unique subgroup categories. PFS was reported by 110 (78%) trials; 23 (21%) reported PFS by any subgroups with 63 unique subgroup categories. Even among consistently reported subgroups, such as age, ECOG performance status, race, geographical area, and Gleason score, considerable heterogeneity in different subgroup levels/thresholds was observed across trials. Top ten most commonly reported subgroups are summarized (Table). Conclusions: Lack of consistent reporting for subgroup analysis in mCRPC trials preclude meaningful conclusions about clinically relevant subgroup and synthesizing evidence for clinical guidelines. A standardized framework for consistent reporting of subgroup data across trials can help inform clinical practice and clinical practice guidelines. OS PFS Number of trials 113 110 Reporting subgroup analysis – N (%) 32 (28) 23 (21) Commonly reported subgroups – (N) Age (26)ECOG-PS (26)LDH (21)PSA (18)Geographic area (15)Alkaline phosphatase (14)Visceral disease (14)Gleason score (9)Race (9)Brief pain inventory level (8) Age (21) ECOG-PS (19)PSA (18)LDH (14)Geographic area (13)Visceral disease (11)Gleason score (10)Alkaline phosphatase (9)Bone metastasis (9)Disease location (9) Age – (N) <65 (14); ≥65 (9); ≤68 (1); ≥69 (1); <70 (5); ≥70 (5); ≤74 (4); 65-75 (5); ≤ 71 (1); >71 (1); ≥75 (11); >Median (1); <Median (1) <65 (12); 65-74 (6); ≥65 (6); <70 (5); ≥70 (5); <75 (4); ≥75 (10); 76-80 (1); >80 (1) ECOG-PS – (N) 0 (15); 0-1 (11), 1 (11); 1-2 (5); 2 (12) 0 (15); 0-1 (5), 1 (12); 1-2 (2); 2 (6) Race – (N) White (9)Non-white (6)African American/black (2)Asian (2) White (8)Non-white (5)African American/black (2)Asian (4) Geographic Area – (N) Europe (8)North America (14)United States (1)Australia (1)Asia (2) Europe (11)North America (13)United States (1)Australia (1)Asia (2)North and South America (2) Gleason Score – (N) 2-6 (1); 7 (1); 8 (1); <8 (8); ≥ 8 (8); 9-10 (1) <8 (10); ≥ 8 (10)

202 Background: While several PARP inhibitors are approved in combination with hormonal therapies for metastatic castrate resistant prostate cancer (CRPC), their use in castrate sensitive prostate cancer (CSPC) is understudied. We previously reported that olaparib monotherapy (without ADT) shows significant clinical activity in BRCA2 -altered patients with biochemically recurrent (BCR) prostate cancer. Here, we explored prognostic and predictive PARP-related mRNA biomarkers derived from primary prostate tumors. Methods: We characterized the expression of 16 PARP transcripts using a cohort of 52,266 radical prostatectomy (RP) specimens (2016-2024) undergoing Decipher prostate genomic classifier testing (Veracyte Inc). Transcriptome-wide mRNA expression data as well as baseline clinical/pathologic factors were retrieved from the Decipher GRID database (NCT02609269). Associations between high PARP expression (top 25%), baseline factors, and gene signatures were examined using logistic regression. We assessed the association between PARP expression and distant metastases in 3 retrospective cohorts (n= 545, 855, and 325). Finally, we evaluated PARP expression in our prior phase II trial (NCT03047135, n=39) of olaparib monotherapy in the setting of BCR following RP. Results: Higher mRNA levels of PARP1 , 2 , 8 and 14 showed strong associations (all P <0.001) with known adverse prognostic factors such as very-high Decipher score (>0.85), high Gleason grade (GG5) and non-organ confined disease (EPE, SVI and LNI), while higher PARP6 and 7 expression were associated with more favorable disease characteristics. High PARP1 expression was positively correlated with DNA-repair deficiency (r=0.77) and tumor immune microenvironment (r=0.62) signatures. In 3 independent retrospective cohorts of intermediate-high risk PCa patients, higher PARP1 expression was strongly associated with development of distant metastases after RP (HR 1.70, 1.81, and 1.67 respectively; all P <0.05). Finally, in our phase II trial of patients with BCR who received olaparib monotherapy, PARP1 (but not PARP2 ) expression from RP was 1.5-fold higher in samples with BRCA2 mutations (median 0.416 vs 0.276, P =0.01) and was associated with overall improved PSA progression-free survival (continuous variable, HR 0.55, P =0.01) and longer time to next systemic treatment (continuous variable, HR 0.66, P =0.02). Conclusions: High PARP1 mRNA expression, measured at RP, is associated with aggressive disease biology and greater risk of metastasis. However, high PARP1 (but not PARP2 ) levels are associated with improved response to PARP inhibition in the setting of BCR prostate cancer. Future trials testing PARP (including PARP1-selective) inhibitors in the CSPC space should consider measuring PARP1 mRNA levels in addition to BRCA1/2 mutation status. Clinical trial information: NCT02609269 , NCT03047135 .

TPS294 Background: Approval of [ 177 Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 ( 177 Lu-PSMA-617) for the treatment of adult patients with prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA)-positive metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, previously treated with androgen receptor pathway inhibitors and taxane-based chemotherapy, was based on the results of the Phase 3 VISION study (NCT03511664). It is important to further characterize long-term safety outcomes in 177 Lu-PSMA-617–treated patients, with particular regard to potential treatment-related risks. To this end, the long-term follow-up (LTFU) safety study (NCT05803941) has been established. Findings from the LTFU study will be crucial for assessing delayed toxicities for patients with PSMA-positive metastatic prostate cancer treated with 177 Lu-PSMA-617 globally. Methods: The LTFU study is a prospective, multi-center, non-EU post-authorization safety study. Patients who received ≥1 dose of 177 Lu-PSMA-617 within one of the prospective parent studies (Table 1) are eligible. Patients may enroll in the LTFU study after fulfilling the requirements of their corresponding parent study. The primary endpoint is the number and proportion of selected adverse events (AEs), including myelosuppression, xerostomia, renal failure, xerophthalmia, and second primary malignancies (eg, myelodysplastic syndrome or acute myeloid leukemia), other serious AEs, and changes in laboratory values. The secondary endpoint is the number and proportion of deaths. Following enrollment, patients will undergo assessments at baseline, and then every 6–8 months for up to 10 years after their first dose of 177 Lu-PSMA-617 or until death. At each visit, a review of selected treatment-related AEs (xerostomia, xerophthalmia, myelosuppression), any-cause AEs (renal toxicity, new diagnoses of second primary malignancies), and treatment-related serious AEs will be conducted. Physical and laboratory assessments, as well as details on concomitant medications and interventions, including anti-cancer therapies, will be collected. Patients may receive treatment with any medical intervention. Interim analyses are planned at 2 and 5 years post-study activation. Enrollment is ongoing (n=13). Clinical trial information: NCT05803941 . Parent studies of the long-term follow-up safety study. Trial Indication Phase N (all groups) ClinicalTrials.gov ID VISION (+sub-study) Post-taxane mCRPC 3 831 (+30) NCT03511664 PSMAfore Pre-taxane mCRPC 3 469 NCT04689828 PSMAddition mHSPC 3 1144 NCT04720157 177 Lu-PSMA-617 in patients with moderately or severely impaired, or normal renal function Post-taxane mCRPC 2 20 a NCT06004661 a Planned. mCRPC, metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer; mHSPC, metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer.

773 Background: BCG-unresponsive High-risk non-muscle invasive bladder cancer (HRNMIBC) tumours have an ominous prognosis and require effective, tolerable treatments. Uptake remains low for FDA approved agents (including systemic pembrolizumab, nogapendekin alfa inbakicept-pmln or N-803) due to toxicity concerns. We hypothesize direct intravesical administration of a PDL1 inhibitor could be effective with less systemic toxicity. However, it is unknown whether antibodies delivered via this route can reach tumor vasculature. INVEST is a phase Ib window of opportunity study investigating the safety and preliminary activity of passive instillation and direct injection of intravesical atezolizumab into the tumour/bladder wall. Methods: Eligible participants (ECOG performance status 0-2) are awaiting radical cystectomy (RC) for any stage urothelial cell carcinoma. Participants with muscle invasive bladder cancer, must be ineligible for/ refuse cisplatin based neo-adjuvant chemotherapy. Atezolizumab (600mg or 1200mg) is administered via direct injection into the tumour/bladder or by instillation into the bladder. The 3+3 design is utilised in the dose confirmation stages where participants receive either Single or Multiple (between 3 and 6) dose(s) of treatment before RC. Efficacy signals are derived from pathological complete response at RC and progression-free survival at 2 years. Primary endpoint, Dose confirmation stage: The number of dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) observed from first dose of trial treatment to RC. Results: Enrolment began in May 2023. 13 participants were recruited to the single dose cohorts: 11 male, and 2 female. Age (Range; 43-86); median 70y, 9 NMIBC, 4 MIBC. 7 for direct injection (4 at 600mg and 3 at 1200mg dose) and 6 for passive instillation (3 at 600mg and 3 at 1200mg). Due to technical issues (syringe size) the first direct injection participant did not receive the full 600mg and were replaced. 12 participants received trial treatment as planned. There were no DLTs; 5 participants experienced non-trial treatment related SAEs (4 infections, 2 ileus, 2 renal impairment; 7/8 events occurred post-RC and all SAEs resolved). All participants underwent planned RC within the protocol stipulated timeline. Median time from last treatment to RC was18 days. 5 of 13 participants had downstaging of tumour in cystectomy specimen. Following independent Safety Review Committee review, recruitment is now open for the dose confirmation phase (Multiple 1200mg dose) in both treatment routes. Conclusions: Single dose atezolizumab treatment at a dose of 600mg and 1200mg in passive instillation and direct injection cohorts was well tolerated. Early efficacy data is encouraging. Multiple weekly doses of 1200mg in each treatment route are now being investigated within the INVEST trial. Clinical trial information: ISRCTN15842444 .

537 Background: Translocation renal cell carcinoma (tRCC) is a rare renal cell carcinoma subtype found in about 1-4% of adult patients with RCC and 40% of pediatric RCC cases. Management of advanced tRCC has been guided by clear cell RCC therapy and retrospective reviews which include tRCC cohorts. Novel therapeutic strategies are needed to improve outcomes. This study assessed an individualized neoantigen vaccine with nivolumab plus cabozantinib in a patient with metastatic TFE3-tRCC. Methods: Patient was consented (IRB# 20-011945) for a single-patient investigational new drug (IND#27755). In-house neoantigen prediction bioinformatics pipeline (REAL-neo v2.0) was performed to identify and prioritize neoantigen candidates. Patient underwent lymphodepletion with cyclophosphamide followed by vaccine administration on days 1, 4, 8, 11, 20, 40, week 12, and week 20. Patient was also treated with concurrent nivolumab 480 mg every 4 weeks and cabozantinib 40 mg daily. Objective response rate (ORR) and progression-free survival (PFS) were measured. Results: Patient was diagnosed with TFE3-tRCC and underwent nephrectomy prior to developing metastatic disease. He was treated with multiple liver surgeries, ablations, and radiation therapy without systemic therapy. This controlled his disease for 7 years before he required systemic therapy with ipilimumab plus nivolumab. After 4 cycles, imaging showed progression and was started on cabozantinib which controlled his disease for 1 year. Patient was consented for the neoantigen vaccine. Cycle 1 was administered in April 2022. Three liver lesions and 1 periportal lymph node were monitored. After 4 months of therapy, imaging showed partial response with 34% decrease in sum of target lesions. In June 2023, partial response was ongoing with a 57.4% decrease. A 2 nd vaccine series was administered in June 2023 and had stable disease until progression in June 2024 when patient held his cabozantinib for at least 4 weeks. Neoantigen combination therapy achieved a progression-free survival of 26 months and was well tolerated without significant vaccine-related adverse events. Conclusions: Individualized neoantigen vaccine plus nivolumab and cabozantinib achieved a durable partial response with prolonged progression-free survival. A randomized clinical trial is warranted to further evaluate the efficacy of this combination therapy.

524 Background: Antiangiogenic tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) play a key role in treating renal cell carcinoma and other solid organ malignancies, but TKIs cause bothersome side effects that frequently necessitate dose reductions or treatment holds. Olanzapine has been useful for palliating symptoms from classical chemotherapies and advanced cancer, but its effect on TKI-related symptoms is largely unknown. This retrospective study aimed to estimate the efficacy of olanzapine for TKI-induced nausea, vomiting, anorexia, weight loss, and insomnia. Methods: All patients prescribed olanzapine with lenvatinib, cabozantinib, axitinib, or tivozanib at Mayo Clinic between January 1, 2018, and June 30, 2024 were assessed for inclusion. For baseline symptom assessment, clinical care team notes documenting the presence or absence of symptoms and indication(s) for starting olanzapine were reviewed. For response assessment, clinical notes and patient portal messages from the first three months after starting olanzapine were evaluated for qualitative descriptions of change in symptom burden. Relevant data were extracted as direct quotations, which were reviewed by the research team and categorized as “improved,” “worsened,” “stable,” or “missing data.” Each symptom domain was analyzed independently when olanzapine was prescribed for multiple interrelated symptoms. Results: A total of 60 patients who received olanzapine for the treatment of TKI-related adverse effects were included. The most common documented indication for olanzapine was nausea without vomiting (n=35), followed by anorexia (n=25), nausea with vomiting (n=16), weight loss (n=16), and insomnia (n=11). In 32 cases (53%), olanzapine was prescribed for multiple, simultaneous symptoms. Response rates for each symptom domain are shown in the table. In addition, prior to olanzapine, 34 patients (57%) had documented weight loss. Following olanzapine, 50% (n=17) gained weight (median increase: 6.1 kg; range: 2.0 - 10.7 kg), 26% (n=9) stabilized their weight (±1 kg), and 24% (n=8) continued to lose weight. Clinicians utilized a TKI dose reduction within one week of olanzapine initiation in 5 cases (8.3%), and 3 of these patients could resume the higher dose of TKI after starting olanzapine. Only 4 patients (7%) discontinued olanzapine within 3 months due to perceived side effects. Conclusions: Olanzapine appears to be effective in treating TKI-induced nausea, vomiting, anorexia, insomnia, and weight loss. Prospective randomized placebo-controlled studies are needed to confirm these findings. Improvedn (%) Worsened n (%) Stablen (%) Missing Datan (%) Nausea without emesis 32 (84) 3 (8) 1 (3) 2 (5) Nausea with emesis 13 (93) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (7) Anorexia 26 (74) 2 (6) 4 (11) 3 (9) Insomnia 11 (85) 0 (0) 2 (15) 0 (0)