Citations

4500 Background: BM occur in ~30% of RCC pts and are associated with poor survival and symptomatic skeletal events (SSEs). Radium-223, an alpha-emitting bone-seeking radioisotope, prolongs survival in advanced prostate cancer. A pilot study of radium-223 with VEGF tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI) in RCC with BM showed safety and early efficacy (McKay, CCR, 2018). Cabozantinib is a TKI that showed efficacy in BM. RADICAL (NCT04071223) was designed to investigate cabozantinib ± radium-223 in RCC with BM. Methods: This open label multicenter study enrolled RCC pts with ≥1 symptomatic BM not previously irradiated and Karnofsky performance status ≥60%. Prior therapies were allowed; non-clear cell population was limited to 20%. Randomization was 1:1 to cabozantinib with (Arm A) or without (Arm B) radium-223, stratified by osteoclast-targeted therapy (OTT), prior therapy, baseline opioid use, and IMDC risk. In Arm A, cabozantinib was 40 mg daily cycle 1, 60 mg thereafter if tolerated; radium-223 was 1.49 microcurie/kg IV every 28 days for 6 doses. In Arm B, cabozantinib was 60 mg daily. The primary endpoint was SSE-free survival (SSE-FS). Secondary endpoints were safety, objective response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). The study was designed with 85% power to detect improvement in 6-month SSE-FS from 65% to 78% (one-sided α=0.05), with planned interim futility analysis at 50% of expected events. Results: From 12/2019 to 9/2025, 90 pts were enrolled and evaluable for the interim analysis. Median age was 63 years; 74.4% male, 90.0% White, 83.3% clear cell histology. 11.1% were treatment naïve, 80.0% received OTT, 51.1% had baseline opioid use. IMDC risk was 16.7% favorable, 68.9% intermediate, 14.4% poor. Median cabozantinib dose was 31.4 mg (Arm A) and 40.0 mg (Arm B); median radium-223 cycles was 6. Median follow-up was 13.1 (range 0.1-49.4) months with 50 events, 17 SSEs (Arm A: 10; Arm B: 7) and 33 deaths (Arm A: 13; Arm B: 20). Outcomes are in Table. 71 pts were evaluable for response. ORR was 22.2% (Arm A), 22.9% (Arm B). Any grade treatment-related adverse events were 97.7% (Arm A), 93.2% (Arm B); grade ≥3 were 65.9% (Arm A), 56.8% (Arm B). The trial closed after interim analysis as SSE-FS did not meet the prespecified futility boundary (HR≤1). Conclusions: Radium-223 did not improve the primary endpoint of SSE-FS when added to cabozantinib but a numerical prolongation in OS was observed. Combination treatment was safe. Alternative radiotherapeutics warrant investigation in RCC. Clinical trial information: NCT04071223 . Interim efficacy analysis. Arm Median(95% CI) HR (95% CI) Stratified SSE-FS A 17.9 (15.0-NE) 1.24 (0.62-2.48) B 17.6 (10.9-NE) Unstratified SSE-FS A 17.9 (15.0-NE) 0.90 (0.51-1.59) B 17.6 (10.9-NE) OS A 32.2 (17.9-NE) 0.77 (0.42-1.41) B 21.3 (12.3-NE) Stratified PFS A 11.0 (5.8-17.4) 1.39 (0.72-2.66) B 11.2 (9.0-18.5)

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 .

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

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)

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)

1617 Background: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly evaluated for oncology decision support, yet guideline concordance and hallucinations remain variable across cancer types and tasks. Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) may improve safety by constraining the evidence base used during generation. Prior oncology LLM studies report discordance with guideline-based care, but few describe a reproducible health-system “vetting mechanism” that couples guideline-only retrieval with clinician-scored safety rubrics across multiple oncology domains. Methods: We assembled 316 de-identified oncology cases in a tumor-board template: medical oncology (breast, GI, GU, leukemia; n=216), gynecologic oncology (n=50), and neuro-oncology/CNS metastatic cancer (n=50). Each case was run on three systems: baseline GPT-4 (O1), NCCN-guideline anchored RAG (O2; guideline-constrained retrieval), and a literature-anchored system (OpenEvidence; O3). Oncologists independently scored outputs using a modified Generative Performance Score (mGPS; −1 to +1) combining guideline concordance with hallucination penalties; readability/rationality was scored on a 1–5 Likert scale. Inter-rater reliability was assessed (κ =.63). This workflow was designed as a pre-deployment model credentialing step for health-system governance (source policy → case bank → clinician-scored acceptance criteria). Results: Across all 316 cases (case-averaged), O2 achieved the highest mean total mGPS (0.75) compared with O1 (0.43) and O3 (0.59). In the medical oncology cohort (n=216), O2 outperformed O1 and O3 (mean mGPS 0.72 vs 0.35 and 0.54), with higher guideline concordance (0.85 vs 0.68 and 0.75) and lower hallucination penalties (−0.09 vs −0.25 and −0.19); readability was also highest for O2 (4.17 vs 3.22 and 3.86). In gynecologic oncology (n=50), O2 again performed best (mGPS 0.827) relative to O3 (0.697) and O1 (0.647). In the CNS cohort (n=50), mean composite mGPS favored O2 (0.82) over O3 (0.68) and O1 (0.55), while readability remained stable across models (3.55–3.73). Severe hallucination/unsafe recommendation rate: O1 [26%], O2 [5%], O3 [17%] (pre-specified definition; e.g., major fabricated citation or guideline-discordant harmful recommendation). Conclusions: In a 316-case, multi-domain clinician-scored evaluation, limiting retrieval to oncology guideline sources improved safety-aligned performance relative to unconstrained generation or literature-only anchoring. A guideline-constrained RAG configuration paired with clinician-scored rubrics and tail-risk reporting can serve as a practical health-system vetting mechanism for governance, re-validation, and change control of LLM decision support, including in resource-limited settings where reliable guideline-consistent recommendations are essential.

11177 Background: Early detection of recurrence after curative-intent treatment is a critical priority, traditional imaging often detects relapse when disease burden is high, potentially limiting treatment efficacy. ctDNA has emerged as an established prognostic biomarker for molecular residual disease (MRD) detection and early relapse. We performed a real-world meta-analysis on published datasets that utilized personalized, tumor-informed ctDNA testing to assess its performance across tumor types and clinical management approaches. Methods: Real-world studies published from December 2022 to December 2025 using the personalized, tumor-informed Signatera ctDNA assay (Natera, Inc.) were included. Eligibility required ctDNA assessment in the MRD (2–16 weeks post-surgery (histology dependent)/pre adjuvant therapy (ACT)) and/or surveillance (post-ACT/end of the MRD window if no ACT was given) settings, with outcomes stratified by ctDNA status and hazard ratios (HR) reported from univariable or time-dependent Cox regression analysis. Exclusions included: clinical trials, biobanks, metastatic disease treated with palliative intent, case reports, reviews, editorials, or commentaries. Clinical outcomes were harmonized into a composite event-free survival (EFS) endpoint (time to recurrence, progression, or death). Pooled HRs and 95% CIs were estimated using random and fixed effects models and heterogeneity between studies was assessed using the I 2 and Cochran’s Q test. Median lead time from ctDNA-positivity to radiographic or clinical recurrence was summarized when available. Results: We identified 18 eligible publications comprising 3,004 unique patients across 15 solid tumor types. During the MRD window, ctDNA positivity was associated with a significantly increased risk of an EFS event compared with ctDNA negativity (pooled HR: 8.15; 95% CI: 6.12–10.85, I 2 = 0.00%, P = 0.844, n = 13). During the surveillance window, inclusive of post-definitive treatment, ctDNA positivity conferred an even greater EFS risk (pooled HR: 18.30; 95% CI: 14.17–23.65, I 2 = 0%, P = 0.911 for heterogeneity, n = 16). Across studies, ctDNA detection during surveillance preceded radiographic or clinical recurrence by a median of 3.20 months (95% CI: 2.50-4.10, P < 0.0001, n = 10), although this varied substantially by study/tumor type (I 2 = 80.9%). Conclusions: In this pan-cancer real-world meta-analysis, ctDNA positivity assessed using a tumor-informed assay was highly prognostic following curative-intent therapy at all timepoints evaluated with low heterogeneity between studies. These findings support the broad clinical utility of tumor-informed ctDNA testing for post-treatment risk stratification and longitudinal disease monitoring across solid tumors.

10610 Background: The role for genetic testing (GT) for prostate cancer (PCa) patients (pts) has expanded to find pts with germline pathogenic variants (PV) for therapeutic opportunities given FDA-approvals for PARP inhibitors in metastatic PCa as well as understanding familial cancer risk and opportunities for tailored screening and risk reduction. The PROMISE Registry (NCT04995198) was set up as a genetic registry to partner with PCa pts for rapid access to a new standard of care given insurance coverage and clinical implementation were initially major barriers. A second goal is to characterize disease features and treatment outcomes to inform management and provide updates about novel therapeutic clinical trials, both of which remain important to rare genetic variant carriers. Methods: PROMISE is a US decentralized prospective PCa genetic registry initiated in 2021 with initial phase to enroll and provide clinical-grade germline genetic testing (30 gene cancer-specific panel) to 5,000 PCa pts to identify ~500 PCa pts with variants of interest (pathogenic variants, PV, and variants of uncertain significance, VUS) in DNA repair genes for long-term clinical follow-up of 15 years (LTFU). Here, we report the initial phase testing results and identification of the LTFU cohort. Study design and enrollment strategy have been reported separately. Results: Between 2021-2026, 7,275 pts with any stage PCa across 50 US states self-consented to PROMISE, of which 5,674 (78%) of pts completed genetic testing, indicating feasibility of patient-directed, decentralized enrollment. We have identified 495 (8.7%) pts for LTFU. Baseline data is reported for n=367 (Table 1, will be updated at time of presentation). The most frequently observed PV/LPV variants being in CHEK2 (25%) , BRCA2 (23%) , ATM (12%) , and BRCA1 (4.6%). At the time of PCa diagnosis, the majority of LTFU pts had non-metastatic disease, with 47% of pts with Gleason>7, median PSA of 5 ng/mL, and median time from diagnosis to PROMISE GT of 25 months. Conclusions: PROMISE is a nationwide decentralized PCa genetic registry that has completed initial goal to recruit 5,000 PCa pts to offer germline genetic testing and recruit a cohort of 500 for LTFU. Data about diagnosis characteristics are reported, and analysis of ongoing disease course, treatment response/outcomes and overall survival is being collected. Clinical trial information: NCT04995198 . Long-term follow-up participant demographics. Characteristic Overall, N = 367 Age at Diagnosis (yrs) 63 (57, 69) Race N = 361 (6, nr) Asian, American Indian or Alaska Native, Multiracial, Other 22 (6.0%) Black or African American 22 (6.0%) White 317 (86%) Disease State at Diagnosis N = 348 (19, nr) Metastatic 46 (13%) Non-metastatic 302 (87%) Time from Diagnosis to PROMISE GT (months) 25 (4, 82) Gleason Score N = 280 (87, nr) </= 7 148 (53%) >7 132 (47%) PSA At Diagnosis (ng/mL) 5 (0, 10) (88, nr) Subjects with baseline data entered. nr=not reported. Median (Q1, Q3); n (%).

10513 Background: Prior reports of high frequency of BRCA1 and BRCA2 ( BRCA1/2 ) PVs among South Asian women from Bangladesh, India, Nepal, and Pakistan with breast or ovarian cancer require validation in large prospective unselected cohorts. Methods: Individual-level anonymized patient data from two prospective cohorts were pooled to evaluate the prevalence of germline PVs among South Asian women: the South Asian Regional Alliance for Hereditary Cancers (SARAH Consortium) in Bangladesh, Nepal, and Pakistan, and the previously reported Nurse-led Genetic Counseling and Awareness (NuGenA) expansion cohort in India. Both studies enrolled consecutive cases of histologically confirmed newly diagnosed breast or epithelial ovarian cancer irrespective of age at diagnosis or family history. In both studies, participants completed questionnaires on personal and family history (first-, second- or third-degree) and provided blood for germline genetic testing after written consent. PVs in cancer predisposition genes including ATM, BARD1, BRCA1, BRCA2, BRIP1, CHEK2, MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, PALB2, RAD51C, RAD51D, and TP53 were identified as part of the studies utilizing a multigene panel and the results were returned to ordering clinicians. The data cutoff date for this analysis was November 30, 2025. Results: The analysis included 1,711 South Asian women with breast (n=1,210) or ovarian (n=501) cancer. A family history of breast or ovarian cancer was noted in 177 (10.3%). Among breast cancers, 94% were invasive, 84% were ductal, 35% were triple-negative and over two-thirds presented with nodal involvement. Germline PVs across 13 predisposition genes were observed in 17.7% of breast and 35.9% of ovarian cancers. Notably, BRCA1/2 PVs accounted for most of these PV (13.6% of breast and 28.3% of ovarian cancer cases) with PVs in all genes except BRCA1/2 under 1%. The frequency of BRCA1/2 PVs was 24.4% in triple-negative breast cancer and 8.0% in ER+/HER2-. BRCA1/2 PV carriers were diagnosed with breast cancer at a younger age than non-carriers (Median age: 42 vs 46 years, P<0.001), with no age difference observed in ovarian cancer (50 vs. 51 years, P=0.79). Notably, among the 306 BRCA1/2 PV carriers identified, 229 (74.2%) did not report a family history of breast or ovarian cancer. Conclusions: We confirm a high prevalence of BRCA1/2 PVs among unselected South Asian women with either breast or ovarian cancer. The observations of younger age at cancer diagnosis, and low rates of family history support the need for population-specific germline genetic testing and risk management strategies in South Asia.