Citations

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 .

5068 Background: 177 Lu-PSMA-617 (LuPSMA) is a groundbreaking therapy for mPC, but biomarkers are urgently needed to improve patient selection. Plasma-derived EVs are emerging blood-based markers of tumor burden. Here, we analyzed levels of EVs of 123 patients (pts) from 4 cohorts: a pre- and during LuPSMA treatment for a contemporary prospective Mayo Clinic cohort, pre-treatment plasma levels of EVs for a historical Tulane cohort, localized prostate cancer (LPC) after radical prostatectomy (RP), and male healthy donors (HD). Methods: Blood samples were collected from 51 pts pre-cycles (pre-C) 1-3 of LuPSMA at Mayo Clinic from 12/2024-12/2025 and 26 pts pre-C1 at Tulane Cancer Center between 12/2018-1/2025. Small and large EVs were incubated with fluorescently conjugated antibodies (PSMA, STEAP1, CEACAM5, and TROP2) and enumerated using nanoscale flow cytometry. EVs from blood samples of 10 HD and 36 LPC post-RP from 6/2020-8/2024 at Mayo Clinic as controls. AUC-ROC and logistic regression analyses were performed to identify marker signatures associated with PSA50 response. Results: Baseline demographics are shown in the table. Median levels of PSMA, STEAP1, CEACAM5, and TROP2 EV/milliliter (mL) were all significantly higher for pts with mPC (pooled Tulane and Mayo cohorts) compared to LPC post-RP (p<0.001) and HD (p<0.001). In the Mayo cohort, 10 of 51 pts (20%) had undetectable PSA pre-C1. There were no significant differences in median pre-C1 plasma EV levels for these 4 different types of EVs comparing pts with undetectable vs detectable PSA. For 41 Mayo pts with detectable PSA pre-C1, 20 achieved PSA50 response at time of data cutoff (49%), while 7 pts (17%) had persistent PSA rise on LuPSMA. For pts who achieved PSA50, there was a significant decline in both CEACAM5 and TROP2 EVs/mL pre-C1 compared to pre-C3 (19 x 10 6 vs 5.8 x 10 6 , p=0.003 and 16 x 10 6 vs 5.5 x 10 6 , p<0.001, respectively), while no significant changes occurred for the 7 pts with no PSA response. A composite score of pre-C1 CEACAM5 and TROP2 EVs (large- and small-sized EVs) demonstrated the strongest association with PSA50 response (OR=2.96, 95% CI: 1.27-6.44, p=0.038), achieving AUC of 0.73. PSMA and STEAP1 EVs did not show any significant changes from pre-C1 to pre-C3. Conclusions: Plasma-derived EVs are a promising biomarker to identify patients who will benefit from LuPSMA. Longer follow-up and enrolling a larger cohort are underway. Clinical trial information: NCT06200103 . Median values for pre-LuPSMA (Mayo and Tulane), post-RP for LPC, and HD. Mayo mPC (n=51) Tulane mPC (n=26) LPC (n=36) HD (n=10) Age (range) 73 (57-87) 71 (54-83) 66 (56-77) 55 (50-57) Prior lines (range) 1 (1-3) 4 (1-11) - - Gleason score 9 8 7 - PSA (range) 1.0 (0-182) 75 (0.8-503) - - PSMA EV/mL 3.7 x 10 6 14 x 10 6 2.0 x 10 6 1.4 x 10 6 STEAP1 EV/mL 30 x 10 6 45 x 10 6 12 x 10 6 12 x 10 6 CEACAM5 EV/mL 17 x 10 6 5.1 x 10 6 3.7 x 10 6 3.9 x 10 6 TROP2 EV/mL 13 x 10 6 5.2 x 10 6 4.5 x 10 6 3.6 x 10 6

5045 Background: Radioligand therapy with radium-223 (Rad) and lutetium-177 (Plu) demonstrates notable hematologic toxicities in patients (pts) with prostate cancer (PC), including myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) and acute myeloid leukemia (AML). Delivery of ionizing radiation to the bone microenvironment is a known risk factor for accelerating clonal hematopoiesis, although the incidence of clonal cytopenias with these agents is not well characterized. We hypothesized that pts treated with Rad and/or Plu would have higher risk of clonal cytopenia of undetermined significance (CCUS) vs matched controls in the “real-world”. Methods: We performed a retrospective study using de-identified aggregate data from the TriNetX US Research Collaborative Network from January 2010 to December 2025. Adult males with PC who received ≥1 administration of Plu and/or Rad were included; pts with prior myeloid malignancy were excluded. Primary outcomes were incidence of CCUS and MDS. Propensity score matching (PSM) was performed based on age, race, prior diagnosis of leukopenia, anemia, thrombocytopenia, or pancytopenia. Risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated. Results: We identified 2,569 pts treated with Plu alone and 2,007 treated with Rad alone and compared them with pts with advanced PC without exposure to either agent (unexposed control) (Table 1). After PSM, the incident risk of CCUS was greater in Rad-exposed pts (RR 2.62, 95% CI 1.45 – 4.73, p < 0.001) while Plu was not associated with a significant increase in CCUS or MDS. Direct comparison after PSM (n=1,433) demonstrated lower risk of pancytopenia (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.37 – 0.56, p <0.001) and CCUS (RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.20 – 0.81, p =0.008) in Plu vs Rad. In unadjusted analysis, pts receiving both Plu and Rad had increased incidence of CCUS vs Plu alone (RR= 3.64, 95% CI 1.87 - 7.07, p <0.001) and higher risk of MDS vs either agent alone. Conclusions: This “real-world” analysis demonstrates that compared with unexposed controls, Rad – but not Plu – is associated with an increased risk of CCUS. Treatment with Plu and Rad portends a higher risk of CCUS than Plu alone, as well higher risk of MDS than either drug alone. Study limitations include its retrospective nature, missing/ unknown data (e.g. bone marrow and mutation analysis), and potential selection and confounding biases. As treatment sequencing evolves for pts with metastatic PC, further evaluation of clonal hematopoiesis, MDS/AML with adequate sample size and follow up in this population is warranted. ¹⁷⁷Lu-PSMA-617 Exposed(n = 2,569) Unexposed(n =2,569 ) Risk Ratio (95% CI) p -value CCUS 1.03% (26) 0.67% (17) 1.54 (0.84 – 2.82) 0.16 MDS 0.94% (24) 0.55% (14) 1.72 (0.89 – 3.32) 0.10 Radium-223 Exposed(n = 2,007) Unexposed(n = 2,007) Risk Ratio (95% CI) p -value CCUS 1.97% (39) 0.75 (15) 2.62 (1.45 – 4.73) <0.001 MDS 0.85% (17) 0.75% (15) 1.13 (0.57 – 2.26) 0.72

5004 Background: Patients (pts) with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC) treated continuously with testosterone suppression (TS) plus an androgen receptor pathway inhibitor (ARPI) can experience cumulative toxicity. We conducted this single-arm phase 2 trial (NCT05241860) to test the hypothesis that pts who achieve favorable response to TS + ARPI can have prolonged treatment-free interval with testosterone recovery after treatment interruption (TI). Here we report on the primary endpoint. Methods: Eligible pts had mHSPC by conventional imaging with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) ≥ 5 ng/ml and testosterone ≥ 150 ng/dl prior to starting TS+ARPI, with PSA < 0.2 ng/ml and testosterone < 50 ng/dl at the time of enrollment after having received TS for 540-750 days and ARPI for ≥ 360 days. Prior local therapy, radiation to metastases and docetaxel were permitted. After enrollment, pts discontinued TS and ARPI and were followed with PSA and testosterone levels every 3 months (mo), CT/MRI and bone scan at least every 6 mo, and FACT-P questionnaire for patient-reported outcomes (PROs) every 6 mo. Treatment was resumed for PSA ≥ 5 ng/ml, radiographic change (progressive disease [PD] per RECIST 1.1 on CT/MRI or unconfirmed PD per PCWG3 on bone scan), or prostate cancer-related symptoms. The primary endpoint was proportion of men remaining treatment-free 18 mo after TI with eugonadal testosterone ( > 150 ng/dl). Target enrollment was 75 pts to differentiate 18-mo treatment-free rates of 0.30 (H 0 ) and 0.45 (H a ). Results: Of 79 pts enrolled between 07/2022 and 03/2024, 78 were eligible and underwent TI. Among these 78, median PSA prior to starting TS+ARPI was 19 (range 5-6759), 27 (35%) had high volume disease, 31 (40%) never received local therapy, and 55 (71%) did not receive radiation to metastases. By 18 mo after TI, 67% (52/78) recovered testosterone and 58% (45/78) remained treatment-free; 41% (32/78) remained treatment-free with testosterone recovery (80% CI 33.5-48.9%, one-sided p 0.0249). At median follow-up of 21.2 mo, 35% (27/78) resumed initial TS+ARPI after meeting re-initiation criteria (of whom 1 required treatment switch for PD 9 mo later); 5% (4/78) resumed prior to meeting criteria; 9% (7/78) pursued alternative therapy instead of resuming TS+ARPI per protocol; 5% (4/78) withdrew; 1 died of myocardial infarction prior to resuming treatment. 4 pts died, 1 of prostate cancer. Conclusions: The primary objective was achieved with 41% of favorable responders to TS+ARPI remaining treatment-free with testosterone recovery at 18 mo after TI. Analyses of biomarkers and PROs are in progress, and pts will be followed for long-term outcomes. Support: U10CA180821, U10CA180882, UG1CA189823, https://acknowledgments.alliancefound.org, Veracyte Inc. Clinical trial information: NCT05241860 .

4614 Background: Enfortumab vedotin (EV) + pembrolizumab (pembro) is the established first-line standard of care for locally advanced/metastatic urothelial carcinoma and represents a novel neoadjuvant and adjuvant treatment strategy for patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) who are ineligible for cisplatin-based chemotherapy. The randomized phase 3 KEYNOTE-B15/EV-304 study (NCT04700124) evaluates neoadjuvant EV + pembro followed by radical cystectomy plus pelvic lymph node dissection (RC + PLND) and adjuvant EV + pembro vs neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by RC + PLND in participants (pts) with MIBC who are eligible for cisplatin-based therapy. Methods: Pts with clinical stage T2-T4aN0M0 or T1-T4aN1M0 MIBC (confirmed by central pathology and central imaging assessment) who were eligible for cisplatin-based chemotherapy and RC + PLND were randomized 1:1 to receive either 4 cycles neoadjuvant EV 1.25 mg/kg IV on days 1 and 8 + pembro 200 mg IV on day 1 Q3W, followed by RC + PLND, and adjuvant 5 cycles EV + 13 cycles pembro (EV + pembro arm) vs 4 cycles neoadjuvant gemcitabine 1000 mg/m 2 on days 1 and 8 + cisplatin 70 mg/m 2 on day 1 Q3W, followed by RC + PLND (cis + gem arm). The primary endpoint was event-free survival (EFS) by blinded independent central review. Key secondary endpoints were pathological complete response (pCR) rate by blinded central pathological review and overall survival (OS). Safety was a secondary endpoint; AEs of special interest were based on distinct prespecified lists for each drug. Results: A total of 405 and 403 pts were randomized to EV + pembro and cis + gem, respectively. Median time from randomization to the data cutoff date of October 27, 2025 was 33.6 months (range, 22.5–53.6). Baseline characteristics were generally balanced between groups. EV + pembro significantly improved EFS (median NR vs 48.5 mo; 24-mo estimated EFS rate 79.4% vs 66.2%; HR 0.53, 95% CI 0.41–0.70; 1-sided P <.0001), OS (median NR vs NR; 24-mo estimated OS rate 86.9% vs 81.3%; HR 0.65, 95% CI 0.48–0.89; 1-sided P =.0029), and pCR rate (55.8% vs 32.5%; estimated difference 23.4%, 95% CI 16.7–29.8; 1-sided P <.0001) vs cis + gem. Grade ≥3 treatment-emergent AEs occurred in 75.7% of pts with EV + pembro and 67.2% with cis + gem. Most common grade ≥3 drug-related AE of special interest for EV was skin reactions (14.1%); most common grade ≥3 AE of special interest for pembro was severe skin reactions (13.9%). Conclusions: Neoadjuvant and adjuvant EV + pembro significantly improved EFS, OS, and pCR rate compared with neoadjuvant gem + cis in pts with MIBC who were eligible for cisplatin-based chemotherapy. The safety profile of EV + pembro was consistent with prior experience with the combination. These results support EV + pembro as an effective perioperative treatment option in this setting. Clinical trial information: NCT04700124 .

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

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.

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%)

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)