Citations

ASCO Guidelines provide recommendations with comprehensive review and analyses of the relevant literature for each recommendation, following the guideline development process as outlined in the ASCO Guidelines Methodology Manual . ASCO Guidelines follow the ASCO Conflict of Interest Policy for Clinical Practice Guidelines . Clinical Practice Guidelines and other guidance (“Guidance”) provided by ASCO is not a comprehensive or definitive guide to treatment options. It is intended for voluntary use by clinicians and should be used in conjunction with independent professional judgment. Guidance may not be applicable to all patients, interventions, diseases or stages of diseases. Guidance is based on review and analysis of relevant literature, and is not intended as a statement of the standard of care. ASCO does not endorse third-party drugs, devices, services, or therapies and assumes no responsibility for any harm arising from or related to the use of this information. See complete disclaimer in Appendix 1 and 2 (online only) for more . PURPOSE To provide evidence-based recommendations for patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). METHODS An Expert Panel including patient representation completed a systematic review of the evidence and made recommendations. RESULTS Depending upon prior treatment received, androgen receptor pathway inhibitors (ARPIs: enzalutamide, abiraterone with prednisone), poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors (PARPi), chemotherapeutic agents (docetaxel, cabazitaxel), radiopharmaceuticals (radium 223, 177 Lu-prostate-specific membrane antigen [PSMA]-617), and sipuleucel-T have demonstrated an overall survival (OS) benefit for patients with mCRPC. For patients with BRCA1 / 2 alterations who did not receive prior ARPI, the combination of PARPi and ARPI (talazoparib + enzalutamide, olaparib and/or niraparib + abiraterone) has shown clinical benefit. For patients with BRCA1 / 2 alterations who received prior ARPI or ARPI followed by docetaxel, olaparib showed OS benefit. In select patients with microsatellite instability-high/mismatch repair-deficient, pembrolizumab showed clinical efficacy. RECOMMENDATIONS Prior systemic therapy for castration-sensitive prostate cancer will determine subsequent therapy used for mCRPC. Continue androgen-deprivation therapy for patients with mCRPC indefinitely. Early adoption of somatic genetic testing and palliative care is recommended. Patients with mCRPC and bony metastases should receive a bone-protective agent. The panel recommends the combination of ARPI with PARPi in patients with BRCA1 / 2 alterations who did not receive prior ARPI. For patients who received prior ARPI, the panel recommends docetaxel chemotherapy. The panel recommends 177 Lu-PSMA-617 or cabazitaxel chemotherapy for patients who receive prior ARPI and docetaxel chemotherapy. For patients with BRCA1 / 2 alterations who received prior ARPI, the panel recommends PARPi monotherapy. Radium 223 is recommended for patients with symptomatic bone–only disease. Evidence for optimal sequencing for mCRPC regimens is lacking. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/genitourinary-cancer-guidelines .

ABSTRACTBackgroundThis study investigates the association between thromboembolic events (TE) and castration‐resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) patients receiving oral androgen receptor pathway inhibitors (ARPi) compared to those undergoing chemotherapy, both with and without a pre‐existing history of cardiovascular disease (CVD).MethodsA total of 2779 men diagnosed with CRPC were identified using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Medicare Linked Database from 2012 to 2016. Patients were stratified based on their CVD history. Within each CVD stratum (pre‐existing CVD vs. no pre‐existing CVD), patients were further categorized into two treatment groups: those receiving oral ARPi and those undergoing chemotherapy. Unadjusted and inverse probability treatment weight (IPTW)‐adjusted proportional hazards models, using Fine and Gray's method, were applied to evaluate the potential association between ARPi treatment and TE.ResultsPatients with pre‐existing CVD treated with ARPi exhibited a significantly lower crude hazard ratio (HR) for TE compared to chemotherapy (HR 0.39, 95% CI 0.27–0.58, p < 0.001). However, after adjustment using IPTW, this association was no longer significant (adjusted hazard ratio [AHR] 1.00, 95% CI 0.75–1.32, p = 0.99). For patients without CVD, ARPi use was also associated with a reduced risk of TE in the crude analysis (HR 0.53, 95% CI 0.32–0.87, p = 0.01), but this effect was not statistically significant after IPTW adjustment (HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.69–1.41, p = 0.94).ConclusionARPi demonstrated no significant effect on TE risk compared to chemotherapy, regardless of pre‐existing CVD status. Similarly, when excluding patients with a prior history of TE, ARPi use remained non‐significantly associated with new TE in the IPTW‐adjusted competing risk analysis, highlighting the need for further investigation.

ABSTRACTBackgroundThe treatment landscape for multiple myeloma continues to evolve. Recently, the addition of anti‐CD38 monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) to the triplet regimen, comprising a proteasome inhibitor, an immunomodulatory agent, and a steroid, for transplant‐eligible newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (TENDMM) has shown promising results.AimsTo evaluate the overall efficacy and safety of quadruplet therapy with an anti‐CD38 mAb compared to a triplet regimen.MethodsA systematic search of Medline, Scopus, and EMBASE databases from inception to July 2024 identified relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Efficacy and safety outcomes were derived using random‐effects meta‐analysis. Summarized outcomes include hazard ratios (HR) for progression‐free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS), odds ratios (OR) for response rates, measurable residual disease (MRD) negativity rate, and grade 3 or higher adverse events (G ≥ 3 AEs).ResultsFive RCTs involving 2963 patients were included. A statistically significant PFS was observed for quadruplet therapy when compared to the triplet regimen (HR 0.44; 95% Confidence Interval [CI] 0.35–0.56). PFS benefit was consistent for the standard risk (SR) group (HR 0.38; 95% CI 0.27–0.52) and high risk (HiR) group (HR 0.62; 95% CI 0.41–0.92). No statistically significant benefit was observed for OS (HR 0.55; 95% CI 0.28–1.08). A statistically significant benefit was observed for the overall response rate (OR 1.77; 95% CI 1.02–3.06) and MRD negativity rate (OR 2.67; 95% CI 1.79–3.99). No significant differences were observed for G ≥ 3 AE (OR 1.21; 95% CI 0.92–1.58), lymphopenia (OR 1.09; 95% CI 0.62–1.89), and anemia (OR 1.06; 95% CI 0.83–1.37). However, a significantly increased risk was observed for all‐grade thrombocytopenia (OR 1.64; 95% CI 1.37–1.97), neutropenia (OR 2.24; 95% CI 1.67–3.02) and infections (OR 1.88; 95% CI 1.07–3.31).ConclusionQuadruplet therapy demonstrated a favorable efficacy and safety profile, with consistent benefit across subgroups. The findings support its potential as the new standard of care for TENDMM.

261 Background: Clinicians use next-generation sequencing (NGS) to tailor targeted treatments for PCa patients. However, the results are often available in unstructured formats and are saturated with technical jargon, making them inaccessible for patients. Therefore, we aimed to assess the efficacy of LLMs to accurately extract genomic characteristics from unstructured reports and generate patient-friendly summaries for ease of variant interpretation in PCa patients. Methods: This retrospective study included patients with PCa who underwent NGS from 2023-2024. The GPT4 model was utilized using structured zero-shot prompts to extract genomic characteristics from unstructured reports in a non-decomposed manner. Prompt development was conducted iteratively using a 2% random sample of the dataset. Genomic characteristics ascertained by LLM were assessed against held out vendor-curated test dataset for evaluation. Performance was assessed using weighted evaluation metrics (precision, recall, and F1-score). Additionally, the extracted variables were organized using rule-based criterion and presented as a separate prompt to GPT4 to generate summaries for interpretation at the level of each biologically relevant variant. Mean Flesch-Kincaid scores and Vocd-D statistic with standard deviations were computed to assess readability and lexical diversity of LLM-generated variant interpretation summaries. Results: A total of 331 patients (370 NGS reports) were included in the study. Evaluation on the held-out test dataset (Table) showed that the weighted average precision ranged from 80% for extracting tumor mutational burden to 100% for extracting the CtDNA fraction from unstructured reports. The weighted average recall ranged from 85% for extracting CtDNA tumor fraction to 99% for ascertaining variant/alteration. The weighted average F1-scores varied from 0.83 for extracting tumor mutational burden to 1.0 for extracting specimen site from NGS reports. The mean Flesch-Kincaid score was 8.29 ± 1 indicating average/standard readability ease. The mean Vocd-D statistic was 7.55 ± 1 indicating focused summaries, however, with limited lexical diversity. Conclusions: This study suggests that large language models can effectively extract genomic characteristics from unstructured reports and can potentially improve genomic literacy among prostate cancer patients by providing easy-to-interpret variant summaries. However, targeted prompting may be required to increase lexical diversity for improved engagement. Performance across different genomic characteristics. Category Precision Recall F1-Score Altered gene 0.86 0.97 0.89 Variant/alteration type 0.98 0.99 0.98 Variant allele fraction 0.96 0.96 0.96 Test name/type 1 0.99 1 Specimen site 1 0.99 1 Tumor mutational burden 0.8 0.93 0.83 CtDNA tumor fraction 1 0.85 0.92 MSI status 0.99 0.97 0.98

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)

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 .

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)

520 Background: The annual incidence of renal cancer is 0.02% among the general United States population. End stage renal disease (ESRD) and exposure to dialysis are thought to be the primary drivers of increased risk of renal cancer in renal transplant patients rather than immunosuppression. This has been evidenced by how the incidence of RCC in heart transplant recipients is no different than the normal population. In this study, we aim to characterize RCC incidence among kidney transplant patients (usually exposed to ESRD/dialysis) versus other solid organ transplant patients (usually unexposed to ESRD/dialysis). Methods: We used CPT codes to search for patients who had received a solid organ transplant (kidney, liver, heart, lung, pancreas) at all Mayo Clinic sites from 1/1/2018 to 1/1/2024. Within this cohort, we identified those who had been diagnosed with kidney cancer after initiating dialysis or receiving a transplant, and retrospectively extracted data related to demographics, cancer diagnosis, and transplant details. Results: We identified 10873 patients who had received a solid organ transplant (Table 1). Of these, 178 (1.76%) were diagnosed with kidney cancer after either starting dialysis or receiving a transplant. These 178 patients were of median age 56 years at time of cancer diagnosis (STD 12), 71% male, 70% white, 20% black, 4.5% Asian, 2.8% American Native. Of 5792 patients who had received a kidney transplant (with or without another solid organ transplant), 172 (2.97%) were diagnosed with kidney cancer after having started dialysis or receiving a kidney transplant. Of these 172, 156 (91%) were exposed to dialysis (107 primarily hemodialysis and 48 peritoneal). Of 4392 patients who had received a solid organ transplant other than kidney (liver, heart, lung, and/or pancreas), 6 (0.14%) were diagnosed with kidney cancer after having received a kidney transplant. Of these 6, none underwent dialysis. Conclusions: Patients with kidney transplants are at increased risk of kidney cancer compared to patients with non-kidney solid organ transplants (2.97% vs 0.14%). This supports prior evidence showing ESRD plays a significant role in the pathogenesis of kidney cancer. Patients who received solid organ transplants at Mayo Clinic from 2018-2024 and were subsequently diagnosed with kidney cancer. n % With RCC after TXP 178 1.7587% Cancer Diagnosis after Kidney HD/TXP 172 2.9696% Cancer Diagnosis after Other TXP 6 0.1386% Patients who received solid organ transplants at Mayo Clinic from 2018-2024 n % Unique Patients 10121 100% Kidney Transplant 5792 57.23% Alone 5088 50.27% &Liver 332 3.28% &Heart 119 1.18% &Lung 8 0.08% &Pancreas 245 2.42% Non-kidney Transplant (Liver, Heart, Lung, or Pancreas) 4329 42.77% TXP: Transplant, HD: Hemodialysis.

745 Background: The combination of EV-P therapy has recently been approved as first-line (1L) therapy for patients with LA/mUC based on the results of the EV-302 trial. Herein, we report the updated results from a cohort of patients with LA/mUC who received EV-P in real world clinical setting. Methods: This retrospective study included patients with LA/mUC (07/2022-08/2024) at the Mayo Clinic who completed at least one cycle of EV-P. The best overall response (BOR) was evaluated using radiographic imaging and was adjudicated as complete response (CR), partial response (PR), stable disease (SD), mixed response (MR), or progressive disease (PD). The median progression-free survival (PFS), defined as the time from treatment initiation to disease progression or death, was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Patients who had not experienced disease progression by their last follow-up were censored for the PFS analysis. Results: A total of 120 patients were included; 79 (65.8%) were males, 41 (34.1%) females, 109 (91%) White, and 119 (99%) were non-Hispanic/Latino. The median age was 72 years (IQR: 65-77). Of these, only 22 (18.3%) had locally advanced disease while the remaining had mUC; 62 (51.6%) had lower tract urothelial carcinoma (LUTC), 36 (30%) had upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC). The median follow-up time was 7.1 months (IQR: 4.93-9.26). In terms of BOR, 56 patients (46.6%) experienced PR, 34 (28.3%) CR, 12 (10%) PD, 7 (5.8%) MR, and 8 (6.6%) experienced SD. 3 (2.5%) patients were not evaluable. The BOR across subgroups, LA and mUC, including LUTC and UTUC, is summarized in the table. Among the responders, the median number of treatment cycles to first response was 3 (IQR: 2.25–4). Within the follow-up, 28 patients (23.3%) experienced eventual radiographic disease progression; death was observed in 25 patients (20.8%). The median PFS was 12.7 months (95% CI: 9.8-NE), and OS was 25.1 months (16.3-NE). Conclusions: In real world setting, the combination of EV-P in LA/mUC demonstrated clinical efficacy compatible with the findings from the EV-302 trial. Our results showed comparable efficacy with EV-P in both UTUC and LUTC, highlighting it's broad therapeutic potential. However, clinical data at longer follow-up is required to fully evaluate overall survival and the durability of response. mUC LA Overall LUTC UTUC Total patients 98 62 36 22 BOR CR 23 (23.4%) 13 (20.9%) 10 (28.5%) 11 (50%) PR 49 (52.6%) 31 (50%) 18 (50%) 7 (31.8%) SD 6 (6.4%) 2 (3.2%) 4 (11.4%) 2 (9.0%) PD 10 (10.7%) 9 (15.5%) 1 (2.8%) 2 (9.0%) MR 7 (7.5%) 5 (8.6%) 2 (5.7%) 0 (0%)