Abstract:569 Background: Almost 50% of patients (pts) with aUC are ineligible for cisplatin-based chemotherapy, which is current first-line treatment. Cisplatin ineligibility is associated with worse outcomes, thus new promising treatment options are an unmet need. EV is an antibody drug conjugate, approved alone or in combination with Pembrolizumab for the treatment of pts with aUC. In the EV 201 study, cisplatin ineligible pts previously treated with checkpoint had a reported response rate (ORR) of 52% to EV alone. This real-world study aims to compare outcomes between cisplatin eligible and ineligible pts treated with EV monotherapy. Methods: This retrospective analysis of pts with aUC treated with EV monotherapy at Johns Hopkins compared investigator-assessed radiographic response to EV, progression free (PFS) and overall (OS) survival in cisplatin eligible vs ineligible pts. Cisplatin eligibility was determined by presence of ≥1 Galsky criteria: Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status of ≥2, creatinine clearance < 60 mL/min, hearing loss ≥ Grade 2, neuropathy ≥ Grade 2 or New York Heart Association Class 3 heart failure. Patient demographics and treatment information were extracted by chart review. ORR [Complete Response (CR) + Partial Response (PR)] and Disease Control Rates (DCR) (CR + PR + Stable Disease) were compared between groups, using the χ 2 test. Multivariable Cox proportional hazard ratios adjusted for gender, race, presence of visceral metastasis and weight were used for comparing PFS and OS between groups, p < 0.05 was considered significant. Results: We identified 46 cisplatin eligible and 32 ineligible pts. The cisplatin eligible group had 36 (78.3%) white and 8 (17.4%) female pts vs 22 (68.8%) white and 12 (37.5%) females in the ineligible group. Mean age was 65.8 vs 76.3 years respectively. 16 (34.8%) cisplatin eligible pts and 12 (37.5%) cisplatin ineligible had upper tract UC. Among cisplatin eligible pts 38 (82.6%) had visceral metastasis at EV initiation vs 29 (90.6%) ineligible. Median PFS [95% Confidence Interval (95% CI)] was 5.7 months (3.8, 7.1) for cisplatin eligible pts and 3.9 (2.9, 5.5) for ineligible [Hazard Ratio (HR): 0.69, 95% CI: 0.41, 1.14, p=0.14]. Median OS (95% CI) was 9.7 (7.2, 12.0) months for cisplatin eligible pts vs 8.8 (5.8, N/A) for ineligible (HR: 0.90, 95%CI: 0.50, 1.62, p=0.7). ORR and DCR were 47.8% (34.1, 61.9) and 65.2% (50.8, 77.3) in cisplatin eligible pts vs 37.5% (22.9, 54.7) and 56.2% (39.3, 71.8) in ineligible pts (p= 0.37 and p=0.42 respectively). Conclusions: In this retrospective real-world study, there was no statistically significant difference in PFS, OS, ORR or DCR between cisplatin eligible and ineligible pts with aUC treated with EV. This is consistent with the excellent outcomes reported in the EV 201 study. Use of EV in aUC eliminates the artificial outcome gap defined by cisplatin eligibility.

Platinum ineligibility and survival outcomes in patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma receiving first-line treatment

Comprehensive Genomic Profiling of 443 Patients with Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma (rcc) to Reveal Clinically Relevant Genomic Alterations and to Aid in Classification of Rare Subtypes.

A Podcast on Platinum Eligibility and Treatment Sequencing in Platinum-Eligible Patients with Locally Advanced or Metastatic Urothelial Carcinoma

Revisiting Treatment of Metastatic Urothelial Cancer: Where Do Cisplatin and Platinum Ineligibility Criteria Stand?

Real-world effectiveness of pembrolizumab as first-line therapy for cisplatin-ineligible patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma: the ARON-2 study

Clinical evidence for the first-line treatment of advanced urothelial carcinoma: Current paradigms and emerging treatment options

Efficacy of Platinum Rechallenge in Metastatic Urothelial Carcinoma After Previous Platinum-Based Chemotherapy for Metastatic Disease

Prognostic Factors for Metastatic Urothelial Carcinoma Treated with Cisplatin and 5-Fluorouracil-based Regimens.

Real-world treatment patterns and outcomes of patients with unresectable or metastatic urothelial carcinoma receiving systemic therapy in Japan

The efficacy and safety of first-line treatment in cisplatin-ineligible advanced upper tract urothelial carcinoma patients: a comparison of PD-1 inhibitor and carboplatin plus gemcitabine chemotherapy

Efficacy of Platinum-based Chemotherapy in Patients With Metastatic Urothelial Carcinoma With Variant Histology

Platinum eligibility (PE) criteria for patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC): Results of a physician survey in 5 European countries.

Efficacy and safety of pembrolizumab in patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma deemed potentially ineligible for platinum‐containing chemotherapy: Post hoc analysis of KEYNOTE‐052 and LEAP‐011

Gemcitabine and Ifosfamide As a Second-Line Treatment for Cisplatin-Refractory Metastatic Urothelial Carcinoma: a Phase II Study

Comparative Effectiveness of Non-cisplatin First-line Therapies for Metastatic Urothelial Carcinoma: Phase 2 IMvigor210 Study Versus US Patients Treated in the Veterans Health Administration.

Chemotherapy, immunotherapy, or combination first-line treatment for metastatic urothelial carcinoma of the bladder: A large real-world experience

Reevaluating the role of platinum-based chemotherapy in the evolving treatment landscape for patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma

Enfortumab vedotin (EV) in cisplatin-eligible and ineligible patients with advanced urothelial cancer (aUC): A single-center experience.

The evolving treatment landscape of metastatic urothelial cancer

Real-world survival and economic burden among patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma in the United States

Real-world analysis of survival outcomes in advanced EGFR-mutant NSCLC patients treated with platinum-pemetrexed after EGFR-TKI treatment failure