Effect of upfront dose reductions on efficacy of enfortumab vedotin and pembrolizumab (EVP) in advanced urothelial carcinoma (aUC): A UNITE analysis.

696 Background: EVP is the preferred 1st-line therapy for patients (pts) with aUC. Upfront EV dose reductions may be utilized to enhance tolerance and minimize treatment-related toxicities when intolerance is anticipated. Prior studies of EV monotherapy suggest that starting dose 1.25 mg/kg resulted in exposure that maximized chance of response. We hypothesize that upfront EV dose reductions would not compromise EVP efficacy. Methods: Pts with aUC treated with EVP in the multi-site UNITE database were analyzed. Upfront dose reduction was defined as starting dose < 1.25 mg/kg. Correlation between clinical features and EV dose reduction were assessed using Fisher’s Exact test. Endpoints include progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) from EVP initiation, assessed by Kaplan-Meier analysis and Cox models. Multivariable Cox analysis (MVA) included age (< 75 vs ≥ 75), ECOG performance status (PS) (0-1 vs 2-3), hemoglobin level (< 10 vs ≥ 10), and liver metastases (present vs absent), chosen in accordance with Bellmunt criteria. Correlation with investigator-assessed observed response rate (ORR) was determined using logistic regressions. All tests were 2-sided with p < 0.05 considered significant. Results: A total of 456 pts across 17 sites were included (median age 72; 77% Caucasian; 75% male; 26% upper tract primary; 66% pure UC; 77% ECOG PS 0-1; 17% with liver metastasis; 89% 1 st line EVP). Upfront dose reduction occurred in 96 pts (21%); 76 pts (79%) started at 1.0 mg/kg and 20 pts (21%) at 0.75 mg/kg. Upfront dose reduction was significantly associated with age ≥ 75 (p = 0.002), ECOG PS 2/3 (p = 0.04), and hemoglobin < 10 (p = 0.01) but not with liver metastasis (p = 0.9). Lower starting EV dose correlated with shorter median PFS (5 vs 6 months) and OS (9 vs 10 months), and lower ORR (28% vs. 60%) when compared to full dose (Table). In MVA adjusting for prognostic factors for PFS and OS, these associations were no longer statistically significant. Conclusions: In this real-world analysis, upfront EV dose reductions were most frequently used in pts with factors associated with frailty and poor prognosis, e.g. older age and ECOG PS 2/3, and were associated with lower ORR. When adjusted for these factors, upfront EV dose reductions were not associated with shorter PFS/OS though a trend towards inferior outcomes persisted. These differences in outcomes may reflect baseline risk factors rather than dose intensity; however, prospective investigation is required to validate our hypothesis-generating results. Association of upfront EV dose reduction with outcomes. Outcome (Upfront dose reduction vs no upfront dose reduction) Univariable analysis Multivariable analysis PFS: HR (95% CI), p 1.50 (1.11 – 2.02), 0.008 1.33 (0.95-1.86), 0.09 OS: HR (95% CI), p 1.56 (1.11-2.20), 0.01 1.41 (0.96-2.06), 0.08 ORR: OR (95% CI), p 0.35 (0.21-0.60), 0.0001 0.38 (0.21-0.67), 0.0009