McWilliams, Robert R.

561 Background: For patients with aHCC, second-line treatment options are not well established. The primary aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of Futi, an FGFR 1-4 inhibitor, in combination with Pem as a second line therapy in patients with FGF19-expressing aHCC. Methods: Patients aged ≥ 18 years, with histological/cytological diagnosis or radiological diagnosis of HCC, Child-Pugh (CP) class A-B7, Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) A, B or C, ECOG performance status of 0-2, and FGF19+, by in-situ hybridization or immunohistochemistry, received Futi 20 mg once daily plus i.v. Pem 200mg every 3 weeks. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival at 6 months (PFS6). Secondary endpoints include overall survival (OS). The study was designed to enroll 22 evaluable patients to detect PFS6 from 25% (historical control) to 47%, assuming a 1-sided alpha of 0.1 with 80% power. All patients provided written consent. Eligible patients with consent who started treatment are considered evaluable. Results: The study was closed to enrollment early at the request of funding agency due to poor accrual. Between 8/2021 and 3/2024, 14 patients enrolled with 1 patient withdrawing consent before beginning protocol treatment. Among 13 evaluable patients, median age was 72 (range: 60-87) years, 7 (53.8%) were male, 12 CP A (92.3%), 7 BCLC C (53.8%), with 7 (53.8%) having received prior liver directed therapy. Median PFS was 15 weeks (95% confidence interval [CI]: 9.0-Not Estimable) and PFS6 was 23.1% (95% CI: 8.6%, 62.3%). Objective response rate was 0% (95% CI: 0%, 24.71%) and stable disease occurred in 7 (53.9%) of patients. Median OS was 55.7 weeks (95% CI: 47.3-NE). Nine (69.2%) patients experienced at least 1 grade 3+ adverse event (AE), and 2 (15.4%) patients experienced at least a grade 4+ AE. One patient had a grade 5 AE unrelated to study treatment (acute kidney injury). Most commonly reported AEs (occurring in more than 31% of patients) were hyperphosphatemia (76.9%), fatigue (69.3%), diarrhea (61.6%), AST (53.9%) and ALT (46.2%), dry eye (38.5%), nail changes (38.5%), rash-maculo-papular (38.5%), and mucositis oral (38.5%). Conclusions: This prospective study evaluated the use of a targeted treatment in combination with immunotherapy following first line immune-based therapy. This combination had modest activity as a second line therapy for patients with aHCC but did not meet the primary endpoint. The safety profile was acceptable and consistent with prior reports. An optimal second-line regimen remains a critical need. Clinical trial information: NCT04828486 .

Abstract Background This phase 1 study aimed to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and evaluate the safety and preliminary efficacy of rucaparib (RUB), a poly(adenosine diphosphate ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor, combined with liposomal irinotecan (nal‐IRI) and 5‐fluorouracil (5‐FU) in metastatic gastrointestinal (GI) cancers. RUB targets DNA repair pathways, showing efficacy in tumors with homologous recombination deficiency, such as BRCA mutations. Preclinical data suggest synergy with irinotecan, but overlapping toxicities pose challenges. Methods Eighteen patients with metastatic GI cancers, who previously progressed on at least one systemic therapy, were enrolled. A novel sequential dosing regimen, informed by nal‐IRI pharmacokinetic analysis, was used. Twelve patients were evaluable for dose‐limiting toxicity (DLT) and 12 for response per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors v1.1 criteria. Results The MTD was established as RUB 600 mg twice daily, nal‐IRI 50 mg/m 2 , and 5‐FU 2400 mg/m 2 over 46 hours. The objective response rate (ORR) was 33% (4 of 12), and the disease control rate (DCR) was 75% (9 of 12). Common grade 3 adverse events included diarrhea (33%) and neutropenia (25%), with no grade 4/5 events. Responses were notable in patients with somatic ATM and BRCA mutations, especially those with prior platinum exposure. No DLTs occurred at the recommended phase 2 dose. Conclusions This optimized dosing schedule successfully established the MTD for RUB with nal‐IRI and 5‐FU, overcoming prior challenges with PARP inhibitor and irinotecan combinations. The promising ORR and DCR support further evaluation of this regimen in advanced GI malignancies.

PURPOSE Neoadjuvant immune checkpoint inhibitors (nICIs) have demonstrated high response rates in deficient mismatch repair/microsatellite instability–high (dMMR/MSI-H) gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma (GEA). The NEONIPIGA and INFINITY trials demonstrated high rates of pathologic complete response (pCR) in this patient population. Furthermore, the INFINITY trial explored the feasibility of managing these patients nonoperatively, demonstrating promising results. This study aimed to evaluate clinical outcomes of nICIs in resectable dMMR/MSI-H GEA, with a focus on the feasibility of nonoperative management (NOM). MATERIALS AND METHODS This retrospective cohort study included patients with resectable dMMR/MSI-H GEA and treated with nICIs ± surgery at the Mayo Clinic. Patients were identified from institutional records, and clinical data were retrospectively reviewed. Primary outcomes were clinical complete response (cCR) and pCR. Secondary outcomes included event-free survival (EFS), radiologic complete response (rCR), and immune-related adverse events (irAEs). RESULTS A total of 26 patients treated between April 1, 2017, and July 30, 2025, were identified. Nine patients (34.6%) underwent surgery, of whom six (66.7%) achieved pCR. Seventeen patients (65.4%) pursued NOM, with 10 (71.4%) of 14 evaluable patients achieving cCR and 14 (82.4%) of 17 evaluable achieving rCR. One patient who initially achieved cCR had a local recurrence on surveillance endoscopy and underwent salvage endoscopic resection. At a median follow-up of 19.3 months, 15 (88.2%) of 17 patients in the NOM cohort were alive and metastasis-free, with EFS rates of 87.3% at 12 and 24 months for all patients. irAEs occurred in nine patients (34.6%), with no grade ≥3 toxicities. CONCLUSION In this retrospective cohort study, nICIs led to high cCR and pCR rates in resectable dMMR/MSI-H GEA, supporting the use of immune checkpoint inhibitors in this setting and the feasibility of NOM in select patients.

Abstract Background Unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (uHCC) is a leading cause of cancer death. FDA-approved first-line systemic therapies include atezolizumab/bevacizumab (atezo/bev) and durvalumab/tremelimumab (durva/treme); however, there is a lack of comparative data. Methods We reviewed outcomes of patients with uHCC who initiated atezo/bev or durva/treme between 2017 and 2024, across six institutions. Overall survival (OS) and time to treatment discontinuation (TTD) were analyzed using the Kaplan–Meier and Cox models, adjusting for baseline characteristics. Results Four hundred fifty-two uHCC pts were included. Median age: 68 years; 77% male; 81% white. Most common etiologies were viral hepatitis (38.9%) and metabolic dysfunction-associated steatohepatitis (19.5%). Disease progression was the primary reason for treatment discontinuation, atezo/bev (56%) and durva/treme (42%). Outcomes were not statistically significant (median OS [month, m]: 14.0 vs 14.6 [P = .66]; median TTD [m]: 4.9 vs 3.9 [P = .42] for atezo/bev vs durva/treme). Outcomes were significantly different between Child-Pugh classes (CP: A, B7, B8/9, C) respectively, median OS(m): 19.0, 6.1, 5.1, 2.0 (P < .001); median TTD(m): 6.1, 2.3, 3.0, 1.3 (P < .001). Conclusions In this real-world study of uHCC, no significant difference in clinical outcomes was observed between atezo/bev and durva/treme in the first-line setting. CP scores were a key prognostic variable with both regimens.

Importance The prognosis of advanced pancreaticobiliary tumors is poor. Next-generation sequencing (NGS) of tissue samples is utilized to identify actionable alterations, but there are occasional limitations due to inadequate tissue acquisition. Circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) is an alternative method, but its correlation with tissue-based NGS remains unexplored. Objectives To assess the mutation concordance (mCR) rates between ctDNA and tissue testing for patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) and cholangiocarcinoma (CC) and to evaluate how ctDNA performs as a treatment response biomarker. Design, Setting, and Participants This retrospective cohort study was conducted among patients with PDAC and CC treated at academic institutions from January 2014 to January 2025. Patients underwent ctDNA testing using 1 platform and tissue NGS testing using 2 platforms. Main Outcomes and Measures mCR, which measures the shared gene alterations observed by both ctDNA and tissue-based NGS testing, was calculated using the Spearman correlation for PDAC and CC. The performance of ctDNA as a treatment response biomarker was assessed by comparing serial ctDNA data with restaging scans and cancer antigen 19-9 levels in patients with PDAC. Results Our cohort included 790 patients: 570 with advanced PDAC (265 [46.5%] female; median [IQR] age, 64 [33-84] years) and 220 with advanced CC (95 [43.2%] female; median [IQR] age, 66 [42-88] years). Overall, 461 patients with PDAC (80.9%) and 192 patients with CC (87.2%) underwent ctDNA testing, while 239 patients with PDAC (41.9%) and 70 patients with CC (31.8%) had tissue NGS testing. Among patients with PDAC, 85 of 130 patients (65.4%) showed shared specific gene alterations between ctDNA and tissue testing; there was a significant mCR, with a Spearman correlation of 0.47 (95% CI, 0.28-0.62; P < .001). For patients with CC, 32 of 48 (66.7%) had shared alterations between ctDNA and tissue testing; there was a significant mCR, with a Spearman correlation of 0.56 (95% CI, 0.35-0.70; P < .001). A subgroup analysis of patients with PDAC who underwent serial ctDNA testing suggested that new TP53 subclones and increased ctDNA variant allele frequency levels of TP53 and KRAS were associated with higher odds of progressive disease (eg, increased TP53 frequency: odds ratio, 7.28; 95% CI, 2.15-24.66; P = .001). Conclusions and Relevance In this cohort study of patients with pancreaticobiliary tumors, there was a significant mCR between ctDNA and tissue NGS testing. Additionally, results suggest that ctDNA might detect resistant clones and enable assessment of treatment response.

Abstract Purpose: Germline pathogenic variants (PV) in ATM increase the risk of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), but the underlying tumor biology of PDAC associated with germline PV in ATM has not been adequately explored. Experimental Design: Whole-genome, whole-exome, and RNA sequencing were performed on PDAC tumors from 25 germline ATM PV carriers diagnosed at Mayo Clinic between 2007 and 2017. Somatic and copy-number alterations, mutational signatures, transcriptomic subtypes, and the immune landscape were evaluated. Results: High-quality whole-exome and whole-genome sequencing were obtained from 21 and 15 tumors, respectively. Biallelic inactivation of ATM was observed in 87%, KRAS PV in 90%, CDKN2A homozygous loss in 60%, and TP53 alterations in <10% of these tumors. A predominant clock-like mutational signature was present in all samples. Whole-transcriptome analysis identified that the aberrantly differentiated endocrine exocrine subtype accounted for 18% of PDAC and was consistently associated with >5-year overall survival. In addition, a 28-gene expression–based signature associated with overall survival was identified and further validated in The Cancer Genome Atlas cohort. Immune landscape analysis through CODEX identified enriched CD4 T-helper cell/tumor interactions and reduced B7H3-high cell/tumor interactions in ATM PV carriers compared with noncarriers. Conclusions: The observed absence of TP53 PV and enrichment for CDKN2A alterations in ATM tumors, along with differences in the mutational signatures, transcriptomic subtypes and immune landscape, improve our understanding of the mechanistic pathways involved in PDAC development in germline ATM PV carriers and help identify potential targeted therapeutic strategies.

e14626 Background: Despite advancements in neoadjuvant therapy and surgical techniques, patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) often experience high recurrence rates after total neoadjuvant therapy (TNT) and resection. Existing tumor response scoring systems, such as the College of American Pathologists (CAP) guidelines, fail to stratify recurrence risk effectively, emphasizing the need for novel, objective approaches. Methods: This study evaluated spatial characteristics of residual cancer and stroma in a multi-site cohort of 203 patients with resected PDAC following TNT, not having achieved a major pathologic response (CAP 2 or 3). Whole slide images (WSI) of hematoxylin and eosin-stained sections were digitized and analyzed using artificial intelligence to perform tissue segmentation. Metrics quantifying spatial morphology and configuration, inspired by principles of landscape ecology, were computed to explore spatial features of the tumor microenvironment (TME). Statistical models (recursive partitioning and regression tree [RPRT] model and Cox model with backwards eliminations) incorporating these features were developed to stratify recurrence risk. Results: Five metrics were used for risk classification model build. Three models successfully classified patients into high- and low-risk groups based on spatial metrics. Models demonstrated moderate discriminatory power (C-statistics: 0.560–0.566) and showed that increased tumor fragmentation, like stromal patch density and cancer patch shape index, were strongly associated with improved outcomes. Conclusions: Integrating spatial metrics of cancer-stroma configuration enhances risk stratification beyond conventional scoring systems. Given increased tumor fragmentation is associated with improved outcomes, these data indirectly suggest ecological mechanisms of treatment resistance. This approach offers a pathway toward personalized post-operative management strategies to improve outcomes in PDAC. Risk classification models. Model Description Event/n Median DFS (95% CI) HR(95% CI) p-value C-statistics 1(RPRT) High risk: log standard deviation of the stroma shape index > 0.651 87 / 101 8.22(5.72 – 10.1) 1.64(1.20 – 2.25) 0.002 0.562 Low risk: log standard deviation of the stroma shape index ≤ 0.651 71 / 102 11.90(9.24 – 25.1) Ref 2(RPRT) High risk: log standard deviation of the stroma shape index > 0.651 & mean cancer shape index ≤ 1.775 58 / 63 7.23(5.19 – 9.63) 1.82(1.31 – 2.52) 0.0003 0.560 Low risk: (log standard deviation of the stroma shape index > 0.651 & mean cancer shape index > 1.775) or log standard deviation of the stroma shape index ≤ 0.651 100 / 140 11.57(9.24 – 17.92) Ref 3(Backwards elimination) High risk: PI * > median 86 / 101 8.02(6.08 – 9.86) 1.73(1.26 – 2.37) 0.0007 0.566 Low risk:PI * ≤ median 72 / 102 15.72(9.97 – 25.05) Ref *PI: (0.2701 * log mean stroma area) + (0.3905 * log edge density).

4166 Background: GN is a front-line therapy for aPDAC. A Phase I/II study demonstrated that GCN has a higher overall response rate and median overall survival (mOS). Our previous study found no difference in outcomes among patients with DNA damage repair gene mutations; however, stromal gene expression correlated with mOS in patients receiving GCN. Here, we further evaluate differences in the outcomes with GCN and GN by site of biopsy. Methods: PDAC samples (n = 4,463) were analyzed by NGS (NextSeq/NovaSeq) or RNA (NovaSeq) (Caris Life Sciences, Phx, AZ). Expression of stromal and related genes ( ACTA2, ADIRF, HAS2, IL-6, MMP-2, MMP-9, SPARC, STAT3, TBGB1, TGFB2, TGFBR3, IDO1, HLA-DRB4, VEGFB) from different biopsy sites [high expression (H) >50% of RNA transcripts per million] was correlated with outcomes to GCN or GN. mOS was obtained from insurance claims and calculated from first treatment to last contact. The hazard ratio (HR) was calculated by the Cox proportional hazards model, and p-values were calculated using the log-rank test. Results: 4325 patients [primary biopsy (PT), n = 1,878; non-liver metastatic biopsy (N-LM), n = 818; Liver biopsy (LM), n = 1,629] received GN while 138 patients (PT, n = 45; N-LM, n = 28; LM, n = 65) received GCN. GCN was associated with longer mOS than GN [∆: 5.2 months (m), HR: 0.76, 95% CI 0.63-0.92, p = 0.01]. GCN was associated with longer mOS compared to GN in LM (∆: 5.6 m, HR: 0.66, 95% CI 0.50-0.87, p = 0.003), but it was not significant in PT (∆: 4.6 m, p = 0.13) and N-LM (∆: 4.4 m, p = 0.35). Median MMP2 (38.5 vs. 163.1 vs. 162.2), VEGFB (14.4 vs. 16.9 vs. 16.2) and TGFBR3 (11.4 vs. 15 vs. 16.4) expression were lower in LM compared to PT and N-LM while TGFB1 (41.6 vs. 34.5 vs. 39.8) and IL6 (1.61 vs. 1.19 vs. 1.41) expression were highest in LM (p < 0.05). In LM, IL6 -H (∆: -11 m, p = 0.037) and TGFB1 -H (∆: -5.9 m, p = 0.10) were associated with worse post-GCN survival compared to GN (p = 0.82 and p = 0.57). Whereas, in N-LM, TGFBR3 -H trended towards longer post-GCN survival (∆: 12 m, p = 0.18), while ADIRF -H trended towards shorter post-GCN survival (∆: -12 m, p = 0.056) compared to GN (p = 0.42 and p = 0.10). While in PT, MMP2 -H (∆: 11.3m, HR: 0.46, p = 0.16), TGFB1 -H (∆: 11.3 m, HR: 0.33, p = 0.09), HLA-DRB4 -H (∆: 12.9 m, HR: 0.44, p = 0.11) and VEGFB -H (∆: 10.7, HR: 0.34, p = 0.09) trended towards longer post-GCN survival compared to GN ( MMP2 -H, ∆: 3.4 m, p = 0.03, TGFB1 -H, p = 0.661, HLA-DRB4 -H, p = 0.67, VEGFB-H , ∆: 1.3 m, p = 0.03). Conclusions: GCN is associated with improved mOS compared to GN, especially in LM.Stromal gene expression in the liver differs from that in N-LM and the pancreas. While high stromal gene expression trends towards worse post-GCN survival in LM, it is associated with improved survival in N-LM and PT. Further validation is needed to understand the impact of stromal gene expression in different tumor sites on survival outcomes and signature development.

9503 Background: Neoadjuvant ± adjuvant immunotherapy improves event-free survival relative to adjuvant immunotherapy alone for patients with high-risk resectable stage III melanoma. However, the optimal regimen balancing efficacy and tolerability is not known. T-cell immunoglobulin and ITIM domain (TIGIT) is a promising immune checkpoint but its therapeutic potential in stage III melanoma is underexplored. Methods: In this phase II trial, patients with resectable, macroscopic stage III melanoma received four 21-day neoadjuvant cycles of 1200mg IV atezolizumab (atezo, anti-PD-L1) + 600mg IV tiragolumab (tira, anti-TIGIT), followed by therapeutic lymph node dissection (TLND) and eight 21-day adjuvant cycles of 1200mg IV atezo. Primary endpoints were pathologic response (of all patients initiating neoadjuvant therapy) and recurrence-free survival (RFS) from the time of TLND in patients who were operated on per protocol and received adjuvant therapy. Secondary endpoint was adverse events (AEs); exploratory endpoints included event-free survival (EFS) and distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS). Results: Thirty-four patients, median age 59 years, were accrued and initiated neoadjuvant atezo/tira. 76.5% had >1 metastatic lymph node involved at baseline and 73.5% presented with Stage IIIC disease. All 34 patients were evaluable for AEs, pathologic response and EFS. Four patients were diagnosed with metastatic disease during neoadjuvant treatment, while 30 had TLND per protocol and 28 received adjuvant treatment and were evaluable for RFS and DMFS. Major pathologic responses (MPR, ≤10% viable tumor) were observed in 16/34 patients (47.1%, Table). With 19.9 months median follow-up from registration, 12-month EFS was 72.0% (95% CI 57.9 to 89.5%). With 16 months median follow-up from operation, 12-month RFS was 73.3% (n=28, 95% CI 56.9 to 94.5%), while 12-month DMFS was 86.0% (n=28, 95% CI 72.2 to 100%). In the 16 patients with an MPR, 2 did not receive adjuvant treatment and were followed for 33.3 and 10.8 months without recurrence/death. In the remaining 14 patients, 12-month RFS and 12-month DMFS were both 91.7% (95% CI 77.3 to 100%). 5 patients (14.7%) experienced any grade 3+ AE with 2 (5.9%) at least possibly related to the neoadjuvant regimen. Conclusions: Among patients with high-risk resectable stage III melanoma, neoadjuvant atezo/tira was a promising regimen with a favorable safety profile and warrants further study. Identification of predictive biomarkers will allow for optimization of neoadjuvant therapy for individual patients. Clinical trial information: NCT03554083 . Pathologic response. N=34 Major Pathologic Response 16 (47.1%) Pathologic complete response (no viable tumor) 13 (38.2%) Near-pathologic complete response (0.1−10% viable tumor) 3 (8.8%) Pathologic partial response (>10.0−50% viable tumor) 2 (5.9%) Pathologic non-response (>50% viable tumor) 12 (35.3%) No per protocol operation 4 (11.8%)

Abstract Background: Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDA) is a disease with guarded prognosis with a 5-year overall survival (OS) of 3.1% in patients with metastatic disease. The need for innovative treatments for this lethal disease is paramount. TTFields is a novel treatment modality that employs low intensity, alternating, and intermediate frequency electrical fields that abrogates cancer cell proliferation through different mechanisms. These include inhibition of mitosis, disruption of cancer cell membranes, metabolomic dysregulation of cancer cells, and immunogenic activation of the tumor microenvironment (TME). TTFields are approved in glioblastoma multiforme, non-small cell lung cancer and malignant mesothelioma. The PANOVA trial demonstrated promising efficacy for TTFields plus chemotherapy in patients with PDA. A trial of GCN in patients with PDA demonstrated exceptional efficacy in patients with metastatic disease. Here in, we present our ongoing clinical trial investigating the safety and efficacy of TTFields plus GCN in patients with PDA (NCT04605913). Methods: This a phase I/II trial with an initial safety run-in phase followed by the phase II portion. The primary objective of the trial is to determine the safety (CTCAE v 5.0) of GCN plus TTFields. Secondary objectives include determining the 6-month progression free survival (PFS) rate, overall response rate (ORR, RECIST v1.1), 12-month survival rate, OS, and QOL (EORTC QLQ-C30, version 3.0.2.3). Inclusion criteria include PDA with liver metastasis (patients can have additional sites of metastasis), ECOG 0-1, measurable disease, and ability to operate the Novo TTF-100L (P)/Novo TTF-200T system. Treatment consisted of TTFields (150 kHz 18 hours/day) and GCN (G: 1000 mg/m2, C 30 mg/m2, and N: 150 mg/m2 every 2 weeks, 28 days cycle), followed by a maintenance phase after 6 months (G: 1000 mg/m2 every 2 weeks) plus TTFields until progression. Six patients were to be enrolled in the phase I portion and if ≤1/6 patients experienced a dose limiting toxicity (DLT, treatment emergent adverse event, or skin toxicity of Gr4), the plan would be to move to a phase II trial enrolling 34 more patients. If 2/6 patients experienced a DLT, 6 patients would be enrolled in dose level -1 (GCN plus TTFields for 9 hours/day followed by the maintenance treatment) and if tolerated the phase II portion would start with dose level -1 regimen. The phase I portion was completed without any DLTs and the trial is currently enrolling to the phase II portion. The total number of patients (40) was powered to the 6-months PFS rate and ORR (estimated using the lower bound of exact one-sided 90% confidence intervals). The goal is to "reject" a 6-month PFS rate of 66% and an ORR of 71% (based on previous GCN trial). Time-to-event endpoints will be assessed using the Kaplan-Meier method. Citation Format: Hani M. Babiker, Jason Starr, Jeremy Jones, Conor O’Donnell, Robert Jones, Jacqueline Boni, Lashundra Stewart, Josh Cameron, Oudom Kour, Kabir Mody, Robert R. McWilliams, Daniel H. Ahn, Tanios Bekaii-Saab, Mitesh J. Borad, Umair Majeed. A phase I/II pilot trial, single arm, open label, of gemcitabine, cisplatin, protein-bound paclitaxel (GCN) combined with Tumor Treatment Fields (TTFields) in patient with metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2025; Part 2 (Late-Breaking, Clinical Trial, and Invited Abstracts); 2025 Apr 25-30; Chicago, IL. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2025;85(8_Suppl_2):Abstract nr CT190.