Wagner, Tyler

Background: Pulmonary hypertension (PH) is a life-threatening disease affecting up to 1% of the global population. Diagnosis can be challenging and is often delayed due to the need for advanced imaging and invasive procedures. The use of artificial intelligence applied to ECGs (ECG-AI) has been shown to detect subtle patterns in voltage-time data and may be a valuable tool for the early detection of PH. Hypothesis and Purpose: To evaluate the performance of a previously trained, ECG-AI algorithm to detect PH (ECG-AI PH) using real-world data (RWD) collected in a multicenter, validation study. A joint primary hypothesis required sensitivity (Sn), specificity (Sp), positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) to exceed the null values of 76%, 70%, 10% and 90%. Study Design and Methods: This retrospective validation study was conducted at 5 geographically diverse U.S. health systems. Adult subjects were eligible for inclusion if they had a 12-lead ECG paired with an echocardiogram (Echo) in which tricuspid regurgitation velocity (TRV) was recorded, following presentation with dyspnea. Patients were classified according to echocardiographic criteria as either PH (PH+, TRV >3.4 m/s) or controls (PH-, TRV ≤2.8 m/s) to simulate the real-world use of ECG-AI, where a positive result could lead to a follow-up Echo. The study database was locked before processing the digital ECGs with ECG-AI PH. Performance was also estimated in a subset of subjects that later had a right heart catheterization using mPAP ≥ 20mmHg as the definition of PH. Results: A total of 14281 subjects (53% female, 63% aged 50+ years) met the inclusion criteria, including 3019 PH+ cases and 11262 PH- controls (Figure). Sn and Sp were 84.0% (95% CI: 82.6%, 85.3%) and 71.7% (95% CI: 70.9%, 72.6%), respectively. The positive and negative predictive values were 18.9% (95% CI: 18.4%, 19.4%) and 98.3% (95% CI: 98.1%, 98.4%), respectively, at 7.3% prevalence. Each endpoint met pre-defined performance criteria. In the subset of 1683 subjects with a follow up RHC, performance remained robust (Sn 85% (1155/1358); Sp 46% (151/325)). Conclusion: While ECG-AI PH was first developed as an investigational tool to detect PH, continued development as software as a medical device for clinical use demonstrated that the algorithm retained strong performance to detect PH in diverse, non-overlapping clinical settings and patient populations.

Background: Immunotherapy-based regimens have expanded the treatment landscape for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (uHCC); however, real-world data are limited. Methods: This retrospective, observational study used data from electronic medical records from Mayo Clinic sites across the United States. Patients with uHCC who initiated a first-line (1L) systemic therapy between June 2020–October 2022 with ≥2 follow-up visits were included. Treatment patterns, overall survival (OS), and post-index gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding were assessed by GI bleeding risk defined by Child–Pugh Class B or C, pre-index GI bleeding, uncontrolled hypertension, or significant varices and band ligation. Results: Of 186 included patients, 68.8% had GI bleeding risk and 31.2% did not. Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab was the most common 1L systemic therapy in patients with or without GI bleeding risk (72.7% and 29.3%, respectively). Median OS (95% confidence interval) with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab was 12.8 (8.0–19.3) months and not reached in patients with and without GI bleeding risk, respectively. OS rates with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab in patients with or without GI bleeding risk, respectively, were 52.3% and 70.6% at 12 months, 41.6% and 57.8% at 18 months, and 34.6% and 51.3% at 24 months. Post-index GI bleeding with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab occurred in 19.4% and 5.9% of patients with and without GI bleeding risk, respectively. Conclusions: During this study period, atezolizumab + bevacizumab was the most common 1L therapy for patients with uHCC, regardless of GI bleeding risk. OS rates with atezolizumab + bevacizumab were lower in patients with versus without GI bleeding risk. Findings highlight the unmet need for guidance on characteristics-driven treatment decisions.

e16167 Background: Guidelines recommend systemic therapy for uHCC ineligible for locoregional therapy. Until the approval of tremelimumab + durvalumab for uHCC, in Oct 2022, 1L systemic therapies in the US included multikinase inhibitors and atezolizumab (A) + bevacizumab (B). It is crucial to understand factors driving real-world treatment decisions and outcomes in uHCC. Methods: Data were collected from electronic medical records from US Mayo Clinic sites. Pts with uHCC who initiated a 1L systemic therapy between Jun 2020–Oct 2022 (A + B was the only approved 1L immunotherapy (IO)-based regimen) with ≥2 follow-up visits, were included. Index was the date of first 1L systemic therapy. Pts were assessed by risk of post-index gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding (Child-Pugh class B or C, pre-index GI bleeding, uncontrolled hypertension [HTN] [≥2 anti-HTN drugs or ≥2 vital entries of SBP > 140 mmHg or DBP > 90 mmHg]), or significant varices and band ligation). Treatment patterns, overall survival (OS), and post-index GI bleeding were assessed. Results: A total of 186 pts met the inclusion criteria. Most common etiologies of liver disease were MASH (42.7%) and hepatitis C virus (40.2%). Pre-index GI bleeding was reported in 29.0% of pts, of which 46.3% occurred within 6 months (mo) pre-index; 62.4% of pts had EGD, of which 72.4% had varices. There were 128 (68.8%) pts with GI bleeding risk and 58 (31.2%) pts without GI bleeding risk. The most common 1L systemic therapies for pts with GI bleeding risk were A + B (72.7%) and A only (9.4%), while for pts without GI bleeding risk, A + B (29.3%), nivolumab + ipilimumab (13.8%), and B + chemotherapy (12.1%) were the most common. Median OS and OS rates at 12, 18, and 24 mo were lower, and post-index GI bleeding rate was higher in pts with vs without GI bleeding risk (Table). For pts treated with A + B, median OS and OS rates at 12, 18, and 24 mo were lower in pts with vs without GI bleeding risk (Table). Conclusions: In this network, prior to the approval of other 1L IO-based regimens for uHCC, many pts received A + B, despite risk of post-index GI bleeding. Median OS with A + B was shorter in pts with vs without GI bleeding risk. Data highlight the complexity of uHCC and the unmet need for guidance on characteristics-driven treatment decisions. © 2025 American Society of Clinical Oncology, Inc. Reused with permission. This abstract was accepted and previously presented at the 2025 ASCO Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium. All rights reserved. Table. Full cohort A + B cohort All ptsN=186 GI bleeding risk N=128 No GI bleeding risk N=58 All pts N=110 GI bleeding risk N=93 No GI bleeding risk N=17 Median follow-up, mo 20.6 20.9 20.4 21.3 21.6 20.3 Median OS, mo 14.4 11.4 40.3 13.9 12.8 Not reached OS rates, % 12 mo 55.2 48.9 68.9 55.2 52.3 70.6 18 mo 45.3 38.1 61.1 44.1 41.6 57.8 24 mo 39.4 31.8 56.8 37.1 34.6 51.3 Post-index GI bleed, % 17.2 23.4 3.4 17.3 19.4 5.9

572 Background: Guidelines recommend systemic therapy for uHCC ineligible for locoregional therapy. Until the approval of tremelimumab + durvalumab for uHCC, in Oct 2022, 1L systemic therapies in the US included multikinase inhibitors and atezolizumab (A) + bevacizumab (B). It is crucial to understand factors driving real-world treatment decisions and outcomes in uHCC. Characteristics, treatment patterns, and outcomes were assessed in US pts with uHCC treated with 1L systemic therapy. Methods: Data were collected from electronic medical records from US Mayo Clinic sites. Pts with uHCC who initiated an NCCN-recommended 1L systemic therapy between Jun 2020–Oct 2022 (A + B was the only approved 1L immunotherapy (IO)-based regimen) with ≥2 follow-up visits, were included. Index was the date of first 1L systemic therapy. Pts were assessed by risk of post-index gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding (pts with Child-Pugh class B or C, pre-index GI bleeding, uncontrolled hypertension [HTN] [≥2 anti-HTN drugs or ≥2 vital entries of SBP >140 mmHg or DBP >90 mmHg]), or significant varices and band ligation). Treatment patterns, overall survival (OS), and post-index GI bleeding were assessed. Results: A total of 186 pts met the inclusion criteria. Most common etiologies of liver disease were metabolic dysfunction-associated steatohepatitis (42.7%) and hepatitis C virus (40.2%). Pre-index GI bleeding was reported in 29.0% of pts, of which 46.3% occurred within 6 months (mo) pre-index; 62.4% of pts had EGD, of which 72.4% had varices. There were 128 (68.8%) pts with GI bleeding risk and 58 (31.2%) pts without GI bleeding risk. The most common 1L systemic therapies for pts with GI bleeding risk were A + B (72.7%) and A only (9.4%), while for pts without GI bleeding risk, A + B (29.3%), nivolumab + ipilimumab (13.8%), and B + chemotherapy (13.8%) were the most common. Median OS and OS rates at 12, 18, and 24 mo were lower, and post-index GI bleeding rate was higher in pts with vs without GI bleeding risk (Table). For pts treated with A + B, median OS and OS rates at 12, 18, and 24 mo were lower in pts with vs without GI bleeding risk (Table). Conclusions: In this network, prior to the approval of other 1L IO-based regimens for uHCC, many pts received A + B, despite risk of post-index GI bleeding. Median OS with A + B was shorter in pts with vs without GI bleeding risk. Data highlight the complexity of uHCC and the unmet need for guidance on characteristics-driven treatment decisions. Full cohort A + B cohort All ptsN=186 GI bleeding risk N=128 No GI bleeding risk N=58 All pts N=110 GI bleeding risk N=93 No GI bleeding risk N=17 Median follow-up, mo 20.6 20.9 20.4 21.3 21.6 20.3 Median OS, mo 14.4 11.4 40.3 13.9 12.8 Not reached OS rates, % 12 mo 55.2 48.9 68.9 55.2 52.3 70.6 18 mo 45.3 38.1 61.1 44.1 41.6 57.8 24 mo 39.4 31.8 56.8 37.1 34.6 51.3 Post-index GI bleed, % 17.2 23.4 3.4 17.3 19.4 5.9

e13156 Background: Breast Cancer (BC) patients are classified as HER2-positive (IHC3+ or IHC2+/ISH+) or HER2-negative (IHC0, IHC1+ and 2+/ISH-). Within the HER2-negative category, patients who meet HER2-low (IHC1+ or IHC2+/ISH-) criteria can benefit from HER2 targeted therapy like trastuzumab deruxtecan. Patients who meet IHC0 criteria with incomplete and faint membrane staining in >0 but ≤10% of tumor cells — defined as “HER2 Ultra-low”, may also benefit from HER2 targeted therapy. This study aimed to assess the prevalence of “HER2 Ultra-Low” expression based on re-scored HER2 IHC biopsy slides. Methods: This study utilized EHR data from all three US Mayo Clinic campuses. A total of 300 patients with advanced BC (stages III-IV), and clinically documented HER2 IHC0 status between Jan 2017 and Jan 2023, were identified. One biopsy slide per patient (IHC assay: VENTANA Pathway anti-HER2/neu (4B5) rabbit monoclonal primary antibody) was digitized and scanned at 40x magnification. Two Mayo Clinic pathologists independently scored and reported HER2 status according to 2023 ASCO-CAP guidelines and included tumor stain percentage for each slide. Patients were considered “HER2 Ultra-Low” if their slide was scored as IHC0 with >0% but ≤10% staining. Cohen’s κ was used to quantify agreement between pathologists. Results: The re-scored patients (n=300) had a mean age of 57.8 years (SD=13.5), with ~97% having IHC0 documentation within 30 days of the reviewed biopsy slide. A total of 285 (95%) patients remained classified as IHC0 by at least one pathologist. Of these, 60% (n=171) were determined as “HER2 Ultra-low” by at least one pathologist. The rate of “HER2 Ultra-Low” per pathologist ranged from 43% (n=121) to 45% (n=104). The overall inter-pathologist concordance was 57%; patients with no observable HER2 IHC staining accounted for majority of the concordant patients (Table). Conclusions: About 3 in 5 advanced BC patients originally classified as HER2 IHC0 met the “HER2 Ultra-Low” criteria by at least one pathologist, implying that significant number of additional patients may benefit from HER2 targeted therapy. The relatively low concordance between HER2 expert pathologists in identifying lower levels of HER2 expression suggests the need for increased precision enabled by digital tools, leveraging AI, training for community practice pathologists, and continuing to follow best practice recommendations in determining HER2 IHC status. [Table: see text]

Abstract Introduction: Daratumumab is approved across lines of therapy for multiple myeloma (MM) by subcutaneous administration (DARA SC) or by intravenous administration (DARA IV). In clinical studies, the administration time ranges from 3-5 minutes for DARA SC versus 3-7 hours for DARA IV, and DARA SC is associated with reduced rates of administration-related reactions (ARRs). These characteristics of DARA SC are associated with benefits for clinics in terms of safety and clinic time. We previously reported DARA administration characteristics at Mayo Clinic infusion centers: DARA SC had shorter total clinic and total chair times compared with DARA IV, and DARA SC was associated with very low rates of ARR-related events (Soefje S, et al. EHA Library. 2021). Based upon this analysis, the treatment plan was modified to reduce the mandated observation time for DARA SC to improve clinic efficiency. Here, we describe updated clinical administration characteristics for DARA SC at Mayo Clinic infusion centers before and after the reduction in procedure-mandated observation time, versus DARA IV, using a novel empirical data extraction approach from Electronic Health Records (EHR). Methods: Patients ≥18 years of age with an ICD-9/10 diagnosis code of MM and a first DARA treatment between April 5, 2017 and June 22, 2021 were identified in Mayo Clinic's EHR database. Data were extracted using a scheduling and pharmacy software that tracked patient movement through appointments at a Mayo Clinic infusion center. On May 3, 2021, the Mayo treatment plan was amended to shorten the mandated post-administration observation time for DARA SC from 4 to 2 hours for Dose 1 and from 1 hour to 30 minutes for Doses 2 and 3, with no mandated observation time for Doses 4+. In this analysis, data were captured for patients initiating DARA IV throughout the defined treatment window. For DARA SC, data were captured for patients starting DARA SC therapy on the initial treatment plan (before May 3, 2021; DARA SC initial) and after the change to shorten the mandated post-administration observation time for DARA SC (after May 3, 2021; DARA SC shortened). Time-based measures included: total clinic time (check-in time through patient check-out); total chair time (time from infusion room entry to infusion room exit or check-out time, including order review, pharmacy preparation time, and post-administration observation time); and observation time (time from the end of medication administration to infusion room exit or patient check-out). The medication administration time documented for DARA SC was 0 minutes due to the default duration for SC injections in the EHR. Results: In total, 755 (DARA IV, n=586; DARA SC initial, n=145; DARA SC shortened, n=24) patients received DARA treatment for MM. For all doses combined, the median total clinic time was 2.9 hours shorter for DARA SC compared with DARA IV (DARA IV, 4.9 hrs; DARA SC initial, 2.0 hrs). The median total clinic time for DARA SC and DARA IV was highest at Dose 1 (DARA IV, 9.5 hrs; DARA SC initial, 6.1 hrs; DARA SC shortened, 4.4 hrs) and lower for subsequent doses (Dose 4+: DARA IV, 4.6 hrs; DARA SC initial, 1.7 hrs; DARA SC shortened, 1.6 hrs; Figure). Similarly, the median total chair time was 2.7 hours shorter in the DARA SC group compared with the DARA IV group for all doses combined (DARA IV, 4.1 hrs; DARA SC initial, 1.4 hrs). The median total chair time for DARA SC and DARA IV was highest at Dose 1 (DARA IV, 8.8 hrs; DARA SC initial, 5.6 hrs; DARA SC shortened, 3.9) and lower for subsequent doses (Dose 4+: DARA IV, 3.7 hrs; DARA SC initial, 1.1 hrs; DARA SC shortened, 1.1 hrs). Conclusion: Marked reductions in the amount of time spent both in clinic and in chair were observed with DARA SC compared with DARA IV, with additional time savings observed following the Mayo procedure change to reduce the DARA SC mandated observation time. These favorable DARA SC administration characteristics may indicate a reduction in the burden on both clinical resources and patients in Mayo Clinic infusion centers. These results add to the growing body of evidence supporting the use of DARA SC as an efficient and convenient treatment administration option for patients with MM. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Soefje: Beigene: Consultancy; Pfizer: Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding. Carpenter: nference Inc.: Current Employment; Janssen: Consultancy. Carlson: nference Inc.: Current Employment; Janssen: Consultancy. Awasthi: nference Inc.: Current Employment, Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company; Janssen: Consultancy. Lin: Janssen: Current Employment. Kaila: Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC: Current Employment. Kayal: nference Inc.: Current Employment; Janssen: Consultancy. Kirkup: nference Inc.: Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company, Ended employment in the past 24 months; Path AI: Current Employment, Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company, Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company. Wagner: nference Inc.: Current Employment; Janssen: Consultancy. Gray: Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC: Current Employment, Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company. Kumar: Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Carsgen: Research Funding; Antengene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; KITE: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy; Beigene: Consultancy; Tenebio: Research Funding; Roche-Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Adaptive: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding.