Storandt, Michael H.

Background: Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (A + B) and durvalumab plus tremelimumab (D + T) are approved first-line systemic therapy options for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), with no head-to-head comparison. In this propensity-matched analysis, we compared the survival of patients with advanced HCC who received either A + B or D + T therapy. Methods: Patients with advanced HCC who received A + B or D + T treatment in the first-line setting were identified using the TriNetX platform, a health research network that provides access to electronic health record data from 112 healthcare organizations. Propensity-score-matched (PSM) analysis was conducted, and the median overall survival (OS) was estimated using the Kaplan–Meier method. Results: We identified 2819 patients with HCC who were treated with A + B or D + T: 2031 patients received A + B and 788 received D + T. Compared to patients in the A + B cohort, those who received D + T were more likely to be older (median age: 68.4 vs. 66.9 years), have lower platelet counts (186.8 vs. 201.3), higher prevalence of hypoalbuminemia with levels < 2.7 g/dL (35.2% vs. 28.4%), higher prevalence of bilirubin levels between 2.0 and 2.9 mg/dL (28.8% vs. 23.8%), and decreased INR with levels between 0.0 and 1.6 (92.1% vs. 86.3%). After PSM, 1536 patients were included in the survival analyses, with all variables adequately matched. There was no significant difference in the median OS between those receiving A + B or D + T [16.3 vs. 22.5 months, hazard ratio (HR) 0.89, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.76–1.0]. Higher rates of immune-mediated colitis were noted in the D + T group. Conclusions: Similar survival rates were observed among patients with advanced HCC who received A + B and D + T in the first-line setting. Our study suggests that both A + B and D + T are valid treatment options, and that therapy can be tailored based on comorbidities, adverse effects, and patient preferences.

139 Background: Statins have been shown to reduce the risk of HCC in high-risk populations with metabolic diseases. However, emerging data suggests that GLP-1 RA’s may also offer hepatoprotection by reversing metabolic and inflammatory drivers contributing to HCC development. Patients with T2DM are at an increased risk of metabolic associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD) and HCC. To our knowledge, no real-world studies have directly compared the effectiveness of GLP-1 RA’s and statins for prevention of HCC in patients with T2DM. In this study, we aim to compare the incidence of HCC and hepatic decompensation events in patients with T2DM treated with GLP-1 RA’s vs statins. Methods: We performed a retrospective cohort study using data from TriNetX, a healthcare database of over 150 million patients in the United States. Adult patients with T2DM were identified and stratified by use of GLP-1 RA (semaglutide, dulaglutide, tirzepatide, exenatide, liraglutide, and lixisenatide) or statin (pitavastatin, simvastatin, fluvastatin, atorvastatin, rosuvastatin or lovastatin). Exposure groups were mutually exclusive with no overlap in GLP-1 RA or statin use. Propensity score matching was conducted between cohorts, matching for age, sex, race, tobacco use, alcohol use, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, obesity, MASLD, aspirin use, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory analgesic drug use, and other T2DM medications. Five-year incidence of HCC was compared between the GLP-1 RA and statin cohorts. In a subsequent analysis, hepatic decompensation events of ascites, hepatic encephalopathy (HE), spontaneous bacterial peritonitis (SBP), and esophageal varices (EV) were compared. Results: We identified 1,411,022 patients with T2DM, including 254,832 GLP-1 RA users and 1,156,190 statin users. After PSM, 219,984 patients were included in the analysis. There was no significant difference in the five-year incidence of HCC between the GLP-1 RA and statin cohorts (0.14% vs 0.15%, odds ratio (OR) 0.95, 95% confidence interval (CI)0.81-1.11, p =0.5). In the subsequent analysis, GLP-1 RA use was associated with a lower incidence of ascites (0.98% vs 1.99%, OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.46-0.51, p <0.001), HE (0.18% vs 0.22%, OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.74-0.96, p =0.01), and SBP (0.05% vs 0.1%, OR 0.52, 95% CI 0.42-0.65, p <0.001). There was no difference in incidence of EV (0.33% vs 0.35%, OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.85-1.04, p =0.25). Conclusions: In patients with T2DM at elevated risk for MASLD and HCC, we found that GLP-1 RA use was associated with significantly lower incidence of hepatic decompensation events compared to statin use. However, there was no significant difference in HCC incidence between the cohorts. Prospective studies are warranted to confirm the hepatoprotective effect of GLP-1 RA medications and evaluate long-term oncologic outcomes.

138 Background: Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RA’s) have advanced the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), yet their association with cancer risk remains subject of ongoing research. Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), including Crohn’s disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC), is a well-established risk factor for colorectal cancer (CRC). Studies have shown a reduced risk of CRC with GLP-1 RA use however, the impact of GLP-1 RA therapy in the high-risk IBD population is unknown. In this study, we aim to evaluate the association between GLP-1 RA use and CRC incidence among patients with IBD, and among those with IBD and T2DM. Methods: We performed a retrospective cohort study using data from TriNetX, a healthcare database of over 150 million patients in the United States. In the first analysis, adult patients with pre-existing IBD were identified and stratified by use of a GLP-1 RA (semaglutide, dulaglutide, tirzepatide, exenatide, liraglutide, and lixisenatide) or not. Propensity score matching (PSM) was conducted between GLP1-RA users and non-users, matching for age, sex, race, tobacco use, alcohol use, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, obesity, IBD subtype (CD or UC), steroid use, immunosuppressive use including biologics, and other T2DM medications. Five-year incidence of CRC was compared between GLP-1 RA users and non-users in the matched cohort between 2015 and 2025. We then restricted the cohort to patients with IBD and T2DM and repeated this analysis. Results: We identified 1,137,300 patients with IBD, including 70,303 GLP-1 RA users and 1,066,997 non-users. After PSM with all variables adequately matched, 69,221 patients were included in the analyses. GLP-1 RA use was associated with a lower 5-year incidence of CRC (0.2% vs. 0.43%, odds ratio (OR) 0.49, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.3-0.57, p <0.001). We then identified 209,649 patients with IBD and T2DM, including 38,567 GLP-1 RA users and 171,082 non-users. After matching for all variables, 37,740 patients were included in the analyses. Among patients with IBD and T2DM, GLP-1 RA use was associated with a lower 5-year incidence of CRC (0.31% vs. 0.57%, OR 0.54, 95% CI 0.43-0.68, p <0.001). Conclusions: GLP-1 RA use was associated with a significantly reduced incidence of CRC in all patients with IBD, as well as the subpopulation with both IBD and T2DM. Given the elevated CRC risk in IBD, these findings suggest a potential protective effect of GLP-1 RA use in this high-risk population. Prospective studies will be important to further analyze and confirm this potential benefit.

e16246 Background: First line systemic therapy for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) includes immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) combination therapy, with tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs), lenvatinib or cabozantinib, commonly used as second line therapy. However, there is limited data comparing efficacy of TKIs following first line ICI therapy. In the present study, we compared survival and risk of hospitalization in a propensity score matched analysis of patients who received lenvatinib or cabozantinib following progression on first line ICI therapy in patients with advanced HCC. Methods: We performed a retrospective cohort study using data from TriNetX, a healthcare database of over 150 million patients in the United States. We identified adult patients with a history of HCC who received atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (A+B) or durvalumab plus tremelimumab (D+T) as first line treatment. We then stratified patients by use of lenvatinib or cabozantinib in the subsequent line setting. Propensity score matching (PSM) was conducted between those who received lenvatinib and those who received cabozantinib, matching for demographic factors (age, sex, race), clinical characteristics (history of alcohol use, ascites, esophageal varices, or viral hepatitis), and laboratory parameters [platelets, albumin, bilirubin, INR and alpha-1-fetoprotein (AFP)]. Results: We identified 416 patients who were initially treated with either A+B or D+T, with 327 patients receiving A+B and 89 patients receiving D+T. Of these, 336 patients (80.8%) subsequently received lenvatinib and 80 patients (19.2%) received cabozantinib. Baseline characteristics of demographic factors, clinical characteristics, and laboratory parameters were comparable between patients in the lenvatinib arm and cabozantinib arm with all standardized mean differences (SMD) < 0.10. After PSM, 76 patients were included in the analyses, with all variables adequately balanced. There was no significant difference in the risk of hospitalization between those receiving lenvatinib or cabozantinib at 3 months [31.6% vs 34%, odds ratio (OR) 1.13, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.57-2.2]. There was also no significant difference in mOS between those receiving lenvatinib and cabozantinib [9.5 vs 9.0 months, hazard ratio (HR) 1.03, 95% CI 0.62-1.7]. Conclusions: In patients with HCC who received lenvatinib or cabozantinib as second-line therapy following first-line ICI combination therapy, we found no significant differences in rate of hospitalization or survival. These findings suggest that either option may be appropriate, and decisions may be based in side effect profile and patient preferences. Prospective studies will be important to further assess differences in patient outcomes.

4163 Background: Standard first-line systemic therapy for hepatocellular carcinoma involves immune checkpoint inhibitors, including A+B and the STRIDE regimen consisting of D+T. However, there is limited data comparing outcomes of patients receiving these two regimens. We aimed to compare the survival and safety profiles of patients receiving A+B versus D+T as first-line systemic therapy for advanced HCC in a propensity score matched analysis. Methods: We performed a retrospective cohort study using data from TriNetX, a healthcare database of over 150 million patients in the United States. We identified adult patients with a history of HCC and included those who received A+B or D+T as first line treatment. Propensity score matching (PSM) was conducted, matching for patient demographics (age, sex, race), clinical history (alcohol use, ascites, esophageal varices, viral hepatitis), and laboratory parameters [platelets, albumin, bilirubin, INR, alpha-1-fetoprotein (AFP)]. Median overall survival (mOS) and relevant patient safety events were compared between those who received A+B or D+T. Results: We identified 2,762 patients who had HCC who were treated with A+B or D+T, of which 2,030 patients received A+B and 723 patients received D+T. Compared to patients in the A+B cohort, those who received D+T were more often older (68.5 vs 66.9 years, standardized mean difference (SMD) = 0.17), had lower platelet counts (186.4 vs 198.6, SMD = 0.11), had higher prevalence of ascites (33.1% vs 20.3%, SMD = 0.29), and alcohol use (23.8% vs 18.8%, SMD = 0.12). After PSM, 723 patients were included in survival analyses, with all variables adequately balanced except for albumin, which was higher in the A+B group (3.6 vs 3.5, SMD = 0.19). At 90 days after starting therapy, D+T was associated with higher incidence of immune-mediated colitis [5.3% vs 2.6%, odds ratio (OR) 2.1; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.2-3.7], and a higher risk of hospitalization [35.4% vs 27.9%, OR 1.4; 95% CI, 1.1-1.8]. At 6 months, the risk of hypertension and proteinuria was higher in the A+B cohort [21.9% vs 13.7%, OR 0.57; 95% CI, 0.34-0.95], which persisted at 1 year [28.1% vs 16.5%, OR 0.51; 95% CI, 0.32-0.81]. There was no significant difference in mOS between those receiving A+B or D+T [18.3 months vs 22.8 months, hazard ratio (HR) 0.94; 95% CI, 0.79-1.1]. Conclusions: In patients with advanced HCC who received A+B or D+T as first-line systemic therapy, we found that A+B was associated with higher risk of hypertension and proteinuria, while D+T was associated with a higher risk of immune-mediated colitis and hospitalization. No significant difference in mOS was observed between the cohorts. These findings suggest that safety profiles, rather than survival differences, may be used to guide optimal first-line treatment regimens. Prospective studies are warranted to further assess differences in patient outcomes.

12007 Background: YAs with cancer, defined as those diagnosed prior to the age of 40, may experience greater symptom burden compared to those diagnosed at older ages. We evaluated the impact of an ePROM-triggered, CC-based, supportive care intervention on symptom burden in YAs with cancer. Methods: The Enhanced, Electronic Health Record-facilitated Cancer Symptom Control (E2C2) trial was a cluster-randomized, pragmatic trial (NCT03892967) that enrolled oncology patients seen at Mayo Clinic Rochester and within the Mayo Clinic Health System (sites in Minnesota and Wisconsin) between March 2019 and January 2023. Patients routinely reported the severity of six SPPADE symptoms (Sleep deficit, Pain, Physical function impairment, Anxiety, Depression, and Energy deficit/fatigue) on 11-point numerical rating scales. Symptom severity was classified as none to mild (0-3), moderate (4-6), or severe (7-10). Those with moderate or severe symptoms were offered symptom management education, while those with severe symptoms were also offered the option to work virtually with a symptom care manager. In this post hoc analysis, we examined the effects of the intervention on change in symptom scores among YAs and time to improvement to a mild/moderate level in those with at least one severe symptom. Results: Among 40,659 patients who responded to at least one survey, 2,598 were YAs and 38,061 were adults ≥ 40 years. Among YAs, 10.7%, 24.3%, and 65.1% were 18-24 years, 25-31 years, and 32-39 years, respectively. A greater proportion of YA patients were female (61.5% vs 57.0%), of a non-white race (12.4% vs 5.3%), living in an urban setting (65.7% vs 55.1%), single (36.4% vs 9.6%), on non-government insurance (78.1% vs 36.6%), employed (72.6% vs 37.4%), and had a Bachelor’s degree or greater (37.8% vs 28.3%, p < 0.001 for all). Fewer YA patients had metastatic disease compared to older patients (24.2% vs 35.2%, p < 0.001). Compared to a pre-intervention baseline, the mean change in symptom score for YA patients following the intervention demonstrated improvements in anxiety (-0.195) and depression (-0.168, p < 0.0001 for both), while physical function impairment worsened over the intervention period (0.101, p = 0.014). Compared to adults ≥ 40 years, YAs experienced greater intervention effects for management of depression ( p < 0.001), fatigue ( p = 0.01), pain ( p < 0.0001), and physical function impairment ( p < 0.0001). Among YAs with a severe symptom during the intervention period, median time to improvement to a mild/moderate level was longer for anxiety compared to those ≥ 40 years (3.5 vs 2.7 months, p = 0.009). Conclusions: Routine ePROM surveillance, coupled with CC-based symptom management, led to improvements in anxiety and depression among YAs with cancer, although, time to improvement was longer for anxiety compared to adults ≥ 40 years.

Abstract Background The incidence of gastroesophageal cancer diagnosed at ages younger than 50 years is increasing. Assessment of the clinicopathologic and molecular characteristics of these cancers is limited currently. Methods This analysis used Tempus’ clinicogenomic database to compare patients diagnosed with gastroesophageal cancer at ages younger than 50 vs 50 years and older who completed tumor molecular profiling between December 2017 and July 2024. The spectrum of biomarkers, somatic alterations, and germline alterations were compared between those diagnosed with gastroesophageal cancer at ages younger than 50 years and those aged 50 years and older, and a multivariate analysis was conducted to identify factors associated with longer survival. Results Among 5863 gastroesophageal cancer patients, 785 had gastroesophageal cancer diagnosed at ages younger than 50 years. There were more females (35% vs 25%, P &lt; .001) and fewer White patients (69% vs 80%, P &lt; .001) with gastroesophageal cancer at ages younger than 50 years. Fewer tumors of patients with gastroesophageal cancer at ages younger than 50 years had high tumor mutational burden (3.2% vs 10.2%, P &lt; .001) or high microsatellite instability (1.7% vs 5.1%, P &lt; .001), but there was no difference in PD-L1 positivity (49% vs 51%, P = .3). Higher incidence of somatic CDH1 mutations was seen in those with gastroesophageal cancer at ages younger than 50 years (16.1% vs 6.6%, q &lt; 0.001) with lower incidence of TP53 (65.6% vs 74.1%), CDKN2A (12.5% vs 19.8%), and KRAS (11.7% vs 18.3%, P &lt; .001 for all) alterations. The most statistically significant germline difference was higher incidence of CDH1 (2.2% vs 0.3%, q = 0.001) and TP53 (0.6% vs 0%, q = 0.039) alterations among those with gastroesophageal cancer at ages younger than 50 years. Median survival for patients with metastatic disease was longer for gastroesophageal cancer at ages younger than 50 years (11 vs 8.5 months, P = .002), and gastroesophageal cancer at ages younger than 50 years, ERBB2 amplification, and high microsatellite instability were associated with superior survival. Conclusions Unique molecular and germline profiles were seen in patients with gastroesophageal cancer at ages younger than 50 years, which may suggest differences in causal factors yet undiscovered.

The treatment paradigm for deficient mismatch repair (dMMR) colorectal cancer (CRC) has evolved substantially in recent years. Universal mismatch repair testing and broad use of next-generation sequencing have increased the detection of dMMR tumours, which exhibit microsatellite instability-high (MSI-H), hypermutation and abundant neoantigens. The presence of dMMR/MSI-H serves as a robust predictive biomarker for immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy, which has demonstrated superior efficacy to cytotoxic chemotherapy in the metastatic setting and led to the first tumour-agnostic Food and Drug Administration approval in 2017 for metastatic dMMR/MSI-H solid tumours. Recent evidence also supports the benefit of ICIs in non-metastatic dMMR CRC. Neoadjuvant immunotherapy has produced high rates of pathological response in both colon and rectal cancers. In locally advanced dMMR rectal cancer, ICI therapy has enabled omission of chemoradiation and surgery in most patients. In resected node-positive dMMR colon cancer, the addition of ICI therapy to chemotherapy has substantially improved disease-free survival, expanding its role earlier in the disease course. Despite these advances, the optimal treatment strategy for non-metastatic dMMR CRC remains undefined due to the lack of direct comparative studies. Importantly, a subset of patients derives limited or no benefit from ICIs despite dMMR/MSI-H status, underscoring the need to further elucidate resistance mechanisms and to develop strategies to overcome them.

733 Background: Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RA) have advanced the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) yet their association with cancer risk remains subject of ongoing research. While case reports and pharmacovigilance data have linked GLP-1RA’s to pancreatitis, large randomized trials and observational studies have not consistently shown an increased risk of pancreatic cancer. Chronic pancreatitis (CP) is a well-established risk factor for pancreatic cancer, yet the impact of GLP-1 RA therapy in this high-risk population is unknown. In this study, we aim to evaluate the association between GLP-1 RA use and pancreatic cancer incidence among patients with CP, and among those with CP and T2DM. Methods: We performed a retrospective cohort study using ICD-10 codes within TriNetX, a healthcare database of over 150 million patients in the United States. In the first analysis, adult patients with pre-existing CP were identified, and the 5-year incidence of pancreatic cancer between GLP-1 RA (semaglutide, dulaglutide, tirzepatide, exenatide, liraglutide, and lixisenatide) users and non-users was compared from 2015-2025. In the subsequent analysis, we restricted the cohort to adults with CP and T2DM and repeated the comparison. Patients with prior diagnosis of pancreatic cancer were excluded from both analyses. All cohorts were propensity score matched (PSM) on age, sex, race, tobacco use, alcohol use, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, obesity, and pancreatic cysts. Results: We identified 95,391 with CP, including 3,139 GLP-1 RA users and 92,252 non-users. After PSM, GLP-1 RA use was associated with a lower incidence of pancreatic cancer (0.6% vs. 1.5%, OR 0.39 [0.22, 0.67]). Similarly, amongst patients with CP and T2DM, GLP-1 RA use was associated with a lower incidence of pancreatic cancer (0.7% vs. 1.6%, OR 0.44 [0.25, 0.75]). Conclusions: GLP-1 RA use was associated with a significantly reduced incidence of pancreatic cancer in all patients with CP and in those with CP and T2DM. Given the elevated cancer risk in CP, these findings suggest a potential protective effect of GLP-1RA use in this high risk population. Prospective studies will be important to further analyze and confirm this potential benefit.

64 Background: The incidence of eoCRC (diagnosed at age <50) is increasing. We have previously shown higher rates of severe anxiety and depression in this group compared to adults diagnosed at age ≥50 (average-onset CRC, aoCRC). We assessed the impact of ePROM collection coupled with a CC-based supportive care intervention on symptom burden in patients with eoCRC. Methods: The Enhanced, EHR-facilitated Cancer Symptom Control (E2C2) trial was a cluster-randomized, pragmatic trial conducted at Mayo Clinic Rochester and within the Mayo Clinic Health System (in Minnesota and Wisconsin) between 2019 and 2023. Enrolled patients serially reported the severity of six SPPADE symptoms (Sleep deficit, Pain, Physical function impairment, Anxiety, Depression, and Energy deficit/fatigue) on 11-point numerical rating scales. Symptom scores were interpreted as none to mild (0-3), moderate (4-6), or severe (7-10). Those with moderate symptoms were offered symptom management education and self-management materials, while those with severe symptoms were offered the option to work with a symptom care manager. In this post hoc analysis we examined the effects of the intervention on change in symptom scores among those with eoCRC, and using the Kaplan-Meier method, the median time to improvement to a mild/moderate level in those with a severe symptom, comparing eoCRC with aoCRC. Results: Among 4,422 patients with CRC, 887 had eoCRC. Forty-six percent of patients were female ( p =0.61), and a greater proportion of eoCRC patients were of a non-white race (11.6% vs 4.7%), lived in an urban setting (65.6% vs 50.5%), had a Bachelor’s degree or higher (36.8% vs 24.4%), were employed (78.5% vs 36.7%), on a non-government insurance plan (83.4% vs 35.3%), single (19.7% vs 11.2%) or married (74.2% vs 67.9%), and had metastatic disease (54.8% vs 46.1%, p <0.0001 for all). Compared to a pre-intervention baseline, the mean change in symptom scores for eoCRC patients following the intervention demonstrated improvements in anxiety (-0.238), depression (-0.134), and fatigue (-0.146, p <0.05 for all). Time to symptom improvement from severe to mild/moderate was longer for anxiety and depression in eoCRC patients compared to aoCRC patients (Table 1). Conclusions: Collection of ePROMs coupled with a CC-based intervention led to improvements in anxiety, depression, and fatigue among eoCRC patients, although time to symptom improvement was longer among eoCRC patients compared to aoCRC patients. Time to improvement of severe symptom (months), median (95% CI). eoCRC aoCRC p -value Sleep 4.2 (3.1-5.8) 3.8 (2.7-5.4) 0.4 Pain 4.1 (3.0-7.5) 3.2 (2.3-5.0) 0.5 Physical function impairment 3.1 (1.9-6.3) 2.8 (2.2-4.2) 0.5 Anxiety 4.3 (3.4-9.1) 2.6 (2.0-3.5) 0.009 Depression 4.3 (2.6-7.5) 2.6 (2.1-3.5) 0.04 Fatigue 4.3 (3.7-9.5) 3.4 (2.7-4.2) 0.06