Tan, Winston

e17027 Background: Guidelines recommend active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer and definitive therapy for high-risk disease. We evaluated national patterns of risk-misaligned care and the survival consequences of undertreatment. Methods: National Cancer Database prostate cancer cases diagnosed from 2010–2022 were analyzed. Low-risk disease was defined as clinical T1–T2, Grade Group 1, and PSA < 10; overtreatment was definitive treatment vs active surveillance or no treatment. High-risk disease was defined as Grade Group ≥4, PSA ≥20, or clinical T3–T4; undertreatment was no definitive local therapy or incomplete definitive therapy. Multivariable logistic regression evaluated factors associated with misalignment. Overall survival (OS) among high-risk patients was assessed using multivariable Cox regression. Results: Among low-risk patients (N = 124,562), overtreatment occurred in 40% of cases. Overtreatment was more common among young men (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.982; p < 0.001) and less common at academic centers (aOR 0.414; p = 0.015). Compared with White men, odds of overtreatment were lower among Black men (aOR 0.946; p = 0.002) and Asian men (aOR 0.827; p < 0.001), with additional variation by education and region (all p < 0.001). Among high-risk patients (N = 318,532), undertreatment affected 27.3% of patients and was more common among older men (aOR 1.061; p < 0.001). Compared with White men, undertreatment was higher among Black men (aOR 1.479; p < 0.001) and lower among Asian patients (aOR 0.863; p < 0.001) (overall race p < 0.001). Compared with private insurance, undertreatment was higher in Medicaid (aOR 2.038; p < 0.001) and uninsured patients (aOR 2.649; p < 0.001), and slightly lower with Medicare (aOR 0.931; p < 0.001) (overall insurance p < 0.001). Multiple comorbidities were associated with higher undertreatment (≥2 vs 0: aOR 1.252; p < 0.001). Facility type was not independently associated (p = 0.490), while region remained significant (overall p < 0.001). In the survival cohort (high risk) (N = 338,919), undertreatment was associated with substantially worse OS (HR 2.745, 95% CI 2.706–2.784; p < 0.001), adjusted for age (HR 1.056; p < 0.001), race (p = 0.001), insurance (p < 0.001), comorbidity (p < 0.001), income (overall p < 0.001), education (overall p < 0.001), and facility region (overall p < 0.001). Conclusions: Low-risk overtreatment remains common nationwide and varies across patient and health-system factors. In high-risk disease, undertreatment affects over one-quarter of patients and disproportionately impacts Black men and those with Medicaid or no insurance. Undertreatment confers a nearly threefold mortality hazard (adjusted HR 2.75; p < 0.001), highlighting a major national quality gap and the urgent need for system-level interventions to ensure equitable, guideline-concordant delivery of definitive therapy.

e13611 Background: Decentralized cancer care models may reduce treatment burden for patients with advanced prostate cancer (CaP), particularly those facing mobility, transportation, of scheduling challenges. However, prospective patient-reported experience and quality-of-life data comparing home- versus clinic-based oncology care remain limited. Mayo Clinic Cancer CARE Beyond Walls (CCBW) is a patient-centered program designed to deliver selected standard-of-care cancer therapies in the home with virtual clinical oversight. This observational study evaluated patient-reported experience, feasibility, safety, and quality of life among men with advanced or metastatic CaP receiving care at home. Methods: Men with advanced/metastatic CaP receiving active standard-of-care therapy including hormone-based treatments, oral anticancer therapies, anti-bone resorptive agents, or intravenous chemotherapy who were participating in a CCBW randomized trial were enrolled into a companion observational study. After confirmation of treatment tolerance in clinic, patients received home-based care for 24 weeks (Arm A) or in-clinic care for 8 weeks followed by home-based care for 16 weeks (Arm B). Patient-reported outcomes were collected at baseline and Weeks 8, 16, and 24, using CAHPS-based measures and CCBW-specific surveys assessing overall cancer care experience, patient preference for site of care, comfort with home infusions, functional/symptom assessment and quality of life. Descriptive analyses were performed. Results: Eighteen participants were analyzed (Arm A n = 10; Arm B n = 8). Participants were medically stable, and predominantly insured by Medicare. Survey completion was 100% at baseline and 83% at all follow-up time points. At Weeks 16 and 24 when all respondents had received home-based care, 100% and 92% reported being “quite a bit” or “very much” comfortable receiving treatment at home. Communication with at-home and remote nursing teams was rated highly, and most respondents reported transition, scheduling, and equipment use easy or very easy. At Weeks 16 and 24, 45% and 40% of respondents reported improved quality of life from receiving home-based care, with no reports of worsening. No emergency department visits, hospitalizations, or urgent care visits occurred in either arm. Conclusions: In this prospective, observational study, home-based oncology care delivered through CCBW was feasible, safe, and associated with high patient satisfaction among men with advanced CaP receiving diverse systemic therapies. These findings support further evaluation and expansion of decentralized care integrating home-based treatment with virtual clinical oversight.

9558 Background: Ipilimumab 3 mg/kg plus nivolumab 1 mg/kg (Ipi3+Nivo1) is the standard immunotherapy regimen for metastatic melanoma with brain metastases (MBM) but is associated with significant immune-related toxicity, particularly neurologic toxicity. Ipilimumab 1 mg/kg plus nivolumab 3 mg/kg (Ipi1+Nivo3) has demonstrated improved tolerability in extracranial melanoma, though comparative data in MBM are limited. We compared efficacy and toxicity of these dosing strategies in a multisite real-world cohort. Methods: We retrospectively identified patients with MBM treated with ipilimumab plus nivolumab across three Mayo Clinic sites between 2016 and 2024. Patients were classified by induction dosing as Ipi1+Nivo3 or Ipi3+Nivo1. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were estimated using the Kaplan–Meier method and compared using log-rank tests. Best overall response (BOR) and toxicity outcomes were summarized descriptively. Results: Among 147 patients (Ipi1+Nivo3 n=32; Ipi3+Nivo1 n=115), 144 were evaluable for survival. Median age was higher in the Ipi1+Nivo3 group (69.5 vs 66.0 years); males predominated in both groups (71.9% vs 61.7%), and the cohort was predominantly White (>96%). Most patients had ECOG 0–1 in both groups (84.4% in Ipi1+ Nivo3 and 90.4% in Ipi3+Nivo1). BRAF mutation status was balanced between regimens, with approximately half of patients harboring BRAF-mutant disease (51.6% vs 53.2%). Median OS was 18.5 months (95% CI, 5.7–54.7) with Ipi1+Nivo3 versus 10.6 months (95% CI, 6.5–19.1) with Ipi3+Nivo1 (log-rank p=0.25). Two-year OS was 45.9% and 35.0%, and five-year OS was 24.5% and 19.2%, respectively. Median PFS was 7.3 months (95% CI, 1.8–10.9) versus 2.8 months (95% CI, 2.1–4.4) (log-rank p=0.16). BOR was available for 138 patients; objective response rates were 35.5% and 31.8%, respectively. 3–5 adverse events occurred in 24.1% of Ipi1+Nivo3 versus 30.5% of Ipi3+Nivo1 patients. Hospitalizations were less frequent (16.7% vs 36.1%), and neurologic adverse events occurred only with Ipi3+Nivo1 (11.9% vs 0%). Conclusions: In this multisite real-world MBM cohort, Ipi1+Nivo3 demonstrated comparable efficacy, numerically longer survival, and a more favorable toxicity profile compared with standard Ipi3+Nivo1. Notably, no neurologic toxicity was observed with the Ipi1+Nivo3 regimen. These findings support further prospective evaluation of lower dose ipilimumab strategies. Response and survival outcomes. Outcome Ipi1 + Nivo3 Ipi3 + Nivo1 Complete response (CR) 2 / 31 (6.5%) 8 / 107 (7.5%) Partial response (PR) 9 / 31 (29.0%) 26 / 107 (24.3%) Objective response rate (ORR = CR+PR) 11 / 31 (35.5%) 34 / 107 (31.8%) Disease control rate (DCR = CR+PR+SD) 18 / 31 (58.1%) 51 / 107 (47.7%) Median PFS, months (95% CI) 7.3 (1.8–10.9) 2.8 (2.1–4.4) 2-year PFS 27.6% 22.3% Median OS, months (95% CI) 18.5 (5.7–54.7) 10.6 (6.5–19.1) 2-year OS 45.9% 35.0% 5-year OS 24.5% 19.2%

Abstract Medical advancements with immunotherapy have cured some patients with previously incurable metastatic renal cancer. We present the case of a 74-year-old male metastatic renal cancer patient who received only one dose of the combination of ipilimumab with nivolumab. In response to his treatment, he developed autoimmune hepatitis, myasthenia, myositis, and myocarditis. Although these serious side effects are considered to rarely occur, they can quickly become life-threatening and even fatal. These immune-related adverse events (irAEs) may further develop into secondary life-threatening symptoms such as respiratory failure due to advanced myasthenia; cardiotoxicity of myocarditis with possible cardiogenic shock, cardiac arrest, and severe heart failure; and liver failure consequently from autoimmune hepatitis. Furthermore, the ability for physicians to detect immunotherapy toxicity early is extremely important in intervening in a timely manner to avoid lethal conditions for the patient. With patients receiving immunotherapy, communication, collaboration, and multidisciplinary care are essential. Any subtle or sudden changes in their health status or symptoms should prompt further investigation. It is our purpose to highlight this patient to raise awareness of toxicity to significantly reduce the fatality rates and increase the therapy’s success rate in the years to come. Citation Format: Orianna Guarisma-Lugo, Roderick Brice, Samuel Ramirez, Winston W. Tan. The unique presentation of four immunotherapy toxicities in a single patient [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2026; Part 1 (Regular Abstracts); 2026 Apr 17-22; San Diego, CA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2026;86(7 Suppl):Abstract nr 3803.

Abstract Background: Second generation androgen receptor signaling inhibitors (ARSIs), such as abiraterone, have demonstrated improved survival in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) patients, however, acquired resistance to these agents often arises. Novel and alternative therapies are needed to combat the ARSI resistant tumor. In the last two decades patient-derived xenograft (PDX) and PDX organoids have become pivotal models in anticancer drug development and biomarker discovery due to their ability to faithfully recapitulate the complex and heterogeneous tumor biology. Methods: We analyzed RNAseq data from mCRPC patients and corresponding PDX models (PROMOTE study, NCT #01953640) and employed L1000 Chem Perturbation down/up signatures database to find candidate drugs to overcome abiraterone resistance by reverse signature search. We then performed proliferation assay using 49 compounds in three PROMOTE-PDX organoid models (2 abiraterone-resistant and 1 abiraterone-sensitive) using our semi high-throughput drug screening platform. Results: Overall, we identified a total of 32 compounds with IC50&lt;10µM in at least one of the models, among which, 5 agents are active in all three models and 5 in at least two of the models. (Table 1). Within active compounds we find selective kinase inhibitors (BRAF, JAK2, AKT, FLT3) and histone deacetylase inhibitors (belinostat and pracinostat). Particularly interesting are two drugs that are only active in the abiraterone resistant setting but not the sensitive PDX. Conclusions: In summary, we leveraged RNAseq data from mCRPC patients and PDX models and performed a high-throughput drug screen in PDX-derived organoid models to identify potential drugs that could overcome abiraterone-resistance in lethal advanced prostate cancer. These data highlight potential drug combinations or subsequent therapeutic strategies for these patients. Citation Format: Irene Marín-Goñi, Huanyao Gao, Joachim L. Petit, Shreya Indulkar, Adam M. Kase, Cassandra N. Moore, Krishna R. Kalari, Michael T. Barrett, Richard Weinshilboum, Winston Tan, John A. Copland, Liewei Wang. Overcoming resistance in mCRPC: drug discovery using PDX models and high-throughput drug screening [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2025; Part 1 (Regular Abstracts); 2025 Apr 25-30; Chicago, IL. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2025;85(8_Suppl_1):Abstract nr 5658.

Background Novel treatment options are required in patients with platinum-resistant ovarian cancer (PROC). Myeloid-derived suppressor cells promote a hostile tumor microenvironment and are associated with worse clinical outcomes in PROC. We evaluated the safety and preliminary efficacy of PY159, an agonist antibody to Triggering receptor expressed on myeloid cells-1 (TREM1) that reprograms immunosuppressive intratumoral myeloid cells, and PY314, an antagonist antibody to Triggering receptor expressed on myeloid cells-2 (TREM2) that depletes tumor-associated macrophages, as single agents and in combination with pembrolizumab in subjects with PROC. Methods PY159 and PY314 were individually evaluated in patients with PROC. Patients were treated with monotherapy (PY159 3 mg/kg or PY314 10 mg/kg), based on the recommended dose for expansion derived from the phase 1a studies. At the time of first progression, patients could continue study drug and crossover to combination therapy with pembrolizumab (200 mg) every 3 weeks at the discretion of the investigator. Disease assessment by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumor version 1.1 was performed every 6 weeks. Results 17 patients were enrolled in the PY159 study (median age 67, range 22–77; median prior therapies 6, range 2–18) and 16 patients in PY314 (median age 65.5, range 49–81; median prior therapies 4, range 2–10). 7 patients in PY159 and 8 patients in PY314 crossed over to combination therapy. Safety events included the following: treatment-related adverse events occurred in 15 patients (88.2%) in PY159 and 9 patients (56.3%) in PY314. Infusion-related reactions occurred in 6 patients (35.3%) in PY159 and 3 patients (18.8%) in PY314. Immune-related adverse events occurred in 13 patients (76.5%) in PY159 (arthralgias) and 1 patient (6.3%) in PY314 (diarrhea). Serious adverse events occurred in 6 patients (36.3%) in PY159 (1 related) and 12 patients (75%) in PY314 (all unrelated). The best radiographic response in PY159 was stable disease in 8/16 patients (50%; median 16 weeks, range 9–33), and in PY314, it was stable disease in 8/16 patients (50%; median 12 weeks, range 6–36). Median PFS was 2.76 months and 2.69 months in PY159 and PY314, respectively. There were no responses in the crossover arm. Conclusions Both PY159 and PY314 were well tolerated, with an acceptable safety profile, as both single agents and in combination with pembrolizumab. Both agents warrant further investigation in heavily pretreated PROC.

537 Background: Translocation renal cell carcinoma (tRCC) is a rare renal cell carcinoma subtype found in about 1-4% of adult patients with RCC and 40% of pediatric RCC cases. Management of advanced tRCC has been guided by clear cell RCC therapy and retrospective reviews which include tRCC cohorts. Novel therapeutic strategies are needed to improve outcomes. This study assessed an individualized neoantigen vaccine with nivolumab plus cabozantinib in a patient with metastatic TFE3-tRCC. Methods: Patient was consented (IRB# 20-011945) for a single-patient investigational new drug (IND#27755). In-house neoantigen prediction bioinformatics pipeline (REAL-neo v2.0) was performed to identify and prioritize neoantigen candidates. Patient underwent lymphodepletion with cyclophosphamide followed by vaccine administration on days 1, 4, 8, 11, 20, 40, week 12, and week 20. Patient was also treated with concurrent nivolumab 480 mg every 4 weeks and cabozantinib 40 mg daily. Objective response rate (ORR) and progression-free survival (PFS) were measured. Results: Patient was diagnosed with TFE3-tRCC and underwent nephrectomy prior to developing metastatic disease. He was treated with multiple liver surgeries, ablations, and radiation therapy without systemic therapy. This controlled his disease for 7 years before he required systemic therapy with ipilimumab plus nivolumab. After 4 cycles, imaging showed progression and was started on cabozantinib which controlled his disease for 1 year. Patient was consented for the neoantigen vaccine. Cycle 1 was administered in April 2022. Three liver lesions and 1 periportal lymph node were monitored. After 4 months of therapy, imaging showed partial response with 34% decrease in sum of target lesions. In June 2023, partial response was ongoing with a 57.4% decrease. A 2 nd vaccine series was administered in June 2023 and had stable disease until progression in June 2024 when patient held his cabozantinib for at least 4 weeks. Neoantigen combination therapy achieved a progression-free survival of 26 months and was well tolerated without significant vaccine-related adverse events. Conclusions: Individualized neoantigen vaccine plus nivolumab and cabozantinib achieved a durable partial response with prolonged progression-free survival. A randomized clinical trial is warranted to further evaluate the efficacy of this combination therapy.

TPS2700 Background: Though immunotherapy with anti-PD-1 immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) has led to improvements in clinical outcomes in patients with cancer, when used as monotherapy in the advanced setting, only 18-25% of patients respond to ICI. Notably, ICI frequently lacks anti-tumor activity in immune-cold cancers where T cell priming is missing. Recent breakthroughs in identifying personal neoantigens via a comprehensive analysis of cancer sequencing data have brought increased attention to neoantigen cancer vaccines. Personalized cancer vaccines targeting neoantigens have shown early promise. While neoantigens have recently been investigated in some cancer types, the current neoantigen prediction algorithms have often focused on the MHC class-I subtype, single nucleotide mutations (SNM), small insertions and deletions (INDEL). We recently developed an informatics workflow, REAL-neo, for the identification, quality control (QC), and prioritization of both class-I and class-II human leukocyte antigen (HLA) bound neoantigens that arise from somatic SNM, INDEL, aberrant RNA splicing, and gene fusions, generating much more potent neoantigen candidates. Furthermore, we demonstrated robust T-cell response and prolonged survival by combining ICI and cancer vaccines in preclinical models. This single-arm phase I clinical trial is in progress to assess the safety, feasibility, and immunogenicity of personalized neoantigen vaccines in combination with pembrolizumab in patients with advanced solid cancers. Methods: The vaccine consists of up to 20 peptides (15-30 mer) comprising patient-specific neoantigens identified from tumor DNA and mRNA sequencing data using REAL-neo and delivered with GM-CSF as an adjuvant. The first cohort of three patients will be treated at dose level 1 consisting of 4 or 5 peptides at 300 mcg/peptide and GM-CSF 125 mcg per injection site in each of four limbs. After Cohort 1 is deemed safe, the study will expand to cohort 2, when patients will be enrolled at the same dose level for vaccine plus Pembrolizumab 200 mg i.v. Neoantigen vaccine will be given via subcutaneous injection on days 1, 4, 8, 15, and 21 (cohorts 1 and 2) and weeks 5 and 8 (booster dose for cohort 2 only). Cohort 1 has been completed without dose-limiting toxicity (DLT). Enrollment in Cohort 2 began in January 2024. AEs are assessed according to CTCAE v5. and safety findings are reviewed by data safety medical board (DSMB). Key eligibility criteria include 1) histologically confirmed locally advanced or metastatic solid malignancies and 2) cancer progression after at least one line of the standard-of-care (SOC) systemic treatment. For cohort 2, patients must be eligible to receive pembrolizumab per SOC or the treating physician’s judgment. Clinical trial information: NCT05269381 .

TPS5108 Background: Penile cancer is a devastating malignancy that affects just over 2000 patients per year in the United States and approximately 40,000 worldwide. Metastatic or unresectable penile cancer is rapidly fatal in most cases and there are few effective systemic therapy options.1 There is an urgent need for alternatives to chemotherapy such as immunotherapy or targeted therapy. Enfortumab vedotin (EV) is an antibody-drug conjugate targeting nectin-4 protein on the tumor cell surface and having efficacy in treatment of metastatic urothelial carcinoma.2 Recent studies have demonstrated frequent and strong expression of nectin-4 in penile squamous cell carcinoma (PSCC).3,4 In this setting, Mayo Clinic is leading a phase II trial of EV for advanced PSCC, currently in progress. Methods: This single arm, open-label, two-stage, phase II trial evaluates best overall response rate (BRR) to EV in patients with PSCC regional lymph node involvement or distant metastatic (M1) disease. Participants may have had any prior systemic therapy or be treatment naïve. Previously untreated patients must be ineligible for or have refused surgery or radiotherapy, have N2-N3 disease and are ineligible for or have refused neoadjuvant chemotherapy, or have clinical evidence of M1 disease. Participants will receive treatment with EV until disease progression, withdrawal, death, or limiting toxicity. Participants will receive EV 1.25 mg/kg intravenous on days 1, 8, and 15 of a 28-day cycle, with tumor assessment performed at 8-week intervals. The primary endpoint is the combined BRR of partial and complete responses (whether confirmed or unconfirmed) according to RECIST 1.1. Secondary endpoints are confirmed response rate, duration of response, progression-free survival, overall survival, adverse events, and BRR in HPV related and unrelated subgroups. Stage 1 will consist of 15 participants, and if there are 2 or more responses will proceed to Stage 2 with an additional 10 participants. The trial opened to enrollment in December 2023, and is active at Mayo Clinic sites in Minnesota, Arizona, and Florida. Clinical trial information: Funding and drug supplied by Astellas Pharma Global Development, Inc./Seagen Inc. NCT06104618. 1. Chahoud J, et al., Curr Opin Urol. 2022 Jan 1;32(1):8-16. 2. Powles T, et al. N Engl J Med. 2021 Mar 25;384(12):1125-1135. 3. Tekin B, et al. Hum Pathol. 2023 Dec;142:42-50. 4. Grass GD, et al. Eur Urol Open Sci. 2023 Jan 10;49:1-5. Clinical trial information: NCT06104618 .

e23269 Background: Most cases of malignant melanoma are cutaneous, with ≈50% having a BRAF driver mutation that predicts response to MAPK pathway inhibitors. A small minority of melanoma cases harbor an activating KIT mutation, most notably in mucosal and acral melanomas (15-20%) and occasionally in those arising from chronic sun-damaged skin (2-3%). Only about a third of KIT mutated melanomas respond to targeted therapy with Imatinib, yet data is scarce and limited, especially in older patients. We sought to characterize the efficacy and toxicity of Imatinib in KIT-mutated melanoma patients over 65. Methods: We identified electronic medical records of patients over 65 that were treated with Imatinib for KIT mutated melanoma at our institution over the years 2017-2023. Data was retrospectively collected including demographics, disease characteristics, response patterns and toxicity. Results: 10 patients were identified, 50% were males. The median age at treatment initiation was 75 years (71-100). 3 patients had cutaneous primary, 3 had Vulvar/vaginal primary, 3 had acral primary and 1 had anal canal primary. All patients had normal Lactate dehydrogenase at treatment initiation and ECOG performance status was 0-2 (median 0). 9 patients received Imatinib for stage IV disease with an overall response rate (ORR) of 55% (44% partial response, 11% complete response). Median duration of response was 4 months. Responses were seen in acral melanoma (67%), vulvar/vaginal melanoma (67%) and cutaneous melanoma (33%). Median Progression free survival was 4.3 months (1.8-44), median overall survival from treatment initiation was 22.6 months (4-64). 6 patients were treated as 2nd line with an ORR of 67% and 3 were treated as 3rd line with an ORR of 33%. There was one patient with M1d disease who did not respond to treatment either systematically or intracranially. 6 patients had Exon 11 mutations (V560D/G/E, N564S and L576P) of which 4 responded (67%). 2 had Exon 17 mutations (N822C/K) of which 1 responded (50%) and the 2 others had an Exon 14 (F681I) and Exon 13 (K642E) mutation that did not respond to treatment at all. Toxicity was moderate with 90% of patients experiencing any grade AE, yet only 1 experienced toxicity requiring dose interruption with two Grade 3 toxicities - Pneumonitis and decreased neutrophil count, leading to temporary treatment interruption, dose reduction and a course of corticosteroids. The rest of the patients experienced only Grade 1-2 toxicity. 4 patients needed dose reductions, there were no treatment discontinuations due to toxicity. Conclusions: Treatment with Imatinib for elderly KIT mutated melanoma patients is safe and well tolerated with no treatment discontinuations recorded. The response rate is encouraging yet seems to vary according to the KIT mutation present as previously reported. The duration of response is usually short-lived and alternative/combination treatments are still needed for this patient population.