Shi, Qian

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.

Background The optimal management of biochemical recurrence (BCR) after radical prostatectomy (RP) remains controversial, particularly in the absence of clinical or radiographic evidence of disease. Salvage radiotherapy (SRT) remains standard of care, but it is unclear whether SRT benefits patients when modern imaging with a multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) and prostate‐specific membrane antigen‐positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PSMA‐PET/CT) are negative for local recurrence. Retrospective data comparing SRT to observation for such patients is fraught with selection bias, underscoring the need for a prospective randomised controlled trial. Study Design and Methods The Biochemical Recurrence Irradiation or Observation (BRIO) is a randomised study under the DIVINE trial framework (NCT06378866) enrolling men with BCR (prostate‐specific antigen [PSA] level ≥0.2, up to 1.5 ng/mL) after RP with no radiographic evidence of recurrence on mpMRI and PSMA‐PET/CT. Major inclusion criteria include age ≥18 years, biochemically recurrent prostate cancer after RP with a PSA level between 0.2 and 1.5 ng/mL, and no local or metastatic recurrence on imaging. A total of 312 patients will be enrolled. Participants are randomised 1:1 to standard‐of‐care SRT followed by surveillance (Group A), or initial observation with subsequent image‐guided therapy at radiographic progression (Group B). Based on historical analysis, a total of 30 metastasis events provides 80% power to detect a significant improvement (hazard ratio 0.5 corresponding to a 5‐year metastasis‐free proportion of 80.7% in the control group and 89.8% in the experimental group with one‐sided type I error rate of 0.15). All participants undergo baseline blood collection to measure prostate cancer‐extracellular vesicles and cell‐free DNA for biomarker development. Participants are followed in a 16‐week cycle with serial PSA measurements, repeat imaging if PSA doubles, safety assessment, and patient‐reported outcomes. Endpoints The primary endpoint is distant recurrence‐free survival at 5‐years using a 12‐month landmark to mitigate bias arising from differing assessment schedules for patients receiving optional 6 months of androgen deprivation therapy. Key secondary outcomes include time to hormone therapy, quality of life measures, adverse effects, and novel blood and urine biomarkers. Conclusion The BRIO study will clarify the clinical benefit of immediate SRT vs observation with image‐guided intervention in mpMRI and PET‐negative BCR after RP.

Abstract Minimal residual disease (MRD) has been endorsed by the FDA Oncology Drugs Advisory Committee as an endpoint for accelerated approval in multiple myeloma based on individual patient data collected from randomized trials. However, emerging data from recent trials were not included. A novel artificial intelligence (AI)–assisted framework is proposed, which automates information identification and extraction, providing up-to-date analyses that confirm moderate trial-level and strong individual patient–level associations between MRD− rates at suspected complete response (MRD-CR) and survival endpoints in multiple myeloma. Specifically, this study utilized an AI-assisted framework that identifies relevant studies and filters critical information to analyze published data via 2 independent objectives. First, we examined the trial-level association using the coefficients of determination (R2) and its 95% confidence intervals (CI) based on published statistics of treatment effects on MRD and various endpoints. Next, we generated synthetic individual patient data with covariates through AI-curated tools to estimate the individual-level association. The AI tool searched for eligible randomized clinical trials (RCT). A total of 20 two-arm comparisons from 19 RCTs were analyzed. Trial-level analysis showed an R2 of 0.71 (95% CI, 0.52–0.89) pooling disease subpopulations. Furthermore, AI techniques were applied to create synthetic individual data, combining information extracted from Kaplan–Meier curves and subgroup analyses from published literatures. Using generated synthetic data, we estimated the individual-level correlation between MRD-CR rates and progression-free survival outcomes with a bivariate copula model and calculated a global odds ratio of 7.28 (95% CI, 5.60–8.95). Significance: (i) A novel AI-assisted framework is proposed, which automates information identification and extraction, providing rapid up-to-date analyses. (ii) Moderate trial-level and strong individual patient–level associations between MRD and various clinical endpoints in multiple myeloma are confirmed.

Abstract Background Surrogate endpoints are increasingly used as the basis of cancer drug approvals. A strong association between treatment effects on the surrogate and true endpoint is essential for their validation as reliable endpoints. We assess the current evidence of trial-level surrogacy for colorectal cancer (CRC) endpoints through a novel framework. Methods We developed a framework to grade the quality of oncology surrogate endpoints in 7 domains of the surrogate relationship: data source quality (A-B); disease setting homogeneity (0-3); uniformness of surrogate and true endpoint definitions (0-3); number of trials evaluated (0-4); and individual- (0-2) and trial-level associations (0-8). We screened PubMed using keywords and medical subject headings terms for meta-analyses published before July 6, 2024, validating surrogate endpoint associations across CRC trials. Two reviewers blindly assessed each article before reaching a consensus score. The main outcomes were framework-derived evidence scores and reported trial-level associations (R2) with overall survival. Results A total of 18 articles were identified, containing 39 evaluations of 12 unique surrogate endpoints for overall survival. Evidence scores ranged from B6 to A23. Only disease-free survival consistently demonstrated high-quality evidence of trial-level surrogacy (≥A18, median R2 = 0.92). Progression-free survival and objective response rate were low-quality surrogates in metastatic CRC (progression-free survival: B6-A15, median R2 = 0.55; objective response rate: B6-A13, median R2 = 0.33). Other evaluated endpoints were demonstrated to be unreliable surrogates. Conclusion Disease-free survival shows high-quality surrogacy in stage II-III colon cancer. Endpoints identified in the metastatic setting demonstrate inconsistent surrogacy evidence. Reassessment and identification of new endpoints are warranted, particularly with immunotherapy.

PURPOSE Detection of molecular residual disease using circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) may enable postoperative risk stratification and guide adjuvant therapy. We evaluated the prognostic value of a tissue-free, epigenomic ctDNA assay in patients with stage III colon cancer (CC) enrolled in a phase III adjuvant chemotherapy trial. METHODS Plasma samples were collected after surgery and before adjuvant infusional fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin alone or combined with cetuximab. ctDNA was analyzed using a tissue-free assay; in ctDNA-positive patients, tumor fraction (TF) was quantified and genotyping was performed with a 739-gene panel. Associations with disease-free survival (DFS), time to recurrence (TTR), and overall survival (OS) were assessed using multivariable Cox models adjusted for covariates. RESULTS Among 2,260 evaluable patients, 461 (20.4%) were ctDNA-positive with significantly higher detection in advanced T-/N-stage, high-grade, obstruction/perforation, and BRAF V600E tumors. At a median follow-up of 6.1 years, ctDNA positivity was independently associated with shorter TTR (hazard ratio [HR], 5.96 [95% CI, 5.11 to 6.96]), DFS (HR, 5.03 [95% CI, 4.36 to 5.81]), and OS (HR, 4.45 [95% CI, 3.76 to 5.27]; all P < .0001). The 5-year DFS was 27.7% (95% CI, 23.8 to 32.2) v 77.1% (95% CI, 75.1 to 79.1) in ctDNA-positive versus ctDNA-negative patients, and adverse prognostic impact was greater in lower T/N stage, low-risk, and dMMR subsets (interaction P = .0012-.041). Among ctDNA-positive patients, TF was nearly double in those who recurred or died ( P = .0002) and stratified patients for TTR, DFS, and OS (all adjusted P < .002). Genotyping identified mutations in FLT1 (OR, 8.99) and PREX2 (OR, 7.73) genes that were most strongly associated with recurrence ( P < .03). CONCLUSION Evaluation of ctDNA in resected stage III CC using a tissue-free assay provided robust and independent prognostic value. Higher ctDNA burden, dMMR, and specific mutations defined poor prognostic groups among ctDNA-positive patients.

622 Background: Colorectal small and large cell neuroendocrine carcinoma (SCNEC and LCNEC) comprise <1% of colorectal cancers and have poor prognosis. Detailed survival information is limited due to rarity. We analyzed survival outcomes using Survival, Epidemiology, and End Result (SEER) database (2000-2022) and compared with NETs and adenocarcinoma (AC). Methods: All patients with SCNEC, LCNEC, NETs or AC with colorectal primaries were extracted. AJCC stage was calculated with 8 th ed. TNM classification. Kaplan-Meier estimator, log-rank test, and Cox regression (including AJCC stage, surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy variables) were used to analyze survival outcomes. Results: Comparing colon and rectal primaries, the only significant mOS difference was in stage IV SCNEC (2 vs 7 months, p<0.0001). Comparing LCNEC and SCNEC, the only significant mOS difference was in stage IV colon SCNEC and LCNEC (2 vs 5 months, p<0.0001). Stage III and IV colorectal SCNEC and LCNEC had significantly shorter mOS than stage III and IV AC and NETs. In multivariate Cox regressions, surgery and chemotherapy were associated with significantly improved survival for both SCNEC and LCNEC at both primaries (p<0.001), while radiation was never significant. Conclusions: Most colorectal SCNEC and LCNEC patients present with stage IV disease. Stage IV colon SCNEC had significantly shorter mOS than both stage IV colon LCNEC and stage IV rectal SCNEC. Further research should explore early diagnosis and effective therapies for this rare, aggressive malignancy. Median overall survival (months) Colon SCNEC (n/mOS) Colon LCNEC (n/mOS) Colon NETs (n/mOS) Colon AC (n/mOS) SCNEC vs NETs in colon: P-value LCNEC vs NETs in colon: P-value SCNEC vs AC in colon: P-value LCNEC vs AC in colon: P-value SCNEC vs LCNEC in colon: P-value Rectal SCNEC (n/mOS) Rectal LCNEC (n/mOS) Rectal NETs (n/mOS) Rectal AC (n/mOS) SCNEC vs NETs in rectum: P-value LCNEC vs NETs in rectum: P-value SCNEC vs AC in rectum P-value LCNEC vs AC in rectum SCNEC vs LCNEC in rectum: P-value Colon SCNEC vs rectal SCNEC P-value Colon LCNEC vs rectal LCNEC: P-value Stage I 19/32 17/122 4496/NA 114,213/144 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 0.34 0.25 27/23 10/28 5185/NA 54,702/160 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 0.00047 0.88 0.99 0.24 Stage II 17/38 30/49 259/NA 121,757/106 0.0015 <0.0001 0.4 0.0068 0.65 17/16 3/NA 33/NA 38,417/106 <0.0001 0.57 <0.0001 0.87 0.3 0.065 0.55 Stage III 40/14 107/13 582/184 104,793/82 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 0.48 50/19 37/17 103/102 46,687/107 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 0.45 0.48 0.47 Stage IV 245/2 217/5 393/49 83,542/13 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 260/7 57/6 158/36 36,652/17 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 0.25 <0.0001 0.95

163 Background: Being physically inactive is an independent predictor of poor outcomes in patients with stage III colon cancer. Whether physical activity can mitigate the oncologic risk of postoperative MRD is unknown. Methods: We concluded a post hoc analysis of a phase III trial evaluating celecoxib vs. placebo and 3 vs. 6 months of adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with resected stage III colon cancer. Self-reported physical activity was assessed in standardized measures of metabolic equivalent hours per week (MET-h/wk) at 2 timepoints: 1) midway through and 2) 6 months after completing adjuvant chemotherapy, modeled as a time-weighted average. MRD was determined via a clinically validated, tumor-informed circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) assay (Signatera, Natera, Inc.). Disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) were estimated using flexible parametric survival models. Results: Among 763 patients (median follow-up 6.0 years), 24% were highly active (≥18 MET-h/wk) and 32% were inactive (<3 MET-h/wk); 18% were ctDNA positive. Adjusting for covariates, DFS improved in patients who were ctDNA negative and moderately active (Ref: inactive; 3-17.9 MET-h/wk; HR=0.62, 95% CI [0.40-0.97]) or highly active (HR = 0.53 [0.30-0.94]). No benefit was seen among patients who were ctDNA positive (Ref: inactive; moderately active: HR = 1.20 [0.75-1.92]; highly active: HR=0.83 [0.45-1.54]). The interaction was not significant (Pint=0.269). Physical activity did not impact OS regardless of ctDNA status. The interaction of physical activity and adjuvant celecoxib use is shown in Table. Conclusions: Among patients who were ctDNA negative, physical activity was associated with improved DFS, and may demonstrate increased survival benefit alongside adjuvant celecoxib. The additive effects of both interventions were inconclusive among those who were ctDNA positive. Support: U10CA180821, U10CA180882, U24CA196171; https://acknowledgments.alliancefound.org; Natera, Pfizer; NCT01150045. Disease-free survival by physical activity level and celecoxib use, stratified by ctDNA status. 3-yr event # at risk Adjusted HR (95% CI) P-value Pint ctDNA Negative 0.258 Inactive + placebo 23 182 Ref Active + placebo 17 132 0.74 (0.43-1.28) 0.283 Inactive + celecoxib 23 167 0.92 (0.57-1.48) 0.720 Active + celecoxib 10 146 0.40 (0.22-0.79) 0.007 ctDNA Positive 0.221 Inactive + placebo 26 33 Ref Active + placebo 15 20 0.96 (0.50-1.84) 0.903 Inactive + celecoxib 34 54 0.62 (0.37-1.05) 0.076 Active + celecoxib 14 29 0.34 (0.18-0.64) 0.001 ctDNA, circulating tumor DNA; HR, hazard ratio; CI, confidence interval. Active = ≥9 MET-h/week, inactive = <9 MET-h/week. Celecoxib use defined by assignment in CALGB/SWOG 80702. Models adjusted by T and N stage, age, sex, race, assigned cycles of fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin, KRAS and BRAF status, BMI, and Western diet.

Importance Observational studies have associated use of aspirin and selective cyclooxygenase inhibitors with decreased recurrence and improved survival in patients with colon cancer. While randomized clinical trials have not shown benefit across all patients, these findings suggest that select subgroups may benefit from their use. Despite the well-established prognostic value of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA), its role in guiding treatment remains unclear. Objective To investigate the predictive value of postoperative ctDNA for survival outcomes with adjuvant celecoxib alongside conventional chemotherapy in patients with stage III colon cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants This was a post hoc analysis of the phase 3 Cancer and Leukemia Group B (now Alliance)/Southwest Oncology Group 80702 randomized clinical trial (2010-2015) assessing adjuvant celecoxib vs placebo and 3 vs 6 months of adjuvant 5-fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin for stage III colon cancer. Patients consented to biospecimen collection and had ctDNA analysis performed. Data analysis was performed from September 2024 to June 2025. Exposures Postoperative ctDNA positivity was determined using a clinically validated, tumor-informed 16-plex-polymerase chain reaction-next-generation sequencing assay (Signatera; Natera Inc) performed between surgery and initiation of adjuvant therapy. Main Outcomes and Measures Disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS). Survival by ctDNA status and adjuvant celecoxib use were assessed as part of a post hoc companion study with prespecified statistical analysis plan. Results Among 940 patients (mean [SD] age, 60.9 [10.8] years; 426 female [45.3%] and 515 male [54.7%] individuals; 222 [23.6%] with prior low-dose aspirin use; and median follow-up of 6.0 [95% CI, 6.0-6.0] years), 767 (81.6%) were ctDNA negative and 173 (18.4%) were ctDNA positive. ctDNA positivity was highly prognostic of worse DFS (reference, ctDNA negativity; adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 6.12; 95% CI, 4.66-8.03) and OS (aHR, 5.86; 95% CI, 4.19-8.19). In patients with ctDNA positivity, celecoxib was associated with improved DFS (aHR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.42-0.89) and OS (aHR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.40-0.96) compared to placebo. Among patients with ctDNA negativity, celecoxib did not provide survival benefit (DFS: aHR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.53-1.09; OS: aHR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.54-1.36), although the interaction was not significant ( P for interaction, .41 and .33 for DFS and OS, respectively). These findings persisted when stratifying patients by microsatellite instability status and PIK3CA mutational status. Conclusion and Relevance The findings of this post hoc analysis suggest that ctDNA status has the potential to inform clinical decision-making among patients with stage III colon cancer who should consider adjuvant celecoxib in addition to conventional chemotherapy. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01150045