Dronca, Roxana

Localized cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC) has a favorable prognosis, unlike advanced disease, especially with clinical perineural invasion (PNI), which poses substantial management challenges due to aggressivity and higher recurrence, metastasis, and mortality risks. PNI, a high-risk staging feature, has worse outcomes, particularly when clinically evident rather than incidental. Clinical PNI (cPNI) is evident by clinical symptoms (such as pain, paresthesia, or motor deficits) or radiologic findings, whereas incidental PNI (iPNI) is identified only histologically without associated symptoms or radiologic evidence. PNI remains a novel area with varying practice patterns across institutions. Improving risk stratification and tailoring multidisciplinary approaches are critical for optimizing outcomes. Our review outlines clinical practice patterns at our institution, providing insights into managing cSCC with PNI, focusing on diagnosis, imaging, staging, and emerging immunotherapies. A structured search was conducted using the terms “perineural invasion,” “cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma,” and “immunotherapy.” cPNI has a poor prognosis and requires nuanced clinical decision-making. Surgery and radiation remain central to management. Adjuvant therapy offers substantial survival benefit in cSCC with PNI, with improved disease-free and overall survival compared with surgery alone, supporting its use in appropriately selected high-risk patients. Traditional systemic therapies, including cisplatin and cetuximab, remain foundational but have shown only moderate response rates and limited durability in advanced or neurotropic cSCC. In contrast, immunotherapy—now preferred for advanced or unresectable cases—has transformed management, with programmed cell death protein-1 (PD-1) inhibitors showing promising results (up to 69% response rate) and disease stabilization. Neoadjuvant immunotherapy may enable tumor downstaging, improve radiation planning, and reduce surgical morbidity. Imaging for squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) with PNI aids staging and surveillance, but symptoms remain key for detecting recurrence. Our multidisciplinary approach emphasizes personalized care. Larger trials are needed to define the optimal role and sequencing of immunotherapy in this high-risk patient population.

Abstract BACKGROUND Von Hippel-Lindau (VHL) disease is a hereditary cancer syndrome characterized by development of multiple neoplasms, including central nervous system (CNS) hemangioblastomas, renal cell carcinoma (RCC), pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (pNETs), and retinal hemangioblastomas. Belzutifan, a hypoxia-inducible factor 2-alpha (HIF-2α) inhibitor, has demonstrated efficacy in treating VHL-associated tumors. This study evaluates our institutional experience with belzutifan in patients with VHL-related tumors. MATERIAL AND METHODS We conducted a retrospective cohort study across three Mayo Clinic sites, including patients aged ≥18 years with genetically confirmed VHL disease who received belzutifan between October 2021 and March 2025. Clinical/radiological data, and adverse events (AEs) were extracted from electronic health records. Tumor responses were assessed using RECIST v1.1 criteria for RCC, pNET, CNS hemangioblastoma. Retinal hemangioblastoma responses were evaluated through ophthalmologic assessments. RESULTS Forty-five patients were included (median age 44 58% female). Sixty-seven percent had RCC, 91% had CNS hemangioblastomas, 53% had pNETs, and 62% had retinal hemangioblastomas. The median duration of belzutifan therapy was 22.6 months (range 1.0-41.4 months). Among patients with RCC (n=26), overall response rate (ORR) was 19% and median time to best response (MTBR) was 7.4 months. Five patients had partial response (PR), 15 had stable disease (SD), and 1 had progressive disease (PD). For CNS hemangioblastomas (n=41), ORR was 12%, MTBR was 6.2 months. 5 patients had PR, 30 had SD, and none had PD. For pNET (n=17), ORR was 41%, MTBR was 8.2 months. One patient had CR, 6 patients had PR, 6 had SD, none had PD. For retinal hemangioblastomas (n=28), 6 (21%) showed improvement, 9 (32%) remained stable, and 3 (11%) showed progression. MTBR was 6.7 months. Treatment-related AEs occurred in 98% of patients. Common AEs included anemia (89%), fatigue (80%), hypoxia (18%), and headache (13%). Grade 3 AEs were observed in 20% of patients, including anemia (7%), hypoxia (9%), fatigue (4%), pneumonitis (2%), loss of consciousness (2%). One patient experienced a grade 4 event (status epilepticus). Anemia management involved iron supplementation (n=11), RBC transfusion (n=3), dose reduction (n=2), treatment holiday (n=8), permanent discontinuation (n=1). Hypoxia management included dose reduction (n=1), treatment holiday (n=3), discontinuation (n=1). CONCLUSION Belzutifan shows clinical activity across various VHL-associated neoplasms in real-world practice, with a manageable safety profile. The lower ORR compared to the phase III trial may reflect differences in baseline disease, including lower tumor burden in our cohort. These findings support its continued use in VHL disease, with attention to monitoring and managing treatment-related AEs.

Abstract Introduction: Advances in treatment have led to significant increases in survival rates, with over 90% of men diagnosed with prostate cancer (CaP) living at least five years. However, surviving cancer and its treatment often weigh a hefty survivorship burden. Men from the at-risk, vulnerable populations have the greatest burden. This study aims to understand distress among Black CaP survivors (CaPS) who bear the heaviest CaP burden. Method: We conducted key informant interviews with Motivational Interviewing techniques to collect CaPS demographic information, medical history, and multilevel distress evaluation. Descriptive analyses were conducted using SAS. Results: A total of 22 CaPS (aged from 48 to 72) were involved in the study. The majority of CaPS were African American (90.9%) and were diagnosed with stage 2 (31.8%) or stage 3 (36.4%). Over half of them (68.2%) were treated by surgery; most CaPS (90.9%) experienced side effects from prostate cancer treatments. CaPS reported distress in the following domains: Emotional well-being (e.g., Feeling sad, depressed or anxious, mental health) – 40.9%, Death of someone very close to you (e.g., family) – 36.4%, Alcohol use in close family – 36.4%, Experiences of discrimination or racism – 36.4%, Healthcare costs and coverage (e.g., medication, medical services, copay, insurance premium) – 31.8%, Loneliness and isolation – 27.3%, Serious injury/illness in close family (e.g., being a caregiver) – 27.3%, Money and finance – 22.7%, Using telehealth (e.g., using a smartphone or tablet for telephone or over the computer, clinic visit, patient portal, completing online forms, virtual classes) – 22.7%, Marriage, romantic relationships – 22.7%. Discussion: Black CaP survivors (CaPS) who bear the heaviest CaP burden are considered a priority population for research and care. These CaPS identified that their psychological distress was related to both familial and socioeconomic issues. The most endorsed life-stresses included emotional wellbeing, experiences of discrimination/racism, loneliness and isolation, healthcare cost/finance, family health, personal relationship, and telehealth use. The distress data as measured by the life-stress scale are invaluable in better documenting and addressing distress in interventions responsive to specific priority communities. Our novel findings suggest the relevance of grief and loss for these men. 36% reported death of someone close, and 27% indicated distress due to loneliness and isolation. Though the sample size was small, the distress data obtained may inform the science and practice of whole-person survivorship that consider distress emphasizing emotional wellbeing. The study is ongoing, and this abstract presents preliminary results; further muti-variate analyses will be conducted for the conference presentation. Citation Format: Kimlin Ashing, Floyd Willis, Chris Williams, John Mccall, Gaole Song, Fornati Bedell, Cassandra Moore, Ewan Cobran, Che Ngufor, Timethia Bonner, Getachew Dagne, Arnold Merriweather, Ernie Kaninjing, Rotimi Oladapo, Roxana Dronca, Fullwood Dottington, Folakemi Odedina. Whole person survivorship: Multilevel distress in prostate cancer survivors from priority communities [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 18th AACR Conference on the Science of Cancer Health Disparities; 2025 Sep 18-21; Baltimore, MD. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2025;34(9 Suppl):Abstract nr A024.

LBA1551 Background: Traditional cancer therapy is primarily delivered in clinical settings, imposing logistical, emotional, and financial burdens, particularly on rural and underserved patients. While international studies have demonstrated the safety of home-based chemotherapy, no randomized U.S. trials have evaluated this approach. Mayo Clinic’s CCBW program aims to expand access to high-quality cancer care by providing in-home cancer treatment, lab testing, telemedicine, remote patient monitoring, command center and paramedic support. This pragmatic randomized controlled trial evaluates feasibility and impact of home-based versus in-clinic cancer directed therapy on patient preference, acceptability, safety, and patient-reported outcomes. Methods: Adult patients (ECOG 0-2) receiving chemotherapy or hormonal therapy at Mayo Clinic Florida were randomized 1:1 after confirmation of treatment tolerance in clinic to receive (1) home-based care for 24 weeks or (2) in-clinic care for 8 weeks followed by home-based care for 16 weeks. Target accrual is 200 patients. A planned interim analysis after 50 enrollments assessed accrual, data completeness, technical challenges, safety, and study outcomes. The primary endpoint is patient ratings of their overall cancer care experience (0–10 scale, CAHPS Cancer Care Survey) at 8 weeks. 200 patients provide 80% power to detect a 0.45 standard deviation difference in mean ratings between arms with a 2-sided 2-sample t-test (α=0.05) and 20% missing data rate. Secondary endpoints are patient preference, comfort with home infusions, treatment worthwhileness, functional/symptom assessments (EORTC QLQ-F17, PRO-CTCAE, GP5), grade ≥3 AEs, hospitalizations, and overall survival. Cost is a tertiary endpoint. The trial is IRB-approved (#23001719) and registered (NCT05969860). Results: Enrollment began 8/23/23. As of 2/21/25, 52 patients (26 per arm) were enrolled and 36 started protocol treatment. Common cancers were breast (38%), colorectal (21%), prostate (19%), and multiple myeloma (14%). 64% (28/44) of patients were female; 84% identified as White, 14% as Black, and 2% as multiple races. Median distance to clinic was 20 miles (range 2-66). After 8 weeks, patients in both arms rated their overall cancer care experience highly (mean [SD]=9.69 [0.85] versus 9.54 [0.66] for home-based vs. in-clinic care, n=26). After 24 weeks, 73% preferred home-based care, 18% had no preference, and 9% preferred in-clinic care; 100% felt comfortable with home infusions. No grade ≥3 AEs related to location of care have occurred. Conclusions: Early findings support the feasibility, safety, and high patient acceptability of home-based cancer therapy. No safety concerns related to care location were observed and most patients preferred home-based treatment. Ongoing accrual and analysis will assess clinical outcomes and cost implications. Clinical trial information: NCT05969860 .

TPS1657 Background: Cancer treatments are traditionally administered in clinical settings, which can isolate patients from their familiar environments and exacerbate physical, psychosocial, and financial burdens. Travel requirements further amplify these challenges, particularly for underserved populations. Studies indicate that patients prefer receiving care at home, and international models have demonstrated the safety of home-delivered chemotherapy since the 1990s; however, no U.S. clinical trial data exists. In response, Mayo Clinic has developed the Cancer CARE (Connected Access and Remote Expertise) Beyond Walls (CCBW) program, a distributed cancer care delivery model that expands access to quality cancer care by bringing it to the home environment, providing in-home cancer treatment, lab testing, telemedicine, and community paramedic support. This trial evaluates the safety, acceptability, and impact of home-based subcutaneous (SC) nivolumab (Nivo) administration compared to in-clinic treatment within the CCBW initiative. Methods: This open-label, single-arm trial evaluates the impact of SC Nivo administration location—home versus infusion center—on patient reported cancer care experience, patient-preferred treatment location, acceptability, safety, and patient-reported outcomes. Eligible adult patients (ECOG 0-1) receiving IV Nivo for an FDA-approved indication and residing within 75 miles of Mayo Clinic Florida will transition to SC Nivo, receiving two initial in-clinic cycles. If tolerated without injection reactions, four cycles will be administered at home before resuming in-clinic treatment. Exclusion criteria include concurrent investigational/standard treatments or contraindications to immunotherapy. Fifty patients will be enrolled, with an estimated 75% (n=38) providing cancer care ratings after 8 weeks in-clinic and 8 weeks at-home, offering 85% power to detect a mean difference in ratings of 0.50 standard deviations. The primary endpoint is within-patient change in cancer care rating (0–10 scale, CAHPS Cancer Care Survey) comparing 8 weeks of in-clinic vs. at-home care. Secondary endpoints include patient-preferred treatment location, comfort with home injections, safety (grade 3+ adverse events), function (EORTC QLQ-F17), symptoms (PRO-CTCAE), side effect impact (GP5), and healthcare utilization (ER visits, hospitalizations). Cost will be assessed as a tertiary endpoint. The trial has FDA approval (IND #170079), Mayo Clinic IRB approval (#23009663), and ClinicalTrials.gov registration (NCT06265285). Enrollment began in April 2024, with an expected accrual period of 24 months. To date, 10 patients have been enrolled, and final analysis is expected 2.5 years after trial activation. Clinical trial information: NCT06265285 .

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 Introduction: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) are an essential systemic therapy for advanced melanoma. However, most melanomas develop resistance to ICI. Tumor-derived soluble PD-L1 (sPD-L1) and other soluble immunosuppressive factors drive checkpoint inhibitor resistance and correlate with inferior survival. We previously showed that therapeutic plasma exchange (TPE) removes sPD-L1 from circulation. Thus, we hypothesized that TPE-mediated removal of sPD-L1 and other immunosuppressive factors could overcome immunotherapy resistance in refractory melanoma. Methods: In this clinical trial (NCT04581382), we prospectively enrolled eighteen (18) patients with widely metastatic melanoma with progression despite anti-PD-1 ICI and elevated sPD-L1 by ELISA (≥1.7ng/mL). Each patient received radiotherapy to between one and three metastatic lesions (at least two unirradiated lesions) followed by three TPE sessions on consecutive days and re-challenge with checkpoint inhibitor. The primary safety and efficacy endpoints of the study were adverse events (AEs) and sPD-L1 reduction by TPE, respectively. Secondary endpoints included RECIST-based response in unirradiated lesions and overall survival. Correlative studies included kinetics of sPD-L1 and soluble immonsuppressive factors and dynamics of peripheral immune cell phenotypes. Results: Mean age was 62 (SD 13) and seven of eighteen (39%) were female. Mean baseline sPD-L1 was 26.31 ng/mL (40.01). The treatment was well-tolerated with one (6%) patient with grade 3 and 4 adverse events from a central line infection after TPE. Levels of sPD-L1 were significantly reduced by TPE (mean 80.2% reduction, p<0.0001). Two patients (11.1%) experienced complete response (CR), one (5.6%) partial response, three (16.7%) stable disease, and 12 (66.7%) progressive disease. In one case, immunotherapy was discontinued after two years due to no detectable lesions. Changes in tumor-reactive (TTR) GZMB+/CX3CR1+/CD11ahigh and other peripheral immune cell populations predicted overall survival in this cohort. In addition to sPD-L1, other soluble mediators of ICI resistance were also reduced by TPE and predicted overall survival in this cohort. Summary/Conclusion: sPD-L1 and other soluble immunoregulatory signaling molecules are important mediators of ICI resistance. SBRT and TPE can resensitize ICI-refractory melanoma by removing these factors. Patients with persistently elevated or rapid rebound of sPD-L1 following TPE experienced poor response and overall survival. Serial monitoring of sPD-L1 may predict response to ICI and multiple courses of TPE may be necessary. Our findings may apply in other ICI-resistant cancers with elevated sPD-L1. ClinicalTrials.gov registration: NCT04581382, ReCIPE-M1 (Rescuing Cancer Immunotherapy with Plasma Exchange in Melanoma 1).