Ballman, Karla V.

PURPOSE Age ≥40 years is regarded as a high-risk feature and an indication for adjuvant chemoradiotherapy for patients with lower-grade glioma in clinical practice guidelines. It is unclear whether age remains a relevant prognostic factor for contemporary definitions of lower-grade gliomas in the molecular era. METHODS The Prospective Gliomas Research (PROGRES) database contains individual patient-level data from 11 prospective clinical trials or observational registries of histologically defined lower-grade 2-3 oligodendroglioma or astrocytoma. We determined the association of age (18-39 years v ≥40 years) with progression-free survival (PFS) stratified by isocitrate dehydrogenase 1 or 2 ( IDH1/2 ) status, using log-rank tests and Cox regression models. We validated our findings in a separate multi-institutional retrospective cohort (Retrospective Glioma Research [REGRES] database). RESULTS We identified 1,619 and 1,292 eligible patients in the PROGRES and REGRES cohorts, respectively. IDH -wildtype tumors were more common in patients 40 years and older (38% v 5%, odds ratio: 11.3 [95% CI, 6.5 to 19.7]). Age was associated with PFS in IDH -wildtype (5-year PFS for ≥40 v 18-39 years: 6% v 24%, hazard ratio [HR], 1.74 [95% CI, 1.21 to 2.50]) but not in IDH -mutant glioma (60% v 59%, HR, 0.89 [95% CI, 0.76 to 1.05], P interaction < .001). In IDH -wildtype tumors, older age predicted aggressive molecular features, including TERT promoter mutation (65% v 28%), EGFR amplification (41% v 15%), and chromosome +7/–10 alteration (57% v 25%). In a pooled analysis of four clinical trials, age was not predictive of a benefit from chemoradiotherapy versus radiotherapy alone for IDH -mutant glioma. CONCLUSION In the absence of additional clinical or molecular risk factors, age alone should not be considered an indication for administration or deferral of adjuvant treatment. Practice guidelines should be revised to reflect contemporary prognostic factors in the molecular era.

Treatment of participants with intermediate-risk prostate cancer with focal irreversible electroporation and radiation therapy was technically feasible and showed acceptable patient-reported outcomes and no severe adverse events over 1 year.

PURPOSE Bone metastases (BM) occur in approximately 30% of patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) and are associated with poor survival and symptomatic skeletal events (SSEs). Radium-223, an alpha-emitting bone-seeking radioisotope, and cabozantinib, a tyrosine kinase inhibitor, have demonstrated activity in BM. RADICAL (Alliance A031801; ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04071223 ) evaluated cabozantinib ± radium-223 in mRCC with BM. METHODS This phase II trial enrolled patients with mRCC of any histology with ≥1 BM. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to cabozantinib ± radium-223, stratified by osteoclast-targeted therapy (OTT), prior therapy, opioid use, and International mRCC Database Consortium (IMDC) risk. The primary end point was SSE-free survival (SSE-FS). Secondary end points included safety, objective response rate (ORR), progression-free survival, and overall survival (OS). A target of 124 evaluable patients was planned, with a prespecified interim futility analysis at 50% of expected SSE-FS events; the trial would stop if the stratified hazard ratio (sHR) > 1.0. RESULTS The prespecified interim futility analysis was conducted after 90 patients were enrolled and crossed the futility boundary, leading to closure at 98 patients. The final analysis included all 98 patients. Median age was 63 years, 82.7% had clear cell histology, and 79.6% were using an OTT. IMDC risk was favorable (18.4%), intermediate (67.3%), and poor (14.3%). Median follow-up was 13.1 months. Median SSE-FS for cabozantinib with radium-223 versus cabozantinib was 16.7 versus 17.6 months (sHR, 1.46 [90% CI, 0.86 to 2.51]). Median OS was 28.3 versus 19.7 months (sHR, 1.40 [95% CI, 0.70 to 2.79]). ORR was 19.4% versus 25.0% ( P = .78). Grade ≥3 adverse events were similar across arms (69.6% v 75.5%). CONCLUSION Radium-223 did not improve SSE-FS when added to cabozantinib. The combination demonstrated a manageable safety profile.

LBA2 Background: Dedifferentiated liposarcoma (DDLS) remains a difficult disease to treat with limited systemic therapy options. Approved drugs offer modest benefit such as trabectedin (median progression-free survival [mPFS] 2.2 months [m]) or eribulin (mPFS 2.0m). The Cyclin-dependent kinase 4 (CDK4) oncogene is ubiquitously amplified in DDLS and is a rational therapeutic target. In single-arm phase 2 studies, treatment with selective CDK4 inhibitors resulted in mPFS 4.2m with palbociclib and mPFS 7.7m with abemaciclib. We hypothesized that treatment with abemaciclib would improve PFS compared to placebo in patients with recurrent or metastatic DDLS. Methods: SARC041 was a phase 3 randomized double-blind study of abemaciclib versus placebo. The study was open at 9 academic medical centers in the USA. Eligible patients (pts) had recurrent or metastatic DDLS (purely well-differentiated liposarcoma excluded), progression of disease by RECIST 1.1 in the 6 months prior to study entry, any number of prior systemic therapies, and adequate organ function and performance status. Pts were stratified by prior lines of therapy (0 vs 1 or more) and randomized 1:1 between abemaciclib 200 mg PO twice a day or matching placebo. Scans were every 6 weeks (every 12 weeks after week 36) and pts with progression of disease on placebo could cross over to open label abemaciclib. The primary endpoint was PFS. The design provided 80% power with two-sided 10% significance level to detect a hazard ratio of 0.6 by log-rank test. Secondary endpoints were overall response rate (ORR), PFS and response rate after crossover, and overall survival (OS). Data cutoff was March 1, 2026. Results: In total, 108 pts were randomized to receive abemaciclib (n = 54) or placebo (n = 54). Demographic/baseline characteristics were generally similar across treatment arms. Abemaciclib demonstrated a statistically significant improvement in PFS at 9.67m vs placebo at 1.52m (hazard ratio [HR] 0.39; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.25–0.59; p < 0.001). ORR was 9.3% for abemaciclib vs 0% for placebo (p = 0.057). mOS was not reached with abemaciclib vs 25.45m with placebo (HR 0.55; 95% CI, 0.28–1.07; p = 0.077). mPFS after crossover from placebo to abemaciclib was 3.44m (95% CI 2.66, 6.84). ORR after crossover was 4.3% (95% CI 0.53%, 15%). mOS after crossover was 24.03m (95% CI: 11.7, NA). Grade 3 or higher adverse event rates were similar in both arms (p > 0.99). No new safety signals were observed. Conclusions: Abemaciclib demonstrated a statistically significant improvement in PFS vs placebo in pts with dedifferentiated liposarcoma, with an encouraging OS trend. These results support abemaciclib as a new treatment option for dedifferentiated liposarcoma. Clinical trial information: NCT04967521 .

TPS11592 Background: Epithelioid hemangioendothelioma (EHE) is an ultra-rare vascular sarcoma with about 120 cases diagnosed in the US per year. Although it is commonly considered an indolent disease, in its aggressive form clinical outcomes are poor. Molecularly, EHE is characterized by the presence of oncogenic fusions with HIPPO pathway effectors TAZ or YAP; TAZ-CAMTA1 or YAP-TFE3. YAP/TAZ are modulators of mTORC1 in preclinical models, suggesting that mTOR inhibition may be an effective treatment mechanism for EHE. Nab-sirolimus is albumin bound sirolimus, which achieves higher intratumoral accumulation compared to oral sirolimus and has demonstrated increased antitumor activity in preclinical cancer models compared to the oral mTOR inhibitors sirolimus and everolimus. This is an open label, multi-center, single arm, phase II clinical trial with a two-stage design, testing nab-sirolimus for progressing or symptomatic EHE. The primary objective is to determine ORR of nab-sirolimus in patients with EHE who require systemic treatment. We hypothesize that nab-sirolimus will have significant clinical efficacy for EHE as measured by the primary endpoint of objective response rate, as well as by secondary outcomes including progression free survival benefit over historical controls and by improvement in patient reported outcomes (PROs). If positive, this trial could lead to a new standard of care for treating EHE. Methods: This is a single arm, multi-center, phase 2 study with a two-stage design. Key inclusion criteria include histologically or cytologically confirmed EHE that is either progressing or clinically symptomatic, not a candidate for curative intent surgery, and requires systemic therapy in the opinion of the investigator, radiographically evaluable disease by RECIST v1.1, age ≥18 years, ECOG performance status ≤ 2, and adequate end organ function. With a Simon two-stage optimal design with one sided alpha 0.10, power 90%, assuming a historical control ORR 5% to detect an ORR of 20% (alternative hypothesis), 12 patients will be included in the first stage. If there is ≥ 1 response, an additional 25 patients will be enrolled to a total of 37 patients. ≥ 4 responses are needed for a significant result. The total planned accrual is 41 patients to account for unevaluable patients who may be enrolled, 10% above the required evaluable patients. Planned post hoc subgroup analyses will include outcomes by fusion type and presence of serosal effusions at the time of study enrollment. The trial is registered at clinicaltrials.gov NCT07104331. Clinical trial information: NCT07104331 .

TPS11591 Background: Tebentafusp (Kimmtrak) is a first-in-class bispecific T-cell engager, specifically a T-cell receptor (TCR)-anti-CD3 fusion protein, approved for HLA-A*02:01+ metastatic or unresectable uveal melanoma. Tebentafusp binds to the HLA-A02:01/gp100 peptide complexes on the tumour cell surface, recruiting polyclonal T cells, via CD3, to release cytokines and cytolytic mediators against the tumour. Clear cell sarcoma (CCS) is an ultra-rare soft-tissue sarcoma subtype with poor prognosis and limited therapeutic options. On histopathology, CCS is characterised by the expression of melanocytic antigens, including gp100. Methods: This Phase 2 trial evaluates the efficacy of Tebentafusp in HLA-A*02:01 positive patients with advanced CCS. Twenty-three patients will be treated with weekly I.V. infusion of Tebentafusp at the recommended dose until evidence of clinical benefit or patient withdrawal from study. Baseline and on-treatment biopsies, as well as longitudinal peripheral blood samples will be collected for translational analyses. Prospective data will also be collected from an observational non-comparative cohort of up to 24 patients with advanced CCS not eligible for the study due to incompatible HLA. Enrolment to the study has commenced in October 2025 in the US, with two currently active sites (Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center and University of Southern California). One additional US site (Northwestern University) and one UK site (The Royal Marsden Hospital) are due to open. At the time of submission, 1 HLA-A*02:01 advanced CCS patient had started treatment with Tebentafusp. Clinical trial information: NCT06942442 .

5069 Background: Inhibition of androgen receptor (AR)-signaling results in increases in double-strand DNA breaks and genomic instability. PARP inhibitors (PARPi) are a standard treatment option for patients (pts) with homologous recombination repair mutations (HRRm). Combinations of PARPi and AR pathway inhibitors (ARPI) are associated with synthetic lethality in multiple pre-clinical studies. Clinical trials have suggested potential benefits with co-targeting PARPi and ARPI in pts with and without HRRm. Methods: Alliance A031902 compared radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) and overall survival (OS) as co-primary endpoints with enzalutamide and rucaparib (Enz/Ruca) versus enzalutamide plus placebo (Enz/Plac) for pts with metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) regardless of BRCA/HRRm status. This trial was conducted by the Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology in 36 centers in the US. Target sample size was 1,002 patients. Eligibility required mCRPC with or without measurable metastatic disease and was agnostic regarding HRRm status. The trial was discontinued in 10/2023 due to changes in the treatment landscape for this pt population. Results: Between 10/21 and 4/23, 61 pts were randomized to Enz/Ruca (n=30) or Enz/Plac (n=31). Known BRCA1/2 or PALB2 mutations were present in 1 pt (3.3%) in the Enz/Ruca arm and 1 pt (3.2%) in the Enz/Plac arm; wildtype in 14 (46.7%) vs 15 (48.4%), and unknown in 15 (50%) vs 15 (48.4%), respectively. Three patients (11.5%) in the Enz/Ruca arm discontinued due to an adverse event (AE) vs 0 in the Enz/Plac arm. Among response-evaluable pts, 7/26 (27%) in the Enz/Ruca arm discontinued due to disease progression vs 10/31 (33%) in the Enz/Plac arm. Most common grade 3+ AEs were anemia (33% vs 3%) and hypertension (17% vs 10%) in the Enz/Ruca arm and Enz/Plac arm, respectively. All 61 pts were evaluable for response assessment. PSA declines ≥50% and ≥90% were observed in 79% vs 45% and 60% vs 43% of pts receiving Enz/Ruca versus Enz/Plac, respectively. Median PFS in the Enz/Ruca vs Enz/Plac arms was 17.1 vs 14.2 mos, respectively (HR 1.13 [95% CI: 0.42-3.01], p=0.81), median rPFS (inclusive of unequivocal clinical progression) was 17.1 vs 11.7 mos ( HR 0.72; 95% CI: 0.31-1.67, p = 0.44), and median OS was not reached vs 27.0 mos (HR 0.65; 95% CI: 0.29-1.45, p=0.29). Conclusions: In this prematurely terminated phase III study, Enz/Ruca was generally well tolerated, with the safety profile consistent with prior PARPi/ARPI combinations. Efficacy outcomes for rPFS and OS are inconclusive due to limited sample size. Definitive conclusions regarding the clinical benefit of this combination cannot be determined from this study. Clinical trial information: NCT04455750 .

4500 Background: BM occur in ~30% of RCC pts and are associated with poor survival and symptomatic skeletal events (SSEs). Radium-223, an alpha-emitting bone-seeking radioisotope, prolongs survival in advanced prostate cancer. A pilot study of radium-223 with VEGF tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI) in RCC with BM showed safety and early efficacy (McKay, CCR, 2018). Cabozantinib is a TKI that showed efficacy in BM. RADICAL (NCT04071223) was designed to investigate cabozantinib ± radium-223 in RCC with BM. Methods: This open label multicenter study enrolled RCC pts with ≥1 symptomatic BM not previously irradiated and Karnofsky performance status ≥60%. Prior therapies were allowed; non-clear cell population was limited to 20%. Randomization was 1:1 to cabozantinib with (Arm A) or without (Arm B) radium-223, stratified by osteoclast-targeted therapy (OTT), prior therapy, baseline opioid use, and IMDC risk. In Arm A, cabozantinib was 40 mg daily cycle 1, 60 mg thereafter if tolerated; radium-223 was 1.49 microcurie/kg IV every 28 days for 6 doses. In Arm B, cabozantinib was 60 mg daily. The primary endpoint was SSE-free survival (SSE-FS). Secondary endpoints were safety, objective response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). The study was designed with 85% power to detect improvement in 6-month SSE-FS from 65% to 78% (one-sided α=0.05), with planned interim futility analysis at 50% of expected events. Results: From 12/2019 to 9/2025, 90 pts were enrolled and evaluable for the interim analysis. Median age was 63 years; 74.4% male, 90.0% White, 83.3% clear cell histology. 11.1% were treatment naïve, 80.0% received OTT, 51.1% had baseline opioid use. IMDC risk was 16.7% favorable, 68.9% intermediate, 14.4% poor. Median cabozantinib dose was 31.4 mg (Arm A) and 40.0 mg (Arm B); median radium-223 cycles was 6. Median follow-up was 13.1 (range 0.1-49.4) months with 50 events, 17 SSEs (Arm A: 10; Arm B: 7) and 33 deaths (Arm A: 13; Arm B: 20). Outcomes are in Table. 71 pts were evaluable for response. ORR was 22.2% (Arm A), 22.9% (Arm B). Any grade treatment-related adverse events were 97.7% (Arm A), 93.2% (Arm B); grade ≥3 were 65.9% (Arm A), 56.8% (Arm B). The trial closed after interim analysis as SSE-FS did not meet the prespecified futility boundary (HR≤1). Conclusions: Radium-223 did not improve the primary endpoint of SSE-FS when added to cabozantinib but a numerical prolongation in OS was observed. Combination treatment was safe. Alternative radiotherapeutics warrant investigation in RCC. Clinical trial information: NCT04071223 . Interim efficacy analysis. Arm Median(95% CI) HR (95% CI) Stratified SSE-FS A 17.9 (15.0-NE) 1.24 (0.62-2.48) B 17.6 (10.9-NE) Unstratified SSE-FS A 17.9 (15.0-NE) 0.90 (0.51-1.59) B 17.6 (10.9-NE) OS A 32.2 (17.9-NE) 0.77 (0.42-1.41) B 21.3 (12.3-NE) Stratified PFS A 11.0 (5.8-17.4) 1.39 (0.72-2.66) B 11.2 (9.0-18.5)

4514 Background: Maintenance avelumab is a standard of care in patients (pts) with la/mUC who do not progress after first-line PBC. Cabozantinib (CABO) is an oral inhibitor of MET, VEGFR and TAM, active in multiple solid tumors. We hypothesized that an avelumab (Av)-CABO combination would improve outcomes in pts with mUC with an acceptable safety profile compared to avelumab maintenance alone. Methods: MAIN-CAV (NCT05092958) is a phase III randomized, multicenter, international trial for la/mUC pts who did not progress after 4-6 cycles of any PBC (gemcitabine-cisplatin, gemcitabine-carboplatin, MVAC, ddMVAC). Pts were randomized 1:1 to Av 800 mg IV every 2 weeks alone or with CABO 40 mg daily for ≤2 years. Stratification factors were response to first-line PBC (complete response [CR] vs partial response [PR] vs stable disease [SD]) and visceral metastases. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS); secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS), safety and quality of life. The target accrual was 654 pts; the trial closed early after enrollment of 68 pts following adoption of enfortumab vedotin plus pembrolizumab as the new preferred first-line standard in the US. Results: From 3/2022 to 3/2024, 68 pts were randomized (Av n = 33; CABO-Av n = 35). Median OS was 24.8 months (mo) with Av and 23.0 mo with Avb-CABO (Hazard ratio 1.41; 95% CI 0.66–3.01; p = 0.186). Median PFS was 4.6 mo with Av vs 6.0 mo with Av-CABO (p = 0.343). Objective response rate among pts with PR or SD after first-line PBC was 20.8% with Av vs 11.5% with Av-CABO (p = 0.424). Grade ≥3 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 24.2% pts on the Av arm vs 39.4% of pts on the Av-CABO arm and CABO dose reductions occurred in 63% of pts. Conclusions: Addition of CABO to Av did not improve OS or PFS compared with Av alone in this underpowered, prematurely closed phase III trial; safety was consistent with known profiles. U10CA180821,U10CA180882; U24CA196171, U10CA180863. (CCTG);U10CA180888 (SWOG); https://acknowledgments.alliancefound.org. Clinical trial information: NCT05092958 .