Starr, Jason S.

e16323 Background: Advanced EP-NEC are typically treated with the combination of platinum plus etoposide. Despite therapy, outcomes remain poor, with reported median overall survival (OS) of 12-13 months. Early initiation of systemic therapy is commonly practiced given the aggressiveness; however, recent data from small cell lung carcinoma (SCLC) suggest that shorter TTI does not necessarily improve OS. The impact of TTI on outcomes in EP-NEC has not been well studied. Methods: We conducted a multicenter retrospective cohort study across three Mayo Clinic sites including adults with biopsy-confirmed stage IV EP-NEC diagnosed between 2005 and 2025. TTI was defined as days from pathologic diagnosis to initiation of first-line systemic therapy. A binary cutoff (≤14 vs > 14 days) was determined using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis, and TTI was also analyzed as a continuous variable. OS and progression-free survival (PFS) were estimated using the Kaplan–Meier method and evaluated using Cox proportional hazards models. Multivariable analyses adjusted for age, sex, ECOG performance status, presence of liver metastases, and first-line treatment strategy (chemotherapy alone vs chemotherapy plus immunotherapy). Results: Among 248 pts, median age was 61 years. Median OS for the cohort was 13.9 months (95% CI, 11.7–16.7), and median PFS was 5.7 months (95% CI, 5.3–6.3). Pts with TTI > 14 days had longer median OS compared with those treated within ≤14 days (16.4 vs 10.1 months), with improved OS on unadjusted analysis (HR 0.69, 95% CI 0.50–0.96; p = 0.028), though this association was not statistically significant after multivariable adjustment (HR 0.74, 95% CI 0.53–1.05; p = 0.097). Pts with TTI > 14 days also had longer median PFS compared with ≤14 days (6.5 vs 4.8 months), with improved PFS on unadjusted analysis (HR 0.67, 95% CI 0.51–0.88; p = 0.0038). On multivariable analysis, TTI > 14 days remained independently associated with improved PFS (HR 0.75, 95% CI 0.56–1.00; p = 0.047). However, when analyzed as a continuous variable, TTI was not independently associated with OS (HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.98–1.00; p = 0.173) or PFS (HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.98–1.00; p = 0.089). Conclusions: In this multicenter cohort of pts with metastatic EP-NEC, earlier initiation of systemic therapy (≤14 days) was not associated with improved overall survival, and longer time-to-treatment was independently associated with improved PFS. However, when TTI was analyzed as a continuous variable, no statistically significant associations were observed, suggesting that the observed benefit with delayed treatment may reflect pt selection or clinical context rather than a direct biological effect. These findings may provide reassurance in scenarios where short delays are necessary—for biomarker testing or clinical trial enrollment—and highlight the need for further investigation in the era of precision oncology.

e15501 Background: CP is the backbone of first-line therapy for recurrent or metastatic ASCC. In practice, Q3-week CP has been explored as a potential alternative to the standard (d1,8,15 Q28-day cycle) dosing, though its efficacy is not known. This study evaluated CP scheduling and clinical survival associations in metastatic ASCC. Methods: This multicenter retrospective cohort study included patients with metastatic ASCC treated with first-line CP, identified using the Mayo Data Explorer database. Electronic health records were reviewed to collect baseline clinical characteristics, treatment regimens, responses, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). Descriptive statistics were used to summarize patient demographics. Survival was estimated using Kaplan–Meier methods. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards models were used to compare survival by dosing schedule, adjusting for age, ECOG performance status, HPV (p16) status, liver metastasis, and prior chemoradiation. Results: 54 patients treated between 2020-2025 with first-line CP for metastatic ASCC were included. Baseline patient demographics were balanced between dosing groups (Table 1). Median follow-up time was 26.2 months. For Q3-week CP (n = 21), median PFS and OS were 9.8 (95% CI 8.1, NR) and 27.0 (95% CI 15.7, NR) months, respectively, while median PFS was 6.5 (95% CI 4.5,15.3) months with standard CP (n = 33) and median OS was not reached (95% CI 11.2, NR). Response rate was 76% with Q3-week and 60.6% with standard CP (p = 0.23) dosing. Survival outcomes were similar when comparing Q3-week CP relative to standard CP dosing using multivariable analysis (PFS HR 0.68, 95% CI 0.33–1.41; OS HR 1.67, 95% CI 0.67–4.14). Higher ECOG and liver metastasis were independently associated with inferior outcomes, while HPV was associated with improved survival. Subsequent therapy patterns were similar between CP schedule groups. Ten patients (16.9%) received local therapy, and 24 of 28 patients with progression received further systemic therapy, including 21 (87.5%) treated with immunotherapy. Conclusions: Survival outcomes were similar across dosing schedules, suggesting Q3-week CP may be a reasonable alternative to standard CP, with potential to reduce treatment-related burden in metastatic ASCC. Future analysis will compare toxicity profiles between CP dosing schedules, including in combination with PD1 inhibitors given the results of the POD1UM-303 trial. Patient demographics (n=54). Variable Q3-week CP (n=21) Standard CP (n=33) p-value Sex Female 16 (76.2%) 24 (72.7%) 0.77 Male 5 (23.8%) 9 (27.3%) Age Median (Q1, Q3) 62 (50.5, 69) 64 (55.5, 70) 0.57 BMI Median (Q1, Q3) 27.1 (21.9, 34.4) 27.4 (22.5, 31.7) 0.72 ECOG 0 9 (42.9%) 11 (34.4%) 0.53 ≥ 1 12 (57.1%) 21 (65.6%) Confirmed HPV (p16) Positive 16 (76.2%) 24 (72.7%) 0.77 Prior chemoradiation Yes 17 (81.0%) 21 (63.6%) 0.17

4173 Background: [ 212 Pb]VMT-α-NET is an alpha-particle radiation-delivering agent targeted to somatostatin receptor type 2 (SSTR2)-expressing tumors. Here, we present safety and efficacy results from the dose-finding phase 1/2a clinical trial (NCT05636618). Methods: This phase 1/2a dose-escalation study uses a Bayesian algorithm to identify an optimal dose of [ 212 Pb]VMT-α-NET for participants with advanced, well-differentiated NETs expressing SSTR2. Eligible participants must have unresectable or metastatic disease, documented radiologic progression following at least one prior systemic treatment, and evidence of SSTR2 expression (Krenning Score ³2) in ≥1 lesion confirmed on an FDA-approved somatostatin receptor PET scan. Patients previously treated with systemic peptide receptor radionuclide therapy (PRRT) are excluded from enrollment. During the dose-finding phase, participants may receive up to four administrations of [ 212 Pb]VMT-α-NET at their assigned dose level, and they are monitored for dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) for 42 days and safety throughout the study. Efficacy is evaluated by investigators according to RECIST criteria v1.1. Dosimetry is included as a supportive analysis. Results: As of the 10-Dec-2025 data cut-off (DCO), 56 participants had been enrolled across Cohorts 1, 2, and 3 and received at least one dose of [ 212 Pb]VMT-α-NET: 2 participants in Cohort 1 (2.5 mCi), 46 in Cohort 2 (5 mCi), and 8 in Cohort 3 (6 mCi). No dose-limiting toxicities, grade 5 adverse events, treatment-related discontinuations, serious renal events, dysphagia, or clinically meaningful treatment-related myelosuppression were observed. The median follow-up for all treated participants was 40 weeks (range 6–97). Efficacy has been summarized in this abstract for 25 participants (2 in Cohort 1 and 23 in Cohort 2). Nineteen of these 25 participants remained progression-free at the time of the DCO, with a median efficacy follow-up of 49 weeks (range 6–97). In Cohort 2, investigators observed RECIST v1.1 objective responses in 9 of 23 participants (39%), including 8 confirmed responses. Both participants in Cohort 1 continued to exhibit stable disease after two years of follow-up. Updated safety for all participants and updated efficacy for participants with sufficient maturity beyond the 25 summarized here will be presented at the congress. Conclusions: Treatment with [ 212 Pb]VMT-α-NET continues to demonstrate a favorable safety profile across all treated participants (n = 56) and shows signs of sustained efficacy at the 2.5 mCi and 5 mCi dose levels. The therapy has been well-tolerated with no observed dose-limiting toxicities or serious treatment-related adverse outcomes. Based on these encouraging safety and efficacy findings, the study is ongoing, and enrollment into Cohort 3 (6 mCi) remains active. Clinical trial information: NCT05636618 .

TPS646 Background: SSTR-targeted RPT has transformed the treatment landscape for NETs, significantly improving clinical outcomes in phase 3 studies versus other targeted therapies. Nevertheless, disease progression and renal toxicity after treatment highlight the need for further improvement. Use of the α-emitter 225 Ac as the radioactive component has shown promising results in clinical studies: initial data from ACTION-1 suggest promising efficacy for RYZ101, a first-in-class, highly potent α-emitting RPT, in patients with SSTR+ GEP-NETs progressing after 2–4 cycles of 177 Lu-somatostatin analogs. RYZ401 is a cyclic 6-amino acid SSTR-targeting peptide agonist conjugated to a DOTA chelator bound to 225 Ac. Preclinical data have shown an improved therapeutic window versus DOTATATE. RYZ401 has the potential to deliver higher radiation doses to tumors, with improved renal clearance and lower kidney absorbed dose, potentially eliminating the need for amino acid infusion. Methods: RYZ401-101 is a global, multicenter, phase 1, first-in-human, dose-escalation/-expansion study designed to determine the recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) and optimal treatment regimen, safety and tolerability, and preliminary efficacy of RYZ401 in patients with NETs and other selected solid tumors expressing SSTRs. Key eligibility criteria: histologically confirmed metastatic or unresectable well-differentiated NETs; WHO grade 1–3 (Ki-67 ≤55%); ≥1 SSTR PET-positive measurable lesion; and disease progression after ≥1 prior treatment line. In dose escalation, 6–18 patients will receive escalating doses of RYZ401 (2.0–11.1 MBq IV Q6W × 2–4 cycles); no amino acid co-infusion is planned. In dose expansion, approximately 80 patients will receive RYZ401 at the RP2D, 40 patients with well-differentiated GEP-NETs (cohort A) and 40 with other SSTR+ tumors including non-GEP-NETs (cohort B). Primary endpoints: dose-limiting toxicities in weeks 1–4 of treatment (dose escalation) and safety (dose expansion). Secondary endpoints: safety, pharmacokinetics, and efficacy outcomes (dose escalation and expansion). RYZ401 dosimetry will be evaluated in a sub-study of 10−16 patients. Enrollment is ongoing in the USA. Clinical trial information: NCT07165132 .

837 Background: A recent randomized trial suggested that CR may influence ICI activity in patients with lung cancer. However, the same has not been established in GI cancers, where reports have shown mixed results with variable definitions of 'early' vs 'late' IT. We evaluated multiple approaches to assess the impact of CR on first-line ICI in GI malignancies. Methods: This retrospective study included patients from three Mayo Clinic sites (N=455). Both previously reported IT cutoffs and a new cutoff derived from ROC analysis were evaluated. Patients were categorized by the median of all ITs, the median of the first four ITs, and whether ≥20% of ITs occurred before the identified cutoff. Univariate and multivariate Cox regression (adjusting for age, MSI status, type of cancer, metastasis status, number of cycles, and receipt of chemotherapy with ICI) assessed associations with OS. KM analyses were performed to illustrate survival differences. The primary endpoint was OS. Results: When patients were categorized based on whether ≥20% of infusions occurred before 14:00 (ROC-derived cutoff), a significant association with OS was observed. On univariate analysis, early infusion timing was associated with improved survival (HR 2.30, 95% CI 1.58–3.32, p <0.001). This remained significant after multivariable adjustment (HR 2.11, 95% CI 1.41–3.16, p < 0.001). Median OS was 14.2 months in the early group vs 3.8 months in the late group (log-rank p < 0.001). Using previously defined cutoffs, categorization by the median IT of all infusions or the median of the first four infusions did not demonstrate a significant association with OS in either univariate or multivariate Cox regression analyses. Conclusions: These findings highlight the potential role of infusion timing as a chronotherapy factor in GI cancers. Given the retrospective design and heterogeneous population, prospective studies are warranted to validate this signal and clarify its clinical relevance. Baseline demographics of patients by infusion timing (early vs late). Variables Early N=412 (%) LateN=43(%) Total N=455(%) p-value Age <70 249(60.4) 21(48.8) 270 (59.3) 0.1 >70 163(39.6) 22(51.2) 185 (40.7) Gender F 118(28.6) 16(37.2) 134 (29.5) 0.3 M 294(71.4) 27(62.8) 321 (70.5) Cancer Type Gastroesophageal 109 (26.5) 8 (18.6) 117 (25.7) 0.1 Hepatocellular 159 (38.6) 24 (55.8) 183 (40.2) Biliary 86 (20.9) 4 (9.3) 90 (19.8) MSI-H 58 (14.1) 7 (16.3) 65 (14.3) Metastasis No 150 (36.4) 22 (51.2) 172 (37.8) 0.1 Yes 262 (63.6) 21 (48.8) 283 (62.2) Immunotherapy Cycle Number <6 189 (45.9) 33 (76.7) 222 (48.8) <0.001 >6 223 (54.1) 10 (23.3) 233 (51.2)

635 Background: [ 212 Pb]VMT-a-NET is an alpha therapy agent targeting somatostatin receptor subtype 2 (SSTR2)-expressing tumors. Here, we report the results of a prospective, open-label, Phase I/IIa trial (NCT05636618), assessing safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics, and preliminary efficacy of [ 212 Pb]VMT-a-NET in patients with advanced neuroendocrine tumors (NETs). Methods: Adults with well-differentiated unresectable or metastatic SSTR2-expressing NETs, who are peptide receptor radionuclide therapy (PRRT) naïve, and who progressed on at least one prior line of systemic therapy, are eligible. Participants can receive up to four cycles of [ 212 Pb]VMT-a-NET at the assigned dose level. Participants are followed for dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) observation up to 42 days after the first dose. Efficacy is evaluated by investigators according to RECIST criteria v1.1. Results: As of 16-Aug-2025 (data cut-off [DCO]) a total of 48 participants were enrolled into cohorts 1 and 2 and received at least one dose of [ 212 Pb]VMT-a-NET (n=2 in Cohort 1, and n=46 in Cohort 2 at a dose level of 92.5 MBq and 185 MBq, respectively). Among all participants treated with at least one dose of [ 212 Pb]VMT-a-NET (n=48), no DLTs, no grade 4 or 5 adverse events (AEs), and no treatment-related discontinuations, were observed. Median follow-up time was 28 weeks (range: 6-93). Nine participants were followed for DLT observation (n=2 in cohort 1 and n=7 in cohort 2).Seven of these patients were with no progression as of the DCO. Three out of the seven participants enrolled at the dose level of 185 MBq achieved a confirmed partial response (PR). Median follow-up time for participants included in the efficacy group was 72 weeks (range: 6-93). Cohort 3, at a dose level of 222 MBq, has recently been opened for enrollment. At the DCO, 4 participants were enrolled in this cohort. Updated safety outcome for all participants along with updated efficacy findings for participants in Cohort 1 and 2 with sufficient maturity, will be presented during the congress. Conclusions: [ 212 Pb]VMT-a-NET showed a favorable safety profile and promising clinical benefit for patients with advanced SSTR2-expressing NETs treated at the dose levels of 92.5 MBq and 185 MBq. The study is ongoing with Cohort 3 (222 MBq) currently open for enrollment. Clinical trial information: NCT05636618 .

629 Background: NENs are a heterogeneous group of tumors with variable clinical behavior. While most NENs occur sporadically, a subset arises in the context of germline cancer predisposition syndromes. The prevalence of GPVs in NENs is increasingly recognized, but the reported frequency and spectrum of genes involved remain inconsistent across studies. Therefore, systematic review and meta-analysis is helpful to clarify the prevalence and clinical significance of PGVs in pts with NENs. Methods: A systematic review with meta-analysis of prospective and retrospective studies reporting germline testing in pts with NENs was conducted according to the PRISMA guidelines. The primary outcome was the prevalence of GPVs. Random-effects models (GLMM) with logit transformation were applied to estimate pooled prevalence with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results: Nine studies comprising 1304 patients with NENs were included. The median age was 53.8 (10-88.5) years, 52% were female (n=678/1304), and 56% (n=736/1304) were unselected cohorts (all-comers) and 44% (568/1304) were selected cohorts (testing based on clinical suspicion and high-risk features defined by each study). Across all cohorts, the pooled prevalence of PGVs was 19.6% (95% CI: 10.68–33.15%), with high heterogeneity (I² ≈ 96%). Subgroup analyses demonstrated comparable GPV prevalence between selected (13.2%, 95% CI 6.3–25.8) and unselected cohorts (23.0%, 95% CI 12.0–39.6) (p=0.25). GPV prevalence stratified by pancreatic NENs (17.8%, 95% CI 12.6–24.5) and other NENs (10.6%, 95% CI 6.5–17.0) was also not statistically different (p=0.08). The most altered genes involved DNA repair and cellular signaling pathways, including APC, ATM, BRCA1/2, BAP1, CHEK2, MEN1, MUTYH, VHL, RET, and TSC1/2. Germline variants in mismatch repair (MMR) genes were reported in approximately 2.5% of cases. Conclusions: This study represents the first systematic review and meta-analysis evaluating the prevalence of germline mutations in NENs. Approximately 20% of pts with NENs harbor a germline pathogenic variant, underscoring the importance of genetic counseling and germline testing. The wide variability across studies highlights the need for standardized genetic testing approaches. These findings support routine referral for genetic counseling and panel testing in patients with NENs to guide management and familial risk assessment.

619 Background: Well-differentiated G3 GEP-NETs are rare and heterogeneous diseases, limiting phase III trials and definition of clear standards of care. Building upon our preliminary cohort of 76 patients (pts), we present an updated and expanded retrospective analysis across three Mayo Clinic tertiary centers. Methods: We included pts with histologically confirmed well-differentiated G3 GEP-NETs diagnosed since 2017 (new WHO classification) from the three Mayo Clinic sites (Rochester, Phoenix, Jacksonville). Endpoints were ORR, DCR, PFS, and OS across treatment lines. PFS/OS were estimated by Kaplan-Meier. OS was defined from treatment start. Multivariate Cox regression was used to evaluate the association of clinic-pathologic features (age, sex, tumor functionality, Ki-67, primary tumor site, stage at diagnosis, presence of liver metastasis, number of metastatic sites at diagnosis) with OS (p<0.05). Results: 111 pts (median age 62 y, range 22–83). Primary sites were pancreas (58%), small bowel (19%), unknown (9%), and rectum (5%). Most tumors were G3 at diagnosis (88%); the remainder evolved from prior G1/G2. Ki-67 was 20–55% in 83% of cases. Most were nonfunctional (70%); functional subtypes included carcinoid (13%) and gastrinoma (8%). Median plasma 5-HIAA was 38.5 ng/ml (5–1394). Advanced disease was present in 85%. Common metastatic sites included liver (85%), lymph nodes (32%), bone (26%), peritoneum (10%), and lung (9%). Median number of metastatic sites was 1 (range 0–5). Median number of systemic treatment lines was 2 (range 0–8). The most frequent regimens and outcomes are shown in the Table. Insulin-secreting tumors (HR 2.16, 95% CI 1.33–25.73, p=0.019) and ≥2 metastatic sites (HR 2.13, 95% CI 1.05–4.31, p=0.035) were associated with inferior OS. Conclusions: This represents one of the largest real-world datasets of well-differentiated G3 GEP-NETs and provides a deeper evaluation of treatment strategies and prognostic factors. CAPTEM, SSAs, and PRRT with Lu-177 emerged as the most commonly used therapies, with PRRT showing the most favorable outcomes. Insulin secretion and higher metastatic burden were confirmed as adverse prognostic factors. CAPTEM SSAs PRRT Lu-177 Carboplatin plus etoposide FOLFOX Everolimus Sunitinib N of pts (%) 64 (58) 44 (40) 37 (33) 24 (19) 18 (13) 11 (10) 8 (7) Line of therapy (%) First 36 (56.3) 27 (61.4) 5 (13.5) 13 (59.2) 5 (7.2) 1 (9.0) 1 (12.5) Second 15 (23.4) 13 (29.5) 13 (35.2) 3 (13.6) 5 (35.7) 3 (27.3) 2 (37.5) Third or higher 13 (20.3) 4 (9.1) 19 (51.3) 6 (27.2) 8 (57.1) 7 (63.7) 5 (62.5) DCR (%) 60.9 56.8 75.0 52.2 71.4 45.5 37.5 ORR (%) 34.4 13.6 44.4 30.4 35.7 18.2 12.5 mPFS (95% CI) 8.0 (5.3-10.6) 6.2 (2.8-9.5) 11.2 (9.1-13.3) 7.3 (2.8-11.8) 4.4 (2.4-6.4) 3.9 (2.2-5.6) 3.9 (1.54-6.26) mOS (95% CI) 40.1 (23.0-57.2) 50 (22.6-77.4) 76.1 (16.3-135.8) 33.0 (21.0-45.0) 21.1 (15.0-27.2) NE NE

399 Background: The standard of care for resectable GEA adenocarcinomas is perioperative chemotherapy with the FLOT (fluorouracil, leucovorin, oxaliplatin, docetaxel) regimen. Recent studies investigating the addition of checkpoint inhibitors (CPIs) to perioperative chemotherapy have shown mixed results. An NMA can leverage both direct and indirect comparisons to evaluate the relative efficacies of available regimens in this setting. Methods: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Science and CENTRAL were searched until August 27th, 2025. Eligible studies included phase 3 randomized trials evaluating perioperative or neoadjuvant chemotherapy +/- CPIs ± radiation in resectable GEA. The primary outcomes were disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS). Hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated using a frequentist NMA framework. Results: Fifteen trials including 8072 patients were analyzed. For DFS, perioperative durvalumab + FLOT (dFLOT) ranked highest (P-score = 0.99), followed by FLOT (P-score = 0.84) (HR for dFLOT vs. FLOT was 0.71, 95% CI 0.58-0.86). dFLOT also ranked higher than perioperative pembrolizumab + cisplatin and fluorouracil/capecitabine (KN-585), though this comparison was not statistically significant (HR 0.65, 95% CI 0.40-1.04). Compared with CROSS, dFLOT showed superior DFS (HR of 0.48, 95% CI 0.36-0.63). For OS, dFLOT ranked the highest (P-score=0.95) and was superior to CROSS (HR 0.57, 95% CI 0.42-0.77). While dFLOT appeared favorable versus FLOT (HR 0.78, 95% CI 0.62-0.98), this finding was primarily driven by MATTERHORN, which did not meet its prespecified OS significance boundary (P = 0.03 vs threshold P < 0.0001), and the proportional hazards assumption was violated. Similarly, no significant OS difference was observed between dFLOT and the KN-585 arms (HR 0.75, 95% CI 0.45-1.23). Conclusions: In this NMA, perioperative FLOT remained the benchmark regimen for resectable GEA. dFLOT has shown promising early results, ranking the highest for DFS and showing favorable, but not statistically definitive OS trends in comparison to FLOT. Importantly, the network enabled indirect comparisons not tested in head-to-head trials, demonstrating that dFLOT ranked above pembrolizumab+CF/CX (KN-585) without reaching statistical significance, and also outperformed CROSS. However, these findings should be interpreted with caution, as they are primarily driven MATTERHORN data in which OS did not cross the prespecified threshold and proportional hazards assumptions were violated. Perioperative immunotherapy combinations appear promising, but final MATTERHORN results and further confirmatory studies are needed before dFLOT can be considered as a new standard of care.

392 Background: PAC+RAM is the standard second-line therapy for advanced GEA. However, PAC-related neuropathy is a major challenge, particularly since many pts have pre-existing neuropathy from prior platinum exposure. An effective “neuropathy-free” regimen remains an unmet need. We evaluated FTD-TPI+RAM as an alternative to PAC+RAM. Methods: This multi-center, randomized, phase II study enrolled GEA pts who progressed on or were intolerant to fluoropyrimidine+ platinum therapy. Pts were randomized to FTD-TPI+RAM (Arm A) or PAC+RAM (arm B) at a 1:1 ratio. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS), defined as time interval between randomization date and the date of disease progression or death; Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS) and adverse events (AEs). The design hypothesized non-inferiority (NI) of Arm A to Arm B with a NI margin of hazard ratio 1.19. 90 PFS events from 116 pts provide 80% power with a one-sided alpha of 0.15. The interim futility analysis, conducted in December 2024 with 20 events, did not cross the futility boundary (Z statistic ≥ 1.172 ) and continued enrolling pts. The trial closed enrollment in March 2025 due to slow accrual. At the time of interim analysis, 20 events had occurred and the Z statistic was 0.4532. Final analysis included the 29 pts that were eligible, consented, randomized, and received any protocol treatment. Results: Among 29 pts (15 Arm A; 14 Arm B), baseline characteristics were balanced (in Arms A vs B, median age 64 vs 63; 80% vs 85.7% male; 86.7%% vs 78.6% White; 80% vs 78.6% ECOG 1). At data freeze of 8/4/2025, 26 PFS events were reported. Median PFS was 3.2 vs. 3.9 months in Arm A vs. Arm B (HR 1.37, 95% CI 0.61-3.02). NI was not demonstrated (Z =0.34, threshold for NI<-1.036). Median OS was 8.4 vs. 10.7 months, in Arms A and B, respectively. Grade ≥3 AEs occurred in 93% (Arm A) vs 71% (Arm B) with hematologic AEs occurring more frequently in Arm A than Arm B (53% vs 29%). Peripheral sensory neuropathy (any grade) occurred more frequently in Arm B (86%) vs. Arm A (47%). Conclusions: Although NI was not achieved due to early closure and small sample size, FTD-TPI+RAM was relatively safe and associated with less neuropathy compared with PAC+RAM. This regimen warrants further evaluation for pts in whom neuropathy limits taxane use. Clinical trial information: NCT04660760 .