Liu, Li

e12691 Background: Breast cancer prognosis is influenced not only by tumor-specific factors but also by systemic inflammatory responses. Elevated circulating neutrophils after surgery may reflect one such systemic inflammatory response that promotes a pro-tumorigenic environment. Neutrophil extracellular traps (NETs) have been recognized as promoters of cancer activity. However, there have been no studies looking at neutrophil count alone as an independent inflammatory marker in cancer. Clinical prognostic significance of post-operative neutrophil counts remains incompletely understood. If proven significant, neutrophil count is a simple, widely available measure to predict post-operative outcomes in patients with breast cancer. Methods: Data from the Mayo Clinic Platform were retrospectively analyzed, including only breast cancer patients with normal BMI and neutrophil counts recorded within one week after breast surgery. Patients who underwent radical mastectomy were excluded. Patients were stratified into two groups based on neutrophil count: high (>7×10⁹/L) and normal (1.7–7×10⁹/L). Clinical outcomes assessed included age distribution and 5-year overall survival. Age differences were evaluated using Cohen’s D, and Kaplan-Meier survival curves and hazard ratio estimation were performed using the Mayo Clinic Platform's tool. Results: A total of 899 patients were included in the study cohort: 303 in the high neutrophil group (Cohort A) and 596 in the normal neutrophil group (Cohort B). Age distributions were comparable between groups (Cohort A mean 59.2 ± 13.1 years; Cohort B mean 59.1 ± 14.3 years; Cohen's d = 0.0079). High neutrophil counts were significantly associated with reduced 5-year survival (77.8% vs. 84.5%) and an increased risk of mortality (HR 1.63; 95% CI: 1.16–2.29; P = 0.0041). Conclusions: Recent literature supports that surgery-induced NET formation may drive metastatic progression. Findings from this retrospective analysis at Mayo Clinic suggest that elevated neutrophil counts after breast cancer surgery are associated with poorer survival and may reflect systemic inflammation. While markers like NLR and NPAR have prognostic value, neutrophil count alone is a practical, accessible biomarker for clinical use. Limitations of this study include potential confounding factors such as lifestyle and comorbidities, and lack of subgroup analysis by breast cancer type, stage, and other treatments in addition to surgery. Further prospective studies are still needed for validation. Five-year survival rate comparison. Statistic High Neutrophil counts Normal Neutrophil counts Patient Count 303 596 1 Month Survival 99% 99.8% 5 Month Survival 97% 99.3% 10 Month Survival 94.4% 97.3% 30 Month Survival 85.4% 91.9% 60 Month Survival 77.8% 84.5% Hazard Ratio* 1.63 (95% CI: 1.16–2.29) P = 0.0041.

1110 Background: CDK4/6 inhibitors with endocrine therapy are widely used for HR+/HER2– metastatic breast cancer (BC). While studies have shown similar progression-free outcomes across agents, overall survival (OS) data are limited. Since OS is a definitive endpoint and BMI may influence outcomes, this study examines BMI-dependent OS differences among CDK4/6 inhibitors. Methods: A retrospective cohort study was conducted using the Mayo Clinic Platform full AMC1 dataset. Postmenopausal women with BC receiving palbociclib/ribociclib/abemaciclib plus aromatase inhibitor (AI) were included. Patients with prior use of fulvestrant, anthracyclines, radiation therapy, GnRH agonists, or history of MACE, heart failure, myocardial infarction, or stroke before BC diagnosis were excluded. Patients were stratified by BMI and CDK4/6 inhibitor. The primary outcome was 5-year OS. Results: Among 1,989 patients (palbociclib: 868; ribociclib: 465; abemaciclib: 656), palbociclib was associated with significantly worse OS compared to ribociclib in BMI <25 (HR 2.91; 95% CI: 1.76–4.79; P < 0.01) and BMI ≥30 (HR 1.91; 95% CI: 1.21–3.01; P < 0.01). Compared to abemaciclib, palbociclib showed worse OS: BMI <25 (HR 1.73; P < 0.01), BMI 25–30 (HR 1.56; P < 0.01), and BMI ≥30 (HR 1.82; P < 0.01). No significant OS differences were observed between ribociclib and abemaciclib. Palbociclib patients were older, particularly in BMI <25 (Cohen's D = 0.39 vs. ribociclib; 0.27 vs. abemaciclib) and BMI ≥30 (0.28 vs. ribociclib; 0.23 vs. abemaciclib). In the BMI 25–30 group, palbociclib group was also older than ribociclib group (Cohen's D = 0.26). Conclusions: In postmenopausal BC patients on AIs and CDK4/6 inhibitors, palbociclib was associated with worse OS in BMI < 25 and BMI ≥ 30 groups, while ribociclib and abemaciclib showed similar outcomes across BMI groups. Palbociclib patients were older than those on other drugs, which may partially confound results; however, in the BMI 25–30 group, despite similar age differences, no survival difference was observed between palbociclib and ribociclib, suggesting age alone may have limited impact. These findings indicate a potential interaction between BMI and drug choice, and highlight the need for prospective studies to confirm and adjust for these variables. Limitations include the observational design and inability to perform multivariable regression analyses to adjust for confounders. Overall survival comparisons by CDK4/6 inhibitor and BMI subgroup. Comparison BMI Group Hazard Ratio (95% CI) P-value Palbociclib vs Ribociclib <25 2.91 (1.76 – 4.79) < 0.01 25 – 30 1.34 (0.87 – 2.071) 0.17 ≥30 1.91 (1.21 – 3.01) < 0.01 Palbociclib vs Abemaciclib <25 1.73 (1.29 – 2.32) < 0.01 25 – 30 1.56 (1.09 – 2.23) < 0.01 ≥30 1.82 (1.15 – 2.88) < 0.01 Ribociclib vs Abemaciclib <25 1.27 (0.81 – 1.99) 0.29 25 – 30 0.87 (0.54 – 1.43) 0.59 ≥30 1.05 (0.63 – 1.75) 0.85