Jones, Jeremy Clifton

TPS1679 Background: Cancer care in the United States remains highly centralized, imposing substantial time, caregiver, and financial burdens on patients, particularly those residing in rural and medically underserved regions. While international experience supports the feasibility of home-based cancer therapy delivery, prospective U.S. clinical trial data are limited. The Cancer CARE Beyond Walls (CCBW) program was developed to address these gaps through a decentralized cancer care model integrating virtual oversight, remote monitoring, mobile clinical services, and community-based nursing partners. The study evaluates the feasibility, safety, and patient-centered impact of delivering cancer-directed therapy in patients’ homes or near-home mobile units in the Florida Panhandle, a region characterized by long travel distances to tertiary centers and limited oncology infrastructure. Methods: This is a phase 2, single-arm clinical trial evaluating the delivery of standard-of-care cancer-directed therapy outside of traditional infusion centers. Eligible adult patients (ECOG 0–3) with histologically confirmed malignancies receiving guideline-supported or FDA-approved systemic cancer therapy must demonstrate tolerability of at least one prior in-clinic treatment cycle. Following registration, patients transition to home-based or near-home mobile unit administration for a minimum of 12 weeks, with an option to continue up to 24 weeks. Care delivery is coordinated through a virtual command center providing real-time virtual oversight, remote monitoring, and escalation pathways. Treatment administration is performed by trained local home health nurses, medication shipping, and digital interaction with the electronic health record. A fully equipped mobile unit extends access to rural areas not covered by home health agencies. The primary endpoint is patient preference for treatment location at week 12. Secondary endpoints include safety, avoidable acute care utilization, patient-reported function and global health/quality of life, patient-reported symptoms, and satisfaction with care. Exploratory endpoints assess travel burden, patient perceptions of caregiver experience, and patient perceptions of home versus mobile unit care. Enrollment of 27 patients will provide 80% power to reject a 50% null rate (2-sided exact test, α=0.10), assuming 75% prefer decentralized care or express no preference. This investigator-initiated trial is open to accrual and is supported by a grant from the Florida Cancer Innovation Fund. Clinical trial information: NCT07285044 .

e16435 Background: Peritoneal metastasis in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is historically associated with a dismal prognosis and limited response to systemic therapy alone. The role of locoregional therapy remains controversial. This study evaluated the survival impact and safety of HIPEC, with or without cytoreductive surgery (CRS), compared to standard-of-care systemic therapy in patients with peritoneal metastatic PDAC. Methods: We conducted a comparative analysis of 130 patients with peritoneal metastatic PDAC, comprising a study cohort treated with HIPEC (n = 33) and a control group treated with systemic chemotherapy alone (Non-HIPEC, n = 97). HIPEC patients received induction chemotherapy (predominantly FOLFIRINOX) followed by HIPEC ± CRS. Co-primary endpoints included 12 months survival, and 6 months progression free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints evaluated Overall Survival (OS ), safety of CRS, and impact of germline mutation status on survival. Study was approved under IRB protocol 25-008762. Results: The 12-month OS rate was significantly higher in the HIPEC group compared to the chemotherapy-only control group (100% vs. 52.6%, P < 0.001). The 6-month PFS rate in the HIPEC group was 63.0% vs. 47.94 in-only control group (P < 0.001). For secondary endpoints, the HIPEC group demonstrated a significantly longer median OS of 33.0 months vs. 17.0 months for controls (P < 0.001). Within the HIPEC cohort, the addition of CRS (n = 25) significantly improved outcomes compared to HIPEC alone (n = 8): median OS improved from 21.5 to 36.0 months (P = 0.03). Germline testing was performed in 61% of HIPEC patients and 48% of controls, identifying pathogenic mutations in 25% and 17%, respectively. Identified pathogenic mutations in both groups included ATM (n = 4), MUTYH (n = 2), BRCA2 (n = 1), CHEK2 (n = 1), PALB2 (n = 1), and KIT (n = 1). In the control group, specific mutations drove divergent outcomes; ATM median OS: 23.5 months vs. MUTYH : 8.0 months (P = 0.04). Conversely, in the HIPEC+CRS cohort, survival was excellent regardless of genetic profile: mutation carriers achieved a median OS of 33.0 months compared to 31.0 months in wild-type patients (P = 0.85). Despite a 34.8% postoperative complication rate in the HIPEC group, there was no perioperative mortality. Conclusions: In selected patients with peritoneal metastatic PDAC, HIPEC provides a substantial survival advantage over systemic therapy alone, achieving a 100% 12-month survival rate and more than doubling the median overall survival. Importantly, germline mutation status did not preclude survival benefit, with mutation carriers deriving equal efficacy from the multimodal approach. These findings support HIPEC+CRS as a highly effective strategy that may overcome adverse biologic drivers.

e16018 Background: Intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (iCCA) exhibits marked heterogeneity in outcomes that is incompletely explained by stage or treatment timing. Although treatment delay is frequently cited as a modifiable risk factor, its prognostic significance in real-world practice remains unclear. We applied machine learning (ML) to model iCCA as a dynamic disease process and to evaluate whether longitudinal disease trajectories better explain outcomes than treatment timing alone. Methods: We conducted a population-based retrospective analysis of adults diagnosed with iCCA using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database (2000–2022). Time from diagnosis to first cancer-directed therapy was categorized as ≤30 days, 31–60 days, or > 60 days. Associations between treatment delay, disease characteristics, and overall survival (OS) were assessed using multivariable logistic and Cox regression models. To capture real-world disease evolution, each patient’s clinical course was encoded as an ordered longitudinal sequence of diagnosis, treatment states (surgery, chemotherapy, radiation), and outcome. Unsupervised ML was used to identify latent disease-course trajectories. A supervised ML model using variables available at diagnosis was developed to predict membership in high-risk trajectories. Results: The cohort included 18,312 patients with iCCA. Treatment initiation beyond 30 days occurred in more than half of patients and was more common in localized than advanced disease. In adjusted survival analyses, shorter time to treatment was paradoxically associated with worse OS, consistent with confounding by disease severity rather than a protective effect of delay. Unsupervised ML identified four distinct and reproducible disease trajectories with markedly different outcomes. Median OS ranged from approximately 2 months in early-failure trajectories to approximately 15 months in favorable multimodality trajectories. Trajectory membership was not fully explained by stage or treatment timing. A supervised ML model predicted high-risk trajectory membership with good discrimination (AUC 0.82). Key predictors included tumor grade, age, tumor burden, and incomplete staging, whereas treatment timing had minimal influence. Conclusions: In iCCA, treatment delay reflects underlying disease biology and care prioritization rather than independently determining survival. ML-based trajectory modeling reveals clinically meaningful disease courses that better explain outcome heterogeneity than treatment timing or stage alone and enables early identification of patients at highest risk for unfavorable real-world outcomes.

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

e13611 Background: Decentralized cancer care models may reduce treatment burden for patients with advanced prostate cancer (CaP), particularly those facing mobility, transportation, of scheduling challenges. However, prospective patient-reported experience and quality-of-life data comparing home- versus clinic-based oncology care remain limited. Mayo Clinic Cancer CARE Beyond Walls (CCBW) is a patient-centered program designed to deliver selected standard-of-care cancer therapies in the home with virtual clinical oversight. This observational study evaluated patient-reported experience, feasibility, safety, and quality of life among men with advanced or metastatic CaP receiving care at home. Methods: Men with advanced/metastatic CaP receiving active standard-of-care therapy including hormone-based treatments, oral anticancer therapies, anti-bone resorptive agents, or intravenous chemotherapy who were participating in a CCBW randomized trial were enrolled into a companion observational study. After confirmation of treatment tolerance in clinic, patients received home-based care for 24 weeks (Arm A) or in-clinic care for 8 weeks followed by home-based care for 16 weeks (Arm B). Patient-reported outcomes were collected at baseline and Weeks 8, 16, and 24, using CAHPS-based measures and CCBW-specific surveys assessing overall cancer care experience, patient preference for site of care, comfort with home infusions, functional/symptom assessment and quality of life. Descriptive analyses were performed. Results: Eighteen participants were analyzed (Arm A n = 10; Arm B n = 8). Participants were medically stable, and predominantly insured by Medicare. Survey completion was 100% at baseline and 83% at all follow-up time points. At Weeks 16 and 24 when all respondents had received home-based care, 100% and 92% reported being “quite a bit” or “very much” comfortable receiving treatment at home. Communication with at-home and remote nursing teams was rated highly, and most respondents reported transition, scheduling, and equipment use easy or very easy. At Weeks 16 and 24, 45% and 40% of respondents reported improved quality of life from receiving home-based care, with no reports of worsening. No emergency department visits, hospitalizations, or urgent care visits occurred in either arm. Conclusions: In this prospective, observational study, home-based oncology care delivered through CCBW was feasible, safe, and associated with high patient satisfaction among men with advanced CaP receiving diverse systemic therapies. These findings support further evaluation and expansion of decentralized care integrating home-based treatment with virtual clinical oversight.