Pedersen, Katrina S.

TPS3184 Background: Replication stress (RS) creates cancer cell vulnerability to which the critical DNA damage response kinase, ATR (Ataxia-Telangiectasia and Rad3-related) responds. ATR senses the stress, halts the cell cycle, and promotes DNA repair to allow proliferation. Alnodesertib is an ATR inhibitor developed to prevent cancer cells from successfully repairing RS and proliferating further. In earlier stages of alnodesertib development, preclinical and translational research demonstrated that tumor cells experience three combined biological insults: irinotecan-induced RS, endogenous RS via ataxia-telangiectasia mutated (ATM) loss, and RS rescue prevention by ATR inhibition. Data from the dose escalation and initial dose expansion cohorts of this trial in a tumor agnostic population showed encouraging results in ATM-negative cancers (confirmed Overall Response Rate of 50% in 20 patients with ATM negative cancers and responses across 8 cancer types including complete responses, Ulahannan et al, AACR 2025). Tumor-specific dose expansion cohorts are now enrolling, including colorectal cancer (CRC) and pancreas ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). Methods: Two tumor-specific cohorts are now open, each enrolling approximately 50 patients (pts): ATM-negative CRC and ATM-negative PDAC. Pts will receive the recommended dose of alnodesertib 200mg orally on days 1-3 and 8-10 combined with low-dose irinotecan 60mg/m 2 IV on days 1 and 8, of each 21-day cycle. Tumor tissue is prescreened by immunohistochemistry for ATM protein loss (H score 0) for enrollment eligibility. Pts with CRC must have received a maximum of 2 prior chemotherapies excluding prior trifluridine/tipiracil, fruquintinib, or regorafenib, and pts with PDAC must have received a maximum of 1 prior chemotherapy for advanced disease. Prior targeted agents are allowed and do not count as prior lines of therapy. Key objectives include safety, tolerability, and preliminary efficacy. Clinical trial information: NCT04657068 .

4183 Background: High grade neuroendocrine neoplasms (HG-NENs) are treated with platinum doublets mirroring guidelines for small cell lung cancer (SCLC) but recurrences are common and salvage options are limited in efficacy. Cabozantinib (CABO), an inhibitor of VEGFR, MET, and TAM kinases (TYRO3, AXL, and MER) was approved by the FDA for treatment of well differentiated (WD) NENs of both pancreatic and extrapancreatic origins based on the CABINET study (Chan, NEJM 2025). However, its efficacy in the whole spectrum of HG-NEN patients including poorly differentiated disease (PDD) has not been prospectively explored. Methods: This was a single institution, Phase II study of CABO in patients with HG-NENs who had progressed on at least one prior treatment. Key inclusion/exclusion criteria were NENs of any origin except SCLC, high grade by Ki-67 of > 20% or histology consensus, ECOG of < = 1, appropriate hematological parameters and no history of bleeding or active cardiac disease. CABO was given orally starting at 60 mg po daily in 3-week cycles. The primary endpoint of this study was overall response rate (ORR). Secondary endpoints included progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). A Simon optimal 2-stage design tested the null hypothesis that the true ORR is < = 1% at the type I error rate of 5%, resulting in projected enrollment of up to 32 total patients. Toxicities were graded according to CTCAE v5.0 and response was evaluated according to RECIST v1. Results: All patients have been accrued, with 4/32 patients still on treatment. Median age at diagnosis was 62 years and male to female ratio was 1.46. Origin of tumor was GI in 68.8% of the cases, the rest being thoracic (6.3%), prostate (6.3%) cervical (6.3%) head/neck (3.1%) and unknown (9.4%). Median Ki-67 was 55%, 11 patients had Ki-67 > 70%. Histology was WD-HG in 40% of patients and PDD in 60%. Two patients had mixed PDD/other components (MiNEN). Median PFS in evaluable patients was 4.01 months [95% CI 1.61 to 9.30] and mOS was 9.89 mo [95% CI 6.73 to 18.96]. Three patients so far (9.3%) have had partial response as best response (PDD-colon, WD-pancreas and PDD-cervical) while 19/32 (59.4%) patients have had stable disease as best response so far (disease control rate 68.8%). Five (15.6%) patients have received more than 10 treatment cycles. The three longest treated patients had WD-pancreas (23 and 17 cycles) and PDD-unknown (12 cycles). One patient had eventual resection of a metastatic site and is currently without evidence of disease. Three patients withdrew from the trial because of toxicities (shortness of breath, GI bleeding, thromboembolism). Twenty-six patients have expired. Conclusions: CABO monotherapy showed efficacy in some HG-NEN patients with not just WD but also the very aggressive PDD histology. No new side effects to the ones previously described for this agent were noted. Supported by Exelixis and a Siteman investment program grant. Clinical trial information: NCT04412629 .

4122 Background: BTCs are rare and aggressive malignancies. The first-line standard of care regimen for advanced BTC (aBTC) is gemcitabine (GEM), cisplatin, and an immune checkpoint inhibitor. Although FOLFOX is a preferred second-line treatment, it is limited by neuropathy. Nal-IRI contains IRI free base in liposome nanoparticles, which shelter IRI from conversion to its active metabolite (SN-38) and increase intratumoral SN-38 compared with IRI alone. The NAPOLI-1 trial of FU/LV/nal-IRI vs. FU/LV in second-line advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma showed an overall survival (OS) benefit. The NIFTY trial (South Korea) demonstrated median OS (mOS) benefit of FU/LV/nal-IRI over FU/LV in a second-line aBTC population (8.6 vs. 5.3 months [mo], HR 0.68, 95% CI 0.48-0.95); however, the NALIRICC trial (Germany) did not (6.9 vs. 8.2 mo, HR 1.08, 95% CI 0.68-1.72). We sought to characterize second-line FU/LV/nal-IRI efficacy in US patients (pts) with second-line aBTC. Methods: This was a single-arm, open-label, multicenter phase II study of pts with aBTC previously treated with GEM/platinum chemotherapy. Pts received nal-IRI 70 mg/m 2 IV over 90 minutes, LV 400 mg/m 2 IV over 30 minutes every 14 days, and FU 2400 mg/m 2 IV over 46 hours every 14 days. The primary objective was to determine progression-free survival rate at 4 mo (PFS 4mo ) using RECIST v. 1.1 criteria. Median PFS reported for pts receiving second-line 5-FU doublet chemotherapy was 3 mo with a PFS of 30%. FU/LV/nal-IRI was of interest if it could increase the PFS 4mo to 50% or higher. Using a one-sided α of 0.05 and 80% power, 17 of 39 evaluable pts had to be progression-free at 4 mo to detect a difference in PFS 4mo between 30% and 50%. Results: Forty-eight pts were enrolled: median age 64.5 years; 69% women; 27% gallbladder primary; 54% intra- and 19% extrahepatic. Ten pts came off study due to toxicity without disease progression before 4 mo on study and were replaced to evaluate the PFS 4mo endpoint. Of 38 evaluable pts, 18 pts (PFS 4mo 47%) were alive and progression-free at 4 mo, meeting the primary endpoint. With a median follow-up of 7.1 mo, median time to disease progression or study discontinuation due to toxicity for all pts was 2.3 mo (95% CI 1.8-4.6, PFS 4mo 38%), and for pts evaluable for the primary endpoint, median PFS was 3.5 mo (95% CI 1.8-5.5). Five pts (10%) had PFS beyond 12 mo. mOS for all pts was 7.9 mo (95% CI 5.7-11.7). Of 41 evaluable pts, the response rate was 2% (1 PR), and the disease control rate was 54%. Adverse events (AEs) were consistent with known toxicities from the FU/LV/nal-IRI regimen. Conclusions: FU/LV/nal-IRI is an effective second-line regimen for aBTC in US pts. There was significant early toxicity as 21% of pts came off study due to AEs before 4 mo. Correlative studies, including longitudinal analyses of circulating tumor DNA using banked blood specimens, are planned (NCT04005339). Clinical trial information: NCT04005339 .

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)

830 Background: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are standard therapy for MSI-H GI cancers. Lynch syndrome, caused by germline mutations in mismatch repair (MMR) genes, leads to MSI-H tumors and robust ICI responses, but its effect on irAEs remains poorly defined. Clarifying this risk may inform treatment selection and toxicity monitoring. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed MSI-H or MMR-deficient (dMMR) GI cancer patients (pts) treated with ICIs across Mayo Clinic (AZ, MN, FL) from January 2017 to June 2025. Eligible pts were identified using Mayo Data Explorer. Demographics, treatment, and irAEs (graded per CTCAE v5.0) were collected. Lynch status was determined by germline testing when available. Logistic regression estimated odds ratios (ORs) for any grade and grade ≥3 irAEs, adjusting for age, cancer type, prior chemotherapy, and treatment regimen. Results: A total of 209 pts with dMMR/MSI-H GI cancer were included: 61 with Lynch syndrome and 148 without. Lynch pts were younger (median 58 vs 76 years, p < 0.001) and more likely to have received prior chemotherapy (62% vs 43%, p = 0.009). Colorectal cancer was the predominant cancer type (74%), but Lynch pts had proportionally more non-colorectal GI cancers (15% vs 2.7%, p = 0.007). Overall, 29% of pts experienced an irAE, with rates significantly higher in Lynch vs non-Lynch pts (43% vs 24%, p = 0.005). The most frequent irAEs were gastrointestinal, endocrine, and dermatologic, followed by hepatic and pulmonary events. Grade ≥3 irAEs occurred in 16% overall, with no significant difference between groups (p = 0.124). In adjusted models, Lynch syndrome was independently associated with a higher risk of any grade irAE (OR 2.14, 95% CI 1.09 - 4.19, p = 0.026), while risk of severe irAEs was not increased (OR 1.55, 95% CI 0.64 - 3.59, p = 0.316). Lynch syndrome pts were more likely to have combination therapy (17% vs 6.8%, p = 0.029). However, there were no differences observed in any grade irAE between monotherapy and combination immunotherapy (OR 1.36, 95% CI 0.49 - 3.54, p = 0.535). Conclusions: Lynch syndrome is associated with a higher prevalence of any-grade irAEs among dMMR/MSI-H GI cancer pts treated with ICIs, though severe events were not increased. Incorporating Lynch status into immunotherapy planning may improve risk stratification and guide regimen selection.

162 Background: In preclinical studies, the tryptophan-metabolizing enzyme, Indoleamine 2, 3-dioxygenase 1 (IDO1), promotes resistance to radiation in colorectal cancer, and IDO1 inhibition with epacadostat improves tumor radiosensitivity. In a phase 1 trial, patients (pts) with locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC, n=17) were treated with epacadostat in combination with short course radiotherapy (SCRT) and CAPOX which was well-tolerated, and the recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) of epacadostat was 400mg BID. Here we report efficacy and safety from the NCI-supported phase 2 (NCT03516708) multicenter, open-label trial (treatment cohort). Methods: Pts were treated with standard of care (SOC) SCRT, then SOC neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) followed by SOC surgical resection or non-operative management (NOM). Epacadostat (400 mg BID) started with SCRT and continued until starting NAC (a minimum of 21 days). Eight pts were enrolled prior to discontinuation of epacadostat by Incyte in February/March 2025. The primary endpoint is Neoadjuvant Rectal (NAR) score. In patients who underwent NOM, we calculated MRI-based tumor regression grade (MR-TRG). Secondary endpoints are pathologic complete response (pCR) rate, complete clinical response (cCR) rate, and progression free survival (PFS). Results: Table 1 summarizes baseline characteristics and endpoints (primary and secondary). NOM was pursued in 7/8 (87.5%) pts, surgical resection was performed on 1/8 (12.5%). At median follow-up of 12 months, local tumor regrowth occurred in 1 pt initially treated with NOM (after tumor regrowth, he underwent salvage surgery and is currently on surveillance). Treatment with epacadostat was interrupted in 2/8 (25%) patients due to grade 3 maculopapular skin rash. Most frequent treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) regardless of causality (all grades (G)/G3-4) were bloating (75%/0%), increased ALT (62.5%/0%), increased AST (50%/0%), nausea (50%/0%), and constipation (50%/0%). Grade 3 diarrhea and grade 3 non-cardiac chest pain occurred in 1 patient each (both unrelated to epacadostat). Conclusions: Epacadostat demonstrates promising efficacy and manageable safety in patients with LARC. The biomarker cohort and correlative studies are ongoing. Clinical trial information: NCT03516708 . Baseline characteristics and endpoints. Patient Age Sex Ethnicity Stage Surgery/NOM NAR MR-TRG cCR/pCR Recurrence 1 52 M Caucasian T3N1 NOM NA 2 Y/NA No 2 45 M Caucasian T3N1 NOM NA 3 Y/NA Local tumor regrowth 3 48 M Caucasian T3N2 NOM NA 3 Y/NA No 4 61 M Caucasian T4N2 NOM NA 3 Y/NA No 5 57 M Caucasian T3N0 NOM NA 1 Y/NA No 6 60 F Caucasian T3N1 Surgery 15 3 N/ypT3N0 No 7 67 M Caucasian T4N0 NOM NA 3 Y/NA No 8 51 M Caucasian T4N2 NOM NA P NA No

103 Background: Clinicians spend significant time extracting and synthesizing information to risk-stratify and make adjuvant chemotherapy (AC) recommendations for CRC. By automating parts of this process, LLMs could help reduce documentation burden and variability in decision-making. Methods: We selected 144 stage III, pMMR CRC patients treated at Mayo Clinic (2017–2021). HIPAA-compliant Gemini-2.0-Flash-001 and GPT-4o extracted clinical variables (age, neuropathy grade, pathological stage) from EHRs and generated AC recommendations. Two approaches were compared: (1) a rule-based algorithm with nested if/else statements translating variables into NCCN-based recommendations, and (2) a dynamic LLM agent generating recommendations using a structured prompt informed by NCCN guidelines. Concordance with treating physicians was assessed, with disagreements reviewed by a blinded GI oncologist. Results: The dataset included 144 patients with median age 67 (IQR 66–68), 48.6% female. The LLM pipeline extracted neuropathy grade with 100% accuracy and pathological T/N stages with 99.3% accuracy. Concordance with physician recommendations was 93.1% for the rule-based algorithm and 62.5% for the LLM agent. In discordant cases, blinded adjudication by a GI oncologist favored the algorithm and LLM agent over physicians in most cases (Table 1). Conclusions: This exploratory work shows LLM agents can reliably extract variables and generate evidence-based treatment recommendations for stage III CRC. The high rate of expert preference for LLM recommendations in discordant cases is intriguing but limited by small sample size and possible adjudicator bias. Discordant physician recommendations reflect the complexity of decision-making, including patient preferences, performance status, comorbidities, and subtle findings not fully captured in EHRs. Rather than replacing judgment, we envision LLMs as decision support tools—analogous to an advanced trainee reviewing charts and presenting evidence-based recommendations to the attending physician with ultimate authority. Larger multi-institutional studies with multiple adjudicators are needed to validate these findings and clarify AI’s role in oncology. Patient characteristics, LLM extraction accuracy, and concordance with physician recommendations. Metric Result Total patients 144 Median age (IQR) 67 (66-68) Female (%) 48.6% LLM extraction accuracy – Neuropathy grade 100% LLM extraction accuracy – Pathological T and N stages 99.3% Primary Concordance – Rule-based algorithm vs. physician 93.1% Adjudicator preference of rule-based algorithm over treating physician for discordant cases 100% Concordance – LLM agent vs. physician 62.5% Adjudicator preference of LLM agent over treating physician for discordant cases 82.0%

Objective: In this study, we evaluate the utility of ctDNA analysis in a large cohort of patients for whom ctDNA testing was ordered commercially with real-world application. Summary Background Data: Circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) has emerged as a prognostic and predictive biomarker for assessing post-surgical molecular residual disease (MRD) and response to treatment. Methods: A real-world data analysis was performed using commercial ctDNA testing (SignateraTM) from patients (N=795, n=5,971 plasma samples) with stage I-III colon cancer treated at multiple US institutions. The association of ctDNA detection within the MRD window, during surveillance, and the impact of ACT was correlated with patient outcomes. Results: ctDNA-positive patients during the MRD window and surveillance showed significantly shorter DFS compared to ctDNA-negative patients (hazard ratio (HR): 9.85, P<0.0001; HR: 26.91, P<0.0001). Multivariate analysis of the MRD window revealed ctDNA-positivity as the most significant factor associated with inferior DFS (adjHR: 7.7, P<0.001). MRD-positive patients who received ACT showed improved DFS compared to patients observed post-surgery (adjHR: 6.1, FDR adj P=0.0007). No ACT benefit was observed in MRD-negative patients (adj HR: 1.20, FDR adj P=0.768). On evaluating ctDNA dynamics from MRD to surveillance, patients who remained ctDNA-positive or converted from negative to positive showed a significantly inferior DFS (HR: 34.40, P<0.0001; HR: 13.65, P<0.0001) compared to persistently ctDNA-negative patients. Conclusions: Postsurgical ctDNA detection is prognostic of relapse and potentially predictive of ACT benefit in patients with resectable colon cancer, which may enable personalized surveillance, intervention, and/or trial options, ultimately improving patient outcomes.

TPS3648 Background: Indoleamine 2,3-dioxygenase 1 (IDO1) metabolizes tryptophan along the kynurenine pathway and is recognized as a potent suppressor of tumor reactive immunity. Epacadostat is an orally active, potent and selective inhibitor of IDO1. In preclinical studies, IDO1 was found to promote resistance to radiation in rectal cancer, irrespective of microsatellite instability (MSI) status. IDO1 inhibition with epacadostat improved tumor radiosensitivity by relieving immune suppression and augmenting radiation-induced apoptosis while protecting the normal intestine from radiation damage. In a phase 1 trial, 17 patients were enrolled from 4/2019 to 8/2023. Epacadostat in combination with short-course radiation therapy (SCRT) and CAPOX was well-tolerated and the recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) of epacadostat was determined to be 400 mg BID. An NCI supported Phase 2 trial is ongoing to further evaluate the promising disease responses reported in the dose escalation phase. Methods: This phase 2 multicenter, open-label trial includes treatment and biomarker cohorts. In the treatment cohort, epacadostat at 400 mg BID will be administered concurrently with SCRT followed by epacadostat monotherapy until 1 day prior to neoadjuvant chemotherapy, followed by standard-of-care (SOC) neoadjuvant chemotherapy and, ultimately, surgical resection or non-operative management (NOM). Biomarker cohort enrollment will commence at completion of treatment cohort accrual. Enrolled patients will be treated with SOC SCRT followed by SOC neoadjuvant chemotherapy and surgical resection or NOM. Eligible patients must be a treatment-naïve, newly diagnosed, pathologically confirmed, locally advanced rectal cancer (defined by 8 th edition AJCC stage 2 or 3, or stage 1 not eligible for sphincter-sparing surgery) with plans to proceed with neoadjuvant SCRT and chemotherapy. The primary endpoint is the neoadjuvant rectal (NAR) score. Secondary endpoints are pathologic complete response (pCR) rate, complete clinical response (cCR) rate and progression-free survival (PFS). Exploratory endpoints are pharmacodynamics, PDX and organoid generation, identification of molecular predictors of response and resistance, correlation of radiographic and pathologic response and effect of treatment on patient quality of life. We aim to enroll 27 patients in the treatment cohort and 10 in the biomarker cohort. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT03516708 .

e16479 Background: Recent genomic data has demonstrated SBA to be a molecularly unique entity when compared to colon or gastric cancers. The ongoing SWOG 1922 randomized clinical trial is comparing FOLFIRI to ramucirumab/paclitaxel as the second-line treatment for metastatic SBA. We sought to further define the activity of taxane-based therapy in the largest collection of SBA patients treated with this therapy. Methods: A retrospective review of SBA patients treated with taxane-based chemotherapy from 1994 to 2024 at MD Anderson Cancer Center was performed. All patients had pathologic confirmation, received > 1 cycle of therapy, and had documented tumor response evaluation. Response was assessed by the treating physician based on the imaging studies and categorized as response, stable disease or progression. Patient demographics, clinical parameters, molecular data, and taxane treatment was reviewed. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was performed to calculate time to progression (TTP) and overall survival (OS). Results: 70 SBA patients treated with taxane-based therapy were identified. The median age at diagnosis was 57 years (range 33-80 years), majority being male (59%) with primary tumor located at duodenum (44%), Jejunum (34%), Ileum (16%). The most common presenting metastatic site was peritoneum (39%), followed by liver (31%). The genomic status revealed mutations in the following genes: 62% TP53, 47% KRAS, 24% SMAD4, and 15% APC. Taxane treatment was single agent (nab-paclitaxel, paclitaxel, or docetaxel) in 29%, gemcitabine and taxane combination in 61% and other taxane-based combinations in 10%. Therapy was given in the metastatic setting as 2nd-line in 40%, 3rd-line in 33% and 4th-line or greater in 20%. Response status was response in 24%, stable disease in 26%, and progression in 50%. Median TTP was 3.1 months (95%CI: 2.0-4.2 months), and median OS was 8.7 months (95%CI: 7.4-10.1 months). Median TTP was similar between single agent (2.6 months) and gemcitabine-based combination (2.5 months) (p =0.75). Efficacy did not differ by line of therapy nor primary tumor site. Efficacy differed by TP53 mutation status: TP53 mutated vs wildtype (response 21% vs 43%, p = 0.02; median TTP 2.4m vs 4.9m, p = 0.013; median OS 7.3m vs 10.6m, p = 0.004). Conclusions: This retrospective study of 70 SBA patients confirms the activity of taxane-based therapy demonstrating a response rate of 24% and median TTP of 3.1 months. Though limited by sample size, TP53 mutations may represent a negative predictive marker for taxane-based therapy in SBA patients. These findings support the ongoing SWOG 1922 trial investigating taxane-based therapy as a second line for metastatic SBA.