Rini, Brian I.

TPS10628 Background: Despite advances in cancer treatment, a lack of established population-level cancer screening strategies for early detection across cancer types contributes to cancer-related mortality. Emerging MCED liquid biopsy tests represent a screening approach with potential to enable detection of multiple malignancies at earlier stages in the disease process. We previously showed that an initial classifier based on a genome-wide methylome enrichment platform detected 12 cancer types, including early-stage, low-shedding tumors (Park et al. AACR 2023. Abs 1030). However, clinical performance of the platform has not been evaluated prospectively. Thus, the CAMPERR study (NCT05366881) was designed to train and validate a cell-free methylated DNA immunoprecipitation and high throughput sequencing (cfMeDIP-seq)-based test for detection and differentiation of 20 pre-selected cancer types, representing 93% of annual cancer incidence and 88% of annual cancer deaths. Longitudinal follow-up for a subset of participants with lung cancer will enable training and validation for MRD-based recurrence prognostication. Methods: This case-control study is enrolling participants with 20 different pre-specified cancer types (n=2400) and those without known cancer (n=3900). Eligible participants are ≥40 years of age and not receiving treatment for cancer at the time of enrollment or taking any demethylating/hypomethylating agents. Cases include individuals with newly diagnosed (≤120 days), untreated cancer or recurrence of a cancer originally diagnosed >5 years ago. Cancers of interest are stage I-IV bladder, brain, breast, cervical, colorectal, endometrial, esophageal, gastric, head and neck, hepatobiliary, leukemia, lung, lymphoma, multiple myeloma, ovarian, pancreatic, prostate, renal, sarcoma, and thyroid. Participants with stage I-III lung cancer will have clinical follow-up and blood draws after completion of first-line treatment, every 3 mo for the first year thereafter, and every 6 mo for an additional 2 years. Eligible control participants have not been diagnosed with invasive cancer in the last 5 years and will have clinical follow-up ≥12 mo from enrollment to evaluate cancer status. Liquid biopsy results will not be returned to clinicians or participants. The primary objective is cancer detection. Secondary objectives include detection of specific cancer types, identification of the tissue of origin, and prognostication of clinical outcomes (eg, recurrence-free survival, overall survival). CAMPERR is currently enrolling at 15 sites. As of December 3, 2025, 2108 of 2400 cancer cases have been enrolled, including prostate (n=225), lung (n=216), colorectal (n=211), breast (n=193), and pancreatic (n=192); controls are fully enrolled. Clinical trial information: NCT05366881 .

4545 Background: The treatment landscape of front-line nccRCC has evolved with recent trials demonstrating the efficacy of combination systemic therapy. However, the efficacy of treatment after combination therapy is unknown. This study evaluates the efficacy of VEGF-based regimens in nccRCC patients (pts) previously treated with combination regimens. Methods: ORACLE is a real-world, multi-center, retrospective database that includes nccRCC patients that received combination systemic therapies (IO+IO, IO+VEGF and VEGF+ mTOR) in any line. Subsequent treatments were categorized as VEGF only regimens (cabozantinib vs other VEGF), IO+ VEGF and VEGF+ mTOR. The primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR) assessed by investigator review using RECIST 1.1. Secondary endpoints included disease control rate (DCR), defined as the proportion of patients achieving complete or partial responses or stable disease, time to treatment progression (TTP), calculated from the date of VEGF-based initiation to progression or last follow-up using the Kaplan-Meier method. Differences between groups were estimated with the log-rank test, and categorical outcomes were compared with the chi-square test. Results: 105 pts who received VEGF – based regimens after combination therapy were included in the analysis. Baseline characteristics: median age: 59years, 71 % male, 58% white, 25% black, 87% ECOG 0-2. IMDC-risk categories included:21% favorable, 59% intermediate and 20% poor risk. Histology included papillary (40%), unclassified (32%), chromophobe (16%) and other rare subtypes (12%). Prior combination therapies included IO+IO: 62%, IO+ VEGF: 34% and VEGF+ mTORi:4%. 70% pts received combination therapy in the first line setting while the remainder received combination therapy in a second or later line. Outcomes with subsequent treatments are described in Table1. IMDC risk score correlated with TTP. Conclusions: Modest antitumor activity was observed with VEGF- based approaches in combination therapy refractory nccRCC. Optimal management of nccRCC remains an unmet need. Outcomes of nccRCC patients by treatment and histologic type. Outcomes per Treatment n ORR (%) DCR (%) mTTP (mo.) Cabozantinib 56 18 47 3.6 VEGF/mTOR 19 16 42 9.3 IO+VEGF 17 29 47 5.6 Other VEGF 13 15 46 5.5 Outcomes per Histology Papillary 42 19 43 6.5 Unclassified 33 21 42 6.1 Chromophobe 17 29 59 8.9 Other * 13 0 46 NR

Abstract Brain metastases are a challenging manifestation of renal cell carcinoma. We have a limited understanding of brain metastasis tumor and immune biology, drivers of resistance to systemic treatment, and their overall poor prognosis. Current data support a multimodal treatment strategy with radiation treatment and/or surgery. Nonetheless, the optimal approach for the management of brain metastases from renal cell carcinoma remains unclear. To improve patient care, the authors sought to standardize practical management strategies. They performed an unstructured literature review and elaborated on the current management strategies through an international group of experts from different disciplines assembled via the network of the International Kidney Cancer Coalition. Experts from different disciplines were administered a survey to answer questions related to current challenges and unmet patient needs. On the basis of the integrated approach of literature review and survey study results, the authors built algorithms for the management of single and multiple brain metastases in patients with renal cell carcinoma. The literature review, consensus statements, and algorithms presented in this report can serve as a framework guiding treatment decisions for patients. CA Cancer J Clin. 2022;72:454‐489.

Abstract Purpose: To evaluate the association between neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) and efficacy of avelumab plus axitinib or sunitinib. Experimental Design: Adult patients with untreated advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) with a clear-cell component, ≥1 measurable lesions, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, fresh or archival tumor specimen, and adequate renal, cardiac, and hepatic function were included. Retrospective analyses of the association between baseline NLR and progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in the avelumab plus axitinib or sunitinib arms were performed using the first interim analysis of the phase 3 JAVELIN Renal 101 trial (NCT02684006). Multivariate Cox regression analyses of PFS and OS were conducted. Translational data were assessed to elucidate the underlying biology associated with differences in NLR. Results: Patients with below-median NLR had longer observed PFS with avelumab plus axitinib [stratified HR, 0.85; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.634–1.153] or sunitinib (HR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.415–0.745). In the avelumab plus axitinib or sunitinib arms, respectively, median PFS was 13.8 and 11.2 months in patients with below-median NLR, and 13.3 and 5.6 months in patients with median-or-higher NLR. Below-median NLR was also associated with longer observed OS in the avelumab plus axitinib (HR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.300–0.871) and sunitinib arms (HR, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.174–0.511). Tumor analyses showed an association between NLR and key biological characteristics, suggesting a role of NLR in underlying mechanisms influencing clinical outcome. Conclusions: Current data support NLR as a prognostic biomarker in patients with advanced RCC receiving avelumab plus axitinib or sunitinib.

e18521 Background: About 40% of the US population are from minority groups. Minority pts are under-represented in oncology clinical trials, which limits the applicability of results to the general population and perpetuates poor relationships between healthcare systems and minority communities. This assessment investigated underlying causes of this lack of minority representation in clinical trials and proposes plans to promote diversity. Methods: To better understand the limited inclusion of under-represented pts in oncology clinical trials, 10 specialists in cancer care were selected to provide their perspectives. Specialists were chosen because of their experience enrolling minority pts in clinical trials and met virtually in Dec 2020 via Within3, a secure digital communication platform, to discuss obstacles faced in recruiting minority pts and potential strategies to address these concerns. Specificity and alignment in responses were achieved through software analytics and follow-up queries. Results: The 10 specialists identified as Asian (10%), Black (30%), White (50%), and Hispanic (10%), and began practicing medicine in the 1980s-2010s. All are involved in clinical research and treat a range of minority pts in both urban and suburban settings. Most specialists (8/10) reported treating > 20 minority pts with cancer annually. However, few specialists (2/10) reported that > 20% of their minority pts have enrolled in clinical trials. Specialists agreed that minority pts experience barriers to participation in clinical research, including lack of trust in the healthcare system, materials in their native languages, financial support, minority investigators involved in clinical trials, and accessible study sites. The specialists proposed strategies that could be implemented to increase minority enrollment. These included study sites where minority populations live and industry funded outreach and educational efforts in minority communities. If sites are more accessible, this can reduce time and financial pressures associated with study participation. The specialists recommended that studies be designed to be more supportive of minority populations, specifically regarding inclusion and exclusion criteria and reimbursement of costs. They also advised that increased diversity among clinical researchers and allied personnel may increase the ability of the clinical team to connect with pts and assist in building trust in their communities. Finally, they emphasized the importance of providing informed consent forms and study materials in pts’ native languages. Conclusions: While challenges exist to increasing diversity in oncology clinical studies, a broad consortium of clinical specialists agreed that they can be addressed by community outreach and education, making study sites more accessible, availability of study materials in pts’ native languages, and improving diversity of clinical teams.

Abstract Background: Overall, patients with cancer experience a greater risk of adverse outcomes following SARS-CoV-2 infection; however, little is known for those with BC. Methods: CCC19 (NCT04354701) is an international cohort study aimed at investigating the impact of COVID-19 in patients with a history of or active cancer using de-identified data on patient demographics, cancer history, clinical course and outcomes of COVID-19. The current analysis includes patients from U.S. and Canada with invasive BC and laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 entered between March 17, 2020 and July 2, 2020. Co-primary outcomes were hospitalization during COVID-19 illness and 30-day all-cause mortality. Frequencies for categorical variables and medians (range) for continuous variables were estimated. Final presentation will include bivariable and multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression analysis to identify risk factors (including BC subtypes and therapies, for which data collection is ongoing) associated with 30-day all-cause mortality and severe COVID-19 illness (composite of any hospitalization requiring supplemental oxygen, admission to an intensive care unit [ICU], use of mechanical ventilation, or death). Results: During the study period, a total of 2683 patients with cancer and COVID-19 were accrued in the CCC19 registry including 529 (20%) with invasive BC. Among patients with BC, 352 (67%) were 60 years or older; 518 (98%) were women; 275 (52%) non-Hispanic White, 116 (22%) non-Hispanic Black, 70 (13%) Hispanic, 56 (11%) in other categorizations; 178 (34%) had a smoking history; 75 (14%) ECOG performance status ≥2; 191 (36%) with >2 active comorbidities; 64 (12%) with AJCC stage IV disease at BC diagnosis; and 267 (50%) were on anti-cancer treatment including systemic therapy, radiation, or surgery within 3 months of COVID-19 diagnosis. At least 323 (61%) patients with BC had 30-day follow-up after COVID-19 diagnosis, and 35 (7%) had 90-day follow-up. COVID-19 illness at initial diagnosis required outpatient care in 288 (54%), inpatient care in 193 (36%), and ICU care in 40 (8%). Overall, 247 (47%) were hospitalized and 30-day all-cause mortality was 9%. 30-day all-cause mortality rates by receipt of major BC treatment modalities (within past 3 months) were: 10% for those on cytotoxic systemic therapy vs 5% and 12% for noncytotoxic systemic therapy and local therapy, respectively. The table shows hospitalization and mortality outcomes by major demographic and BC treatment strata. The final presentation will incorporate the latest patient accrual and evaluate independent clinical risk factors associated with serious COVID-19 outcomes in patients with BC. Conclusions: This represents the largest study to date of COVID-19 outcomes in patients with invasive BC. Nearly half of the patients with BC required hospitalization during their COVID-19 disease course and we observed a 9% 30-day all-cause mortality. Submitted on behalf of the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (ccc19us.org) Table 1. COVID-19 related hospitalization and 30-day all-cause mortality for all patients with invasive BCNAny Hospitalization30-day all-cause MortalityN% [95% CI]N% [95% CI]Total population52924747 [42-51]499 [7-12]Age<601774425 [19-32]21 [0-4]60-691155144 [35-54]87 [3-13]70-791206655 [46-64]1714 [8-22]80+1178674 [65-81]2219 [12-27]ECOG PS0-132212238 [33-43]165 [3-8]2+756181 [71-89]1621 [13-32]Active Comorbidities0741014 [7-23]00 [0-5]1-22239442 [36-49]178 [5-12]>219112968 [60-74]2915 [10-21]Treatment IntentCurative1866434 [28-42]95 [2-9]Palliative743953 [41-64]1216 [9-27]Cancer StatusRemission/NED33115447 [41-52]247 [5-11]Active disease, stable or responding to treatment1194840 [31-50]76 [2-12]Active disease, progressing372773 [56-86]1130 [16-47]Treatment Modality (within 3 months)Cytotoxic chemotherapy833542 [31-54]810 [4-18]Noncytotoxic therapy1856435 [28-42]105 [3-10]Local therapy (surgery or radiation)341750 [32-68]412 [3-27] Citation Format: Ali Raza Khaki, Dimpy P Shah, Maryam B Lustberg, Melissa K Accordino, Daniel G Stover, Gayathri Nagaraj, Donna R Rivera, Edith A Perez, Sara M Tolaney, Jeffrey Peppercorn, Petros Grivas, Jeremy L Warner, Corrie A Painter, Gilberto de Lima Lopes, Jr, Solange Peters, Michael A Thompson, Toni K Choueiri, Brian I Rini, Gary H Lyman, Nicole M Kuderer, Shaveta Vinayak. Characteristics and outcomes of SARS-CoV-2 infection in patients with invasive breast cancer (BC) from the COVID-19 and cancer consortium (CCC19) cohort study [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2020 San Antonio Breast Cancer Virtual Symposium; 2020 Dec 8-11; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2021;81(4 Suppl):Abstract nr PS7-01.

Abstract Among 2,186 U.S. adults with invasive cancer and laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, we examined the association of COVID-19 treatments with 30-day all-cause mortality and factors associated with treatment. Logistic regression with multiple adjustments (e.g., comorbidities, cancer status, baseline COVID-19 severity) was performed. Hydroxychloroquine with any other drug was associated with increased mortality versus treatment with any COVID-19 treatment other than hydroxychloroquine or untreated controls; this association was not present with hydroxychloroquine alone. Remdesivir had numerically reduced mortality versus untreated controls that did not reach statistical significance. Baseline COVID-19 severity was strongly associated with receipt of any treatment. Black patients were approximately half as likely to receive remdesivir as white patients. Although observational studies can be limited by potential unmeasured confounding, our findings add to the emerging understanding of patterns of care for patients with cancer and COVID-19 and support evaluation of emerging treatments through inclusive prospective controlled trials. Significance: Evaluating the potential role of COVID-19 treatments in patients with cancer in a large observational study, there was no statistically significant 30-day all-cause mortality benefit with hydroxychloroquine or high-dose corticosteroids alone or in combination; remdesivir showed potential benefit. Treatment receipt reflects clinical decision-making and suggests disparities in medication access. This article is highlighted in the In This Issue feature, p. 1426