Citations

9525 Background: Melanocortin-1 receptor (MC1R) is a novel target for radiopharmaceutical therapy and is highly expressed on melanoma tumor cells. VMT01 is an MC1R-targeted peptide. 203 Pb is used for patient selection via SPECT imaging. Peptide radiolabeling with 212 Pb delivers alpha-particle therapy. Here, we present data on the treatment of adult patients with MC1R-positive metastatic melanoma receiving [ 212 Pb]VMT01 either as a monotherapy or in combination with the programmed death-1 (PD-1) checkpoint inhibitor, nivolumab. Methods: This is an ongoing phase I/IIa, first-in-human, prospective, multicenter, open-label, radioactive dose-finding and dose-expansion trial. The objectives are to investigate safety, pharmacokinetics, dosimetry, and efficacy. Participants receive up to 3 treatment cycles with either [ 212 Pb]VMT01 3 mCi, 5 mCi, or 1.5 mCi monotherapy, or combination therapy with [ 212 Pb]VMT01 (1.5 mCi) + nivolumab (480 mg, Q4W) or [ 212 Pb]VMT01 (3 mCi) + nivolumab. Participants are evaluated for any DLTs for the first 6 weeks after cycle 1. Efficacy is assessed by RECIST v1.1 criteria by the investigator. Results: As of 24 December 2025, 26 participants (53.8% male; median age: 68 years [range: 27-81]) with MC1R-positive metastatic melanoma were enrolled. The median prior systemic therapies was 4. All 26 enrolled participants received ≥1 dose of [²¹²Pb]VMT01. No DLTs were reported. All SAEs (including one grade 5 SAE) were attributed to disease progression. Most TEAEs were grade 1 (19.2%) and grade 2 (34.6%). Grade 3 TEAEs occurred in 8 participants (30.8%), 5 on monotherapy and 3 on combination therapy (3 mCi + nivolumab). Of the 22 evaluable participants, 1 PR, 9 SD, and 12 PD were reported. Four participants had progression-free survival of ≥6 months. Conclusions: [ 212 Pb]VMT01 as a monotherapy and in combination with nivolumab was generally safe and well-tolerated in 26 enrolled participants, with antitumor activity observed at the 3 mCi dose level. These data may be supplemented with a more complete follow-up at the time of the meeting. Clinical trial information: NCT05655312 .

8519 Background: Non-classical mutations (NCM) of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) represent a broad group of oncogenic mutations in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), often associated with resistance to osimertinib (e.g., P-loop and αC-helix compressing [PACC] mutations). Patients (pts) with NCM have inferior clinical outcomes with a high incidence of CNS metastases (CNSm). Silevertinib (BDTX-1535) is a fourth-generation, covalent EGFR TKI with high CNS penetrance targeting both EGFR classical mutations and NCM. The antitumor activity and safety of silevertinib in pts with advanced NSCLC were evaluated in a Phase 2 trial (NCT05256290). Methods: Pts with advanced EGFR NCM NSCLC who received no prior systemic therapy were enrolled (Cohort 3) based on a local molecular test. Silevertinib 200 mg was administered orally once daily. The primary endpoint of objective response rate (ORR) was assessed using RECIST v1.1. CNS ORR was assessed using Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology for Brain Metastases (RANO-BM) in pts with no prior CNS therapy. Secondary endpoints include progression-free survival (PFS), duration of response (DOR), disease control rate (DCR), and safety. Results: From February 2024 to July 2025, 43 pts with 35 unique NCMs (including 25 pts with PACC mutations) were enrolled in Cohort 3: median age 70.0 years, 72% female, 74% white, and 42% never smoked cigarettes. As of November 3, 2025, median follow-up was 7.2 months. ORR by RECIST v1.1 is shown in the table. Sixteen pts (37%) had CNSm, including 7 pts (16%) with measurable CNS disease. RANO-BM CNS response was 86% (n=6/7). Complete clearance of EGFR VAF ctDNA was observed in 21/26 (81%) evaluable pts. Serious treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) were reported in 5 pts (12%), and 4 pts (9%) discontinued treatment due to TRAEs. The most common TRAEs included rash (19%, grade 3), diarrhea (19%, grade 3), stomatitis (9%, grade 3), and paronychia (5%, grade 3). While 77% of pts had a dose reduction, 19/22 (86%) patients with a radiographic response maintained or deepened their response after dose reduction, including all patients with CNS response. Conclusions: Silevertinib demonstrated robust antitumor activity in treatment-naïve pts with a broad spectrum of NCM EGFR driver mutations with high intracranial activity in pts with brain metastases. The safety profile was consistent with the known AEs of the EGFR TKI class. Clinical trial information: NCT05256290 . Data as of November 3, 2025 N ORR n (%) 95% CI DCR n (%) 95% CI ITT Population * 43 26 (60) (44.4, 75.0) 39 (91) (77.9, 97.4) PACC mutations 25 14 (56) (34.9, 75.6) 22 (88) (68.8, 97.5) Compound mutations † 16 11 (69) (41.3, 89.0) 15 (94) (69.8, 99.8) *No pts with classical (E746_A750del or L858R) mutations were enrolled. † Presence of ≥ 2 NCMs. As of December 27, 2025, the 6-month PFS rate was 86% overall and 80% in pts with CNSm; available PFS and DOR data will be presented.

8524 Background: Teliso-V is a c-Met–directed antibody-drug conjugate comprising telisotuzumab and the microtubule polymerization inhibitor monomethyl auristatin E (MMAE) payload. In the Ph2 LUMINOSITY study (NCT03539536), Teliso-V showed durable responses and manageable safety (Camidge et al, JCO 2024;42:3000-11) resulting in its accelerated approval in locally advanced/metastatic NSQ NSCLC with high c-Met protein OE (3+, ≥50%), as determined by an FDA-approved test. MET amp is a negative prognostic risk factor in advanced NSCLC, frequently associated with recurrent disease. High levels of MET amp and c-Met OE are hallmarks of MET -addicted tumors. Here, we analyzed the effects of MET amp on clinical responses to Teliso-V in LUMINOSITY. Methods: MET amp was evaluated by FISH and ctDNA in baseline samples from 108 NSQ EGFR WT NSCLC pts with c-Met OE (3+, ≥25%). MET amp by FISH was defined as having focal MET amp (MET/CEP7 ≥2.0) with MET gene copy number (GCN) ≥4. MET amp (focal) by ctDNA was defined as having plasma MET GCN ≥4 with no co-amplification in CDK6 and EGFR. c-Met OE by Immunohistochemistry (IHC; SP44) was defined as 3+ tissue staining intensity in ≥25% tumor cells (high c-Met OE: 3+, ≥50%; intermediate [int] c-Met OE: 3+, 25% to 49%). Exploratory analysis of tumor response was assessed in 76 efficacy evaluable pts with c-Met OE and MET amp assay results. Results: MET amp was detected in 34% (37/108) of pts with c-Met OE (3+, ≥25%) and was enriched by c-Met levels: 22% (11/50) in pts with Int c-Met OE (3+, 25% to 49%) and 45% (26/58) in pts with high c-Met OE (3+, ≥50%). The effects of MET amp on tumor response in LUMINOSITY are shown in Table 1. The majority of c-Met OE pts (79%) with PFS ≥10 mo (n=14) had GCN ≥10 and/or c-Met IHC 3+ ≥50%. No new safety signals were reported in pts with c-Met OE and MET amp. Conclusions: MET amp is more common in pts with high c-Met OE in this retrospective subgroup analysis. Tumor activity with Teliso-V was observed regardless of MET amp status. The impact of MET amp in pts with c-Met OE will be further evaluated in ongoing Phase 3 study (NCT04928846). Teliso-V efficacy in NSQ EGFR -WT NSCLC pts with c-Met OE with or without MET amp in LUMINOSITY. Total c-Met OE(3+, ≥25%) Total c-Met OE(3+, ≥25%) Intermediate c-Met OE(3+, ≥25%-49%) Intermediate c-Met OE(3+, ≥25%-49%) High c-Met OE(3+, ≥50%) High c-Met OE(3+, ≥50%) MET amp(N) No (N=53) Yes (N=23) No (N=30) Yes (N=7) No (N=23) Yes (N=16) ORR %(95% CI) 28 (18.0, 41.6) 39 (22.2, 59.2) 23 (11.8, 40.9) 57 (25, 84.2) 35 (18.8, 55.1) 31 (14.2, 55.6) PFS,median, mo(95% CI) 5.26 (3.71, 8.11) 8.02 (4.47, 14.65) 5.32 (2.69, 8.11) 7.52 (4.47, NA) 4.17 (3.25, 8.87) 8.02 (3.06, 25.92) OS,median, mo(95% CI) 14.5 (8.18, 17.38) 13.86 (6.54, 22.24) 14.03 (3.65, 17.02) 9.79 (6.54, NA) 16.26 (5.59, 36.44) 13.86 (3.06, 30.29)

8094 Background: Patients with extensive-stage small cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC) who progress after platinum-based chemotherapy plus immunotherapy have limited options. Whether adding lurbinectedin while continuing immune checkpoint blockade at relapse improves outcomes is unknown. We report results for the platinum-resistant cohort (progression ≤3 months from last chemotherapy) of MC1923. Methods: MC1923 is a phase II trial using a Simon optimal two-stage design. Patients were assigned to a starting dose of durvalumab 1500 mg IV plus lurbinectedin 3.2 mg/m 2 IV on Day 1 of 21-day cycle. The primary endpoint was the 6-month progression-free survival rate (PFS6). Accrual continued to 22 eligible patients if ≥2/9 achieved PFS6; the regimen would be considered promising if ≥7/22 (32%) were alive and progression-free at 6 months. Secondary endpoints included adverse events (AEs), objective response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). Results: Twenty-two patients enrolled (02/04/2022–05/21/2025); all were eligible and treated. Median age was 66 years; 32% were male; ECOG performance status was 0 in 9% and 1 in 91%; 96% had prior atezolizumab. Median cycles delivered were 4 (range 1–13). PFS6 was 4/22 (18.2%; 95% CI, 7.5–44.1%), below the prespecified threshold. Median PFS was 3.1 months (95% CI, 1.6–5.3). ORR was 13.6% (3/22; all partial responses; 95% CI, 2.9–34.9%). At data cutoff (12/18/2025), 4 patients were alive; median follow-up was 16.8 months (range 5.5–39.6). Median OS was 7.4 months (95% CI, 4.3–18.6) and 1-year OS was 33.1% (95% CI, 17.6–61.9%). One (1) patient discontinued treatment with durvalumab due to AE. No treatment-related Grade 5 AEs occurred; Grade 3–4 AEs at least possibly related to treatment occurred in 32% (7/22); Grade 4 AEs occurred in 5% (1/22), all hematologic. Most common Grade 3 AEs were decreased neutrophils and white blood cells (each 9%). Conclusions: Durvalumab plus lurbinectedin demonstrated manageable toxicity in platinum-resistant ES-SCLC after chemoimmunotherapy but did not meet the prespecified PFS6 efficacy threshold, supporting the need for alternative strategies in this high-risk population. Clinical trial information: NCT04607954 .

7546 Background: MRD assessment informs relapse risk in MM but is typically bone marrow-based and invasive. We therefore compared two minimally invasive MRD assays: BM-informed cfDNA whole-genome sequencing (cfWGS) and plasma proteomic MRD (EasyM). Methods: 71 longitudinal plasma samples (22 diagnosis, 49 follow-up) from 22 newly diagnosed MM patients across 8 Canadian sites (TFRIM4) had paired cfWGS and EasyM (Rapid Novor Inc). cfWGS MRD used patient-specific mutation lists from diagnostic BM WGS (Abelman et al., medRxiv 2025). EasyM used mass spectrometry to quantify residual M-protein from baseline. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Results: Among 22 MM patients (8 male, 14 female; median age at diagnosis 62 years), 8 progressed at a median follow-up of 52.6 months (range: 10-79 months). At 1-year maintenance (n = 18 available), cfWGS MRD+ (6/18) predicted inferior PFS (HR 20.12, 95% CI 2.23-181.60, p = 0.007). EasyM any-detect positivity was frequent (16/18, reflecting delayed clearance) and not prognostic (p = 0.99), with poor agreement vs cfWGS (44.4%, κ = 0.118). An exploratory EasyM clearance threshold of 0.93% (hypothesis-generating) classified 5/18 patients as MRD+ and stratified PFS (HR 8.78, 95% CI 1.55-49.82, p = 0.004), improving agreement with cfWGS (17/18, 94.4%, κ = 0.870). Progression clustered in cfWGS+/EasyM-high patients (EasyM >0.93%; 4/5; median 11.9 months post-collection [1.9–22.8]) and occurred once in cfWGS−/EasyM-low patients (1/12, 27.6 months). The only discordant case (cfWGS+/EasyM−) progressed 8.7 months after collection. Higher quantitative MRD burden was associated with inferior PFS (cfWGS: HR 2.92 per 1 SD, 95% CI 1.29-6.59, p = 0.01; EasyM: HR 5.48 per 1 SD, 95% CI 0.79-37.90, p = 0.085). At ~100 days post-autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT; n = 16 available), EasyM was uniformly MRD+ (16/16) while cfWGS was MRD+ in 7/16 patients. Applying an EasyM clearance threshold (2.13%; 9 cleared vs 7 residual) improved agreement with cfWGS (14/16; 87.5%; κ = 0.746). Of two discordant cases, one cfWGS+/EasyM-cleared patient relapsed 38.6 months post-collection and one cfWGS−/EasyM-residual patient remained progression-free at last follow-up. At post-ASCT, both assays showed consistent but underpowered associations with PFS (cfWGS HR 6.32, 95% CI 0.70–56.76, p = 0.100; EasyM-clearance HR 2.36, 95% CI 0.39–14.18, p = 0.335). Across all post-treatment samples (n = 49), continuous cfWGS burden correlated with EasyM residual M-protein (rho = 0.535, p < 0.001). Conclusions: BM-informed cfWGS MRD strongly stratified PFS, whereas EasyM required a clearance definition due to near-universal early positivity. Concordant plasma burdens support complementary MRD information. Future work will validate these findings in larger cohorts and quantify the incremental value of combined cfWGS and proteomic MRD for early relapse prediction.

6028 Background: RET alterations are targetable oncogenic drivers in multiple solid tumors and TCs. Pralsetinib is an oral, potent, selective RET inhibitor granted accelerated approval by the FDA for adults and children aged ≥12 y with advanced/metastatic RET fusion-positive TC who require systemic therapy and are radioactive iodine-refractory, based on ARROW trial (NCT03037385) results. Accelerated approval for medullary TC (MTC) was withdrawn by the sponsor in 2023 due to recruitment challenges in the confirmatory trial. We report final efficacy and safety in ARROW patients with RET -altered TC and MTC. Methods: Phase 2 ARROW patients were enrolled from 84 sites in 13 countries. Primary end points were overall response rate (ORR; per RECIST v1.1) and safety. Progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and safety were assessed in patients with advanced/metastatic TC and MTC who received ≥1 dose of pralsetinib (Efficacy Population [EP]). ORR and duration of response (DOR) were assessed in the Measurable Disease Population (MDP). Results: At the May 20, 2024, data lock, 28 patients with RET -altered TC and prior systemic treatment and 145 patients with RET -altered MTC received pralsetinib 400 mg/d (median treatment duration: 24.7 mo [TC]; and 35.4 mo [MTC]). In the TC and MTC groups, median age was 58 and 57 y; 39% and 64% were male; median (range) prior lines of treatment was 2 (1, 9) and 1 (1, 6). 53.8% of MTC patients had prior systemic treatment. In TC and MTC patients, ORRs (95% CI) were 91.7% (73.0, 99.0) and 68.2% (59.5, 76.0) (Table). Treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) occurred in 27 (96%) TC and 142 (98%) MTC patients; 68% and 67% had grade ≥3. TRAEs in ≥35% of TC and MTC patients were increased AST (50% and 38%) and ALT (43% and 30%), decreased white blood cell count (39% and 30%), and anemia (39% each). Death due to a TRAE occurred in 1 TC patient (liver injury) and 1 MTC patient (pneumonia). Safety was consistent with prior reports. Conclusions: The final analysis of ARROW confirms that pralsetinib yields clinically meaningful and durable responses in patients with RET -altered TC and MTC with a manageable safety profile consistent with prior reports. Clinical trial information: NCT03037385 . Efficacy summary. All MTC MTCPrior Cabozantinib/Vandetanib MTC Treatment-Naïve TCPrior Systemic Treatment MDP, n 132 60 62 24 ORR, % (95% CI) 68.2(59.5, 76.0) 56.7(43.2, 69.4) 79.0(66.8, 88.3) 91.7(73.0, 99.0) Complete response, n (%) 12 (9.1) 2 (3.3) 7 (11.3) 4 (16.7) Partial response, n (%) 78 (59.1) 32 (53.3) 42 (67.7) 18 (75.0) DOR, median, mo (95% CI) 39.6(29.4, NE) 21.7(15.1, 34.8) NR(36.8, NE) NR(16.0, NE) DOR follow-up, median, mo (95% CI) 45.7(41.0, 48.4) 48.9(36.9, 58.7) 45.1(40.4, 47.8) 35.4(26.9, 40.0) EP, n 145 67 67 28 OS, median, mo (95% CI) NR(54.6, NE) 42.2(31.2, NE) NR(NE, NE) NR(25.4, NE) PFS, median, mo (95% CI) 37.2(27.5, 55.5) 24.9(19.9, 35.0) 55.3(36.8, NE) NR(14.7, NE) NE, not evaluable; NR, not reached.

5069 Background: Inhibition of androgen receptor (AR)-signaling results in increases in double-strand DNA breaks and genomic instability. PARP inhibitors (PARPi) are a standard treatment option for patients (pts) with homologous recombination repair mutations (HRRm). Combinations of PARPi and AR pathway inhibitors (ARPI) are associated with synthetic lethality in multiple pre-clinical studies. Clinical trials have suggested potential benefits with co-targeting PARPi and ARPI in pts with and without HRRm. Methods: Alliance A031902 compared radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) and overall survival (OS) as co-primary endpoints with enzalutamide and rucaparib (Enz/Ruca) versus enzalutamide plus placebo (Enz/Plac) for pts with metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) regardless of BRCA/HRRm status. This trial was conducted by the Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology in 36 centers in the US. Target sample size was 1,002 patients. Eligibility required mCRPC with or without measurable metastatic disease and was agnostic regarding HRRm status. The trial was discontinued in 10/2023 due to changes in the treatment landscape for this pt population. Results: Between 10/21 and 4/23, 61 pts were randomized to Enz/Ruca (n=30) or Enz/Plac (n=31). Known BRCA1/2 or PALB2 mutations were present in 1 pt (3.3%) in the Enz/Ruca arm and 1 pt (3.2%) in the Enz/Plac arm; wildtype in 14 (46.7%) vs 15 (48.4%), and unknown in 15 (50%) vs 15 (48.4%), respectively. Three patients (11.5%) in the Enz/Ruca arm discontinued due to an adverse event (AE) vs 0 in the Enz/Plac arm. Among response-evaluable pts, 7/26 (27%) in the Enz/Ruca arm discontinued due to disease progression vs 10/31 (33%) in the Enz/Plac arm. Most common grade 3+ AEs were anemia (33% vs 3%) and hypertension (17% vs 10%) in the Enz/Ruca arm and Enz/Plac arm, respectively. All 61 pts were evaluable for response assessment. PSA declines ≥50% and ≥90% were observed in 79% vs 45% and 60% vs 43% of pts receiving Enz/Ruca versus Enz/Plac, respectively. Median PFS in the Enz/Ruca vs Enz/Plac arms was 17.1 vs 14.2 mos, respectively (HR 1.13 [95% CI: 0.42-3.01], p=0.81), median rPFS (inclusive of unequivocal clinical progression) was 17.1 vs 11.7 mos ( HR 0.72; 95% CI: 0.31-1.67, p = 0.44), and median OS was not reached vs 27.0 mos (HR 0.65; 95% CI: 0.29-1.45, p=0.29). Conclusions: In this prematurely terminated phase III study, Enz/Ruca was generally well tolerated, with the safety profile consistent with prior PARPi/ARPI combinations. Efficacy outcomes for rPFS and OS are inconclusive due to limited sample size. Definitive conclusions regarding the clinical benefit of this combination cannot be determined from this study. Clinical trial information: NCT04455750 .

3626 Background: For patients (pts) with dMMR stage III colon cancer, the addition of atezolizumab (atezo) to adjuvant 5-fluorouracil, leucovorin plus oxaliplatin (mFOLFOX6) significantly improved disease-free survival in ATOMIC (NCT02912559). Here we present HRQOL data. Methods: Pts with surgically resected stage III dMMR colon cancer were randomized (1:1) to receive mFOLFOX6 + atezo (840 mg IV q2 weeks) for 12 cycles (6 months [mo]) followed by atezo monotherapy for 13 cycles (12 mo total) versus mFOLFOX6 for 12 cycles. HRQOL was an exploratory endpoint measured using the FACT-C (includes FACT-G), FACT/GOG-NTX, EQ5D-5L, and PRO-CTCAE. Optional participation was by paper surveys at trial registration, prior to treatment cycles 4 and 7, and at 6, 12, and 36 mo after registration. Mean changes from baseline (BL) were compared between treatment arms using general linear mixed models (negative mean changes indicate worsening). At 6 mo, a two-sided 95% confidence interval excluding a difference of 1.9 points (FACT/GOG-NTX) and 6 points (FACT-C Trial Outcome Index [TOI]) favoring the mFOLFOX6 arm would indicate non-inferiority of the addition of atezo. Rates of side effect bother (FACT-G item GP5) and pt-reported adverse events (AEs) by PRO-CTCAE (composite scores, baseline adjusted) were compared using Fisher’s exact tests. Results: Of 712 randomized pts, 581 (285 atezo+mFOLFOX6; 296 mFOLFOX6) consented to participate in the survey. Pts completed 2398/3021 (79%) of expected surveys across all time points (1218/1489 [82%] atezo+mFOLFOX6; 1180/1532 [77%] mFOLFOX6). The difference in mean changes from BL between arms indicated non-inferiority of the addition of atezo at 6 mo (table); differences remained small at 12 and 36 mo. No significant differences in mean changes from BL between arms were found at 6, 12, or 36 mo for any scale. At 6 mo, 16% vs 20% of pts in each arm reported at least “quite a bit” of side effect bother (p=0.34), favoring atezo. Across cycles, atezo was associated with higher rates of pt-reported itchy skin (62% vs 48%), cough (53% vs 43%), and shortness of breath (51% vs 41%) [all p<0.05]. Conclusions: Addition of atezo to mFOLFOX6 slightly increases pt-reported AEs, but its effect on HRQOL is minimal and not clinically meaningful. Results support tolerability of atezo+mFOLFOX6 as standard of care adjuvant treatment for pts with dMMR stage III colon cancer. Support: UG1CA189823, U10CA180821, U10CA180882; Genentech, a member of the Roche group; https://acknowledgments.alliancefound.org. Clinical trial information: NCT02912559 . Scale Mo Mean change from BL – atezo+mFOLFOX6 Mean change from BL – mFOLFOX6 Diff (95% CI) FACT/GOG-NTX 6 -10.0 -10.6 0.6 (-0.8, 2.1) 12 -8.0 -9.4 1.4 (-0.2, 2.9) 36 -7.2 -6.9 -0.4 (-2.1, 1.4) FACT-C TOI 6 -4.1 -2.5 -1.6 (-3.7, 0.6) 12 2.1 1.8 0.3 (-1.9, 2.6) 36 0.7 1.8 -1.1 (-3.7, 1.5)

3118 Background: Improved risk stratification is critically needed across multiple cancers to guide treatment decisions. This includes reducing overtreatment in Ductal Carcinoma in Situ (DCIS), addressing late recurrence risk in estrogen receptor-positive/lymph node-negative (ER+/LN-) breast cancer (BC), and refining prognosis in head & neck squamous cell carcinomas (HNSCC), and high-grade serous ovarian carcinoma (HGSOC). Tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) reflect anti-tumor immunity, whereas tumor-associated macrophages (TAMs) polarize toward anti-tumor M1-like (CD68+) or immunosuppressive M2-like (CD163+) phenotypes. Integrating TILs with TAM polarization markers may better capture inflammatory balance and improve outcome prediction. We developed a hematoxylin and eosin (H&E)-only AI method (VAIP) to quantify TILs and virtual CD68/CD163 TAMs to develop multi-cancer based potential prognostic models. Methods: TILs were detected on H&E with HoVer-UNet, and virtual CD68 and CD163 macrophages were inferred with VISTA. In cancer regions, we computed cell densities and immune-balance ratios and trained cancer-specific Cox models with compact feature sets (DCIS 6; HGSOC 7; ER+ 4; HNSCC 4). Prognostic stratification used disease-free survival (DFS) for DCIS (N=273), HGSOC (training N=165, independent test N=220), and ER+ BC (training N=144, test N=622), and overall survival (OS) for HNSCC (N=77), reflecting clinical endpoints. Evaluation used cross-validation for cohorts without an external test set (DCIS, HNSCC) and independent training and testing when independent cohort was available (HGSOC, ER+). Results: Risk stratification performance across cancer types is in Table 1. The DCIS model used 6 features, largely TIL-macrophage contrast ratios (TIL/M2, TIL/M1). HGSOC used 7 features with a similar ratio-heavy immune-balance signature, plus macrophage-normalized density and polarization metrics (e.g., M1/N, M/N). In contrast, ER+ BC and HNSCC achieved best performance with 4 features dominated by macrophage measures, particularly M2 density and the M1/M2 ratio. Across sites, CD163-related macrophage metrics and immune-balance ratios were consistently informative. Conclusions: Integrating H&E-visible TILs with virtual CD68/CD163 TAMs enables fully automated, H&E-only prognostic biomarkers that stratify OS and DFS across multiple cancers, demonstrating consistent prognostic value in DCIS, ER+ BC, HGSOC, and HNSCC. These findings support further study of this histomorphometric risk classifier through broader external and prospective validation. Performance across cancer types. Cancer Type Cohort C-index HR [95% CI] p-value DCIS All 0.616 1.76 [1.20-2.59] <0.001 DCIS RT/No-treatment 0.624 1.94 [1.15-3.26] 0.003 HGSOC Test 0.553 1.38 [1.02-1.87] 0.030 ER+ BC Test 0.577 1.51 [1.00-2.28] 0.004 HNSCC All 0.603 1.92 [1.03-3.36] 0.012

11177 Background: Early detection of recurrence after curative-intent treatment is a critical priority, traditional imaging often detects relapse when disease burden is high, potentially limiting treatment efficacy. ctDNA has emerged as an established prognostic biomarker for molecular residual disease (MRD) detection and early relapse. We performed a real-world meta-analysis on published datasets that utilized personalized, tumor-informed ctDNA testing to assess its performance across tumor types and clinical management approaches. Methods: Real-world studies published from December 2022 to December 2025 using the personalized, tumor-informed Signatera ctDNA assay (Natera, Inc.) were included. Eligibility required ctDNA assessment in the MRD (2–16 weeks post-surgery (histology dependent)/pre adjuvant therapy (ACT)) and/or surveillance (post-ACT/end of the MRD window if no ACT was given) settings, with outcomes stratified by ctDNA status and hazard ratios (HR) reported from univariable or time-dependent Cox regression analysis. Exclusions included: clinical trials, biobanks, metastatic disease treated with palliative intent, case reports, reviews, editorials, or commentaries. Clinical outcomes were harmonized into a composite event-free survival (EFS) endpoint (time to recurrence, progression, or death). Pooled HRs and 95% CIs were estimated using random and fixed effects models and heterogeneity between studies was assessed using the I 2 and Cochran’s Q test. Median lead time from ctDNA-positivity to radiographic or clinical recurrence was summarized when available. Results: We identified 18 eligible publications comprising 3,004 unique patients across 15 solid tumor types. During the MRD window, ctDNA positivity was associated with a significantly increased risk of an EFS event compared with ctDNA negativity (pooled HR: 8.15; 95% CI: 6.12–10.85, I 2 = 0.00%, P = 0.844, n = 13). During the surveillance window, inclusive of post-definitive treatment, ctDNA positivity conferred an even greater EFS risk (pooled HR: 18.30; 95% CI: 14.17–23.65, I 2 = 0%, P = 0.911 for heterogeneity, n = 16). Across studies, ctDNA detection during surveillance preceded radiographic or clinical recurrence by a median of 3.20 months (95% CI: 2.50-4.10, P < 0.0001, n = 10), although this varied substantially by study/tumor type (I 2 = 80.9%). Conclusions: In this pan-cancer real-world meta-analysis, ctDNA positivity assessed using a tumor-informed assay was highly prognostic following curative-intent therapy at all timepoints evaluated with low heterogeneity between studies. These findings support the broad clinical utility of tumor-informed ctDNA testing for post-treatment risk stratification and longitudinal disease monitoring across solid tumors.