Citations

PURPOSE Tumor treating fields (TTFields) use alternating electric fields to disrupt cancer cell proliferation. Feasibility of TTFields therapy with gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel was previously demonstrated in patients with advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma. PANOVA-3 was designed to confirm safety and efficacy of TTFields in patients with unresectable locally advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma (LA-PAC). METHODS In this global phase III trial, 571 patients with newly diagnosed LA-PAC were randomly assigned to receive gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m 2 and nab-paclitaxel 125 mg/m 2 by intravenous infusion once a day on days 1, 8, and 15 of a 28-day cycle with or without TTFields. The primary end point was overall survival (OS). Secondary end points included progression-free survival (PFS), local PFS, pain-free survival, and overall response rate (ORR). Distant PFS was analyzed post hoc. RESULTS OS was significantly prolonged using TTFields with gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel versus gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel (median, 16.2 months [95% CI, 15.0 to 18.0] v 14.2 months [95% CI, 12.8 to 15.4]; hazard ratio [HR], 0.82 [95% CI, 0.68 to 0.99]; P = .039). PFS, local PFS, and ORR were not improved. Pain-free survival was significantly prolonged with TTFields with gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel (median, 15.2 months [95% CI, 10.3 to 22.8] v 9.1 months [95% CI, 7.4 to 12.7]; HR, 0.74 [95% CI, 0.56 to 0.97]; P = .027), as was distant PFS (median, 13.9 months [95% CI, 12.2 to 16.8] v 11.5 months [95% CI, 10.4 to 12.9]; HR, 0.74 [95% CI, 0.57 to 0.96]; P = .022). Device-related skin adverse events (AEs) were experienced by 76.3% of patients. Most device-related skin AEs were mild to moderate, with 7.7% of patients reporting a grade 3 AE. CONCLUSION This study demonstrated significant OS, pain-free survival, and distant PFS benefits for TTFields with gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel versus gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel in patients with unresectable LA-PAC, with no additive systemic toxicity.

e21598 Background: While large language models (LLMs) like GPT-4 (OpenAI) and Claude Opus (Anthropic) perform well on general medical exams, limited data exist on their application in oncology, particularly in multiple-choice question (MCQ) scenarios. This study benchmarks the accuracy and assesses the clinical reasoning of LLMs on cutaneous oncology MCQs from the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) question bank. Methods: Skin oncology MCQs from the ASCO question bank were tested using GPT-4 (OpenAI) and Claude Opus (Anthropic). Questions were entered into OpenAI and Anthropic API playgrounds without additional prompting, with identical settings for both models (Temperature = 0, Token = Max). Each question was tested three times per model to assess response consistency and precision. Initial responses were collected, and chain-of-thought (COT) prompting was applied to encourage stepwise reasoning mimicking an oncologist’s thought process. The percentage of revised answers after COT prompting was analyzed. Accuracy before and after COT prompting was compared. Incorrect responses were reviewed by board-certified oncologists specializing in skin cancer at National Cancer Institute (NCI)-designated centers. Each oncologist scored the responses on clarity, clinical reasoning, bias, and confidence in the models’ utility in clinical practice. Qualitative feedback was collected via free-text comments and analyzed descriptively. Results: Of 66 skin oncology MCQs, Claude correctly answered 55 questions (83% accuracy, 95% CI: 72%–91%), while ChatGPT correctly answered 53 (80% accuracy, 95% CI: 68%–89%). Both models performed comparably, with overlapping confidence intervals. A chi-square test showed no significant difference between their performances (p = 0.65). After COT prompting, both tools remained at their respective accuracy level. Thematic analysis of incorrect answers revealed that LLM responses frequently deviated from clinical guidelines and failed to reflect evidence-based oncology practice, often neglecting key trial data like DREAMSeq and frontline therapeutic strategies. The most frequent errors were Treatment Planning Errors, where recommendations misaligned with NCCN guidelines, and Interpretation Errors, involving misinterpretation of clinical trials or patient data. Anchoring bias emerged as a recurring issue, with models fixating on details (e.g., BRAF mutation status) at the expense of broader reasoning. Conclusions: This study demonstrates that while large language models like GPT-4 and Claude Opus show promise in the field of oncology, they still face significant challenges in clinical reasoning and adherence to evidence-based practices. Continued refinement and training on specialized medical data are essential before these models can be reliably integrated into clinical workflows.

e20551 Background: Lung cancer is leading cause of cancer related mortality globally, with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) comprising approximately 80% of all cases. The combination of immune checkpoint inhibitors targeting programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) or its ligand (PD-L1), specifically Durvalumab, and anti-cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen 4 (CTLA-4) inhibitors, such as Tremelimumab has demonstrated clinical efficacy in both adjuvant and neoadjuvant settings. However, a comprehensive systematic review of the available data is currently lacking. This study aims to assess the therapeutic efficacy of Durvalumab combined with Tremelimumab in NSCLC focusing on key end points including progression-free survival, overall survival, overall response rate, and safety, with particular attention to any adverse events and mortality. Methods: A comprehensive literature search was performed to identify relevant studies published until March 2024 across PubMed, Google Scholar, and Embase databases. Outcomes were pooled using the random effects DerSimonian-Laird model and reported as hazard ratio (HR) with a 95% confidence interval. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results: A total of 1600 patients with NSCLC were included in the analysis, with 825 patients receiving Durvalumab plus Tremelimumab, and 775 patient receiving Standard chemotherapy across four studies. For Efficacy, following parameters were statistically significant: Progression Free Survival HR 0.75, 95%CI: 0.59, 0.92; Overall Survival HR 0.8, 95%CI: 0.58, 0.99; Overall Response Rate HR: 0.68, 95%CI: 0.47, 0.88, Mean Duration of Response was 12.23 month. Safety outcomes revealed that Durvalumab plus Tremelimumab versus Standard chemotherapy were comparable in mean percentage in terms of following parameters: Any Adverse Event (85.1% vs 92.8%), Any Serious Adverse Event (28.9% vs 17.75%), any mortality (6.35% vs 3.4%), Adverse Event leading to discontinuation (11.6% vs 10.13%), Any treatment related adverse event (69.96% vs 85.6%) and Any Treatment Related Death (0.9% vs 0.3%). Conclusions: Efficacy outcomes in patients treated with Durvalumab plus Tremelimumab demonstrated clinically meaningful improvements while the safety profile was comparable to that of Standard chemotherapy. Given the increasing use of this combination therapy as adjuvant and neoadjuvant treatment for NSCLC, further clinical trials are warranted to confirm and validate these findings.

e20593 Background: Tislelizumab, an anti-PD-1 antibody, is emerging as a promising immunotherapy agent and has demonstrated clinical benefit and acceptable tolerability in recent lung cancer trials. This study aims to assess the safety and efficacy of Tislelizumab, as monotherapy or combined with chemotherapy (Group 1), as a superior treatment alternative for lung cancer compared to standard chemotherapy (Group 2) in improving patient outcomes. Methods: Following PRISMA guidelines, a systematic search was conducted through MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Science Direct, Cochrane (CENTRAL), and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception to December 2024 to identify Randomized Control Trials (RCTs). Hazards ratio (HRs) and risk ratios (RRs) were generated, by employing a Random-effects model with a 95% confidence interval (CI). Statistical analysis was performed using RevMan 5.4, with statistical significance set at p<0.05. Our outcomes of interest were Progression Free Survival (PFS), Overall Survival (OS), Objective Response Rate (ORR), Disease Control Rate (DCR), Duration of response (DOR), and treatment-related adverse Events. Results: A total of 6 RCTs involving 2107 patients were included for analysis. Pooled analysis demonstrated that Group 1 significantly improved PFS, OS, and DOR with HRs of 1.85 (95% CI: 1.71-1.99; p <0.00001, I² = 0%), 2.01 (95% CI: 1.75-2.29; p <0.00001, I² = 0%) and 2.14 (95% CI: 1.52-3.03; p <0.0001, I² = 39%), respectively. Group 1 has better DCR and ORR compared to Group 2 with RRs of 1.52 (95% CI: 1.12-2.07; p= 0.007, I² = 97%) and 1.50 (95% CI: 1.20-1.86; p= 0.0003, I² = 83%), respectively. The high heterogeneity observed in the pooled analysis of DCR (I² = 97%) and ORR (I² = 83%) likely reflects variability in study populations, treatment protocols, and response assessment criteria across the included RCTs. Subgroup or sensitivity analyses could help identify contributing factors. Despite the heterogeneity, the pooled effect sizes indicate a statistically significant improvement in DCR and ORR with Tislelizumab, with caution warranted when generalizing these findings. Group 1 significantly reduced all-cause mortality compared to Group 2 (RR = 0.89; 95% CI: 0.83–0.95; p = 0.0003), with no heterogeneity (I² = 0%). No significant differences were found in adverse events, except for ALT elevations. (RR = 1.36; 95% CI: 1.14–1.61; p = 0.0006, I² = 25%). Conclusions: Tislelizumab, with or without chemotherapy, demonstrates greater PFS and OS benefits compared to chemotherapy alone in patients with lung cancer. There was a significantly reduced all-cause mortality in the intervention group; however, the observed increase in the risk of ALT elevation underscores the need for vigilant liver function monitoring. When combined with chemotherapy, Tislelizumab presents a promising treatment option for lung cancer.

e24010 Background: Cancer increases the risk of atrial fibrillation (AF), particularly in patients over 65 or those with pre-existing cardiovascular disease. Patients with active cancer are at a higher risk of arterial and venous thrombosis. Oral anticoagulation (OAC) is recommended in most patients with comorbidities, based on the CHA2DS2-VASc score. However, because OAC raises the risk of bleeding, it might not be appropriate for patients who have significant or frequent bleeding episodes, vascular malformations, or other contraindications. Anticoagulation in cancer patients is challenging due to thrombocytopenia, bleeding risks, and interactions with chemotherapy. Left atrial appendage Closure (LAAC) offers an alternative to anticoagulation for mitigating stroke risk in nonvalvular AF patients. However, this procedure has been offered less frequently as concerns regarding its prognosis among cancer patients remain unclear. This article aims to find the prognosis of cancer patients with LAAC. Methods: A systematic search was conducted in electronic databases from inception until June 2024 using appropriate Mesh terms. Pooled risk ratios (RR) with their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using random effects models. A p-value of <0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results: A total of 5 studies with a population of 1,20,502 (Cancer Patients: 3803 and Non- Cancer patients: 116699) were included which met all the inclusion criteria. An increased risk of in-hospital mortality among cancer patients with LAAC (RR=1.90; 95% CI=1.05–3.45, P=0.03) with statistically significant was observed. However, other parameters were comparable including, 30 days readmission (RR=1.12; 95% CI=0.95–1.032), all-cause mortality (RR=1.33; 95% CI=0.72–1.95), any bleeding complication (RR=1.04; 95% CI=0.37–1.70), Cardiovascular complication (RR=1.44; 95% CI=0.51–4.06), thromboembolism (RR= 2.28; 95% CI=0.57–9.06), and neurological complication (RR=0.81; 95% CI=0.17–1.46). Conclusions: There were increased chances of in-hospital mortality among cancer patients than in non-cancer patients with LAAC procedures. However, other parameters like cardiovascular complications, any bleeding complications, thromboembolism, and neurological complications were not significantly associated. Further studies are warranted to validate these findings.

TPS3644 Background: Currently, there are no biomarkers validated prospectively in randomized studies for resected colon cancer (CC) to determine need for adjuvant chemotherapy (AC). However, circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) represents a highly specific and sensitive approach (especially with serial monitoring) for identifying minimal/molecular residual disease (MRD) post-surgery in CC patients (pts), and may outperform traditional clinical and pathological features in prognosticating risk for recurrence. CC pts who do not have detectable ctDNA (ctDNA-) are at a much lower risk of recurrence and may be spared the toxicities associated with AC. Furthermore, for CC pts with detectable ctDNA (ctDNA+) who are at a very high risk of recurrence, the optimal AC regimen has not been established. We hypothesize that for pts whose CC has been resected, ctDNA status may be used to risk-stratify for making decisions about AC. Methods: In this prospective phase II/III trial, up to 1,912 pts with resected stage IIB, IIC, and III CC will be enrolled. Based on the post-operative ctDNA status using personalized and tumor-informed assay (Signatera™, bespoke assay), those who are ctDNA- (Cohort A) will be randomized to immediate AC with fluoropyrimidine (FP)+oxaliplatin (Ox) for 3-6 mos per established guidelines v serial ctDNA monitoring. Patients who are ctDNA+ post-operatively, or with serial monitoring (Cohort B), will be randomized to FP+Ox v more intensive AC with addition of irinotecan (I) for 6 mos. One cycle of chemotherapy is allowed while awaiting ctDNA testing results for cohort assignment. The primary endpoints for Cohort A are time to ctDNA+ status (phase II) and disease-free survival (DFS) (phase III) in the immediate v delayed AC arms. The primary endpoint for Cohort B is DFS in the FP+Ox v FP+Ox+I arms for both phase II and phase III portions of the trial. Secondary endpoints include prevalence of detectable ctDNA post-operatively, time-to-event outcomes (overall survival and time to recurrence) by ctDNA status, and the assessment of compliance to adjuvant therapy. Biospecimens including archival tumor tissue, as well as post-operative plus serial matched/normal blood samples, will be collected for exploratory correlative research. Active enrollment across the NCTN started in June 2022 with CCTG sites joining in August 2023. Current accrual (as of 1-27-2025): 647/1,912. NCT: 05174169. Support: U10 CA180868, -180822; -180888; UG1 CA189867; Natera, Inc. Clinical trial information: NCT05174169 .

TPS3650 Background: A total neoadjuvant therapy (TNT) approach improves compliance with chemotherapy and increases rates of tumor response compared to neoadjuvant chemoradiation (CRT) alone in those with locally advanced rectal cancer. Recent data indicate that optimal sequencing of TNT involves consolidation (rather than induction) chemotherapy to improve complete response rates. The use of FOLFIRINOX has shown to improve response and outcomes compared to CRT and surgery alone. Data have also shown that patients with clinical complete response (cCR) after TNT may be managed with a watch and wait approach (WW) instead of preemptive total mesorectal resection (TME). However, the optimal consolidation chemotherapy regimen to improve cCR rates has not been established, and a randomized clinical trial has not robustly evaluated cCR as a primary endpoint. We designed this NCI-sponsored study of chemotherapy intensification to address this and to increase cCR rates, provide opportunity for organ preservation, and survival outcomes. Methods: In this multigroup randomized, seamless phase II/III trial (1:1), up to 760 patients with LARC, T4N0, any T with node positive disease (any T, N+) or T3N0 requiring abdominoperineal resection or coloanal anastomosis and distal margin within 12 cm of anal verge will be enrolled. Stratification factors include tumor stage (T4 vs T1-3), nodal stage (N+ vs N0) and distance from anal verge (0–4; 4–8; 8–12 cm). Patients will be randomized to receive neoadjuvant long-course chemoradiation (LCRT) followed by consolidation doublet (mFOLFOX6 or CAPOX (control arm)) or triplet chemotherapy (FOLFIRINOX (experimental arm)) for 3–4 months. LCRT in both arms involve 4500 cGy in 25 fractions over 5 weeks +900 cGy boost in 5 fractions with a fluoropyrimidine. Patients will undergo assessment 8–12 (±4) weeks post-TNT completion. The primary endpoint for the phase II portion will compare cCR between treatment arms. A total number of 312 patients (156 per arm) will provide statistical power of 90.5% to detect a 17% increase in cCR rate, at a one-sided alpha = 0.048. The primary endpoint for the phase III portion will compare disease-free survival (DFS) between arms. A total of 285 DFS events will provide 85% power to detect an effect size of hazard ratio 0.70 at a one-sided alpha of 0.025, requiring enrollment of 760 patients (380 per arm). Secondary objectives include overall survival, organ preservation time, time to distant metastasis, and adverse event rates. This study has accrued 587 patients as of January 2025, and is investigating exploratory correlatives (e.g., ctDNA). Support: U10CA180821, U10CA180882, U24 CA196171. https://acknowledgments.alliancefound.org. Clinicaltrials.gov ID: NCT05610163. Clinical trial information: NCT05610163 .

3624 Background: Increasing chemotherapy completion and reducing chemotherapy adverse events (AE) are critical to improve survival after colon cancer diagnosis. Sex, as a biological variable, may impact chemotherapy treatment differently, and thus further investigation is needed to examine sex differences in chemotherapy completion and adverse events among patients with colon cancer. Methods: Among an NCI-sponsored trial conducted among patients with stage III colon cancer (CALGB/SWOG 80702), all patients received standard adjuvant chemotherapy FOLFOX (fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin). To signal chemotherapy completion, we utilized relative dose intensity (RDI) calculated as the ratio of the delivered dose intensity to planned dose intensity; and reduced RDI (RDI <85%) was considered as a clinically significant deviation from standard FOLFOX. From clinicians’ records of NCI’s Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE), we primarily focused on clinically significant AE such as neutrophils decrease, nausea, platelets decrease, hypertension, peripheral neuropathy, diarrhea, fatigue, gastritis, creatinine increase, gastric ulcer, myocardial ischemia, and cerebral ischemia; and severe AE was defined as the occurrence of any above AE with CTCAE grade ≥3. Using multivariable logistic regression that adjusted for body surface area (BSA) and other clinicopathological confounders, we estimated adjusted odds ratios (OR) for the associations of sex with reduced RDI and severe AE. Results: Of 2201 patients, mean (standard deviation [SD]) age was 60.9 (10.9) years, 1019 (46.3%) were female, 1750 (79.5%) were White, 172 (7.8%) were Hispanic, 964 (43.8%) experienced reduced RDI, and 1156 (52.5%) had severe adverse events. Compared to males, females were at significantly higher risks of experiencing reduced RDI (OR [95% CI]: 1.57 [1.27-1.93], P <0.001) and severe AE (OR [95% CI]: 1.73 [1.41-2.12], P <0.001). Conclusions: Our findings suggested females are more likely than men to experience reduced RDI and severe AE during colon cancer chemotherapy. Clinical Impact: In the era of precision medicine, sex (as a biological variable) should be considered in optimizing colon cancer chemotherapy to improve completion and reduce toxicities. Clinical trial information: NCT01150045 .

Abstract Infection is increasingly recognized as a significant cause of morbidity and mortality in patients with relapsed/refractory (R/R) large B-cell lymphoma (LBCL) receiving CD19 chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy. The current study analyzed the natural history, risk factors, and outcomes of infection in 3350 patients with R/R LBCL receiving commercial CD19 CAR T-cell therapy (n = 2804 axicabtagene ciloleucel [axi-cel], n = 546 tisagenlecleucel) from December 2017 to June 2022. Infection developed in 834 patients (24.9%) within 100 days after infusion, resulting in an infection density of 0.43 per 100 patient days and a 100-day cumulative incidence of 22%. Bacterial, viral, and fungal infections were recorded in 527 (15.7%), 374 (11.2%), and 108 patients (3.2%), respectively, with corresponding infection densities of 0.23, 0.15, and 0.04 per 100 patient days. After a 24-month median follow-up, 1482 patients (44%) had died, with infection as the primary cause in 173 cases (12%). The 100-day infection-related mortality (IRM) was 1.6% (95% confidence interval, 1.2-2.0). Patients with a Karnofsky performance score of ≤80, infection history before CAR T-cell therapy, axi-cel therapy, severe cytokine release syndrome (grade ≥3), and severe immune effector cell–associated neurotoxicity syndrome (grade ≥3) had increased infection risk. Infections within 100 days were an independent risk factor for inferior overall survival beyond day 100 after CD19 CAR T-cell therapy. In conclusion, study results show a significant incidence of infection and IRM in patients with R/R LBCL treated with CD19 CAR T-cell therapy. Furthermore, results identify patients at a heightened risk of infection, offering insights to guide potential interventions aimed at mitigating infection and improving patient outcomes after CAR T-cell therapy.

6037 Background: The incidence of HPV-associated head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) continues to rise with over 90% of cases being driven by HPV16. Median overall survival (OS) with pembrolizumab in first-line recurrent/metastatic (R/M) HNSCC is 12.3 months in subjects with CPS ≥1, 10.8 months for CPS ≥1-19, and 14.9 months for CPS ≥20. There is an urgent need to improve survival rates in the growing population of HPV16-positive R/M HNSCC. PDS0101 (Versamune HPV) is an investigational T cell stimulating immunotherapy that unleashes a potent, durable attack against HPV16-positive cancers and is being studied in combination with pembrolizumab. Preliminary results were presented at ASCO 2023. (Price KAR, et al. ASCO 2023. Abstract 6012). Methods: VERSATILE-002 is a single-arm phase 2 study evaluating PDS0101 and pembrolizumab for first-line HPV16-positive R/M HNSCC with CPS ≥1. Subjects received pembrolizumab 200 mg IV Q3W with PDS0101 1 mL SC administered concurrently during Cycles 1, 2, 3, 4, and 12 and pembrolizumab alone for all other Cycles up to Cycle 35 (approx. 2 years). The primary study endpoint is confirmed objective response rate (ORR) per RECIST 1.1. Secondary endpoints include progression-free survival (PFS), OS, and safety. Results: The median follow-up is 18.4 months (range 0.2-42.7 months). The efficacy population consists of 53 subjects: 32 (60%) with CPS ≥1-19 and 21 (40%) with CPS ≥20. The median OS for subjects with CPS ≥1 is 30 months (95% CI 23.9, NE). For the CPS ≥1-19 subgroup, the median OS is 29.5 months (95% CI 15.3, NE). For the CPS ≥20 subgroup, the median OS is 39.3 months (95% CI 18.4, NE). Confirmed response rates by investigator assessment are shown in the Table. Twenty-three subjects are still on study: 3 on treatment and 20 in long-term follow-up. No new safety signals have emerged. The most common TRAEs are injection site reactions, fatigue, headache, and pruritus. Only 19% of subjects experienced Grade ≥3 TRAEs. No subject had a Grade 5 TRAE. Conclusions: These data represent one of the most extended follow-up periods to date of subjects receiving an HPV16-targeted therapy for HPV16-positive R/M HNSCC. The PDS0101 and pembrolizumab combination is well tolerated and has demonstrated deep and durable clinical responses. Median OS is promising in light of historic expectations, both overall and relative to PD-L1 subgroup, and remains durable with continued follow up. The results support further evaluation in a randomized phase 3 study with OS as the primary endpoint. Clinical trial information: NCT04260126 . Summary of results. CPS ≥1-19 (N=32) CPS ≥20 (N=21) CPS ≥1 (N=53) ORR, % 28.1 47.6 35.8 DCR, % 75.0 81.0 77.4 Median DOR, months (95 % CI) 21.8 (4.2, NE) NE (5.6, NE) 21.8 (11.5, NE) Median PFS, months (95% CI) 5.1 (2.4, 8.1) 14.1 (2.1, NE) 6.3 (3.5, 9.0) Median OS, months (95% CI) 29.5 (15.3, NE) 39.3 (18.4, NE) 30.0 (23.9, NE)