Citations

Ameloblastomas are locally aggressive odontogenic tumors that most commonly arise in the mandible and maxilla and often harbor BRAF V600E mutations. While rare extragnathic ameloblastomas have been reported, primary pulmonary cases have not been documented. We identified 3 pulmonary neoplasms with features of ameloblastoma that were submitted for consultation between 2022 and 2025 at 3 academic institutions and performed detailed clinicopathologic and molecular analysis. The tumors presented as 5.4 to 7.3 cm peribronchial solitary lung masses. All resected tumors exhibited a predominant stellate reticulum-like component composed of loosely arranged p40-reactive bland squamoid-to-spindled cells with long intercellular bridges, and streaming and swirling architecture, surrounded by palisaded columnar cells with focal reverse nuclear polarity at the interface with myxoid stroma. All tumors were immunoreactive for BRAF V600E IHC, and BRAF V600E mutations were confirmed by molecular assays, including broad next-generation sequencing on 2 cases. Florid hyperplasia of entrapped pneumocytes initially suggested a biphasic neoplasm, but the absence of BRAF V600E IHC labeling confirmed pneumocyte entrapment. Occult gnathic primary tumors were excluded by subsequent clinical examination, including negative panoramic dental x-rays. No recurrences or metastases have been observed to date. This first series of primary pulmonary ameloblastomas highlights a distinctive tumor with histologic and molecular features identical to gnathic counterparts. We discuss the potential histogenesis of these unusual tumors.

OBJECTIVE: Volatile anesthetics (VAs) are gaining renewed interest as a sedation strategy in the intensive care, offering an alternative to traditional IV agents. VAs provide several pharmacologic advantages, including rapid onset and offset, minimal systemic metabolism, and favorable recovery profiles. Advances in delivery systems enabled the safe and practical administration of volatile agents in the ICU. Thus, we aimed to describe the pharmacology and safety aspects of inhaled agents as well as the systems designed to deliver VAs in the ICU. DATA SOURCES: Relevant literature was identified through PubMed and MEDLINE databases. STUDY SELECTION: Original research, review articles, commentaries, and guidelines addressing safety, efficacy, and use of VAs in adult ICU patients were included. DATA EXTRACTION: Studies were reviewed by the authors, with key findings summarized and organized by pharmacologic properties, delivery systems, and safety domains. DATA SYNTHESIS: VAs are halogenated hydrocarbons whose mechanism of action is not fully understood. Although the CNS is the primary site of action, the end-tidal concentration of exhaled anesthetic is used to monitor clinical effects such as immobility to a noxious stimulus. Inhaled agents have unique pharmacokinetics, minimal metabolisms, and distinct recovery. The side effect profile is also unique, with malignant hyperthermia being the most feared, yet rare complication. Two systems for inhalational sedation delivery are available internationally, with one currently under evaluation in the United States. The systems are composed of a miniature vaporizer, delivery controller, and a monitor. The systems have distinct safety considerations, such as tidal volume limits. CONCLUSIONS: VAs can be used as sedative agents in the ICU. This article comprehensively reviews the pharmacology of VAs along with their safety profile and describes the structure and function of miniature vaporizers currently available on the world market.

TPS646 Background: SSTR-targeted RPT has transformed the treatment landscape for NETs, significantly improving clinical outcomes in phase 3 studies versus other targeted therapies. Nevertheless, disease progression and renal toxicity after treatment highlight the need for further improvement. Use of the α-emitter 225 Ac as the radioactive component has shown promising results in clinical studies: initial data from ACTION-1 suggest promising efficacy for RYZ101, a first-in-class, highly potent α-emitting RPT, in patients with SSTR+ GEP-NETs progressing after 2–4 cycles of 177 Lu-somatostatin analogs. RYZ401 is a cyclic 6-amino acid SSTR-targeting peptide agonist conjugated to a DOTA chelator bound to 225 Ac. Preclinical data have shown an improved therapeutic window versus DOTATATE. RYZ401 has the potential to deliver higher radiation doses to tumors, with improved renal clearance and lower kidney absorbed dose, potentially eliminating the need for amino acid infusion. Methods: RYZ401-101 is a global, multicenter, phase 1, first-in-human, dose-escalation/-expansion study designed to determine the recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) and optimal treatment regimen, safety and tolerability, and preliminary efficacy of RYZ401 in patients with NETs and other selected solid tumors expressing SSTRs. Key eligibility criteria: histologically confirmed metastatic or unresectable well-differentiated NETs; WHO grade 1–3 (Ki-67 ≤55%); ≥1 SSTR PET-positive measurable lesion; and disease progression after ≥1 prior treatment line. In dose escalation, 6–18 patients will receive escalating doses of RYZ401 (2.0–11.1 MBq IV Q6W × 2–4 cycles); no amino acid co-infusion is planned. In dose expansion, approximately 80 patients will receive RYZ401 at the RP2D, 40 patients with well-differentiated GEP-NETs (cohort A) and 40 with other SSTR+ tumors including non-GEP-NETs (cohort B). Primary endpoints: dose-limiting toxicities in weeks 1–4 of treatment (dose escalation) and safety (dose expansion). Secondary endpoints: safety, pharmacokinetics, and efficacy outcomes (dose escalation and expansion). RYZ401 dosimetry will be evaluated in a sub-study of 10−16 patients. Enrollment is ongoing in the USA. Clinical trial information: NCT07165132 .

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)

635 Background: [ 212 Pb]VMT-a-NET is an alpha therapy agent targeting somatostatin receptor subtype 2 (SSTR2)-expressing tumors. Here, we report the results of a prospective, open-label, Phase I/IIa trial (NCT05636618), assessing safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics, and preliminary efficacy of [ 212 Pb]VMT-a-NET in patients with advanced neuroendocrine tumors (NETs). Methods: Adults with well-differentiated unresectable or metastatic SSTR2-expressing NETs, who are peptide receptor radionuclide therapy (PRRT) naïve, and who progressed on at least one prior line of systemic therapy, are eligible. Participants can receive up to four cycles of [ 212 Pb]VMT-a-NET at the assigned dose level. Participants are followed for dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) observation up to 42 days after the first dose. Efficacy is evaluated by investigators according to RECIST criteria v1.1. Results: As of 16-Aug-2025 (data cut-off [DCO]) a total of 48 participants were enrolled into cohorts 1 and 2 and received at least one dose of [ 212 Pb]VMT-a-NET (n=2 in Cohort 1, and n=46 in Cohort 2 at a dose level of 92.5 MBq and 185 MBq, respectively). Among all participants treated with at least one dose of [ 212 Pb]VMT-a-NET (n=48), no DLTs, no grade 4 or 5 adverse events (AEs), and no treatment-related discontinuations, were observed. Median follow-up time was 28 weeks (range: 6-93). Nine participants were followed for DLT observation (n=2 in cohort 1 and n=7 in cohort 2).Seven of these patients were with no progression as of the DCO. Three out of the seven participants enrolled at the dose level of 185 MBq achieved a confirmed partial response (PR). Median follow-up time for participants included in the efficacy group was 72 weeks (range: 6-93). Cohort 3, at a dose level of 222 MBq, has recently been opened for enrollment. At the DCO, 4 participants were enrolled in this cohort. Updated safety outcome for all participants along with updated efficacy findings for participants in Cohort 1 and 2 with sufficient maturity, will be presented during the congress. Conclusions: [ 212 Pb]VMT-a-NET showed a favorable safety profile and promising clinical benefit for patients with advanced SSTR2-expressing NETs treated at the dose levels of 92.5 MBq and 185 MBq. The study is ongoing with Cohort 3 (222 MBq) currently open for enrollment. Clinical trial information: NCT05636618 .

629 Background: NENs are a heterogeneous group of tumors with variable clinical behavior. While most NENs occur sporadically, a subset arises in the context of germline cancer predisposition syndromes. The prevalence of GPVs in NENs is increasingly recognized, but the reported frequency and spectrum of genes involved remain inconsistent across studies. Therefore, systematic review and meta-analysis is helpful to clarify the prevalence and clinical significance of PGVs in pts with NENs. Methods: A systematic review with meta-analysis of prospective and retrospective studies reporting germline testing in pts with NENs was conducted according to the PRISMA guidelines. The primary outcome was the prevalence of GPVs. Random-effects models (GLMM) with logit transformation were applied to estimate pooled prevalence with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results: Nine studies comprising 1304 patients with NENs were included. The median age was 53.8 (10-88.5) years, 52% were female (n=678/1304), and 56% (n=736/1304) were unselected cohorts (all-comers) and 44% (568/1304) were selected cohorts (testing based on clinical suspicion and high-risk features defined by each study). Across all cohorts, the pooled prevalence of PGVs was 19.6% (95% CI: 10.68–33.15%), with high heterogeneity (I² ≈ 96%). Subgroup analyses demonstrated comparable GPV prevalence between selected (13.2%, 95% CI 6.3–25.8) and unselected cohorts (23.0%, 95% CI 12.0–39.6) (p=0.25). GPV prevalence stratified by pancreatic NENs (17.8%, 95% CI 12.6–24.5) and other NENs (10.6%, 95% CI 6.5–17.0) was also not statistically different (p=0.08). The most altered genes involved DNA repair and cellular signaling pathways, including APC, ATM, BRCA1/2, BAP1, CHEK2, MEN1, MUTYH, VHL, RET, and TSC1/2. Germline variants in mismatch repair (MMR) genes were reported in approximately 2.5% of cases. Conclusions: This study represents the first systematic review and meta-analysis evaluating the prevalence of germline mutations in NENs. Approximately 20% of pts with NENs harbor a germline pathogenic variant, underscoring the importance of genetic counseling and germline testing. The wide variability across studies highlights the need for standardized genetic testing approaches. These findings support routine referral for genetic counseling and panel testing in patients with NENs to guide management and familial risk assessment.

619 Background: Well-differentiated G3 GEP-NETs are rare and heterogeneous diseases, limiting phase III trials and definition of clear standards of care. Building upon our preliminary cohort of 76 patients (pts), we present an updated and expanded retrospective analysis across three Mayo Clinic tertiary centers. Methods: We included pts with histologically confirmed well-differentiated G3 GEP-NETs diagnosed since 2017 (new WHO classification) from the three Mayo Clinic sites (Rochester, Phoenix, Jacksonville). Endpoints were ORR, DCR, PFS, and OS across treatment lines. PFS/OS were estimated by Kaplan-Meier. OS was defined from treatment start. Multivariate Cox regression was used to evaluate the association of clinic-pathologic features (age, sex, tumor functionality, Ki-67, primary tumor site, stage at diagnosis, presence of liver metastasis, number of metastatic sites at diagnosis) with OS (p<0.05). Results: 111 pts (median age 62 y, range 22–83). Primary sites were pancreas (58%), small bowel (19%), unknown (9%), and rectum (5%). Most tumors were G3 at diagnosis (88%); the remainder evolved from prior G1/G2. Ki-67 was 20–55% in 83% of cases. Most were nonfunctional (70%); functional subtypes included carcinoid (13%) and gastrinoma (8%). Median plasma 5-HIAA was 38.5 ng/ml (5–1394). Advanced disease was present in 85%. Common metastatic sites included liver (85%), lymph nodes (32%), bone (26%), peritoneum (10%), and lung (9%). Median number of metastatic sites was 1 (range 0–5). Median number of systemic treatment lines was 2 (range 0–8). The most frequent regimens and outcomes are shown in the Table. Insulin-secreting tumors (HR 2.16, 95% CI 1.33–25.73, p=0.019) and ≥2 metastatic sites (HR 2.13, 95% CI 1.05–4.31, p=0.035) were associated with inferior OS. Conclusions: This represents one of the largest real-world datasets of well-differentiated G3 GEP-NETs and provides a deeper evaluation of treatment strategies and prognostic factors. CAPTEM, SSAs, and PRRT with Lu-177 emerged as the most commonly used therapies, with PRRT showing the most favorable outcomes. Insulin secretion and higher metastatic burden were confirmed as adverse prognostic factors. CAPTEM SSAs PRRT Lu-177 Carboplatin plus etoposide FOLFOX Everolimus Sunitinib N of pts (%) 64 (58) 44 (40) 37 (33) 24 (19) 18 (13) 11 (10) 8 (7) Line of therapy (%) First 36 (56.3) 27 (61.4) 5 (13.5) 13 (59.2) 5 (7.2) 1 (9.0) 1 (12.5) Second 15 (23.4) 13 (29.5) 13 (35.2) 3 (13.6) 5 (35.7) 3 (27.3) 2 (37.5) Third or higher 13 (20.3) 4 (9.1) 19 (51.3) 6 (27.2) 8 (57.1) 7 (63.7) 5 (62.5) DCR (%) 60.9 56.8 75.0 52.2 71.4 45.5 37.5 ORR (%) 34.4 13.6 44.4 30.4 35.7 18.2 12.5 mPFS (95% CI) 8.0 (5.3-10.6) 6.2 (2.8-9.5) 11.2 (9.1-13.3) 7.3 (2.8-11.8) 4.4 (2.4-6.4) 3.9 (2.2-5.6) 3.9 (1.54-6.26) mOS (95% CI) 40.1 (23.0-57.2) 50 (22.6-77.4) 76.1 (16.3-135.8) 33.0 (21.0-45.0) 21.1 (15.0-27.2) NE NE

399 Background: The standard of care for resectable GEA adenocarcinomas is perioperative chemotherapy with the FLOT (fluorouracil, leucovorin, oxaliplatin, docetaxel) regimen. Recent studies investigating the addition of checkpoint inhibitors (CPIs) to perioperative chemotherapy have shown mixed results. An NMA can leverage both direct and indirect comparisons to evaluate the relative efficacies of available regimens in this setting. Methods: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Science and CENTRAL were searched until August 27th, 2025. Eligible studies included phase 3 randomized trials evaluating perioperative or neoadjuvant chemotherapy +/- CPIs ± radiation in resectable GEA. The primary outcomes were disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS). Hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated using a frequentist NMA framework. Results: Fifteen trials including 8072 patients were analyzed. For DFS, perioperative durvalumab + FLOT (dFLOT) ranked highest (P-score = 0.99), followed by FLOT (P-score = 0.84) (HR for dFLOT vs. FLOT was 0.71, 95% CI 0.58-0.86). dFLOT also ranked higher than perioperative pembrolizumab + cisplatin and fluorouracil/capecitabine (KN-585), though this comparison was not statistically significant (HR 0.65, 95% CI 0.40-1.04). Compared with CROSS, dFLOT showed superior DFS (HR of 0.48, 95% CI 0.36-0.63). For OS, dFLOT ranked the highest (P-score=0.95) and was superior to CROSS (HR 0.57, 95% CI 0.42-0.77). While dFLOT appeared favorable versus FLOT (HR 0.78, 95% CI 0.62-0.98), this finding was primarily driven by MATTERHORN, which did not meet its prespecified OS significance boundary (P = 0.03 vs threshold P < 0.0001), and the proportional hazards assumption was violated. Similarly, no significant OS difference was observed between dFLOT and the KN-585 arms (HR 0.75, 95% CI 0.45-1.23). Conclusions: In this NMA, perioperative FLOT remained the benchmark regimen for resectable GEA. dFLOT has shown promising early results, ranking the highest for DFS and showing favorable, but not statistically definitive OS trends in comparison to FLOT. Importantly, the network enabled indirect comparisons not tested in head-to-head trials, demonstrating that dFLOT ranked above pembrolizumab+CF/CX (KN-585) without reaching statistical significance, and also outperformed CROSS. However, these findings should be interpreted with caution, as they are primarily driven MATTERHORN data in which OS did not cross the prespecified threshold and proportional hazards assumptions were violated. Perioperative immunotherapy combinations appear promising, but final MATTERHORN results and further confirmatory studies are needed before dFLOT can be considered as a new standard of care.

392 Background: PAC+RAM is the standard second-line therapy for advanced GEA. However, PAC-related neuropathy is a major challenge, particularly since many pts have pre-existing neuropathy from prior platinum exposure. An effective “neuropathy-free” regimen remains an unmet need. We evaluated FTD-TPI+RAM as an alternative to PAC+RAM. Methods: This multi-center, randomized, phase II study enrolled GEA pts who progressed on or were intolerant to fluoropyrimidine+ platinum therapy. Pts were randomized to FTD-TPI+RAM (Arm A) or PAC+RAM (arm B) at a 1:1 ratio. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS), defined as time interval between randomization date and the date of disease progression or death; Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS) and adverse events (AEs). The design hypothesized non-inferiority (NI) of Arm A to Arm B with a NI margin of hazard ratio 1.19. 90 PFS events from 116 pts provide 80% power with a one-sided alpha of 0.15. The interim futility analysis, conducted in December 2024 with 20 events, did not cross the futility boundary (Z statistic ≥ 1.172 ) and continued enrolling pts. The trial closed enrollment in March 2025 due to slow accrual. At the time of interim analysis, 20 events had occurred and the Z statistic was 0.4532. Final analysis included the 29 pts that were eligible, consented, randomized, and received any protocol treatment. Results: Among 29 pts (15 Arm A; 14 Arm B), baseline characteristics were balanced (in Arms A vs B, median age 64 vs 63; 80% vs 85.7% male; 86.7%% vs 78.6% White; 80% vs 78.6% ECOG 1). At data freeze of 8/4/2025, 26 PFS events were reported. Median PFS was 3.2 vs. 3.9 months in Arm A vs. Arm B (HR 1.37, 95% CI 0.61-3.02). NI was not demonstrated (Z =0.34, threshold for NI<-1.036). Median OS was 8.4 vs. 10.7 months, in Arms A and B, respectively. Grade ≥3 AEs occurred in 93% (Arm A) vs 71% (Arm B) with hematologic AEs occurring more frequently in Arm A than Arm B (53% vs 29%). Peripheral sensory neuropathy (any grade) occurred more frequently in Arm B (86%) vs. Arm A (47%). Conclusions: Although NI was not achieved due to early closure and small sample size, FTD-TPI+RAM was relatively safe and associated with less neuropathy compared with PAC+RAM. This regimen warrants further evaluation for pts in whom neuropathy limits taxane use. Clinical trial information: NCT04660760 .

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%