Citations

Importance TMEM106B is a frontotemporal lobar degeneration (FTLD) genetic susceptibility factor, and TMEM106B protein aggregates are a feature of aging and neurodegeneration. Whether TMEM106B protein levels are associated with clinical features is unknown. Objective To investigate the clinical associations of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) TMEM106B in FTLD. Design, Setting, and Participants This cross-sectional study was conducted in 2 independent frontotemporal dementia (FTD) cohorts (recruitment from April 2009 through July 2023, with analyses from January 2025 through April 2026), with a 2-year follow up. This multicenter clinical study integrated clinical, genetic, biomarker, and neuroimaging data. Individuals were recruited through the University of California, San Francisco (n = 3733), or ALLFTD (n = 2343). Participants with available CSF were included. A discovery cohort (n = 271) included participants with sporadic neuropathology-confirmed FTLD; presymptomatic or symptomatic carriers of pathogenic variants in C9orf72 , GRN , or MAPT ; or controls. An independent validation cohort (n = 383) included participants with clinically diagnosed sporadic FTD, Alzheimer disease (AD), and controls. Exposures CSF samples for TMEM106B quantification with aptamer proteomics (SomaScan version 3.0 [discovery cohort] and SomaScan version 4.1 [validation cohort]). Main Outcomes and Measures Parametric tests compared the primary outcome, CSF TMEM106B, by disease severity, TMEM106B rs1990622 genotype, sex, clinical syndrome, pathological diagnosis, and pathogenic variant and determined associations with brain volume. Results In the discovery (n = 271; 136 women [51%]; median [IQR] age, 59 [38-80] years) and validation (n = 383; 183 women [48%]; median [IQR] age, 64 [50-78] years) cohorts, lower CSF TMEM106B was associated with more severe disease (β, −0.15; 95% CI, −0.24 to −0.04; P = .003), lower frontotemporal brain volumes (β, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.24-0.61; P < .001), and faster clinical progression (β, −2.21; 95% CI, −3.70 to −0.72; P = .001). Associations of TMEM106B with clinical disease severity were independent of those with neurofilament light chain. TMEM106B levels were influenced by TMEM106B rs1990622 genotype, where individuals with the protective G/G genotype had lower levels than the risk A/A genotype. CSF TMEM106B levels did not differentiate between FTLD subtypes or between FTLD and AD. Conclusions and Relevance Per the results of this cross-sectional study, TMEM106B is detectable in CSF and levels reflect disease severity in sporadic and genetic FTLD and AD, but levels are also influenced by the TMEM106B rs1990622 genotype. CSF TMEM106B could support further studies to understand the mechanisms of disease and develop clinical tools in FTLD and other neurodegenerative diseases.

TPS649 Background: While advancements in early-stage breast cancer (ESBC) treatment have improved survival, disease recurrence and therapeutic resistance remain significant challenges. Current biomarkers guide initial treatment, yet novel diagnostics are required to improve risk stratification and recurrence prediction. Circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) offers a non-invasive method for detecting minimal residual disease (MRD), potentially enabling the identification of molecular relapse before radiographic progression. However, deeper validation of ctDNA kinetics across the treatment continuum is needed to inform precision oncology strategies in ESBC. Additionally, the logistical complexity of tissue-dependent assays presents a barrier to scalability. In order to address these gaps, the purpose of the GEMINI-BREAST study is to evaluate a methylation-based, tissue-free ctDNA assay (Tempus xM) and integrate this with comprehensive clinical and multi-omic data to determine prognostic utility for invasive disease-free survival (iDFS) and long term outcomes in patients with ESBC. Methods: GEMINI-BREAST (NCT07211178) is a prospective, non-interventional, multi-center study enrolling up to 900 participants with ESBC treated with curative intent. Eligible patients enroll into one of three analytical cohorts (n ~ 300 each): Cohort 1 enrolls pre-neoadjuvant therapy (high-risk HR+/HER2- [Stage II-III], HER2+ [Stage II-III], or TNBC [Stage I-III]); Cohort 2 enrolls post-surgery/pre-adjuvant therapy (same subtypes, no evidence of disease); and Cohort 3 enrolls long-term survivors (high-risk HR+/HER2- [Stage II-III], ≥ 5 years since diagnosis). Longitudinal blood samples for ctDNA analysis and archival tissue for NGS are collected at standard-of-care intervals, including, as applicable: pre-neoadjuvant, neoadjuvant on-treatment (weeks 3, 6, 12) and post-treatment, post-surgical/pre-adjuvant, adjuvant on-treatment (every 3 months), end of definitive therapy, surveillance for up to 5 years (every 3-6 months for Cohorts 1/2; every 6-12 months for Cohort 3), and at progression/recurrence. The primary objective is to evaluate the association between ctDNA dynamics (Cohort 1) or MRD status (Cohort 2/3) and iDFS, with secondary endpoints assessing overall survival, lead time to recurrence, and the predictive value of ctDNA clearance for pathological complete response. Recruitment is currently ongoing at U.S. sites. Clinical trial information: NCT07211178 .

e13661 Background: The process of data abstraction and curation represents a significant proportion of clinical trial costs, requiring up to $30,000 per patient depending on the data complexity. Research variables such as stage, performance status (PS), and cancer disease status are typically present in the electronic health record (EHR) in free text but require abstraction for research use. Structuring these real-world data (RWD) in an exportable format utilizing minimum common oncology data elements (mCODE) could reduce the need for abstraction and the potential for erroneous transcription that has been shown to be 5.51-7.72% in a meta-analysis. We assessed the feasibility, availability, and accuracy of RWD for use across Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology sites by comparing RWD to matched electronic case report form data (CRF data) at 2 sites where EHR-integrated tools collect structured RWD for all solid tumor patients. Methods: Stage, PS, and cancer disease status (CDS) were extracted from the EHR as RWD and from eCRFs for 100 patients enrolled in National Clinical Trials Network trials across multiple disease sites from 2022 through 2025. Data from baseline and day 1 of cycles 1-4 were compared (500 encounter timepoints). Results: Stage, PS, and CDS were available from RWD more often than CRFs (85 vs 70 / 100 patients, 436 vs 416 / 500 encounters, and 345 vs 83 / 500 encounters respectively). When stage was present in both (n = 58), there were 5 mismatches (8.6%). PS had 22 mismatches (4%) and CDS had 45 mismatches (11.4%). After correcting for differences in CRF vs RWD definitions, CDS mismatches dropped to 1.2% (n = 4). Discordance between RWD and CRF data was related to differences in the timepoint of data collection (e.g., systemic staging scans completed after the initial consult), CRF data obtained from other EHR notes (e.g., oncology research nurse notes containing PS), inherent discordance between RWD and CRF data choices (e.g., responding vs complete or partial response), and failure to update EHR data capture tool fields. RWD were available 21 days (median) before CRF data. Conclusions: Our results suggest that RWD captured directly within clinical notes match CRF data, are more often present, and are available sooner. RWD could serve as a data source for trials, decreasing the need for manual curation and cost. Although some discordance exists, overall rates are low and close to the published error rate for abstraction.

560 Background: Patients (pts) with early stage hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HR+/HER2-) breast cancer (BC) remain at both short and long term risk of recurrence. While clinico-pathological and gene-based biomarkers provide insight into early and late recurrence risk, additional prognostic tools are needed. We previously developed (Saha et al. Clin Cancer Res , 2025) a new breast MRI image-based artificial intelligence prognostic tool (TumorSight Risk) composed of both radiographic and clinical information. Here we sought to validate this tool in an independent cohort. Methods: In this multi-center, blinded, prospective/retrospective validation study, we sought to validate the 5-year recurrence-free survival (RFS) according to pre-defined risk scores (0-100) and categories (“high” or “low”) via pre-specified cutoff (≥47) for pts with HR+/HER2- BC. Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression analyses were then used to assess the unadjusted and adjusted association between risk category/score and the 5-year RFS. Results: 2,129 pts with HR+/HER2- BC diagnosed between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2024, who underwent breast MRI prior to surgery (no neoadjuvant therapy) were included from four institutions. Median age was 57 years, 16% were Black, 15% had grade 3 disease, 93% were clinical T1 or T2, and 85%/15% were clinical N0/N1. At a median follow up of 6.24 years, the unadjusted hazard ratio (HR) for RFS comparing low (n=1808) and high risk (n=321) pts was 2.71 (95% CI = 1.95 – 3.76, p = 3x10 -9 ). The estimated 5 year RFS rate according to risk score (low and high) was 95.5% (95% CI: 94.63 – 96.3%) and 89.6% (95% CI = 86.4 – 92.6%) while the 10 year RFS estimates were 88.9% (95% CI = 86.5 - 90.9%) and 69.6% (95% CI = 59.1 – 77.9%). Univariate subgroup analysis demonstrated that the risk score was prognostic by age (< 50 vs. ≥50 years), pathologic nodal status, grade, and surgery type, regardless of chemo-, endocrine, or radiation therapy administration. The observed continuous risk score was strongly associated with risk of recurrence, with a 22% increase in relative risk per 10-unit change in risk score (0-100), translating to a 2.4% (95% CI = 1.2 – 4.5%) and 25.5% (95% CI = 15.4 – 40.4%) risk of recurrence at 5-years for pts at the lowest (0-9) versus highest (90-100) risk score. The prognostic association between risk score and RFS remained after adjusting for pathologic T- and N-stage, grade, age, race, and treatment (p = 0.002). Conclusions: TumorSight Risk is a new image-based biomarker for HR+/HER2- BC that provides prognostic information independent of standard clinico-pathological parameters. Given the ready availability of breast MRI in most pts with BC, TumorSight Risk may be a convenient tool for estimating risk for recurrence.

4584 Background: EVP is the preferred frontline regimen in pts with aUC. Despite initial response to treatment, many pts treated with EVP ultimately have progression. We hypothesized that recurrence patterns would differ between pts with and without baseline liver metastases. Methods: UNITE is a multi-institutional retrospective database capturing clinical and treatment characteristics of pts with aUC receiving systemic therapies. We queried this database to identify pts who achieved an observed response (OR) to EVP. Pts were grouped by initial metastatic sites using a non-mutually exclusive approach. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize observed response rates (ORR) and recurrence patterns at time of progression. Progression-free survival (PFS) from start of EVP was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. The effect of liver metastases on PFS was assessed via multivariable Cox regression. Median-follow up time was estimated using the reverse Kaplan-Meier method. Statistical analyses were conducted in RStudio. Results: We identified 464 pts treated with EVP (median age 72; 74% male, 80% White). Best ORR in pts with baseline liver metastases (n=77) were complete response 9%, partial response 35%, stable disease 18%, and progressive disease 21%, compared with 18%, 37%, 27%, and 18%, respectively, in pts without baseline liver metastases (n=325). The estimated median follow-up time was 52 weeks (95% CI 48-62). Among pts with initial OR to EVP, those with baseline liver metastases showed a non-significant trend toward shorter PFS (HR 1.35; 95% CI 0.67–2.75; p=0.40) versus those without baseline liver metastases. Among pts with initial OR to EVP and subsequent progression the distribution of sites of recurrences at progression for those with (n = 10) and without (n = 40) baseline liver metastases were: liver (50% vs. 10%), lymph nodes (60% vs. 55%), lungs (50% vs. 38%), bone (20% vs 20%), and primary tumor (20% vs 25%). EVP responders with baseline liver metastases had a numerically higher rate of site-specific metastasis resolution at progression versus those with lymph node or lung metastases (Table). Conclusions: Our analysis suggests that liver metastases may be associated with shorter PFS among EVP responders, though these pts frequently do not retain liver metastases at time of progression. Study limitations include retrospective analysis, investigator-assessed response, small sample size, selection and confounding biases. Patterns of recurrence following EVP merits further evaluation. Metastatic Site Pts with Site-Specific Baseline Metastases (n) Pts with Resolution of Site-Specific Metastases at Progression, n (%) Pts without Baseline Metastases at Site (n) Pts who Remained Free of Site-Specific Metastases at Progression, n (%) Liver 10 5 (50%) 40 36 (90%) Lymph Nodes 37 12 (32%) 13 10 (77%) Lungs 26 8 (31%) 24 22 (92%)

4565 Background: EVP is the preferred 1 st -line regimen for patients (pts) with aUC. EV-related toxicities are often managed with dose adjustments, such as reductions and holds. Analysis of EV monotherapy trials showed consistent survival outcomes despite dose adjustments. We hypothesized that on-treatment EV dose adjustments would not impact survival in these pts. Methods: Pts with aUC treated with EVP in the multisite UNITE study were analyzed. Early dose reductions (DR) and holds were defined as occurring < 9 weeks from EVP start, with the remainder classified as late. Pts with DR at treatment start were excluded. Survival endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) from EVP start, assessed by Kaplan-Meier analysis and Cox models. Multivariable Cox analysis (MVA) included age (≥ 75 vs < 75), ECOG performance status (0-1 vs 2-3), Hgb level (< 10 vs ≥ 10) and liver metastases (present vs not). A time-dependent covariate was used to reduce immortal time bias. Complementary MVA landmark analyses were performed, aligned to the total number of treatment cycles received, with six analyses from cycles 2 to 7. Results: 360 pts from 17 sites were included (median age 70; 78% Caucasian; 76% male; 27% upper tract primary; 35% histology subtype component; 17% with liver metastasis; 78% frontline); median follow-up was 11.7 months (95% CI [10.79, 13.08]). Median number of cycles was 6 in pts with DR and 3 with no DR. Early DRs (100 pts [28%]) and holds (18 pts [5%]) were most commonly due to rash (28% of all early DRs and holds). Late DR (75 pts [21%]) and holds (50 pts [14%]) were most commonly due to neuropathy (52% of all late DRs and holds). Pts with early or late DR had longer PFS and OS vs those who did not (Table); however, there was no significant PFS or OS difference with dose hold vs no hold (PFS HR 0.65, 95%CI (0.40, 1.05), p = 0.08; OS HR 0.70, 95%CI (0.39, 1.27), p=0.24). In landmark analyses, about 50% of pts had DR; no significant difference in PFS or OS was observed at most landmarks, except for longer OS in the DR cohort at cycle 4 (HR 0.53, 95% CI (0.29, 0.98), p = 0.042) and cycle 5 (HR 0.43, 95% CI (0.19, 0.99), p = 0.048). Conclusions: In this real-world retrospective analysis, EVP efficacy was maintained despite DR and dose holds. Survival difference noted in the time-dependent analyses were not consistently reproduced in landmark analyses, suggesting exposure-related selection bias rather than causal effect. Prospective studies are warranted to validate these hypothesis-generating findings. Association of EV DR with PFS/OS (time-dependent analyses). Early DR Late DR DR vs no DR outcomes UVAHR (95% CI), p MVAHR (95% CI), p UVAHR (95% CI), p MVAHR (95% CI), p PFS 0.50 (0.35, 0.72), <.001 0.56 (0.38, 0.84), 0.005 0.32 (0.21, 0.49), <.001 0.36 (0.23, 0.57), <.001 OS 0.51 (0.32, 0.79), 0.003 0.57 (0.35, 0.92), 0.022 0.26 (0.15, 0.45), <.001 0.31 (0.17, 0.55), <.001

4515 Background: Adenocarcinomas of the urinary tract are rare malignancies with limited prospective data. Outcomes of triplet chemotherapy remain poorly defined. Methods: This was a prospective, single-arm, phase II study (NCT00082706) conducted at MD Anderson. Between 2005 and 2010, patients (pts) aged ≥18 years with ECOG 0–2 and metastatic or unresectable urachal (UA) or non-urachal adenocarcinoma (NUA) received frontline GemFLP (5-fluorouracil 200 mg/m² continuous infusion ×5 days with leucovorin 23 mg IV daily ×5; cisplatin 20 mg/m² IV daily ×5; gemcitabine 200 mg/m² IV on days 1 and 5). Best overall response (BOR) was assessed by imaging. Primary endpoints were objective response rate (ORR) and overall survival (OS); secondary endpoint was toxicity. PFS was calculated from treatment initiation and duration of response (DoR) from first CR/PR to progression or death; time-to-event endpoints were estimated by Kaplan–Meier (KM). Post hoc analyses evaluated baseline tumor markers (CEA, CA19-9, CA125, β-hCG) Treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) were graded per CTCAE v5. Results: Forty-six pts were enrolled (28 UA, 18 NUA). Median age was 58 years; 41% were de novo metastatic, and 78% had visceral metastases. ORR was 44% (20/46). Among responders, median DoR was 8.6 months (95% CI 4.6–30.8). median PFS was 3.3 months (95% CI 2.3–8.4) and median OS (mOS) was 21.0 months (95% CI 15.9–35.3) There was no difference in PFS (p=0.39) or OS (p=0.99) between UA and NUA. Baseline CEA, CA19-9, CA125, and β-hCG were not associated with ORR or PFS. Higher baseline CA125 was associated with inferior OS (HR 1.33, 95% CI: 1.12–1.58; p =0.001) Subsequent systemic therapy was administered to 28 pts (60.9%); median number of subsequent treatment lines was 2 (range 1–5). The most common hematologic TRAEs were anemia (28.1%; grade ≥3 [G3] 12.5%), thrombocytopenia (21.9%; G3 12.5%), and neutropenia (12.5%; G3 9.4%). The most frequent non-hematologic TRAEs were dehydration (21.9%; G3: 6.2%), diarrhea (9.4%; G3 6.2%) and catheter-related thrombosis (9.4%; G3 9.4%). No grade 5 events occurred. Conclusions: In this prospective phase II study, frontline GemFLP achieved a 44% ORR with durable responses (mDoR 8.6 mo) and 21 mo mOS in advanced UA and NUA. Survival did not differ between UA and NUA subtypes. Baseline CA125 was associated with OS. Toxicity was manageable. These data provide a prospective benchmark for this rare disease. Clinical trial information: NCT00082706 . Variable UA (n=28) NUA (n=18) Characteristics Age, median [ICR] 58 [54– 62] 58 [54– 62] 67 [ 62-72] Race, n (%) White 22 (79) 11 61) Black 6 (21) 6 (33) Other 0 1 (6) Prior surgery for localized disease, n (%) 18 (64) 5 (28) Mets at baseline Any 24 (86) 7 (39) Lung 6 (21) 4 (22) Liver 3 (11) 0 Peritoneum 17 (61) 0 Bone 3 (11) 3 (17) Nodal-only mets 1 (3) 2 (10) Outcomes ORR (%) 43.5 35.7 55.6 BOR n (%) CR 4 (14) 2 (11) PR 6 (21) 8 (44) SD 11 (39) 4 (22) PD 6 (21) 3 (17) NE 1 (4) 1 (6)

Objectives: To summarize current evidence for radiotherapy in the treatment of OA. The population, intervention, comparator, and outcome questions included: What is the role of LDRT for treatment of OA?; What are risks of LDRT?; and What are the optimal RT techniques for OA? Methods: This multispecialty-led committee includes radiation oncologists, rheumatologists, orthopedic surgeons, and a patient advocate. Using the population, intervention, comparator, outcome, timing and study design (PICOTS) framework, evidence regarding treatment outcomes was assessed using Cochrane and PRISMA methodology. Eligible studies included prospective and retrospective (n≥50) studies published between January 1, 2010, and May 10, 2025, from Embase, Medline, and PubMed databases. Study type and quality were assessed. Well-established RAND-UCLA consensus methodology (modified Delphi) was used to rate the appropriateness of the treatment options. Results: Of the 548 articles identified using the search strategy, 44 were selected for inclusion. Eight additional studies were identified through backward citation searching. Ten well-designed studies accounting for biases, 15 moderately well-designed studies accounting for the most common biases, 18 studies with design limitations, 8 supplemental studies not useful as primary evidence, and 1 meta-analysis were included. Additional studies were included to provide context and were not used to guide recommendations. The results of this analysis demonstrate that LDRT results in an overall treatment response rate of 60% to 90%, with significant clinical benefits including pain reduction, increased joint mobility, and improved quality of life. Conclusions: This systematic review and consensus guidelines for LDRT treatment of OA are based on current evidence. Further high-quality studies are warranted.