Citations

e16377 Background: 1L systemic treatment of mPDAC can lead to severe adverse events (AEs). To contextualize the safety profile of irinotecan-based regimens, real-world data were used to characterize AEs and their management in patients receiving 1L mPDAC treatment with FOLFIRINOX (FFX) or gemcitabine+Nab-paclitaxel (Gem+NabP). Methods: De-identified data from Mayo Clinic electronic health records (all sites; records collected 2010–2023) were used. Natural language processing was leveraged to confirm staging and metastatic classification and to extract treatment data. Adults with mPDAC with stage IV and/or TNM staging of M1 who received ≥ 1 dose of FFX or Gem+NabP were included. Primary endpoint: proportion of patients with AEs of interest (diarrhea, nausea, vomiting, neuropathy, and neutropenia) following initiation of 1L treatment. Secondary endpoints: proportion of patients who received treatment for each AE of interest, median time to resolution and treatment of each AE of interest, and proportion of patients who switched mPDAC treatment or had dose reductions due to AEs. Results: In total, 405 patients (FFX, 197; Gem+NabP, 208) were identified. The proportions of patients who experienced and were treated for any-grade AEs of interest are reported in the Table. Of the AEs of interest, neutropenia resolved most quickly (median time from onset to resolution, FFX: 9.5 days; Gem+NabP: 12.5 days); neuropathy took the longest time to resolve (FFX: 44.0 days; Gem+NabP: 74.0 days). Median time to AE treatment was shortest for nausea and vomiting (both 0.0 days for FFX and for Gem+NabP). Time to treatment was longest for neuropathy (FFX: 158.5 days; Gem+NabP: 70.0 days). Only 5.1% of patients on FFX and 13.4% on Gem+NabP received treatment for neuropathy. Of patients in the FFX group who switched/reduced treatment (n=140), 58.6% received a dose reduction and 7.1% switched to Gem+NabP due to AEs. Conclusions: At the Mayo Clinic sites, incidence of any-grade AEs associated with 1L mPDAC treatment were similar or higher than rates of any-grade or ≥ 2/3–4 grade AEs reported in the literature. Nausea, vomiting and diarrhea were the most commonly treated AEs for both irinotecan-based (FFX) and non-irinotecan-based (Gem+NabP) 1L regimens; neutropenia and neuropathy were less commonly treated. FFX dose reductions were commonly attempted before switching regimens. Proportion experiencing any-grade AE (AE incidence in the literature) Proportion experiencing AE treated for an AE FFX Gem+NabP FFX Gem+NabP Diarrhea 74.6% (50–80%, any grade) 43.8% (< 5%, any grade) 92.5% 56.0% Nausea 81.7% (45%, any grade) 72.1% (20%, grade ≥ 2) 98.8% 96.7% Vomiting 54.8% (10%, any grade) 42.8% (20%, grade ≥ 2) 98.1% 98.9% Neutropenia 58.9% (45%, grade 3–4) 48.1% (12–21%, grade 3–4) 62.1% 46.0% Neuropathy 59.9% (25%, grade 3–4) 32.2% (30%, grade 3–4) 5.1% 13.4%

e12697 Background: Postpartum-associated breast cancer (PABC) has been defined clinically as breast cancer (BC) diagnosed within the first 5 years of the most recent birth. Though generally rare, incidence rates are increasing in conjunction with delayed childbearing and older maternal age at first birth. Currently, there are limited data regarding serial patient-reported outcomes in this patient population compared to non-PABC patients. Methods: Patients with PABC from the Mayo Clinic Breast Disease Registry who completed baseline, 2, and 4-year surveys were matched 1:1 to BC patients whose cancers occurred more than 5 years after their most recent birth (or in the setting of nulliparity) based on age, clinical stage, treatment received, and tumor subtype. Survey results from the Patient Health Questionnaire-2 (PHQ-2), Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System-10 (PROMIS-10), and Impact of Event Scale-Revised (IES-R) collected at approximately two and four years after diagnosis were compared between PABC and non-PABC patients. Univariable analyses used Wilcoxon rank sum tests, whereas multivariable analyses employed linear regression models adjusting for potential confounding effects. Results: A total of 222 individuals were included (111 with PABC). A higher proportion of individuals in the PABC cohort were married compared to the non-PABC cohort (80% vs. 42%, p < 0.001); otherwise, the groups were well-balanced across multiple categories, including age, gender, race/ethnicity, menopausal status, and germline mutation status. In univariable analyses, the Year 2 composite PHQ-2 score was significantly worse among individuals with non-PABC (p = 0.04), and the non-PABC cohort reported greater difficulty with sleep (p = 0.03) as measured by IES-R at Year 4. Both associations attenuated in a multivariable analysis controlling for marital status. In marital status-adjusted analyses of Year 4 survey results, PABC participants reported greater difficulty in carrying out social activities but were less likely to report emotional distress as evaluated by PROMIS-10 (compared with non-PABC participants). No other variables were significant univariably or multivariably (p > 0.05). Conclusions: In general, quality of life is similar among survivors of PABC compared to those diagnosed with breast cancer outside the postpartum period (or when nulliparous). However, our findings reveal that individuals with PABC are less likely to experience emotional distress 2 and 4 years after the BC diagnosis, which is unexpected, given that postpartum patients typically report higher levels of distress compared to their non-postpartum counterparts. Further investigation into these findings is warranted.

ABSTRACT Introduction Community health workers (CHWs) help patients navigate community resources. CHW programs can improve health outcomes and reduce healthcare utilization, but identifying eligible patients is challenging. We developed an electronic health record (EHR)‐based algorithm trained to predict referrals to a CHW program. Our objective was to evaluate whether an algorithm trained on historical referrals identifies a subgroup of patients that differs from the subgroup identified through questionnaire‐based health‐related social needs (HRSN) screening alone. Methods This analysis used data from Mayo Clinic primary care patients in Southeast Minnesota. We developed a gradient boosted time‐to‐event model that incorporated demographics, diagnoses, HRSN questionnaire responses, and HRSNs derived from clinical notes using natural language processing. We compared the characteristics of algorithm‐identified patients with those identified through questionnaires and assessed the variable importance of model features. Results The algorithm had AUC: 0.87 in the training and 0.92 in the hold out set. Patients flagged by the algorithm tended to use interpreter services more commonly (12.6% vs. 1.3%), have a non‐English preferred language (14.1% vs. 2.3%), and have more instances of health literacy documented (5.36 vs. 1.29) compared to patients identified by the HRSN questionnaire. Only 47.0% of patients flagged by the algorithm had responded to the HRSN questionnaire within 2 years. Variable importance was highest for health literacy and financial strain from unstructured notes. Conclusions The algorithm is a chart‐review prioritization tool for referral to the CHW program for patients that may overcome challenges to identifying patients with HRSNs, especially when questionnaire data is incomplete.

9558 Background: Ipilimumab 3 mg/kg plus nivolumab 1 mg/kg (Ipi3+Nivo1) is the standard immunotherapy regimen for metastatic melanoma with brain metastases (MBM) but is associated with significant immune-related toxicity, particularly neurologic toxicity. Ipilimumab 1 mg/kg plus nivolumab 3 mg/kg (Ipi1+Nivo3) has demonstrated improved tolerability in extracranial melanoma, though comparative data in MBM are limited. We compared efficacy and toxicity of these dosing strategies in a multisite real-world cohort. Methods: We retrospectively identified patients with MBM treated with ipilimumab plus nivolumab across three Mayo Clinic sites between 2016 and 2024. Patients were classified by induction dosing as Ipi1+Nivo3 or Ipi3+Nivo1. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were estimated using the Kaplan–Meier method and compared using log-rank tests. Best overall response (BOR) and toxicity outcomes were summarized descriptively. Results: Among 147 patients (Ipi1+Nivo3 n=32; Ipi3+Nivo1 n=115), 144 were evaluable for survival. Median age was higher in the Ipi1+Nivo3 group (69.5 vs 66.0 years); males predominated in both groups (71.9% vs 61.7%), and the cohort was predominantly White (>96%). Most patients had ECOG 0–1 in both groups (84.4% in Ipi1+ Nivo3 and 90.4% in Ipi3+Nivo1). BRAF mutation status was balanced between regimens, with approximately half of patients harboring BRAF-mutant disease (51.6% vs 53.2%). Median OS was 18.5 months (95% CI, 5.7–54.7) with Ipi1+Nivo3 versus 10.6 months (95% CI, 6.5–19.1) with Ipi3+Nivo1 (log-rank p=0.25). Two-year OS was 45.9% and 35.0%, and five-year OS was 24.5% and 19.2%, respectively. Median PFS was 7.3 months (95% CI, 1.8–10.9) versus 2.8 months (95% CI, 2.1–4.4) (log-rank p=0.16). BOR was available for 138 patients; objective response rates were 35.5% and 31.8%, respectively. 3–5 adverse events occurred in 24.1% of Ipi1+Nivo3 versus 30.5% of Ipi3+Nivo1 patients. Hospitalizations were less frequent (16.7% vs 36.1%), and neurologic adverse events occurred only with Ipi3+Nivo1 (11.9% vs 0%). Conclusions: In this multisite real-world MBM cohort, Ipi1+Nivo3 demonstrated comparable efficacy, numerically longer survival, and a more favorable toxicity profile compared with standard Ipi3+Nivo1. Notably, no neurologic toxicity was observed with the Ipi1+Nivo3 regimen. These findings support further prospective evaluation of lower dose ipilimumab strategies. Response and survival outcomes. Outcome Ipi1 + Nivo3 Ipi3 + Nivo1 Complete response (CR) 2 / 31 (6.5%) 8 / 107 (7.5%) Partial response (PR) 9 / 31 (29.0%) 26 / 107 (24.3%) Objective response rate (ORR = CR+PR) 11 / 31 (35.5%) 34 / 107 (31.8%) Disease control rate (DCR = CR+PR+SD) 18 / 31 (58.1%) 51 / 107 (47.7%) Median PFS, months (95% CI) 7.3 (1.8–10.9) 2.8 (2.1–4.4) 2-year PFS 27.6% 22.3% Median OS, months (95% CI) 18.5 (5.7–54.7) 10.6 (6.5–19.1) 2-year OS 45.9% 35.0% 5-year OS 24.5% 19.2%

8077 Background: Small cell lung cancer (SCLC) is an aggressive malignancy with poor prognosis. This study evaluates national trends in surgical management of early-stage SCLC using the National Cancer Database (NCDB), aiming to identify factors associated with improved outcomes and assess the survival benefit of surgical resection. Methods: Patients diagnosed with clinical stage T1–T3 N0 M0 SCLC between 2004 and 2022 were identified from the NCDB. Exclusions included non-SCLC histologies, advanced or missing staging, non-lobectomy surgeries, and incomplete survival data. Propensity score matching (1:1) was used to balance surgical and non-surgical cohorts based on demographic, clinical, and socioeconomic variables. Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression analyses were used to evaluate overall survival, stratified by T stage. Results: Among 17,762 patients with early-stage SCLC, 3,234 (18.2%) underwent lobectomy with mediastinal lymph node dissection. Surgical rates increased from 5% in 2004, 17% in 2013 to 24% in 2021. Surgery was more common in T1 (26.5%) than T2 (11.4%) or T3 (4.6%) disease. After matching, surgery was associated with improved survival across all T stages, with no significant interaction between T stage and surgical benefit (p=0.43). Older age, male sex, and higher comorbidity scores predicted worse outcomes. Among surgical patients, 2.3% received neoadjuvant therapy and 71.6% received adjuvant treatment. Systemic therapy-both neoadjuvant (HR 0.63) and adjuvant (HR 0.69)-was significantly associated with improved survival. Conclusions: Lobectomy remains underutilized in early-stage SCLC but is linked to significantly improved survival. Albeit small patient's number, neoadjuvant systemic therapy further enhanced survival, supporting broader use of surgery and multimodal treatment in appropriately selected patients Univariable results 1 Multivariable results 2 Characteristic No. deaths Person-months HR (95% CI) p-value HR (95% CI) p-value Charlson score <0.001 <0.001 0 761 77727 1.00 (ref) 1.00 (ref) 1 623 60483 1.06 (0.95,1.18) 1.07 (0.96,1.20) 2 or more 350 27025 1.30 (1.15,1.48) 1.30 (1.13,1.48) Clinical T-stage 0.011 0.014 cT1N0M0 1266 124916 1.00 (ref) 1.00 (ref) cT2N0M0 406 33924 1.18 (1.06,1.32) 1.20 (1.06,1.35) cT3N0M0 62 6393 0.96 (0.75,1.24) 1.00 (0.76,1.31) Residual disease <0.001 <0.001 No residual tumor 1626 158838 1.00 (ref) 1.00 (ref) Residual tumor 92 4699 1.91 (1.55,2.36) 1.91 (1.52,2.40) Neoadjuvant systemic treatment 0.253 0.034 No 1629 154116 1.00 (ref) 1.00 (ref) Yes 30 3495 0.81 (0.56,1.16) 0.63 (0.41,0.97) Adjuvant radiation 0.067 <0.001 No 1209 118925 1.00 (ref) 1.00 (ref) Yes 452 40471 1.11 (0.99,1.23) 1.33 (1.18,1.51) Adjuvant systemic treatment <0.001 <0.001 No 563 44045 1.00 (ref) 1.00 (ref) Yes 1096 113566 0.75 (0.68,0.83) 0.69 (0.62,0.78)

7518 Background: Monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance (MGUS) is common, yet only a minority progress to malignant plasma-cell disorders. Mayo risk stratification uses baseline factors and is commonly implemented/validated in a Cox proportional hazards (CoxPH) framework, which may miss prognostic longitudinal patterns. Methods: We assembled 15,158 MGUS patients with longitudinal laboratory data and progression outcomes (smoldering multiple myeloma, multiple myeloma, AL amyloidosis, or Waldenström macroglobulinemia). We compared a Mayo-factor Cox proportional hazards (CoxPH) baseline versus STRaTS, a transformer-based survival model, to predict progression risk at 3-, 5-, and 10-year horizons. STRaTS leveraged longitudinal trajectories of routine labs including hemoglobin, platelets, differential counts (neutrophils/lymphocytes/monocytes), immunoglobulins (IgG/IgA/IgM), free light chains (kappa/lambda), M-spike, and creatinine. To minimize bias, we used laboratory results collected from 1–3 years after diagnosis and started follow-up at year 3; patients progressing before year 3 or lacking follow-up beyond year 3 were excluded. A total of 7,305 patients met eligibility and were split into train/validation/test cohorts of 4,383/1,461/1,461. Discrimination was assessed by concordance index (C-index). Clinical operating performance was evaluated on a held-out test cohort by comparing sensitivity and specificity at the same proportion of patients selected for intensified surveillance (same workload). Results: Among MGUS patients with complete baseline Mayo factors(N=3,388), Kaplan–Meier–estimated 3-/5-/10-year cumulative progression risk was 0.1/0.4/3.4% (Low), 3.0/4.3/7.9% (Low-Intermediate), 4.4/6.4/14.1% (High-Intermediate), and 8.9/12.5/16.9% (High). On a held-out test cohort, STRaTS demonstrated superior discrimination versus the Mayo-factor CoxPH (C-index 0.75 vs 0.538; p<0.0001). Both models were trained and evaluated on identical train/test splits. At the same surveillance workload, STRaTS achieved higher sensitivity with comparable specificity; when 40.3% of patients were selected for closer surveillance, 3-year sensitivity was 81.0% for STRaTS versus 47.6% for CoxPH (Table). Conclusions: Among MGUS patients who remain progression-free at 3 years, transformer-based survival modeling of longitudinal laboratory trajectories provides more accurate individualized conditional progression risk estimates and improved workload-matched identification of progressors compared with the conventional Mayo/Cox approach. Sensitivity/specificity (%). Operating Point Flagged % STRaTS Sens / Spec (%) CoxPH Sens / Spec (%) Int+High, 3y 40.3 81.0 / 58.5 47.6 / 58.9 Int+High, 5y 40.3 81.2 / 60.4 46.9 / 58.8 Int+High, 10y 40.3 25.0 / 56.3 23.8 / 58.7 Two-Group High (≥2 factors), 5y 5.6 37.4 / 93.4 35.4 / 93.1

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 .

5045 Background: Radioligand therapy with radium-223 (Rad) and lutetium-177 (Plu) demonstrates notable hematologic toxicities in patients (pts) with prostate cancer (PC), including myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) and acute myeloid leukemia (AML). Delivery of ionizing radiation to the bone microenvironment is a known risk factor for accelerating clonal hematopoiesis, although the incidence of clonal cytopenias with these agents is not well characterized. We hypothesized that pts treated with Rad and/or Plu would have higher risk of clonal cytopenia of undetermined significance (CCUS) vs matched controls in the “real-world”. Methods: We performed a retrospective study using de-identified aggregate data from the TriNetX US Research Collaborative Network from January 2010 to December 2025. Adult males with PC who received ≥1 administration of Plu and/or Rad were included; pts with prior myeloid malignancy were excluded. Primary outcomes were incidence of CCUS and MDS. Propensity score matching (PSM) was performed based on age, race, prior diagnosis of leukopenia, anemia, thrombocytopenia, or pancytopenia. Risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated. Results: We identified 2,569 pts treated with Plu alone and 2,007 treated with Rad alone and compared them with pts with advanced PC without exposure to either agent (unexposed control) (Table 1). After PSM, the incident risk of CCUS was greater in Rad-exposed pts (RR 2.62, 95% CI 1.45 – 4.73, p < 0.001) while Plu was not associated with a significant increase in CCUS or MDS. Direct comparison after PSM (n=1,433) demonstrated lower risk of pancytopenia (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.37 – 0.56, p <0.001) and CCUS (RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.20 – 0.81, p =0.008) in Plu vs Rad. In unadjusted analysis, pts receiving both Plu and Rad had increased incidence of CCUS vs Plu alone (RR= 3.64, 95% CI 1.87 - 7.07, p <0.001) and higher risk of MDS vs either agent alone. Conclusions: This “real-world” analysis demonstrates that compared with unexposed controls, Rad – but not Plu – is associated with an increased risk of CCUS. Treatment with Plu and Rad portends a higher risk of CCUS than Plu alone, as well higher risk of MDS than either drug alone. Study limitations include its retrospective nature, missing/ unknown data (e.g. bone marrow and mutation analysis), and potential selection and confounding biases. As treatment sequencing evolves for pts with metastatic PC, further evaluation of clonal hematopoiesis, MDS/AML with adequate sample size and follow up in this population is warranted. ¹⁷⁷Lu-PSMA-617 Exposed(n = 2,569) Unexposed(n =2,569 ) Risk Ratio (95% CI) p -value CCUS 1.03% (26) 0.67% (17) 1.54 (0.84 – 2.82) 0.16 MDS 0.94% (24) 0.55% (14) 1.72 (0.89 – 3.32) 0.10 Radium-223 Exposed(n = 2,007) Unexposed(n = 2,007) Risk Ratio (95% CI) p -value CCUS 1.97% (39) 0.75 (15) 2.62 (1.45 – 4.73) <0.001 MDS 0.85% (17) 0.75% (15) 1.13 (0.57 – 2.26) 0.72

4173 Background: [ 212 Pb]VMT-α-NET is an alpha-particle radiation-delivering agent targeted to somatostatin receptor type 2 (SSTR2)-expressing tumors. Here, we present safety and efficacy results from the dose-finding phase 1/2a clinical trial (NCT05636618). Methods: This phase 1/2a dose-escalation study uses a Bayesian algorithm to identify an optimal dose of [ 212 Pb]VMT-α-NET for participants with advanced, well-differentiated NETs expressing SSTR2. Eligible participants must have unresectable or metastatic disease, documented radiologic progression following at least one prior systemic treatment, and evidence of SSTR2 expression (Krenning Score ³2) in ≥1 lesion confirmed on an FDA-approved somatostatin receptor PET scan. Patients previously treated with systemic peptide receptor radionuclide therapy (PRRT) are excluded from enrollment. During the dose-finding phase, participants may receive up to four administrations of [ 212 Pb]VMT-α-NET at their assigned dose level, and they are monitored for dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) for 42 days and safety throughout the study. Efficacy is evaluated by investigators according to RECIST criteria v1.1. Dosimetry is included as a supportive analysis. Results: As of the 10-Dec-2025 data cut-off (DCO), 56 participants had been enrolled across Cohorts 1, 2, and 3 and received at least one dose of [ 212 Pb]VMT-α-NET: 2 participants in Cohort 1 (2.5 mCi), 46 in Cohort 2 (5 mCi), and 8 in Cohort 3 (6 mCi). No dose-limiting toxicities, grade 5 adverse events, treatment-related discontinuations, serious renal events, dysphagia, or clinically meaningful treatment-related myelosuppression were observed. The median follow-up for all treated participants was 40 weeks (range 6–97). Efficacy has been summarized in this abstract for 25 participants (2 in Cohort 1 and 23 in Cohort 2). Nineteen of these 25 participants remained progression-free at the time of the DCO, with a median efficacy follow-up of 49 weeks (range 6–97). In Cohort 2, investigators observed RECIST v1.1 objective responses in 9 of 23 participants (39%), including 8 confirmed responses. Both participants in Cohort 1 continued to exhibit stable disease after two years of follow-up. Updated safety for all participants and updated efficacy for participants with sufficient maturity beyond the 25 summarized here will be presented at the congress. Conclusions: Treatment with [ 212 Pb]VMT-α-NET continues to demonstrate a favorable safety profile across all treated participants (n = 56) and shows signs of sustained efficacy at the 2.5 mCi and 5 mCi dose levels. The therapy has been well-tolerated with no observed dose-limiting toxicities or serious treatment-related adverse outcomes. Based on these encouraging safety and efficacy findings, the study is ongoing, and enrollment into Cohort 3 (6 mCi) remains active. Clinical trial information: NCT05636618 .

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)