Citations

LBA5012 Background: There is a critical evidence gap on the relative benefits and harms of proton therapy (PT) compared with photon-based intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) in prostate cancer. Herein we report early results from COMPPARE, a non-randomized comparative study of outcomes with PT and IMRT in prostate cancer. Methods: Between 2018-2022, 2524 patients from 51 facilities (28 PT and 23 IMRT) enrolled in COMPPARE, including 1501 treated with PT and 1023 treated with IMRT, and were followed prospectively. Treatment naïve patients with localized prostate cancer except those with very high-risk disease were eligible. Treatment was pragmatic with daily standard fractionation (1.8-2.1 Gy) and moderate hypofractionation (2.4-3.1 Gy) permitted. Use of rectal spacers and androgen deprivation were at physician discretion. Patient-reported quality of life data and treatment team-reported toxicity and disease control outcomes were collected at baseline and pre-specified time intervals via VisionTreeOptimalCare; treatment planning and delivery data were collected via the Advanced Treatment Consortium. We analyzed 1404 PT patients and 939 IMRT patients. We report the early primary endpoint of the study, a comparison of patient reported bowel urgency and bowel frequency at 2-years using the EPIC tool, and the secondary endpoints of 2-year CTCAE v5 ≥ grade 2 gastrointestinal toxicity outcomes and 3-year freedom from biochemical progression (FFBP) results reported by the study teams. Results: Study sample size was targeted at 1,500 PT patients and 1,000 IMRT patients, and median follow-up time was 4.0 years. The primary endpoint and secondary toxicity 2-year endpoints focused on the alternative hypothesis of PT superiority. All results include inverse probability of treatment weighting. Using generalized linear mixed effects models, we found there to be no significant difference in EPIC bowel urgency scores (p = 0.324) or bowel frequency scores (p = 0.514) between PT and IMRT cohorts over time up to the 2-year endpoint. For grade 2 gastrointestinal toxicity, the 2-year cumulative incidence was 5.2% for PT and 5.6% for IMRT. Gray’s Test for competing risks showed a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.91 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.65-1.28, p = 0.6] for PT versus IMRT. The exploratory non-inferiority endpoint of 3-year FFBP was 98.0% for PT and 97.9% for IMRT, and Gray’s Test showed a HR of 0.95 (95% CI: 0.52-1.71, p = 0.90). Conclusions: Analysis of early results of COMPPARE show no significant differences between PT and IMRT in patient reported bowel frequency and urgency, grade ≥2 gastrointestinal toxicity, or FFBP. Assessment of long-term disease control, late toxicity and secondary malignancy will require longer follow-up. Clinical trial information: NCT03561220 .

LBA5 Background: Available 2L therapies offer limited clinical benefit in mPDAC with reported mPFS of 3–4 mo and mOS of 6–7 mo. Aberrant RAS pathway activation is the key driver of PDAC, with oncogenic RAS mutations (mut) identified in >90% of cases, most commonly at codon G12. Daraxonrasib is an oral, RAS(ON) multi-selective, tri-complex inhibitor of the active, GTP-bound state of mutant and wild type RAS. Methods: RASolute 302 (NCT06625320) is a global, randomized, open-label, Ph 3 study in pts with 2L mPDAC and ECOG PS 0-1. Pts were randomized 1:1 to receive daraxonrasib 300 mg PO QD or investigator’s choice of SOC cytotoxic chemo. Dual primary endpoints were OS and PFS by BICR in the RAS G12 mutant (RAS G12) population. Key secondary endpoints included OS and PFS by BICR in the overall population, ORR by BICR in RAS G12 and overall populations. Results: 248 pts were randomized to daraxonrasib and 252 to chemo. Baseline characteristics were balanced between arms. At data cutoff (Feb 10, 2026; mFU: 8.5 mo), all primary and key secondary endpoints were met. Statistically significant, clinically meaningful improvements in OS and PFS were observed with daraxonrasib vs chemo in the RAS G12 and overall populations (Table). Gr ≥3 TRAEs occurred in 43.6% of pts receiving daraxonrasib vs 57.5% receiving chemo. The most common (≥10%) Gr ≥3 TRAEs were rash (13.7%) and stomatitis (12.0%) for daraxonrasib; neutrophil decrease (18.2%) and anemia (16.4%) for chemo. TRSAEs occurred in 10.8% of pts receiving daraxonrasib vs 18.7% receiving chemo. Discontinuation due to TRAEs occurred in 1.2% of pts for daraxonrasib vs 11.2% for chemo. Median/mean daraxonrasib dose intensity was 93.1%/84.7%. Conclusions: Daraxonrasib demonstrated unprecedented improvements in OS and PFS vs chemo in pts with 2L mPDAC with or without an identified tumor RAS mut. Daraxonrasib was generally well tolerated, with a manageable safety profile and with no new safety signals. Results support daraxonrasib as the new SOC for 2L mPDAC. Clinical trial information: NCT06625320 . RAS G12 Overall b Daraxonrasibn=228 Chemo n=231 Daraxonrasib n=248 Chemo n=252 OS Median; mos(95% CI) 13.2(10.0–NE) 6.6(5.4–8.2) 13.2(10.0–NE) 6.7(5.8–8.0) HR(95% CI)P-value 0.40(0.30-0.54)<0.0001 0.40(0.30-0.53)<0.0001 PFS a Median; mos(95% CI) 7.3(6.3–8.1) 3.5(2.9–3.8) 7.2(5.7–7.5) 3.6(2.9–4.2) HR(95% CI)P-value 0.45(0.34-0.59)<0.0001 0.49(0.38-0.64)<0.0001 ORR a %(95% CI) 33.2(27.0–39.9) 11.8(7.8–16.8) 31.6(25.8–38.0) 11.2(7.5–15.9) a By BICR. b RAS G12, G13 or Q61 mut or no RAS mut identified.

LBA2 Background: Dedifferentiated liposarcoma (DDLS) remains a difficult disease to treat with limited systemic therapy options. Approved drugs offer modest benefit such as trabectedin (median progression-free survival [mPFS] 2.2 months [m]) or eribulin (mPFS 2.0m). The Cyclin-dependent kinase 4 (CDK4) oncogene is ubiquitously amplified in DDLS and is a rational therapeutic target. In single-arm phase 2 studies, treatment with selective CDK4 inhibitors resulted in mPFS 4.2m with palbociclib and mPFS 7.7m with abemaciclib. We hypothesized that treatment with abemaciclib would improve PFS compared to placebo in patients with recurrent or metastatic DDLS. Methods: SARC041 was a phase 3 randomized double-blind study of abemaciclib versus placebo. The study was open at 9 academic medical centers in the USA. Eligible patients (pts) had recurrent or metastatic DDLS (purely well-differentiated liposarcoma excluded), progression of disease by RECIST 1.1 in the 6 months prior to study entry, any number of prior systemic therapies, and adequate organ function and performance status. Pts were stratified by prior lines of therapy (0 vs 1 or more) and randomized 1:1 between abemaciclib 200 mg PO twice a day or matching placebo. Scans were every 6 weeks (every 12 weeks after week 36) and pts with progression of disease on placebo could cross over to open label abemaciclib. The primary endpoint was PFS. The design provided 80% power with two-sided 10% significance level to detect a hazard ratio of 0.6 by log-rank test. Secondary endpoints were overall response rate (ORR), PFS and response rate after crossover, and overall survival (OS). Data cutoff was March 1, 2026. Results: In total, 108 pts were randomized to receive abemaciclib (n = 54) or placebo (n = 54). Demographic/baseline characteristics were generally similar across treatment arms. Abemaciclib demonstrated a statistically significant improvement in PFS at 9.67m vs placebo at 1.52m (hazard ratio [HR] 0.39; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.25–0.59; p < 0.001). ORR was 9.3% for abemaciclib vs 0% for placebo (p = 0.057). mOS was not reached with abemaciclib vs 25.45m with placebo (HR 0.55; 95% CI, 0.28–1.07; p = 0.077). mPFS after crossover from placebo to abemaciclib was 3.44m (95% CI 2.66, 6.84). ORR after crossover was 4.3% (95% CI 0.53%, 15%). mOS after crossover was 24.03m (95% CI: 11.7, NA). Grade 3 or higher adverse event rates were similar in both arms (p > 0.99). No new safety signals were observed. Conclusions: Abemaciclib demonstrated a statistically significant improvement in PFS vs placebo in pts with dedifferentiated liposarcoma, with an encouraging OS trend. These results support abemaciclib as a new treatment option for dedifferentiated liposarcoma. Clinical trial information: NCT04967521 .

LBA10509 Background: The MCED test (Galleri) detects a shared cancer signal from cell-free DNA in blood and predicts a cancer signal origin (CSO) to guide diagnostic (dx) workup. PF2 (NCT05155605) is a large, prospective, multicenter, interventional study of the MCED test’s performance and safety in a diverse US intended-use population. Methods: PF2 enrolled participants aged ≥50y without clinical suspicion of cancer or cancer diagnosis/treatment within 3y of enrollment. Primary objectives were MCED performance and safety in terms of dx testing triggered by a positive (cancer signal detected) MCED test result. Participants with a positive MCED test underwent targeted dx workup guided by the predicted CSO(s). Participant-reported anxiety was assessed with the State Trait Anxiety Inventory. Results: PF2 enrolled 35,878 participants; 32,007 with a 12m cancer assessment were analyzable for performance. Of 287 (0.9%) with a positive MCED test, 173 were diagnosed with cancer within 12m, for a cancer detection rate of 0.5% (95% CI 0.5-0.6%) and positive predictive value of 60.3% (54.5-65.8%). Specificity was 99.6% (99.6-99.7%). 12m episode sensitivity was 69.8% (62.8-76.0%) in a prespecified subgroup of 12 cancers responsible for ⅔ of US cancer deaths, 66.2% (55.1-75.8%) in a subgroup of 6 aggressive cancers with low 5y survival, and 39.3% (34.9-44.0%) across all cancers. Overall CSO prediction accuracy was 91.3% (86.2-94.7%) across all cancers. The MCED test detected 151 new primary and 22 recurrent cancers; additional cancers detected by screening were those with USPSTF A/B (n=31) and C (n=60) recommended screening. Of 151 MCED-detected new primaries, 80 (53.0%) were clinical stage I-II; 107 (70.9%) were stage I-III. Of 80 MCED-detected stage I-II cancers, 71.2% had no USPSTF A/B screening recommendation. Of 35,335 participants analyzable for safety, 213 (0.6%) had invasive procedure(s) to evaluate a positive MCED test result, of which 90% were nonsurgical and 1.8x more likely for participants with vs without cancer diagnosis. Most (87.6%) had a CSO-guided dx evaluation. There were 5 study-related adverse events during the time of dx workup; none were serious. Anxiety temporarily increased for participants with a positive MCED test and cancer diagnosed, and returned to baseline by 12m. Of participants with a positive MCED test, median time from test result to dx resolution was 48d (95% CI 43-56). Few participants (7/63 [11.1%]) had cancer found by dx PET/CT after a targeted dx workup that did not reveal cancer. Conclusion: The MCED test demonstrated robust performance with a favorable safety profile. When MCED testing was added to USPSTF A/B screening, 6.5x more cancers were detected by screening, most at early stages. The diverse, representative PF2 participant population supports the generalizability of these findings to the US intended-use population. Clinical trial information: NCT05155605 .

Background: The economic burden associated with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) is not well understood, especially since the approval of antifibrotic medications to treat IPF in 2014. Objective: This study assessed healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) and costs for patients with and without IPF among insured patients in the United States. Methods: This retrospective study used claims data from the Optum Research Database from 01 January 2016 through 31 December 2023. The IPF cohort included patients with at least 2 claims for IPF within 365 days. A comparator cohort was exact matched to the IPF cohort in a 4:1 ratio on demographic characteristics. Follow-up all-cause and respiratory-related HCRU and costs were collected. Outcomes were presented as weighted per-patient per-month (wPPPM) to account for variable follow-up. Descriptive results were reported by cohort, overall, and stratified by insurance type. All-cause and respiratory-related wPPPM costs were modeled using generalized linear models and time to all-cause and respiratory-related inpatient visits were modeled using Cox proportional hazards regression models, adjusted for baseline comorbidities. Results: A total of 7582 patients were included in the IPF cohort; 10.4% were commercially insured and 89.6% insured by Medicare Advantage Prescription Drug (MAPD) plans. The comparator cohort included 30 328 demographically matched controls. Overall, mean all-cause wPPPM counts of HCRU during follow-up were significantly higher in the IPF cohort than the comparator cohort for all categories (all P < .001). Similarly, mean (SD) follow-up all-cause wPPPM total healthcare costs were higher for the IPF cohort than the comparator cohort ($4667 [$8252] vs $1196 [$2114], P < .001). After adjustment, the cost ratio for all-cause total healthcare costs between the IPF and comparator cohorts was 3.4 (95% confidence interval [CI], 3.10-3.64), and patients in the IPF cohort were 2.1 times (95% CI, 1.97-2.15) more likely to be hospitalized for all causes than the comparator cohort. For both HCRU and costs, similar patterns were observed in both the commercial and MAPD populations. Conclusion: Patients with IPF incurred substantially higher HCRU and costs than the demographically matched comparator cohort. Study results suggest the need for treatment options to improve management of IPF and reduce costly HCRU.

Abstract Aim This study aims to assess the treatment burden and health‐related quality of life (HRQoL) in young adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D). Methods Online survey on experienced treatment burden (Treatment Burden Questionnaire, TBQ, 0–150, higher scores indicate higher burden) and HRQoL (Type 1 Diabetes and Life questionnaire for ages 18–25 and 26–45, T1DAL, 0–100, higher scores indicate better HRQoL) among Dutch young adults with T1D (aged 18–30). Results In total, 294 young adults with T1D completed the survey. Mean TBQ score was 59.5 (SD = 24.9). Regular medical care reminding participants of their health problems scored highest. Mean T1DAL scores were 55.9 (SD = 12.9) for ages 18–25, and 62.1 (SD = 13.2) for ages 26–30. Lowest scores were in the subcategory ‘Emotional experiences and daily activities’ (18–25: median = 41.7, IQR = 24.9; 26–30: median = 47.8, IQR = 22.5). TBQ was strongly negatively correlated with T1DAL ( r = −0.69, 95% CI [−0.74, −0.62], p < 0.001). Characteristics associated with higher treatment burden and lower HRQoL included female gender, lower time in range and dissatisfaction with diabetes management approach. Conclusion Young adults with T1D report considerable treatment burden and moderate HRQoL, suggesting a high impact of diabetes care on their lives. Treatment burden is particularly affected by regular medical care activities, whereas diabetes affects the daily functioning and emotional experiences domains of HRQoL. Further research is needed to understand how young adults make care fit and to improve care for these patients, resulting in minimally disruptive care plans. While cautiously interpreted, this may be especially relevant for women and those with adverse clinical outcomes.

Abstract Purpose The diagnostic accuracy of imaging modalities in periprosthetic joint infections (PJIs) remains uncertain. This study assessed and compared the performance of different imaging techniques for diagnosing PJI. Methods A systematic review and meta‐analysis of studies published in PubMed and Embase (1 January 2000 to 1 March 2024) was conducted. Eligible studies included adults (≥18 years), applied a valid reference standard for PJI diagnosis, and provided sufficient data to construct 2 × 2 contingency tables. Imaging modalities included white blood cell scintigraphy (WBCS), FDG‐PET/CT, antigranulocyte scintigraphy (AGS), bone scintigraphy (BS), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), computed tomography (CT) and related combinations. Risk of bias was assessed using the QUADAS‐2 tool. A bivariate random‐effects model estimated pooled diagnostic odds ratios, sensitivities, and specificities with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results Forty studies (1263 PJI cases, 4700 controls) were included. Pooled sensitivity and specificity were as follows: WBCS‐SPECT/CT: 87.1% (95% CI, 31.7–99.0) and 94.1% (95% CI, 87.5–97.3); WBCS‐BMS: 79.7% (95% CI, 58.3–91.7) and 94.2% (95% CI, 91.0–96.3); WBCS: 88.1% (95% CI, 73.8–95.1) and 80.0% (95% CI, 62.2–90.7); FDG‐PET (±PET/CT): 88.1% (95% CI, 79.9–93.2) and 87.2% (95% CI, 76.3–93.5); BS‐WBCS: 59.5% (95% CI, 43.2–73.9) and 96.6% (95% CI, 92.2–98.6); BS: 89.3% (95% CI, 80.9–94.2) and 74.1% (95% CI, 59.0–85.0); AGS: 89.1% (95% CI, 76.8–95.3) and 73.0% (95% CI, 63.1–81.0). No eligible studies were identified for MRI or CT. Substantial heterogeneity was observed. Conclusion Diagnostic performance varied substantially, and no modality consistently demonstrated superior accuracy. WBCS showed the most stable results, particularly when combined with BS or BMS. Given the heterogeneity and variability in specificity, imaging should complement comprehensive diagnostic evaluation rather than be used in isolation. Level of Evidence 2a–3a, systematic review and meta‐analysis of retrospective cohort and case‐control studies.