Citations

5013 Background: There is no established role for the use of docetaxel with ADT and RT for HRLPC, with mixed results seen in prior RCTs. Prior work from ICECaP (Ravi et al, Eur Urol 2024) has shown that patients (pts) with very high-risk disease (i.e. 2 or 3 risk factors [RFs]: Gleason ≥8, PSA >20, ≥cT3 and/or cN1) have the poorest outcomes with RT+ADT for HRLPC, with 5-year metastasis-free survival (MFS) of ≤80%. We aimed to perform an IPD meta-analysis of the role of docetaxel with ADT+RT for HRLPC and specifically evaluate whether patients with very high-risk disease benefit from the addition of docetaxel. Methods: IPD from RCTs involving pts with HRLPC treated with RT+ADT +/- docetaxel collated by ICECaP were analyzed. “High-risk” disease was defined as presence of 1 RF and “very high-risk” disease as 2-3 RFs and/or cN1 disease. The primary outcomes of interest were MFS and overall survival (OS). Hazard ratios (HR) for MFS and OS were estimated using Cox regression, stratified by year of randomization and adjusted for age at randomization and ECOG performance status. 5-year MFS and OS rates were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Subgroup analyses were performed according to the severity of disease (high- and very high-risk), and p-values for interaction were tested using the likelihood ratio test. Results: 1690 pts treated on 4 RCTs (GETUG-12, DFCI 05-043, STAMPEDE, RTOG-0521) between 2002-2015 were eligible. Median age was 65, median PSA was 23 (IQR 10-48); 154 (9%) pts had cN1 disease and 1444 (85%) received long-term ADT with RT. Median follow-up was 10 years (range: <1-15). Overall, the addition of docetaxel to RT+ADT was not associated with a significant benefit in MFS (HR=0.89 [0.76-1.05], p=0.160) or OS (HR=0.88 [0.74-1.05], p=0.167). Though there was some evidence for favoring docetaxel in pts with very high-risk disease (n=1054; MFS HR=0.86 [0.71-1.05]; OS HR=0.85 [0.68-1.07]) compared to high-risk disease (n=636; MFS HR=0.97 [0.74-1.27]; OS HR=0.95 [0.71-1.28]), there was no evidence of a significant difference in treatment effect by risk group (p-interaction >0.1). 5- and 10-yr MFS and OS in pts with high- and very high-risk disease, stratified by receipt of docetaxel, are shown in the Table. Conclusions: Some HRLPC pts with very high-risk disease may benefit from the addition of docetaxel to RT+ADT. Biomarker evaluation within this group may identify those who are candidates for treatment intensification with docetaxel with RT+ADT (+/- androgen receptor pathway inhibitors) in HRLPC. % (95% CI) High risk Very high-risk RT+ADT RT+ADT+docetaxel RT+ADT RT+ADT+docetaxel 5yr MFS 87 (82-90) 90 (86-93) 74 (71-78) 80 (76-83) 5yr OS 90 (86-93) 93 (90-96) 84 (80-86) 89 (86-92) 10yr MFS 67 (61-72) 71 (65-76) 51 (46-55) 55 (49-60) 10yr OS 74 (69-79) 77 (72-82) 62 (57-67) 67 (62-72)

3008 Background: Numerous studies have demonstrated the prognostic value of ctDNA analysis after neoadjuvant chemotherapy for early-stage high-risk breast cancer. Few studies have characterized ctDNA in pts receiving NET for early-stage hormone receptor positive (HR+)/HER2- BC that is predicted to benefit less from chemotherapy. Methods: Cell-free DNA (cfDNA) was isolated from 432 plasma samples from 108 pts enrolled in the I-SPY2 EOP trial. Pts had Stage 2/3 HR+/HER2-, MammaPrint low or high risk 1 BC. Pts were randomized to one of 7 neoadjuvant-based treatment arms including arms containing AI, Z-endoxifen, Lasofoxifene, vepdegestrant (ARV-471), and Abemaciclib. Pts were treated for 6 months prior to surgery. Blood was collected at baseline (T0), 3 weeks (T1), 12 weeks (T2), and 6 months (T3). A personalized ctDNA test (Signatera) was designed to detect up to 16 patient-specific mutations (from whole-exome sequencing of pretreatment tumor) in cfDNA by ultra-deep sequencing. The chi-square test was used to assess associations between categorical variables, and the Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used to evaluate differences in medians. Results: ctDNA information was available for 101 patients at baseline (T0) (Table 1). At T0, 36 (35.6%) patients were ctDNA-positive. 23/36 (63.9%) became ctDNA-negative and 13/36 (36.1%) remained ctDNA-positive. At T0, 65/101 patients (64.4%) were ctDNA-negative. Of these, 57 (87.7%) remained negative, while 8 (12.3%) became ctDNA-positive at T1 before reverting to ctDNA-negative. A higher percentage of ctDNA-positive patients at T0 were cN+ compared to ctDNA-negative pts (p = 0.036, 64% vs. 40%). Additionally, ctDNA-positivity at T0 was strongly associated with higher Ki67 (p = 0.03) and larger functional tumor volume by MRI at baseline (p = 0.03). T3/T4 and high-grade tumors at baseline were also associated with having ctDNA positivity at baseline, though this was not statistically significant (p = 0.34 and 0.058, respectively). Conclusions: In this study of pts with Stage 2/3 HR+ HER2- BC with largely MammaPrint low risk signatures, over one-third of pts had detectable ctDNA at baseline. Detectable ctDNA at baseline was associated with cN+ disease, larger FTV, and high baseline Ki67. The majority of pts with positive ctDNA at baseline cleared the ctDNA on NET. Clinical trial information: NCT01042379 . Clinicopathologic characteristics of EOP patients. All Patients(N=101) Age at screening 55 (27-80) years* Clinical N Stage Node+ (cN+) 49 (48.5%) Node- (cN-) 52 (51.5%) SET status High 84 (83.2%) Low 14 (13.9%) Missing 3 (2.97%) MammaPrint (MP) risk** High risk 1 (H1) 15 (14.9%) Low risk 86 (85.1%) *Mean(min-max). **H1: MP score between 0 and -0.57; low: MP score between 0 and 0.355.

3005 Background: [ 212 Pb]VMT-α-NET, a next generation 212 Pb-based, SSTR2-targeted alpha-particle radiopharmaceutical therapy (RPT), was designed to achieve superior biodistribution via optimized tumor uptake and retention and rapid renal clearance. Results reported here are from the Phase 1/2a first-in-human study [NCT05636618]. Methods: Safety, pharmacokinetics, dosimetry and efficacy using RECIST v1.1 were investigated in the treatment of participants with [ 212 Pb]VMT-α-NET who had SSTR2-expressing, well-differentiated adult NETs of any grade. Participants received ≥1 prior therapy. No prior peptide receptor radionuclide therapy was allowed. The trial has multiple dose cohorts including 92.5 MBq (2.5 mCi, cohort 1) and 185 MBq (5 mCi, cohort 2) of administered activity based on a Bayesian modified toxicity probability interval (mTPI-2) design. Up to 8 participants per cohort were treated with 4 doses of [ 212 Pb]VMT-α-NET for DLT observation. Cohort 2 enrollment was expanded to further define the safety and efficacy profile at this dose level. Results: Nine (9) gastroenteropancreatic NET participants were enrolled into cohorts 1 and 2 for DLT observation. The ninth of these participants was enrolled more than 1 year prior to presentation of these data. Among these participants at the time of abstract submission, no DLTs were observed, and there were no grade 4, 5 or serious adverse events (SAEs). Specifically, no renal insufficiency or dysphagia were observed. Hematologic AEs were low grade and few in number. No treatment discontinuations due to AE occurred. Three (3) of the 7 cohort 2 participants enrolled for DLT observation achieved investigator-assessed partial responses (PRs). Two PRs were unconfirmed at the time of abstract submission. Durable progression-free survival (PFS) was consistently observed. More than 15 additional participants were enrolled in the cohort 2 expansion. Preliminary data for these patients will be reported at the congress. Conclusions: [ 212 Pb]VMT-α-NET is a well-tolerated, next generation RPT showing signs of clinical activity at early dose-levels in this phase 1/2a study. Based on these clinical data, further dose-escalation and development of this promising therapy are warranted. Clinical trial information: NCT05636618 .

TPS3164 Background: TUB-030 is a novel antibody-drug conjugate (ADC) targeting 5T4, an oncofetal antigen expressed in various solid tumors with limited expression in healthy tissues. TUB-030 leverages optimized biophysical properties, an effector-silenced antibody, and an exatecan payload to maximize the therapeutic index and minimize off-target toxicities. Preclinical studies demonstrated potent anti-tumor activity, including long-lasting tumor regression at doses as low as 1 mg/kg and durable responses even in tumors with low 5T4 expression. Methods: 5-STAR 1-01 is a multicenter, first-in-human dose escalation and dose optimization Phase I/IIa clinical trial designed to investigate safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics (PK), and efficacy of the anti-5T4 ADC TUB-030 in patients with advanced and metastatic solid tumors. Eligible patients have one of the following tumor types: head and neck squamous cell carcinomas (HNSCC), non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), small cell lung cancer, pleural mesothelioma, triple-negative breast cancer, HR+/HER2- breast cancer, esophageal cancer, gastric cancer, pancreatic adenocarcinoma, colorectal cancer, bladder cancer, prostate cancer, cervical cancer, osteosarcoma, or soft tissue sarcomas and must have exhausted available standard-of-care therapies. Phase I is an open-label, single-arm dose escalation trial, with administration every 21 days. Dose escalation follows an accelerated titration design (ATD) transitioning to Bayesian optimal interval (BOIN) upon predefined toxicity thresholds. Backfill cohorts are planned in NSCLC and HNSCC to further evaluate the safety and efficacy profile at, or near, the maximum tolerated dose (MTD). Primary endpoints include safety and tolerability of TUB-030 as monotherapy, determination of the MTD and the recommended phase II doses; secondary endpoints assess pharmacokinetics, immunogenicity, and preliminary clinical activity using RECIST v1.1 criteria. Exploratory endpoints include analysis of circulating tumor DNA. In phase IIa, dose-optimization will evaluate two dose levels in select indications in order to identify the optimal dose for further development. Enrollment of approximately 130 patients across the US and Canada is planned, with dose escalation currently underway. This study investigates TUB-030, a novel 5T4 targeted ADC as a therapy for advanced/metastatic solid tumors. Clinical trial information: NCT06657222 .

OBJECTIVE Cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM) is often accompanied by neck pain, which, along with more recognized neurological deficits like motor and sensory changes, significantly impacts patients’ quality of life. The authors examined whether age influences improvements in neck disability and related quality-of-life measures after surgery for CSM. Using the Neck Disability Index (NDI) as the primary outcome, they compared long-term outcomes at 24 months among patients aged ≥ 65, ≥75, and < 65 years, exploring the effects of surgical intervention on both pain-related disability and functional recovery in older adults. METHODS Using the Quality Outcomes Database, the authors conducted a detailed propensity score–matched analysis on cohorts aged ≥ 65 and ≥ 75 years compared with a < 65-year-old cohort while controlling for baseline NDI scores, other demographic variables, health status, underlying pathology, number of levels, indication for surgery, surgical approach, and type of surgery. Differences in NDI total and subdomain scores at 24 months postoperatively were the primary measures of improvement. Age-related variability in NDI differential was assessed. EQ-5D and calculated SF-6D were secondary measures. RESULTS Of the 1141 patients in the cohort (January 2016 to December 2018), 687 patients were < 65 years, 325 were 65 to < 75 years, and 129 were ≥ 75 years of age. After propensity score matching, 197 patients each were well matched in the ≥ 65-year (mean 71.4 years) and < 65-year (mean 55.3 years) cohorts; similarly, 57 patients each were matched in the ≥ 75-year (mean 78.3 years) and < 65-year (mean 55.8 years) cohorts. Improvements in NDI scores and subdomain scores, EQ-5D, and calculated SF-6D were consistent at 3, 12, and 24 months postoperatively across all cohorts. At 24 months, patients ≥ 65 years showed NDI score improvements (−14.7 ± 22.3) similar to those < 65 years (−13.0 ± 21.3, p = 0.454), and patients ≥ 75 years demonstrated NDI improvements (−15.0 ± 19.7) comparable to those < 65 years (−17.6 ± 20.4, p = 0.499). A sensitivity analysis for linear relationship found that NDI improvement was statistically greater in older patients (7.5 points every 30 years, p < 0.0001), but this difference was below the minimal clinically important difference. Other clinical outcomes were similar between cohorts. CONCLUSIONS Surgical intervention for CSM yields substantial and similar improvements in NDI scores and other metrics among various age groups, including those aged at least 65 and 75 years. These results highlight the effectiveness of surgery across a broad patient demographic, underscoring its value in treating CSM irrespective of age.

Abstract The tumor landscape of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is refractory to conventional photon radiotherapy (RT) due to a fibrotic tumor microenvironment (TME) that promotes chronic hypoxia and reduced immune surveillance. The radiobiological factors unique to carbon ion radiotherapy (CIRT), such as high linear energy transfer (LET) and less dependence on oxygen, make it well-suited to overcome the PDAC TME. Here, we utilized clonal syngeneic KPC pancreatic tumor cell lines and tumors to examine this postulate and to identify underlying factors that impact the response of PDAC to CIRT. While KPC cell lines exhibited radiobiologic effectiveness (RBE) greater than 3, subcutaneous tumors in the mouse hind leg showed lower RBEs – 1.3 based on quintupling time – at a LET of 75 keV/μm. Four days after CIRT, we observed widespread transcriptomic changes in the tumor immune microenvironment (TME), suggesting increased infiltration of anti-tumor immune cells, elevated expression of anti-tumor T cell cytokines, MHC class I molecules, and co-stimulatory signals. Fewer immunologic changes were observed following photon irradiation. By seven days after CIRT, tumor-supportive transcriptomic programs characterized by pro-tumor cytokines, M2 macrophages, and cancer-associated fibroblasts (CAFs) emerged, promoting resistance and limiting the durability of tumor growth delay. These findings suggest that CIRT may offer a favorable platform compared to conventional photon radiation therapy for combining with immunotherapies. Furthermore, these data highlight the risk of using in vitro survival data alone in treatment planning and indicate that underlying TME factors impact the response of PDAC in vivo .

Abstract The establishment of guidelines and curriculum standards for medical physics residency training is a critical component of setting expectations and competencies for the profession. Since the last publication of these standards, residency training has become integrated into the eligibility criteria for most medical physics certification bodies. The rapid growth of medical physics requires periodic review of the curriculum to remove outdated approaches, update established knowledge, and add emerging technologies. The goal of this document is to provide a reference standard for residency training program directors, training mentors, and residents to guide creation and/or optimization of their program's curriculum. The document is intentionally forward‐looking to capture emerging technological advances including hybrid diagnostic and therapeutic delivery systems and applications of image processing. This document is an update of the current residency training curriculum. Version history of residency training guidelines Publication Title Date 2013 Essentials and Guidelines for Clinical Medical Physics Residency Training Programs—AAPM Report No. 249 2006 Essentials and Guidelines for Hospital‐Based Medical Physics Residency Training Programs—Report No. 90 1992 Essentials and Guidelines for Hospital‐Based Medical Physics Residency Training Programs—Report No. 36 The Work Group on Periodic Review of Medical Physics Residency Training (WGMPRT) would like to acknowledge the authors of past versions of this document as they form the basis for this update. It is the sincere hope of the WGMPRT that this report will continue to be used by the medical physics community to guide training in the profession.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: There has been limited assessment between anterior cervical diskectomy and fusion (ACDF) and anterior cervical corpectomy and fusion (ACCF) on patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in the treatment of cervical spondylotic myelopathy. We sought to compare PROMs from two-level ACDF with single-level ACCF procedures. We evaluate these results in the context of minimum clinically important difference (MCID) thresholds, which have not been performed previously. METHODS: This retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data from the Quality Outcomes Database Spine Collaborative Research Study Group compared two-level ACDF and single-level ACCF at 3-, 12-, and 24 months postoperatively. PROMs included arm pain Numeric Rating Scale, neck pain Numeric Rating Scale, Neck Disability Index, and North American Spine Society Patient Satisfaction Index. Multivariate logistic regression was used to determine differences in perioperative outcomes, as well as the impact of two-level ACDF vs one-level ACCF on PROMs. MCID thresholds were based off previously established limits. RESULTS: Three hundred and thirty patients were included (236 ACDF, 94 ACCF), and the follow-up rate was 82% at 2 years. There was a significantly higher baseline age, American Society of Anesthesiologists grade, proportion of diabetes, osteoarthritis, ambulation dependence, and myelopathy severity in the ACCF cohort. On multivariable analysis, the ACCF group had greater average length of stay and estimated blood loss. There were no significant differences between reoperation rates or nonroutine discharge. There were similar rates of MCID achievement for PROMs at all time points. CONCLUSION: This study suggests that both ACDF and ACCF procedures for cervical spondylotic myelopathy are able to achieve similar, clinically meaningful improvements in PROMs by 2 years. Patients undergoing single-level ACCF have more estimated blood loss and longer length of stay, as well as worse baseline myelopathy. Both procedures have efficacious, durable outcomes. It is reasonable that other factors, such as radiographic characteristics and patient symptoms, may influence patient selection for ACDF vs ACCF.