Citations

9535 Background: MUM carries a poor prognosis with few effective treatments, especially for HLA-A*02:01-negative pts. While a subset of MUM pts responds to immune checkpoint inhibitors, the comparative efficacy of IPI+PD1 versus PD1 monotherapy is unclear. This study compares objective response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and safety between these regimens in MUM. Methods: MUM pts treated with PD1 or IPI+PD1 at 15 major melanoma centres (from Australia, Europe, United States and Israel) were included. Demographics, patient and disease characteristics, and clinical outcomes were examined. Univariate and multivariate (MVA) analyses were performed to identify clinical predictors of response and survival. Results: Of 412 MUM pts treated, 150 (36%) had PD1 and 262 (64%) received PD1+IPI. Compared to the PD1 group, PD1+IPI-treated pts were younger (64 vs. 70 years; p<0.001), had higher rate of elevated LDH (44% vs. 31%; p=0.037), and more frequently had prior treatment with tebentafusp (6.5% vs. 1.3%; p=0.031). Median follow-up from commencement of PD1+/-IPI was 4.9 years (95% CI 4.7 – 6.1). ORR was higher in IPI+PD1 group (18%) vs. PD1 (9%) (p=0.008), particularly in males (p=0.009), patients with liver metastases (p=0.018) and with lung metastases (p=0.011), with elevated LDH (p=0.047) and with no prior treatment with tebentafusp (p=0.007). PFS and OS at 1 and 2 years were numerically higher with IPI+PD1 (1- and 2-year PFS: 23% and 15%; 1- and 2-year OS: 63% and 39%) vs. PD1 (1- and 2-year PFS: 17% and 11%; 1- and 2-year OS: 54% and 36%), but these differences were not statistically significant (p>0.05). On MVA, adjusting for predefined variables (age, gender, ECOG PS, LDH, presence/absence of liver/lung metastases, prior treatment with tebentafusp), IPI+PD1 was associated with higher ORR (OR 2.71, 1.30 – 6.05; p=0.01) but not with PFS or OS compared to PD1. Presence of liver metastases (ORR [OR 0.28; 95% CI 0.13 - 0.64], PFS [HR 1.61; 95% CI 1.11 - 2.34], OS [HR 2.02; 95% CI 1.32 - 3.10]), ECOG PS≥2 (PFS [HR 1.82; 95% CI 1.07 - 3.10], OS [HR 2.24; 95% CI 1.25-4.01]), elevated LDH (PFS [HR 1.66; 95% CI 1.30 - 2.11], OS [HR 2.39; 95% CI 1.84-3.10]) and prior tebentafusp treatment (OS [HR 2.36; 95% CI 1.21-4.59]) were also independent predictors of response and/or survival. A higher percentage of pts experienced grade ≥3 immune-related adverse events (irAEs) in the IPI+PD1 group compared to the PD1 group (34% vs 13%, p<0.0001). Most pts ceased treatment due to progression (234, 57%), and more pts stopped due to toxicity in the IPI+PD1 vs. PD1 group (25% vs. 9%, p<0.0001). Conclusions: In pts with MUM, IPI+PD1 demonstrated a higher ORR but did not improve survival compared with PD1 alone. IPI+PD1 was more toxic, leading to early treatment discontinuation in one-quarter of pts. These findings may help guide treatment selection in MUM.

9007 Background: Since transition to virtual interviews, application and interview inflation have increased the work burden of GME recruitment. In 2021, AAMC ERAS implemented a process that allows applicants to assign signals to top programs of interest. There is a paucity of guidance on optimal use of ERAS signals (ES), resulting in apprehension and uncertainty amongst applicants and program directors (PD). For the 2026 ERAS cycle, Hematology/Oncology programs (HOP) had the option to participate in ES, in which applicants are provided 5 gold (G) signals and 15 silver (S) signals. First-hand knowledge on how ES was utilized by HOP, as well as PD perceptions about ES, may guide best practices on ES. Methods: During the ASCO Oncology Training Program Leadership Retreat in November 2025, an anonymous survey, assessing HOP utilization and perception of ES, and the impact of ES on recruitment practices, was launched. One PD from each HOP was invited to complete the survey while onsite. Results: 88 HOP (46% of ACGME HOP) are represented. 97% (n=85) utilized ES. Of HOP who used ES, 74% are academic. 32% are small (1-9 fellows), 43% medium (10-19 fellows), and 25% large (20+ fellows). 79% received 400+ applications. 69% reviewed applications without signals but gave higher consideration to signaled applicants. 25% only reviewed applications with signals. 28% used ES when creating rank list; 45% think ES utilization is appropriate during ranking. 85% reported ES did not alter their approach to applicants requiring visa sponsorship. 78% felt ES made the interview selection process easier. 66% were more satisfied with this year’s recruitment process compared to years without ES. The most requested change to ES was reduction of allowed signals, especially silver. 98% will use ES next year. Conclusions: Despite limited knowledge on ES impact on recruitment, nearly all surveyed HOP participated in ES this past year and will continue. Most HOP view ES positively though many desire changes, particularly with the number of signals. Most HOP consider all applications regardless of ES. However, some HOP with larger applicant pool are using ES as inclusion criteria for interview consideration. Signals are a strong predictor for interview invitation when internal selection criteria are met. The “borderline” applicant may be the greatest benefactor from ES, viewed similarly to the non-signaled applicant who meets internal selection criteria. Sharing PD perspectives and real-life data from this year’s ES process breeds opportunities for further improvement and increased confidence with ES. Likelihood HOP offer interview invitation based on quality of application and signals (%, n=85). Internal Selection Criteria Signal Extremely Likely Likely Neutral Unlikely Extremely Unlikely Met G 73 22 5 0 0 S 42 47 8 2 1 None 8 27 24 22 19 Nearly met G 4 35 39 19 3 S 0 9 52 28 11 Not met G 0 2 12 41 45 S 1 1 6 30 62

8001 Background: The ALCHEMIST clinical trial platform, launched by the National Clinical Trials Network (NCTN) in 2014, screened patients with resected non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) for molecular markers and tailored post-operative adjuvant therapy trials. A081105 evaluated whether adjuvant erlotinib improved overall survival (OS) following complete resection in patients with early stage EGFR mutated lung adenocarcinoma. Methods: A081105 was a randomized phase III trial enrolling patients with completely resected stage IB (≥4 cm), II, or IIIA non-squamous NSCLC (per the 7 th TNM staging classification) harboring EGFR exon 19 deletion or L858R mutations. Patients were randomized 1:1 to erlotinib 150 mg daily for up to 2 years or placebo/observation, stratified by stage, prior chemotherapy, EGFR mutation subtype, and ECOG performance status. The primary endpoint was OS in the per-protocol (PP) population with centrally confirmed EGFR mutations, designed to detect a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.67 in favor of erlotinib with a power of 86% and one sided type I error rate of 5%. Secondary endpoints included OS and disease free survival (DFS) in a modified intent-to-treat (mITT) population with local or centrally confirmed EGFR mutations, and safety. A prespecified backstop analysis was conducted after a minimum of 5 years of follow-up on all patients. Results: Trial enrollment was discontinued when 390 of the intended 450 patients had been enrolled due to the proven benefit of adjuvant osimertinib. Among 390 enrolled patients, the arms were balanced for age (median: 67.0 years), sex (70% female), race (70% white), stage (II: 51%, IIIA: 37%), prior chemotherapy (82%), ECOG PS 0 (60%), and exon 19 deletion (57%). Adjuvant erlotinib did not significantly improve OS compared with placebo/observation in the overall PP population (364 patients, 108 events, HR 0.89; 95% CI, 0.59–1.34; 1-sided P = 0.29) or within exon 19 deletion (HR: 0.94) or L858R mutation (HR: 0.82) subgroups. Five-year OS rates were 78.6% versus 77.9%, respectively. Results were consistent in the mITT analysis (379 patients, 113 events, HR 0.86; 95% CI, 0.58–1.28). Erlotinib improved DFS (mITT: 181 events, median: 68 vs 50 months, HR 0.74; 95% CI, 0.55–1.01). Across both arms, 11% of patients started non-protocol treatment (Osimertinib: 9%) prior to disease progression, and 9% withdrew consent for all follow-up prior to recurrence. In the erlotinib arm, 3 deaths on study were reported; grade 3 or higher adverse events were reported on 39% of patients. Median duration of treatment on Erlotinib arm was 16 months; only 37% of patients completed the planned treatment. Conclusions: In resected EGFR -mutant NSCLC, adjuvant erlotinib did not improve overall survival but improved DFS. Additional studies are exploring efficacy in selected subsets of patients using genomics and proteomic analyses. Clinical trial information: NCT02193282 .

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 .

5004 Background: Patients (pts) with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC) treated continuously with testosterone suppression (TS) plus an androgen receptor pathway inhibitor (ARPI) can experience cumulative toxicity. We conducted this single-arm phase 2 trial (NCT05241860) to test the hypothesis that pts who achieve favorable response to TS + ARPI can have prolonged treatment-free interval with testosterone recovery after treatment interruption (TI). Here we report on the primary endpoint. Methods: Eligible pts had mHSPC by conventional imaging with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) ≥ 5 ng/ml and testosterone ≥ 150 ng/dl prior to starting TS+ARPI, with PSA < 0.2 ng/ml and testosterone < 50 ng/dl at the time of enrollment after having received TS for 540-750 days and ARPI for ≥ 360 days. Prior local therapy, radiation to metastases and docetaxel were permitted. After enrollment, pts discontinued TS and ARPI and were followed with PSA and testosterone levels every 3 months (mo), CT/MRI and bone scan at least every 6 mo, and FACT-P questionnaire for patient-reported outcomes (PROs) every 6 mo. Treatment was resumed for PSA ≥ 5 ng/ml, radiographic change (progressive disease [PD] per RECIST 1.1 on CT/MRI or unconfirmed PD per PCWG3 on bone scan), or prostate cancer-related symptoms. The primary endpoint was proportion of men remaining treatment-free 18 mo after TI with eugonadal testosterone ( > 150 ng/dl). Target enrollment was 75 pts to differentiate 18-mo treatment-free rates of 0.30 (H 0 ) and 0.45 (H a ). Results: Of 79 pts enrolled between 07/2022 and 03/2024, 78 were eligible and underwent TI. Among these 78, median PSA prior to starting TS+ARPI was 19 (range 5-6759), 27 (35%) had high volume disease, 31 (40%) never received local therapy, and 55 (71%) did not receive radiation to metastases. By 18 mo after TI, 67% (52/78) recovered testosterone and 58% (45/78) remained treatment-free; 41% (32/78) remained treatment-free with testosterone recovery (80% CI 33.5-48.9%, one-sided p 0.0249). At median follow-up of 21.2 mo, 35% (27/78) resumed initial TS+ARPI after meeting re-initiation criteria (of whom 1 required treatment switch for PD 9 mo later); 5% (4/78) resumed prior to meeting criteria; 9% (7/78) pursued alternative therapy instead of resuming TS+ARPI per protocol; 5% (4/78) withdrew; 1 died of myocardial infarction prior to resuming treatment. 4 pts died, 1 of prostate cancer. Conclusions: The primary objective was achieved with 41% of favorable responders to TS+ARPI remaining treatment-free with testosterone recovery at 18 mo after TI. Analyses of biomarkers and PROs are in progress, and pts will be followed for long-term outcomes. Support: U10CA180821, U10CA180882, UG1CA189823, https://acknowledgments.alliancefound.org, Veracyte Inc. Clinical trial information: NCT05241860 .

4500 Background: BM occur in ~30% of RCC pts and are associated with poor survival and symptomatic skeletal events (SSEs). Radium-223, an alpha-emitting bone-seeking radioisotope, prolongs survival in advanced prostate cancer. A pilot study of radium-223 with VEGF tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI) in RCC with BM showed safety and early efficacy (McKay, CCR, 2018). Cabozantinib is a TKI that showed efficacy in BM. RADICAL (NCT04071223) was designed to investigate cabozantinib ± radium-223 in RCC with BM. Methods: This open label multicenter study enrolled RCC pts with ≥1 symptomatic BM not previously irradiated and Karnofsky performance status ≥60%. Prior therapies were allowed; non-clear cell population was limited to 20%. Randomization was 1:1 to cabozantinib with (Arm A) or without (Arm B) radium-223, stratified by osteoclast-targeted therapy (OTT), prior therapy, baseline opioid use, and IMDC risk. In Arm A, cabozantinib was 40 mg daily cycle 1, 60 mg thereafter if tolerated; radium-223 was 1.49 microcurie/kg IV every 28 days for 6 doses. In Arm B, cabozantinib was 60 mg daily. The primary endpoint was SSE-free survival (SSE-FS). Secondary endpoints were safety, objective response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). The study was designed with 85% power to detect improvement in 6-month SSE-FS from 65% to 78% (one-sided α=0.05), with planned interim futility analysis at 50% of expected events. Results: From 12/2019 to 9/2025, 90 pts were enrolled and evaluable for the interim analysis. Median age was 63 years; 74.4% male, 90.0% White, 83.3% clear cell histology. 11.1% were treatment naïve, 80.0% received OTT, 51.1% had baseline opioid use. IMDC risk was 16.7% favorable, 68.9% intermediate, 14.4% poor. Median cabozantinib dose was 31.4 mg (Arm A) and 40.0 mg (Arm B); median radium-223 cycles was 6. Median follow-up was 13.1 (range 0.1-49.4) months with 50 events, 17 SSEs (Arm A: 10; Arm B: 7) and 33 deaths (Arm A: 13; Arm B: 20). Outcomes are in Table. 71 pts were evaluable for response. ORR was 22.2% (Arm A), 22.9% (Arm B). Any grade treatment-related adverse events were 97.7% (Arm A), 93.2% (Arm B); grade ≥3 were 65.9% (Arm A), 56.8% (Arm B). The trial closed after interim analysis as SSE-FS did not meet the prespecified futility boundary (HR≤1). Conclusions: Radium-223 did not improve the primary endpoint of SSE-FS when added to cabozantinib but a numerical prolongation in OS was observed. Combination treatment was safe. Alternative radiotherapeutics warrant investigation in RCC. Clinical trial information: NCT04071223 . Interim efficacy analysis. Arm Median(95% CI) HR (95% CI) Stratified SSE-FS A 17.9 (15.0-NE) 1.24 (0.62-2.48) B 17.6 (10.9-NE) Unstratified SSE-FS A 17.9 (15.0-NE) 0.90 (0.51-1.59) B 17.6 (10.9-NE) OS A 32.2 (17.9-NE) 0.77 (0.42-1.41) B 21.3 (12.3-NE) Stratified PFS A 11.0 (5.8-17.4) 1.39 (0.72-2.66) B 11.2 (9.0-18.5)

4514 Background: Maintenance avelumab is a standard of care in patients (pts) with la/mUC who do not progress after first-line PBC. Cabozantinib (CABO) is an oral inhibitor of MET, VEGFR and TAM, active in multiple solid tumors. We hypothesized that an avelumab (Av)-CABO combination would improve outcomes in pts with mUC with an acceptable safety profile compared to avelumab maintenance alone. Methods: MAIN-CAV (NCT05092958) is a phase III randomized, multicenter, international trial for la/mUC pts who did not progress after 4-6 cycles of any PBC (gemcitabine-cisplatin, gemcitabine-carboplatin, MVAC, ddMVAC). Pts were randomized 1:1 to Av 800 mg IV every 2 weeks alone or with CABO 40 mg daily for ≤2 years. Stratification factors were response to first-line PBC (complete response [CR] vs partial response [PR] vs stable disease [SD]) and visceral metastases. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS); secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS), safety and quality of life. The target accrual was 654 pts; the trial closed early after enrollment of 68 pts following adoption of enfortumab vedotin plus pembrolizumab as the new preferred first-line standard in the US. Results: From 3/2022 to 3/2024, 68 pts were randomized (Av n = 33; CABO-Av n = 35). Median OS was 24.8 months (mo) with Av and 23.0 mo with Avb-CABO (Hazard ratio 1.41; 95% CI 0.66–3.01; p = 0.186). Median PFS was 4.6 mo with Av vs 6.0 mo with Av-CABO (p = 0.343). Objective response rate among pts with PR or SD after first-line PBC was 20.8% with Av vs 11.5% with Av-CABO (p = 0.424). Grade ≥3 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 24.2% pts on the Av arm vs 39.4% of pts on the Av-CABO arm and CABO dose reductions occurred in 63% of pts. Conclusions: Addition of CABO to Av did not improve OS or PFS compared with Av alone in this underpowered, prematurely closed phase III trial; safety was consistent with known profiles. U10CA180821,U10CA180882; U24CA196171, U10CA180863. (CCTG);U10CA180888 (SWOG); https://acknowledgments.alliancefound.org. Clinical trial information: NCT05092958 .

4513 Background: The AMBASSADOR trial (NCT03244381) showed that in patients with high-risk muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma after radical surgery, adjuvant pembrolizumab for one year improved disease-free survival from 14.2 to 29.6 months (Apolo et al, NEJM 2024). Here we report the HRQOL results. Methods: HRQOL was completed by 560 randomized patients and included the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) QLQ-C30 plus the bladder cancer supplement BLM30, and the EQ-5D-5L, which assesses overall quality of life or health state. Published minimally important difference thresholds for EQ-5D-5L is 0.06, and for EORTC instruments is 5-10 points. For all reported HRQOL data, higher score is better except BLM30 urinary symptoms, where higher score indicates more symptoms. Results: Mean changes from baseline to 12 months (corresponding to end of treatment) for each HRQOL measure are summarized in the Table. No statistically significant difference was seen between the observation vs. pembrolizumab arms. Further, numerical differences between arms for these HRQOL measures do not meet (are lower than) the published minimally clinically important difference thresholds. Conclusions: Adjuvant pembrolizumab after radical surgery for patients with high-risk muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma improved disease-free survival without negatively affecting HRQOL. These HRQOL results add further support to adjuvant immune checkpoint blockade therapy in these patients. Support: U10CA180821, U10CA180882, UG1CA189823 (https://acknowledgments.alliancefound.org). Clinical trial information: NCT03244381 . HRQOL mean change from baseline to 12 months and between-arm comparisons. A) Observation B) Pembrolizumab Difference A vs B P-value EQ-5D-5L Index Value -.029 -.012 -.02 .45 QLQ-C30 Global Health 0.07 1.45 -1.38 .55 QLQ-C30 Physical Functioning -.089 -.069 -0.02 .99 QLQ-C30 Role Functioning 3.22 -1.23 4.45 .15 BLM30 Urinary Symptoms -3.44 -3.02 -.42 .87 BLM30 Sexual Functioning -.53 4.15 -4.68 .07

4559 Background: Baseline QOL has been linked to survival in mRCC therapy clinical trials (Cella, 2024); however, there is a paucity of prospectively collected real-world QOL data across front-line management strategies. We used data from ODYSSEY to examine the relationship between baseline QOL and early death. Methods: ODYSSEY is a multi-site, prospective observational study of 468 US pts with mRCC. Pts must have mRCC (any histology); have no prior systemic therapy (ST) or be within 3 months of starting ST; and follow up at a PCORnet study site. Exclusion criteria include treatment for cancer except mRCC. The primary objective is to determine patterns of change in QOL and symptom burden of pts with mRCC. Early death was defined as death within 12 months post-enrollment. All pts with non-missing FKSI-19 or FKSI-DRS at enrollment were included. Cumulative event probabilities as a function of time were stratified by either < or ≥ median QoL value and plotted as a step function vs time since enrollment to create cumulative event curves. To determine association between QoL at enrollment and early death, separate Cox proportional hazards models (unadjusted and adjusted) for time-to-first-event as a function of baseline QoL were fit. The adjusted model controlled for the following baseline covariates: IMDC risk (favorable vs intermediate or poor), histology (clear cell vs non). Results: As of 1/5/26, 468 pts were enrolled; 425 had non-missing FKSI-19 or FKSI-DRS at enrollment (329 immediate ST, 96 deferred ST [DST]). ST included 129 IO-IO, 108 IO-TKI, 92 Other. DST included 57 Active Surveillance, 22 Local Therapy Planned, 17 Other/Missing. 209 and 190 pts have < median FKSI-19 (score = 59) and FKSI-DRS (score = 29), respectively; 216 and 235 pts have ≥ median FKSI-19 and FKSI-DRS, respectively. Those below the median have lower rates of nephrectomy, worse IMDC risk and KPS, shorter time since RCC diagnosis, and higher rates of bone metastasis (all p<0.05). Cumulative event probabilities for death at 12 months are 21% and 7% in those < and ≥ median baseline FKSI-19, respectively; and 21% and 7% in those < and ≥ median baseline FKSI-DRS, respectively. For FKSI-19, the unadjusted hazard ratio (HR) for early death is 0.55 (95% CI: 0.43 – 0.70; p<0.001) and adjusted HR is 0.65 (0.49 – 0.85; p = 0.002) per 1 SD higher score. For FKSI-DRS, the unadjusted HR for early death is 0.57 (95% CI: 0.46 – 0.71; p<0.001) and adjusted HR is 0.66 (0.51 – 0.86; p =0.002) per 1 SD higher score (higher score indicates better QOL). Conclusions: Across management strategies in our ODYSSEY cohort of systemic therapy naïve mRCC patients, better baseline QOL was associated with better survival. This is to our knowledge the largest reported real world mRCC cohort with prospectively collected PROs. Future analyses will focus on association of outcomes with longitudinal PROs. Clinical trial information: NCT04919122 .

4219 Background: Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) remains a notoriously difficult-to-treat malignancy, with limited therapy options for patients with advanced disease. While KRAS mutations are the dominant oncogenic driver in PDAC, next-generation sequencing has enabled the identification of rare, targetable alterations such as the BRAF V600E mutation, which occurs in approximately 2-3% of cases. BRAF mutant cell lines are responsive to MEK and RAF inhibitors. This study evaluates the efficacy of the combination of encorafenib and binimetinib as ≥ 2nd line therapy in this specific molecular subgroup of pancreatic cancer patients. Methods: This study used a planned two-stage design. Seven patients were pre-registered; one did not meet eligibility criteria and was excluded. Six patients were enrolled in Stage 1, which required an objective response (OR) in 40% of patients to proceed to Stage 2. Stage 2 was planned to enroll an additional 16 patients, contingent on meeting this efficacy threshold. Enrolled patients received treatment in 28-day cycles until disease progression or for a maximum of 36 cycles. Patients self-administered encorafenib (450 mg orally once daily) and binimetinib (45 mg orally twice daily) starting on Day 1 of each cycle. Objective responses were assessed using RECIST version 1.1 over 24 weeks. Results: The median number of cycles was 8. The objective response rate at 24 weeks was 33.33%. The overall objective response rate was 50%. The median time to response for progression-free survival, overall survival, duration of response, and time to response was 7.1, 15.0, 9.9, and 3.9 months respectively, with 95% CI in all categories. 50% of patients experienced at least one Grade ≥3 adverse event, including anemia, thromboembolic events, and acute kidney injury. Conclusions: The six BRAF-V600E-mutated PDAC patients in our cohort demonstrated meaningful antitumor activity with a manageable safety profile after treatment with encorafenib and binimetinib. Although the study was prematurely terminated due to limited accrual, observed objective responses and survival outcomes suggest that dual RAF/MEK inhibition may represent a feasible therapeutic strategy in this rare molecular subgroup. Larger studies are warranted to further define the efficacy and safety of this treatment combination in BRAF-V600E-mutated pancreatic cancer. Clinical trial information: NCI-2020-02972 .