Citations

560 Background: Early diagnosis remains a critical challenge in oncology, particularly for the five deadliest cancers: lung, breast, prostate, colorectal, and pancreatic. These cancers often present with nonspecific symptoms, leading to repeated healthcare visits without a timely suspicion of malignancy. Artificial intelligence (AI) offers an opportunity to augment clinical decision-making and support earlier identification of cancer. C the Signs , an AI cancer prediction platform, has been widely adopted across the UK with substantial evidence supporting its ability to identify cancer at earlier stages. Methods: This retrospective study assessed the performance of C the Signs in intercepting cancer earlier than physician diagnosis. De-identified electronic medical records were accessed via the Mayo Data Platform, spanning a 20-year period from January 1, 2002 to December 31, 2021. The study cohort included 55,375 patients diagnosed with lung, breast, prostate, colorectal or pancreatic cancer. The primary outcome was the proportion of cases identified earlier by the AI model, measured in annual increments up to five years prior to physician diagnosis. Additional analyses were conducted across the five target cancer types. Results: The C the Signs platform identified 14,528 patients (26.2%) with cancer earlier than the original physician diagnosis. Early identification occurred across multiple time points: 8.9% in year 1, 4.7% in year 2, 4.4% in year 3, 4.3% in year 4, and 3.9% in year 5. Across cancer types, the highest early interception rate was observed in prostate cancer (31.7%), while breast cancer showed the lowest impact (21.0%). Conclusions: Use of the C the Signs AI cancer prediction platform demonstrated meaningful improvements in early cancer interception, particularly for lung and prostate cancers. These findings highlight the potential of AI tools to enhance early diagnosis and support timely clinical interventions, offering a scalable solution to improve cancer outcomes across populations.

Abstract Introduction: This ongoing study investigates the impact of vitamin D deficiency on the immune response to prostate cancer (CaP) in Black patients and its potential contribution to CaP disparities. The study also evaluates differences in immune function, including p53 and CaP associated antibody levels, in Black men with localized versus metastatic CaP. Methodology: Eligible patients with a history of localized or metastatic CaP are enrolled following informed consent (in person or remote). At baseline, blood is collected for calcium and vitamin D3 levels, and for immune testing. Patients who participate in the screening portion of the trial and are found to have vitamin D3 levels <30 ng/mL are prescribed oral vitamin D3 (2000 IU daily) and asked to record adherence in a medication diary. Follow-up includes a 4-week check-in and end-of-treatment labs at 8 weeks for calcium, vitamin D3 levels, and immune re-testing. Virtual consults occur after baseline and at 8 weeks. Quality of life is measured at baseline and EOT follow-up using the CDC HRQOL–4. The study began accruing patients in December 2021. In an attempt to accelerate patient accrual, the protocol was amended to become one of Mayo Clinic’s first fully decentralized clinical trials. Newly integrated components included at-home and community-based blood collection (outside of Mayo Clinic southern sites) and continued virtual engagement. These changes were designed to reduce barriers linked to social determinants of health (SDOH) and expand participation among medically underserved populations. This is a report on the impact of clinical trial DCT. Results: From December 2021 to September 2023 (pre-DCT), 24 patients were enrolled from 66 patients who participated in the screening portion for the trial (mean accrual: 1.09/month; SD: 1.15). Following the DCT amendment, enrollment rose to 102 patients from 213 screened (mean: 4.86/month; SD: 3.12) through June 2025. Of 126 enrolled patients, 119 (94.4%) returned medication diaries, with only 6 non-returns occurring post-DCT. QOL measures were completed by approximately 75% of participants. Importantly, 90 of 126 participants (71%) were enrolled from outside Jacksonville, FL or Scottsdale/Phoenix, AZ, indicating successful national expansion. A total of 111 patients failed the screening due to baseline vitamin D levels >30 ng/ml. The total number of protocol deviations increased post-DCT (60 from 10/23–6/25 vs. 14 from 12/21–9/23), there was no change in the number of protocol deviations per enrolled patients. Minor documentation and study timeline deviations were the most common in both periods. Conclusions: The successful implementation of a fully decentralized model was associated with a marked increase in the accrual of underserved patients and allows the completion of critical clinical trials that address important cancer care disparities without impacting protocol integrity. Clinical trial DCT can potentially reduce SDOH-related barriers and improve representation of underserved populations in research. Citation Format: Sandra Casanova Leyva, Kim M. Barbel Johnson, Tufia Haddad, Lydia Mercado, Trevanne Matthews Hew, Cassandra Moore, Gerardo Colon-Otero, Devina Joshi, Roselyn Heduvor. Feasibility of an interventional clinical trial addressing prostate cancer disparities in Black men by decentralization (DCT): A potential solution to disparities in clinical trial participation [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 18th AACR Conference on the Science of Cancer Health Disparities; 2025 Sep 18-21; Baltimore, MD. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2025;34(9 Suppl):Abstract nr C064.

The NCCN Guidelines for Thyroid Carcinoma address the management of different types of thyroid carcinoma, including papillary, follicular, oncocytic, medullary, and anaplastic carcinoma. The NCCN Thyroid Carcinoma Panel meets at least annually to review comments from reviewers within their institutions, examine relevant new data from publications and abstracts, and reevaluate and update their recommendations. These NCCN Guidelines Insights focus on the panel’s most recent recommendations regarding systemic therapies for thyroid carcinoma as well as the supporting clinical data.

PURPOSE Neoadjuvant immunotherapy (IO) has become the standard of care for early-stage triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC), but not yet for other subtypes. We previously developed a clinical-grade mRNA-based immune classifier (ImPrint) predicting response to IO that is now being used in I-SPY2.2 as part of the response predictive subtypes. We report the performance of ImPrint in hormone receptor–positive and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–negative (HR+HER2–) patients from five IO arms. METHODS A total of 204 HR+HER2– (MammaPrint high-risk) patients from five IO arms (anti–PD-1, anti–PD-L1/poly [ADP-ribose] polymerase inhibitor combination, anti–PD-1/toll-like receptor 9 dual-IO combination, and anti–PD-1 ± lymphocyte activation gene 3 dual-IO combination) and 191 patients from the chemotherapy-only control arm were included in this analysis. Patients were classified as ImPrint+ (likely sensitive) versus ImPrint– (likely resistant), using pretreatment mRNA. Performance of ImPrint for predicting pathologic complete response (pCR) to IO-containing arms was characterized and compared with tumor grade (III), MammaPrint (ultra) High2 risk (MP2), and estrogen receptor (ER)-low (ER ≤ 10%). RESULTS Overall, the pCR rate across the five IO arms was 33%. 26% of HR+HER2– patients were ImPrint+, and pCR rates with IO were 75% in ImPrint+ versus 17% in ImPrint–, with the highest pCR rate >90% in a dual-IO arm. In the control arm, pCR rates were 33% in ImPrint+ and 8% in ImPrint–. Tumor grade (III), MP2, and ER-low showed pCR rates in IO of 45%, 56%, and 63%, respectively, with lower pCR odds ratios (OR < 7.5) compared with ImPrint (OR = 14.5). CONCLUSION Using an accurate selection strategy, HR+HER2– patients could achieve pCR rates similar to what is seen with best neoadjuvant therapies in TNBC and HER2+ (ie, pCR rate >65%-70%). ImPrint, an Food and Drug Administration IDE-enabled assay, may represent a way to identify HR+HER2– patients for IO that best balances likely benefit versus risk of serious immune-related adverse events.

Although innovation in cancer treatment has improved cure rates and survival, the costs have escalated beyond societies' ability to pay. Cancer care costs in the United States are expected to rise to 245 billion by 2030. In this health policy session, we focused on three cost-containment strategies, and their potential impact on cancer care delivery. Site Neutrality: Curbing the Cost of Cancer Care, but at What Risk? , explores legislation that would introduce payment parity across differing sites of care: elimination of facility fees in hospital owned practices and shift of billing for oncology infusions away from hospital owned practices. Unintended consequences could reduce access to care for vulnerable populations, shift costs to patients, and reduce safety. Post-Pandemic Digital Health Reimbursement: Impact on Access to Care , explores how the emergency waivers, licensure flexibilities, and parity reimbursement necessitated by COVID-19 shepherded innovation that outpaced the regulatory framework needed for long-term sustainability. Today, telehealth services, hospital at home, remote patient monitoring, and decentralized clinical trial enrollment face reintroduction of regulatory and payment barriers. Will we live to see efficacy-based pricing for cancer drugs? Learning from international models , explores how lack of drug price negotiation has led to higher prices in the United States compared with Canada and Europe. Comparative clinical effectiveness pricing systems compare the value of each drug to standard treatments. Comparative cost-effectiveness programs look at the incremental cost per additional unit of health gained above the standard of care. The United States could learn from these approaches used in comparable countries.

Abstract Background Anthracyclines (ACs) are a risk factor for heart failure (HF), but their impact on broader composite outcomes such as major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) remain less well characterized. From the Rochester Epidemiology Project, we identified patients with breast cancer or lymphoma to assess for association between AC use and MACE in these patients with > 25 years of follow-up. Methods We identified patients with cancer, with or without an AC as first-line treatment, and a control group of individuals without cancer, matched by age, sex, and cardiovascular comorbid conditions to the cancer patients. Outcomes of interest were 3-MACE (myocardial infarction, stroke, and cardiovascular death), and 4-MACE (3-MACE plus HF). Cox regression analysis was used to identify variables associated with MACE at 5, 10, and 25 years of follow-up. Results Of 812 patients with cancer, 675 had AC treatment (AC group) and 137 did not (no-AC group); the control group comprised 1,384 matched patients without cancer. The risk of 3-MACE was similar among the 3 groups at all time points. Older age, male sex, and hypertension were associated with 3-MACE. The risk of 4-MACE was similar between the control and no-AC groups; the risk was increased for the AC group vs controls at all time points. Older age, male sex, smoking history, type 2 diabetes, and hypertension were associated with 4-MACE. Conclusions Cardiovascular risk factors are the main drivers of 3-MACE and ACs increase the risk of 4-MACE given their association with HF. This underscores the importance of implementing lifestyle changes among these patients.

LBA1551 Background: Traditional cancer therapy is primarily delivered in clinical settings, imposing logistical, emotional, and financial burdens, particularly on rural and underserved patients. While international studies have demonstrated the safety of home-based chemotherapy, no randomized U.S. trials have evaluated this approach. Mayo Clinic’s CCBW program aims to expand access to high-quality cancer care by providing in-home cancer treatment, lab testing, telemedicine, remote patient monitoring, command center and paramedic support. This pragmatic randomized controlled trial evaluates feasibility and impact of home-based versus in-clinic cancer directed therapy on patient preference, acceptability, safety, and patient-reported outcomes. Methods: Adult patients (ECOG 0-2) receiving chemotherapy or hormonal therapy at Mayo Clinic Florida were randomized 1:1 after confirmation of treatment tolerance in clinic to receive (1) home-based care for 24 weeks or (2) in-clinic care for 8 weeks followed by home-based care for 16 weeks. Target accrual is 200 patients. A planned interim analysis after 50 enrollments assessed accrual, data completeness, technical challenges, safety, and study outcomes. The primary endpoint is patient ratings of their overall cancer care experience (0–10 scale, CAHPS Cancer Care Survey) at 8 weeks. 200 patients provide 80% power to detect a 0.45 standard deviation difference in mean ratings between arms with a 2-sided 2-sample t-test (α=0.05) and 20% missing data rate. Secondary endpoints are patient preference, comfort with home infusions, treatment worthwhileness, functional/symptom assessments (EORTC QLQ-F17, PRO-CTCAE, GP5), grade ≥3 AEs, hospitalizations, and overall survival. Cost is a tertiary endpoint. The trial is IRB-approved (#23001719) and registered (NCT05969860). Results: Enrollment began 8/23/23. As of 2/21/25, 52 patients (26 per arm) were enrolled and 36 started protocol treatment. Common cancers were breast (38%), colorectal (21%), prostate (19%), and multiple myeloma (14%). 64% (28/44) of patients were female; 84% identified as White, 14% as Black, and 2% as multiple races. Median distance to clinic was 20 miles (range 2-66). After 8 weeks, patients in both arms rated their overall cancer care experience highly (mean [SD]=9.69 [0.85] versus 9.54 [0.66] for home-based vs. in-clinic care, n=26). After 24 weeks, 73% preferred home-based care, 18% had no preference, and 9% preferred in-clinic care; 100% felt comfortable with home infusions. No grade ≥3 AEs related to location of care have occurred. Conclusions: Early findings support the feasibility, safety, and high patient acceptability of home-based cancer therapy. No safety concerns related to care location were observed and most patients preferred home-based treatment. Ongoing accrual and analysis will assess clinical outcomes and cost implications. Clinical trial information: NCT05969860 .

e14545 Background: Next generation sequencing (NGS) identifies genomic alterations in DNA obtained from tissue biopsies and/or blood [circulating tumor (ct)DNA]. We anticipate a lower rate of copy number loss (CNL) in ctDNA compared to tissue, as lower ctDNA tumor fraction may limit the ability to detect a deletion. However, we observed several instances of a CNL in ctDNA that was not identified in a tissue specimen, prompting this systematic evaluation of an institutional dataset. We focused on BRCA1/2 pathogenic variants (PVs) given their therapeutic implications and coverage across testing platforms. Methods: Using an IRB-approved protocol, we evaluated an institutional repository of NGS results performed across the Mayo Clinic Enterprise. We focused on patients (pts) who had both tissue and blood NGS testing performed. We further narrowed this cohort to those with a BRCA1/2 PVs, somatic and/or germline, as determined by testing performed at Guardant Health, Tempus, or Foundation Medicine. We abstracted information about each variant, including type of alteration classification and functional impact. Demographic information, cancer characteristics, and germline testing information was collected. Fisher’s exact test was used to compare alteration frequencies in ctDNA vs tissue using GraphPad Prism v 10.1. Results: From Dec 2015-Sept 2024, we identified 158 unique pts with BRCA1/2 PV who had NGS results for both tissue and ctDNA. The median age at first reporting BRCA1/2 variant was 67 years (range: 29-98 years). 48% of pts were female, and the most common cancer type sites were lung (23%), colorectal (20%), and pancreaticobiliary (20%). We identified 198 unique pathogenic genomic alterations; 71 in BRCA1 & 127 in BRCA2 . Most common alteration was an SNV or indel (127/198), followed by CNL (n = 63), splice site variants (n = 5), fusions (n = 2), and rearrangements (n = 1). Of the 126 SNV or indels, 50 (39.7%) were identified in both ctDNA and tissue, 40 (31.7%) were detected in blood only, 36 (28.6%) identified only in tissue (p < 0.0001). Amongst the 63 CNL, only 3 (4.8%) were identified in both ctDNA and tissue; 41(65.1%) were only identified in ctDNA, and 19 (30.2%) in tissue only (p < 0.0001). In the 19 tissue-only CNL tests, 12/19 noted one or more additional pathogenic SNV/Indel in BRCA1/2. In the 41 ctDNA-only CNL tests, 1/41 noted one or more additional pathogenic SNV/Indel in BRCA 1/2 . Germline testing was available in 41/63 pts with copy number loss. 3/41 deletions were identified in germline (2 in ctDNA, 1 in tissue). Conclusions: We observed a low degree of concordance in CNL between tissue and ctDNA for BRCA1/2 . CNL detection in ctDNA that could not be confirmed in germline or with a second alteration warrants further attention. In particular, clinicians should be cautioned when interpreting ctDNA reports noting BRCA1/2 CNL without clarity if this represents biallelic loss or a synchronous loss of function.

TPS1125 Background: Despite the many available treatments for patients (pts) with HR+, HER2– recurrent/metastatic breast cancer (MBC), optimal treatment after progression on CDK4/6 inhibitors (CDK4/6i) is unclear. One possible CDK4/6i resistance mechanism is increased expression of Aurora kinase A (AURKA), a key mitosis regulator associated with poor prognosis. Further implicated in CDK 4/6i resistance, high c-Myc or RB1 loss of function (LOF) are associated with transcriptional co-regulation or synthetic lethality, respectively, with AURKA. Alisertib is a highly selective, reversible, ATP-competitive, orally administered, small-molecule AURKA inhibitor with antiproliferative activity in HR+ BC-derived cell lines and BC xenograft models. Models with elevated AURKA or c-Myc expression, or RB1 LOF show greater alisertib sensitivity. Alisertib had activity in phase 1 and 2 trials, including objective response rates (ORRs) of 19.6–20% and median progression-free survival (PFS) of 5.4–5.6 months alone or with fulvestrant in pts with HR+/HER2–, endocrine-resistant MBC. The most common treatment-related grade ≥3 adverse events (AEs) were neutropenia, anemia, and leukopenia. Methods: ALISCA-Breast1 (NCT06369285) is a randomized phase 2 study. Primary objective: to determine the optimal alisertib dose administered with endocrine therapy (ET) based on AEs and serious AEs per CTCAE v5.0 and efficacy (ORR, duration of response, disease-control rate, PFS, overall survival). Secondary objectives: to identify biomarkers of efficacy and alisertib pharmacokinetics (PK). Key inclusion criteria: ≥18 years; ECOG performance status 0 or 1; confirmed HR+, HER2–, recurrent/metastatic breast adenocarcinoma not amenable to curative therapy; available tumor tissue for biomarker analyses; progression on or after ≥2 prior ET lines in recurrent/metastatic setting; prior CDK4/6i with ET in recurrent/metastatic setting. Key exclusion criteria: prior chemotherapy in recurrent/metastatic setting; prior AURKA-specific or pan-Aurora-targeted agents; unstable brain metastases. Eligible pts will be randomized 1:1:1 to alisertib 30 mg, 40 mg, or 50 mg orally twice daily on days 1−3, 8–10, and 15–17 every 28 days, plus physician’s choice of anastrozole, letrozole, exemestane, fulvestrant, or tamoxifen not previously used in recurrent/metastatic setting or progressed upon in adjuvant setting; ≤50 pts will be enrolled per arm in the USA and Europe. All pts will undergo sparse PK sampling. Tumor tissue will be centrally assessed for biomarkers, including RB1, MYC, TP53, ESR1, PI3K/AKT pathway, HER2 and AURKA genomic alterations/expression levels. The study will determine the optimal alisertib dose to combine with ET and may identify biomarker(s) defining pts with the greatest benefit from alisertib-based therapy. Clinical trial information: NCT06369285 .