Citations

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 EARLY TAVR trial (Evaluation of TAVR Compared to Surveillance for Patients with Asymptomatic Severe Aortic Stenosis) demonstrated that early transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) was superior to clinical surveillance (CS) in asymptomatic severe aortic stenosis. The relative impact of early TAVR versus CS strategy by age is unknown. METHODS: The study population of the EARLY TAVR trial was stratified into 4 age groups: 65 to 69 years (n=141), 70 to 74 years (n=263), 75 to 79 years (n=250), and ≥80 years (n=247). Associations between age and the trial primary end point of death, stroke, or unplanned cardiovascular hospitalization; the composite end point of death, stroke, or heart failure hospitalization; and its individual components were examined. Interaction tests evaluated whether the treatment effect of early TAVR versus CS differed by age. RESULTS: No interaction was detected between age and the treatment effect of early TAVR versus CS for the composites or individual outcomes. We observed lower stroke rates with early TAVR compared with CS in the youngest (65–69 years, absolute risk reduction, 13%; P =0.008) and oldest (≥80 years; absolute risk reduction, 12.3%; P =0.029) age groups. The absolute difference in heart failure hospitalization rates between the early TAVR and CS arms at 2 years was greatest in the oldest patients (≥80 years, 9.1%; 75–79 years, 5.9%; 70–74 years, 5.1%; 65–69 years, 4.4%). In the CS group, time to conversion to AVR was similar across all age groups (median, 11 months; P =0.73). Approximately one-third of younger patients (65–69 years) in the CS arm presented with acute valve syndrome at the time of conversion, the frequency of which tended to increase with age ( P =0.06). CONCLUSIONS: In the EARLY TAVR trial, the relative benefit of early TAVR over CS was consistent among all age groups. The greatest absolute reduction in stroke rate with early TAVR compared with CS appeared in the youngest and oldest groups, whereas reduction in heart failure hospitalization was most pronounced in the oldest patients. These data suggest that early TAVR should be considered in all age groups above 65 years. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier: NCT03042104.

The spinal cord plays a central role in the pathophysiology and clinical manifestations of multiple sclerosis (MS), yet remains under-studied compared with the brain. This review summarizes key insights from the 2025 North American Imaging in MS Spinal Cord Imaging Workshop, highlighting recent advances, ongoing challenges, and future opportunities in MS spinal cord imaging. We review pathological studies and outline the clinical relevance of spinal cord lesions and atrophy for diagnosis, prognosis, and disease monitoring, highlighting emerging biomarkers of progression independent of relapse activity. Correlations between magnetic resonance imaging, histopathology, and clinical outcomes support the validation and translational potential of advanced spinal cord imaging techniques. Finally, we discuss spinal cord–specific processing pipelines and reproducibility challenges. Collectively, these insights underscore the need to integrate advanced and quantitative spinal cord imaging into clinical trials, research studies, and—when feasible—clinical care, to fully capture the extent of MS pathology, and ultimately improve patient outcomes.

TPS650 Background: The TAILORx and RxPONDER trials showed that recurrence score (RS) identifies many postmenopausal pts who do not benefit from addition of ACT to endocrine therapy (ET); however, RS also identifies subsets who do benefit (node-neg/high clinical risk/RS 16-20, node-neg/RS 21-25, and node-pos/RS ≤25). Most premenopausal pts in these trials did not receive ovarian function suppression (OFS) as part of their ET regimen. Given the observed benefit from OFS in high-risk premenopausal pts with HR+/HER2– BC in SOFT/TEXT, we question whether the ACT benefit in TAILORx/RxPONDER was due to chemotherapy-induced OFS. To address this, we developed OFSET, a phase III clinical trial comparing OFS+ET to ACT+OFS+ET. Methods: We hypothesize that addition of ACT to OFS+ET is superior to OFS+ET in improving invasive breast cancer-free survival (IBCFS) among premenopausal pts with early-stage HR+/HER2– tumors, and a 21-gene RS between 16-25 (for pN0 pts) and 0-25 (for pN1 pts). Secondary objectives include invasive disease-free survival, overall survival, distant recurrence-free interval, breast cancer-free interval, and health-related quality of life (HRQOL). Pts must be node-neg with RS 16-20 (plus high clinical risk), RS 21-25, or have 1-3 positive nodes with RS ≤25. Stratification is by nodal status/RS status (pN0 RS 16-25; pN1 RS 0-15; pN1 RS 16-25), intent to receive CDK4/6 inhibitor (yes; no), and age (18-39; ≥40). Pts are randomized after surgery to either OFS+ET or ACT+OFS+ET. ET is an aromatase inhibitor (AI) per physician discretion; or tamoxifen if AI is not tolerated or if OFS is incomplete. Radiotherapy will be administered per protocol guidelines. An HRQOL sub-study will assess severe menopausal symptoms (measured by FACT ESS-19) and pain severity (PROMIS) between arms. Blood and tumor specimens will be collected for future research. We anticipate accrual of 3,960 pts in 7 yrs, 7 mos. Per NSABP B-28/RxPONDER data, 5-yr IBCFS of pN1 pts on the ACT+OFS+ET arm is estimated at 92.3%. Per TAILORx data, 5-yr IBCFS of pN0 pts on the ACT arm is ~95%. Assuming 56% of pts to be pN0 and 44% pN1, and a 0.5% annual loss-to-follow-up rate, the definitive analyses to detect a hazard ratio: 0.75 with ACT+OFS+ET v OFS+ET, with 1-sided α of 0.025 and 80% power, will require 380 IBCFS events, expected to occur ~11 yrs after study initiation. Accrual is 496/3,960 (from 8/2023 to 1/2026). NCT #: NCT05879926. Clinical trial information: NCT05879926 .

TPS6138 Background: Patients with early-stage oral cavity cancer (OCC; T1-2N0M0; AJCC 8th edition) have a 20-30% risk of occult nodal metastases despite clinical and radiographic evaluations. Standard-of-care treatment for most patients includes elective neck dissection (END), which requires surgical removal of the regional cervical lymph nodes, even though 70-80% of these necks are disease-free. Sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLN Bx), a less invasive procedure, could assess the first echelon lymph nodes as an alternative to END, potentially reducing morbidity and costs. A pivotal clinical trial comparing SLN Bx to END (NCT#04333537) is underway to inform efforts to establish optimal disease management for early-stage OCC. Methods: To assess the efficacy of SLN Bx in this population, we activated an international, multi-institutional, prospective phase II/III trial in July 2020, randomizing patients to two surgical arms: SLN Bx and END. A node-negative 18 F-FDG PET/CT imaging biomarker study with centralized read was required before randomization. OCC patients with a positive PET/CT remained in a registry to compare imaging findings with final neck pathology. Given the current evidence on morbidity for SLN Bx versus END, the phase II was designed to determine whether the change in patient-reported neck and shoulder function and related quality of life (QOL) from baseline to 6 months after surgery, using the Neck Dissection Impairment Index (NDII), showed a signal of superiority of SLN Bx compared to END (minimum important difference ³ 7.5; one-sided a = 0.10; 90% power). As of December 2024, 261 patients had been randomized and 203 were analyzed for the “Go/No-Go” decision to move forward into phase III. The phase III portion is a non-inferiority (NI) trial with disease-free survival (DFS) as the primary endpoint (NI margin hazard ratio 1.34 based on a 5% absolute difference in 2-year DFS; one-sided a = 0.05; 80% power, and two interim looks). The change in NDII from baseline to 6 months after surgery is a hierarchical co-primary endpoint for phase III. Phase III opened in October 2025 upon receiving a “Go” signal from phase II. Target accrual for phase III is 686 node-negative PET/CT patients, including those randomized in phase II (425 additional patients). In addition to sites requiring radiotherapy and imaging credentialing, quality assurance will include central pathology review of all negative SLN Bx cases and surgeon credentialing through an education course with SLN Bx and END case review by the surgical co-chairs. A surgical quality assurance working group will review all trial SLN Bx and END procedures. As of 01/12/26, 351 patients have been screened, and 273 of the planned 686 have been randomized. Clinical trial information: NCT#04333537 .

TPS3184 Background: Replication stress (RS) creates cancer cell vulnerability to which the critical DNA damage response kinase, ATR (Ataxia-Telangiectasia and Rad3-related) responds. ATR senses the stress, halts the cell cycle, and promotes DNA repair to allow proliferation. Alnodesertib is an ATR inhibitor developed to prevent cancer cells from successfully repairing RS and proliferating further. In earlier stages of alnodesertib development, preclinical and translational research demonstrated that tumor cells experience three combined biological insults: irinotecan-induced RS, endogenous RS via ataxia-telangiectasia mutated (ATM) loss, and RS rescue prevention by ATR inhibition. Data from the dose escalation and initial dose expansion cohorts of this trial in a tumor agnostic population showed encouraging results in ATM-negative cancers (confirmed Overall Response Rate of 50% in 20 patients with ATM negative cancers and responses across 8 cancer types including complete responses, Ulahannan et al, AACR 2025). Tumor-specific dose expansion cohorts are now enrolling, including colorectal cancer (CRC) and pancreas ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). Methods: Two tumor-specific cohorts are now open, each enrolling approximately 50 patients (pts): ATM-negative CRC and ATM-negative PDAC. Pts will receive the recommended dose of alnodesertib 200mg orally on days 1-3 and 8-10 combined with low-dose irinotecan 60mg/m 2 IV on days 1 and 8, of each 21-day cycle. Tumor tissue is prescreened by immunohistochemistry for ATM protein loss (H score 0) for enrollment eligibility. Pts with CRC must have received a maximum of 2 prior chemotherapies excluding prior trifluridine/tipiracil, fruquintinib, or regorafenib, and pts with PDAC must have received a maximum of 1 prior chemotherapy for advanced disease. Prior targeted agents are allowed and do not count as prior lines of therapy. Key objectives include safety, tolerability, and preliminary efficacy. Clinical trial information: NCT04657068 .

TPS3182 Background: MTAP deletion in solid tumors causes intracellular accumulation of methylthioadenosine (MTA) which partially inhibits activity of the key methylating enzyme, protein arginine methyltransferase 5 (PRMT5) and creates synthetic lethal dependencies on PRMT5 and methionine adenosyltransferase 2A (MAT2A), the rate limiting step in the synthesis of PRMT5 substrate, S-adenosyl methionine. PRMT5 and MAT2A are essential to transcription modulation, gene splicing, and DNA damage response. IDE892 is an MTA-cooperative PRMT5 inhibitor designed to exploit this vulnerability in MTAPdel tumors. Preclinical studies report robust antitumor activity with IDE892 monotherapy in MTAPdel xenograft models and an enhanced response when combined with IDE397 (an allosteric MAT2A inhibitor). IDE892-001 is a Phase 1 study evaluating safety, pharmacokinetics (PK), pharmacodynamics (PD), and preliminary antitumor activity of IDE892 alone and in combination with IDE397. Methods: IDE892-001 is an ongoing, open-label, multicenter four-part study: IDE892 monotherapy dose escalation (Part 1), monotherapy dose expansion in MTAPdel NSCLC (Part 2), IDE892 + IDE397 dose escalation (Part 3), and combination expansion in MTAPdel NSCLC (Part 4). Adults with advanced or metastatic MTAPdel solid tumors including lung, urothelial, gastrointestinal cancers (including pancreatic and biliary tract cancers) and mesothelioma are eligible following disease progression on standard therapies. Key exclusion criteria include symptomatic brain metastases, cardiac disease, active severe infection, and prior treatment with a PRMT5 or MAT2A inhibitor. Part 1 uses a Bayesian optimal interval design to determine maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and recommended doses for expansion (RDE). Part 3 uses a modified toxicity probability interval design to evaluate escalating combinations of IDE892 and IDE397. Oral treatment is given QD in 21-day cycles until progression or unacceptable toxicity. Serial blood samples are collected for PD analyses. Imaging will be performed every 6 weeks through week 24, then every 9–12 weeks. Efficacy endpoints will be assessed by RECIST v1.1. Primary objectives for dose-escalation cohorts (Parts 1 and 3) are safety and tolerability, including determination of MTD/RDE. In expansion cohorts (Parts 2 and 4), co-primary objectives include safety and preliminary antitumor activity (objective response rate and duration of response). Secondary endpoints for all parts include PK of IDE892 alone and in combination with IDE397. Exploratory assessments include progression free survival, changes in circulating and tumor-based markers of PRMT5 pathway modulation, molecular predictors of response, exposure–response relationships, and metabolite characterization. Clinical trial information: NCT07277413 .

e24088 Background: Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) significantly affects treatment tolerance and quality of life. ASCO guidelines recommend a NK-1 receptor antagonist with a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist and corticosteroid for patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC). Olanzapine has emerged as an alternative antiemetic, with evidence suggesting noninferiority in triple regimens. Given its favorable cost profile, we performed a pooled analysis comparing olanzapine- versus aprepitant-based triple antiemetic regimens for CINV prevention. Methods: This PRISMA-compliant review was prospectively registered in PROSPERO (CRD420261284983). Five databases were systematically searched to identify studies comparing olanzapine (OLZ) versus aprepitant (APR) based triple antiemetic regimens. The primary endpoint was complete response (CR) for prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in adult patients receiving HEC. Statistical analyses were performed in R (version 2025.05.0+496; Posit). Results: 13 studies were included in the final synthesis, comprising 1,557 patients (OLZ: n = 779; APR: n = 788). CR was comparable between groups (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.95–1.09; I² = 55.8%). Exclusion of Mehta et al. (2017) reduced heterogeneity to zero (I² = 0%). In the acute phase ( < 24 h), CR was also similar between OLZ and APR (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.98–1.20; I² = 82.7%); however, OLZ demonstrated superior CR in the 10-mg dose subgroup (RR 1.08, 95% CI 1.03–1.14; I² = 74%). For delayed-phase CR (24-120 h), the pooled effect estimate was RR 1.11 (95% CI 0.98–1.27; I² = 84.3%). Control of nausea was significantly improved in the OLZ group compared with APR (RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.01–1.40; I² = 72.8%), particularly in anthracycline–cyclophosphamide–based regimens (RR 1.30, 95% CI 1.09–1.54; I² = 62.9%) and the 10-mg OLZ dose subgroup (RR 1.22, 95% CI 1.01–1.49; I² = 75.2%). Nausea control was also superior in both the acute phase (RR 1.13, 95% CI 1.01–1.27; I² = 76.5%) and the delayed phase (RR 1.31, 95% CI 1.05–1.65; I² = 93.3%). Control of vomiting was comparable between OLZ and APR (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.92–1.07; I² = 0%), with no significant differences observed in the acute ( < 24 h) phase (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.97–1.10; I² = 49%) or the delayed (24–120 h) phase (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.97–1.04; I² = 0%). Conclusions: OLZ-based triple antiemetic regimens provide comparable CR and vomiting control to APR, with superior nausea control, particularly in anthracycline–cyclophosphamide regimens and at the 10-mg dose.

e20139 Background: Extensive-stage small cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC) frequently presents with brain metastases, affecting approximately 20% of the patients at diagnosis. The prognostic impact of baseline brain metastases on survival outcomes in patients treated with contemporary chemo-immunotherapy remains unclear, creating uncertainty in first-line treatment selection for this high-risk population. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the impact of baseline brain metastases on treatment outcomes in ES-SCLC. Methods: This PRISMA-compliant systematic review and meta-analysis was prospectively registered in PROSPERO. PubMed, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, and ClinicalTrials.gov were systematically searched from database inception through January 2026 to identify randomized controlled trials evaluating PD-1/PD-L1-based chemo-immunotherapy versus platinum-etoposide chemotherapy in adults with ES-SCLC. Two reviewers independently screened studies and extracted data, with discrepancies resolved by consensus. Hazard ratios (HRs) for overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were pooled separately for patients with baseline brain metastases (BM+) and without brain metastases (BM−) using random-effects models with Hartung–Knapp adjustment. Analyses were performed using R. Prespecified subgroup analyses were conducted based on follow-up duration and immunotherapy regimen. Results: Twelve randomized controlled trials were included. Among patients with baseline brain metastases (BM+), pooled OS from seven studies did not show a significant survival benefit (HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.66–1.08, I² = 0.0%, P = 0.145), nor did pooled PFS from five studies (HR 1.03, 95% CI 0.60–1.79, I² = 0.0%). Subgroup analyses revealed no significant heterogeneity. In contrast, among patients without baseline brain metastases (BM−), pooled OS from nine studies demonstrated a significant survival benefit (HR 0.72, 95% CI 0.69–0.76, I² = 0.0%, P < 0.001), with corresponding improvement in PFS (HR 0.70, 95% CI 0.60–0.82, I² = 0.0%). These findings indicate a differential treatment effect according to baseline brain metastasis status. Conclusions: First-line chemo-immunotherapy does not apprear to confer a significant survival benefit in ES-SCLC patients with baseline brain metastases, reflecting a differential treatment effect by brain metastasis status. These findings suggest that baseline brain metastases should be considered in treatment selection and future clinical trial design and highlight the need for optimized systemic strategies for this high-risk population.

e13121 Background: Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) lacks reliable prognostic biomarkers beyond standard clinical staging, limiting individualized risk stratification and treatment planning. The neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), a readily available marker of systemic inflammation, has been proposed as a prognostic indicator in TNBC; however, existing evidence remains inconsistent. We performed an updated systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the prognostic value of pretreatment NLR in the contemporary treatment era. Methods: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, and ClinicalTrials.gov were systematically searched from database inception through January 1, 2026, for randomized and observational studies reporting associations between pretreatment NLR and survival outcomes in TNBC. Two reviewers independently screened studies and extracted data with discrepancies resolved by consensus. Outcomes included overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS), and progression-free survival (PFS). Hazard ratios (HRs) were pooled using random-effects models. Risk of bias was assessed using ROBINS-I tool. Prespecified subgroup and sensitivity analyses were performed based on NLR cut-off values, follow-up duration, geographic region, and risk of bias. Results: Twenty-three retrospective studies comprising 4,731 patients with TNBC were included. On multivariate analysis, elevated pretreatment NLR was independently associated with poorer OS (HR 2.21, 95% CI: 1.56–3.13) and DFS (HR 1.97, 95% CI: 1.65–2.37. Similar associations were observed on univariate analysis (OS: HR 1.70, 95% CI: 1.07–2.72; DFS: HR 1.84, 95% CI: 1.14–2.98). No statistically significant or consistent association was observed between NLR and PFS. Associations between high NLR and adverse OS and DFS remained robust across prespecified subgroup and sensitivity analyses, representing the largest contemporary synthesis of multivariable-adjusted outcomes in TNBC. Key pooled outcome associations are summarized in Table 1. Conclusions: Elevated pretreatment NLR is independently associated with worse OS and DFS in patients with TNBC, supporting its potential role as a low-cost tool for clinical risk stratification and treatment planning. Given its availability from routine blood tests, NLR may assist in identifying high-risk patients who could benefit from intensified surveillance or therapeutic strategies. Prospective validation in the modern chemo-immunotherapy era is warranted. Summary of pooled associations between pretreatment NLR and survival outcomes in TNBC. Outcome Studies (n) Interpretation Overall survival 14 Worse survival Disease-free survival 15 Worse survival Progression-free survival 3 Inconclusive