Citations

7516 Background: With the growing use of anti-CD38 therapies in early multiple myeloma (MM) management, there is a need for data in patients previously exposed to anti-CD38 therapy to guide decision making. In the Phase 3 IRAKLIA trial (NCT05405166), patients with relapsed/refractory MM (RRMM) received the anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody isatuximab (Isa) subcutaneously (SC) delivered via an innovative on-body injector (OBI) or intravenously (IV), with pomalidomide and dexamethasone (Pd). In this post hoc analysis, we examined outcomes in IRAKLIA patients with vs without prior anti-CD38 exposure. Methods: RRMM patients ≥18 years with ≥1 prior line of therapy including lenalidomide and a proteasome inhibitor were randomized to receive Isa SC (n=263) or IV (n=268) weekly in Cycle 1, then every 2 weeks, with Pd. Patients with prior anti-CD38 exposure <9 months (mos) before randomization or intolerance to anti-CD38 were excluded. Refractory patients were defined as those who failed to achieve minimal response on treatment or had progression within 60 days after last dose. Patients receiving Isa SC or IV were pooled. Results: Overall, 67 patients (12.6%) had prior anti-CD38 exposure with a median washout period of 20.2 mos, of which 26 (38.8%) were anti-CD38 refractory. Baseline characteristics were largely consistent between patients with or without prior anti-CD38 exposure; the median follow-up for the overall population was 12 mos. Patients with prior anti-CD38 exposure had an overall response rate (ORR) of 52.2%, 12-mo progression-free survival (PFS) rate of 40.6%, and median PFS of 8.5 mos. In patients without prior exposure, an ORR of 73.5%, 12-mo PFS of 68.8%, and non-estimable (NE) median PFS were reported. Anti-CD38 non-refractory vs refractory patients had an ORR of 48.8% vs 57.7%, 12-mo PFS of 38.9% vs 42.2%, and median PFS of 9.0 vs 7.5 mos. Patients with a longer washout period (>median of 20.2 mos) had an ORR of 63.6%, 12-mo PFS of 61.8% and NE median PFS, whereas patients whose prior anti-CD38 therapy ended more recently (≤median of 20.2 mos) had an ORR of 41.2%, 12-mo PFS of 19.2%, and median PFS of 6.7 mos. The safety profile of Isa + Pd was similar in patients with vs without prior anti-CD38 exposure. Conclusions: Isa + Pd demonstrated clinical benefit across anti-CD38–naïve, anti-CD38–exposed, and anti-CD38–refractory patients. A washout period >median of 20.2 mos resulted in outcomes comparable to those in anti-CD38–naïve patients, and outcomes were consistent between anti-CD38–exposed and anti-CD38–refractory patients after a >9-mo washout period. Efficacy of Isa + Pd in patients with prior anti-CD38 exposure from the IRAKLIA trial presents an opportunity to address an unmet need in a difficult-to-treat patient population. Clinical trial information: NCT05405166 .

603 Background: Accurate prediction of pathologic complete response (pCR) after preoperative therapy for HER2-positive (HER2+) breast cancer can help triage patients to immediate surgery vs additional preoperative therapy. Pre-surgery (i.e., after neoadjuvant therapy) imaging studies may help estimate the likelihood of pCR. In EA1181, patients (pts) with stage II-IIIA HER2+ breast cancer received four cycles of preoperative taxane, trastuzumab, and pertuzumab (THP×4). Pre-surgery imaging was required, though the specific imaging modality was not mandated. Here, we report the accuracy of pre-surgery breast MRI to predict pCR (ypT0/Tis, ypN0). Methods: Among 2,141 pts treated with THPx4, 1,378 had pre-surgery breast MRI and were representative of the overall cohort, although T3 tumors were more common (16% vs 9%). MRI reports were available for 1,351 pts; all reports were centrally reviewed and classified as radiologic complete response (rCR; no residual tumor enhancement and normalization of lymph nodes, if applicable) or radiologic residual disease (rRD). Reports with indeterminate radiologic response were independently reviewed by two study radiologists blinded to pathology outcomes. Among pts with rCR who had pathologic residual disease (pRD), we also assessed the extent of residual disease by residual cancer burden (RCB) score. Among pts with rRD who had a pCR, we determined the proportion who only had residual ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). Results: See Table. Conclusions: After neoadjuvant therapy, preoperative MRI accurately predicted pCR in 86% of patients with HER2+/ER− disease and may help identify patients who can proceed directly to surgery. MRI is insufficient to predict pCR for pts with HER2+/ER+ disease, as only 55% with complete response on MRI had a pCR at surgery. A pre-surgery MRI that indicated residual disease was accurate in 80% of pts with HER2+/ER+ disease, but in only 45% of pts with HER2+/ER- cancer. Accurately predicting residual disease after THPx4 allows for consideration of additional therapy that may increase the chance of pCR. Combining imaging like MRI with other biomarkers, such as tissue-based markers or circulating tumor DNA, may improve prediction of pCR and facilitate personalization of treatment decisions in HER2+ breast cancer. All pts with pre-surgery MRI (n=1351)pCR rate overall in this cohort = 47% MRI result Pathology pCR pRD rCR 70.6% (341/483) 29.4%(142/483) 78% had RCB1 rRD 34%(295/868) 21% of 295 had DCIS only 66.01% (573/868) ER- (n=589)*Overall pCR rate in ER- subset = 68% MRI result Pathology pCR pRD rCR 86.1% (205/238) 13.9% (33/238) 85% had RCB1 rRD 55.3% (194/351) 19% of 194 had only DCIS 44.7% (157/351) ER+ (n= 762)*Overall pCR rate in ER+ subset = 31% MRI result Pathology pCR pRD rCR 55.5% (136/245) 44.5% (109/245) 76% had RCB1 rRD 19.5% (101/517) 26% of 101 had only DCIS 80.5% (416/517)

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 .

5068 Background: 177 Lu-PSMA-617 (LuPSMA) is a groundbreaking therapy for mPC, but biomarkers are urgently needed to improve patient selection. Plasma-derived EVs are emerging blood-based markers of tumor burden. Here, we analyzed levels of EVs of 123 patients (pts) from 4 cohorts: a pre- and during LuPSMA treatment for a contemporary prospective Mayo Clinic cohort, pre-treatment plasma levels of EVs for a historical Tulane cohort, localized prostate cancer (LPC) after radical prostatectomy (RP), and male healthy donors (HD). Methods: Blood samples were collected from 51 pts pre-cycles (pre-C) 1-3 of LuPSMA at Mayo Clinic from 12/2024-12/2025 and 26 pts pre-C1 at Tulane Cancer Center between 12/2018-1/2025. Small and large EVs were incubated with fluorescently conjugated antibodies (PSMA, STEAP1, CEACAM5, and TROP2) and enumerated using nanoscale flow cytometry. EVs from blood samples of 10 HD and 36 LPC post-RP from 6/2020-8/2024 at Mayo Clinic as controls. AUC-ROC and logistic regression analyses were performed to identify marker signatures associated with PSA50 response. Results: Baseline demographics are shown in the table. Median levels of PSMA, STEAP1, CEACAM5, and TROP2 EV/milliliter (mL) were all significantly higher for pts with mPC (pooled Tulane and Mayo cohorts) compared to LPC post-RP (p<0.001) and HD (p<0.001). In the Mayo cohort, 10 of 51 pts (20%) had undetectable PSA pre-C1. There were no significant differences in median pre-C1 plasma EV levels for these 4 different types of EVs comparing pts with undetectable vs detectable PSA. For 41 Mayo pts with detectable PSA pre-C1, 20 achieved PSA50 response at time of data cutoff (49%), while 7 pts (17%) had persistent PSA rise on LuPSMA. For pts who achieved PSA50, there was a significant decline in both CEACAM5 and TROP2 EVs/mL pre-C1 compared to pre-C3 (19 x 10 6 vs 5.8 x 10 6 , p=0.003 and 16 x 10 6 vs 5.5 x 10 6 , p<0.001, respectively), while no significant changes occurred for the 7 pts with no PSA response. A composite score of pre-C1 CEACAM5 and TROP2 EVs (large- and small-sized EVs) demonstrated the strongest association with PSA50 response (OR=2.96, 95% CI: 1.27-6.44, p=0.038), achieving AUC of 0.73. PSMA and STEAP1 EVs did not show any significant changes from pre-C1 to pre-C3. Conclusions: Plasma-derived EVs are a promising biomarker to identify patients who will benefit from LuPSMA. Longer follow-up and enrolling a larger cohort are underway. Clinical trial information: NCT06200103 . Median values for pre-LuPSMA (Mayo and Tulane), post-RP for LPC, and HD. Mayo mPC (n=51) Tulane mPC (n=26) LPC (n=36) HD (n=10) Age (range) 73 (57-87) 71 (54-83) 66 (56-77) 55 (50-57) Prior lines (range) 1 (1-3) 4 (1-11) - - Gleason score 9 8 7 - PSA (range) 1.0 (0-182) 75 (0.8-503) - - PSMA EV/mL 3.7 x 10 6 14 x 10 6 2.0 x 10 6 1.4 x 10 6 STEAP1 EV/mL 30 x 10 6 45 x 10 6 12 x 10 6 12 x 10 6 CEACAM5 EV/mL 17 x 10 6 5.1 x 10 6 3.7 x 10 6 3.9 x 10 6 TROP2 EV/mL 13 x 10 6 5.2 x 10 6 4.5 x 10 6 3.6 x 10 6

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 .

4614 Background: Enfortumab vedotin (EV) + pembrolizumab (pembro) is the established first-line standard of care for locally advanced/metastatic urothelial carcinoma and represents a novel neoadjuvant and adjuvant treatment strategy for patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) who are ineligible for cisplatin-based chemotherapy. The randomized phase 3 KEYNOTE-B15/EV-304 study (NCT04700124) evaluates neoadjuvant EV + pembro followed by radical cystectomy plus pelvic lymph node dissection (RC + PLND) and adjuvant EV + pembro vs neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by RC + PLND in participants (pts) with MIBC who are eligible for cisplatin-based therapy. Methods: Pts with clinical stage T2-T4aN0M0 or T1-T4aN1M0 MIBC (confirmed by central pathology and central imaging assessment) who were eligible for cisplatin-based chemotherapy and RC + PLND were randomized 1:1 to receive either 4 cycles neoadjuvant EV 1.25 mg/kg IV on days 1 and 8 + pembro 200 mg IV on day 1 Q3W, followed by RC + PLND, and adjuvant 5 cycles EV + 13 cycles pembro (EV + pembro arm) vs 4 cycles neoadjuvant gemcitabine 1000 mg/m 2 on days 1 and 8 + cisplatin 70 mg/m 2 on day 1 Q3W, followed by RC + PLND (cis + gem arm). The primary endpoint was event-free survival (EFS) by blinded independent central review. Key secondary endpoints were pathological complete response (pCR) rate by blinded central pathological review and overall survival (OS). Safety was a secondary endpoint; AEs of special interest were based on distinct prespecified lists for each drug. Results: A total of 405 and 403 pts were randomized to EV + pembro and cis + gem, respectively. Median time from randomization to the data cutoff date of October 27, 2025 was 33.6 months (range, 22.5–53.6). Baseline characteristics were generally balanced between groups. EV + pembro significantly improved EFS (median NR vs 48.5 mo; 24-mo estimated EFS rate 79.4% vs 66.2%; HR 0.53, 95% CI 0.41–0.70; 1-sided P <.0001), OS (median NR vs NR; 24-mo estimated OS rate 86.9% vs 81.3%; HR 0.65, 95% CI 0.48–0.89; 1-sided P =.0029), and pCR rate (55.8% vs 32.5%; estimated difference 23.4%, 95% CI 16.7–29.8; 1-sided P <.0001) vs cis + gem. Grade ≥3 treatment-emergent AEs occurred in 75.7% of pts with EV + pembro and 67.2% with cis + gem. Most common grade ≥3 drug-related AE of special interest for EV was skin reactions (14.1%); most common grade ≥3 AE of special interest for pembro was severe skin reactions (13.9%). Conclusions: Neoadjuvant and adjuvant EV + pembro significantly improved EFS, OS, and pCR rate compared with neoadjuvant gem + cis in pts with MIBC who were eligible for cisplatin-based chemotherapy. The safety profile of EV + pembro was consistent with prior experience with the combination. These results support EV + pembro as an effective perioperative treatment option in this setting. Clinical trial information: NCT04700124 .

4584 Background: EVP is the preferred frontline regimen in pts with aUC. Despite initial response to treatment, many pts treated with EVP ultimately have progression. We hypothesized that recurrence patterns would differ between pts with and without baseline liver metastases. Methods: UNITE is a multi-institutional retrospective database capturing clinical and treatment characteristics of pts with aUC receiving systemic therapies. We queried this database to identify pts who achieved an observed response (OR) to EVP. Pts were grouped by initial metastatic sites using a non-mutually exclusive approach. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize observed response rates (ORR) and recurrence patterns at time of progression. Progression-free survival (PFS) from start of EVP was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. The effect of liver metastases on PFS was assessed via multivariable Cox regression. Median-follow up time was estimated using the reverse Kaplan-Meier method. Statistical analyses were conducted in RStudio. Results: We identified 464 pts treated with EVP (median age 72; 74% male, 80% White). Best ORR in pts with baseline liver metastases (n=77) were complete response 9%, partial response 35%, stable disease 18%, and progressive disease 21%, compared with 18%, 37%, 27%, and 18%, respectively, in pts without baseline liver metastases (n=325). The estimated median follow-up time was 52 weeks (95% CI 48-62). Among pts with initial OR to EVP, those with baseline liver metastases showed a non-significant trend toward shorter PFS (HR 1.35; 95% CI 0.67–2.75; p=0.40) versus those without baseline liver metastases. Among pts with initial OR to EVP and subsequent progression the distribution of sites of recurrences at progression for those with (n = 10) and without (n = 40) baseline liver metastases were: liver (50% vs. 10%), lymph nodes (60% vs. 55%), lungs (50% vs. 38%), bone (20% vs 20%), and primary tumor (20% vs 25%). EVP responders with baseline liver metastases had a numerically higher rate of site-specific metastasis resolution at progression versus those with lymph node or lung metastases (Table). Conclusions: Our analysis suggests that liver metastases may be associated with shorter PFS among EVP responders, though these pts frequently do not retain liver metastases at time of progression. Study limitations include retrospective analysis, investigator-assessed response, small sample size, selection and confounding biases. Patterns of recurrence following EVP merits further evaluation. Metastatic Site Pts with Site-Specific Baseline Metastases (n) Pts with Resolution of Site-Specific Metastases at Progression, n (%) Pts without Baseline Metastases at Site (n) Pts who Remained Free of Site-Specific Metastases at Progression, n (%) Liver 10 5 (50%) 40 36 (90%) Lymph Nodes 37 12 (32%) 13 10 (77%) Lungs 26 8 (31%) 24 22 (92%)

4565 Background: EVP is the preferred 1 st -line regimen for patients (pts) with aUC. EV-related toxicities are often managed with dose adjustments, such as reductions and holds. Analysis of EV monotherapy trials showed consistent survival outcomes despite dose adjustments. We hypothesized that on-treatment EV dose adjustments would not impact survival in these pts. Methods: Pts with aUC treated with EVP in the multisite UNITE study were analyzed. Early dose reductions (DR) and holds were defined as occurring < 9 weeks from EVP start, with the remainder classified as late. Pts with DR at treatment start were excluded. Survival endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) from EVP start, assessed by Kaplan-Meier analysis and Cox models. Multivariable Cox analysis (MVA) included age (≥ 75 vs < 75), ECOG performance status (0-1 vs 2-3), Hgb level (< 10 vs ≥ 10) and liver metastases (present vs not). A time-dependent covariate was used to reduce immortal time bias. Complementary MVA landmark analyses were performed, aligned to the total number of treatment cycles received, with six analyses from cycles 2 to 7. Results: 360 pts from 17 sites were included (median age 70; 78% Caucasian; 76% male; 27% upper tract primary; 35% histology subtype component; 17% with liver metastasis; 78% frontline); median follow-up was 11.7 months (95% CI [10.79, 13.08]). Median number of cycles was 6 in pts with DR and 3 with no DR. Early DRs (100 pts [28%]) and holds (18 pts [5%]) were most commonly due to rash (28% of all early DRs and holds). Late DR (75 pts [21%]) and holds (50 pts [14%]) were most commonly due to neuropathy (52% of all late DRs and holds). Pts with early or late DR had longer PFS and OS vs those who did not (Table); however, there was no significant PFS or OS difference with dose hold vs no hold (PFS HR 0.65, 95%CI (0.40, 1.05), p = 0.08; OS HR 0.70, 95%CI (0.39, 1.27), p=0.24). In landmark analyses, about 50% of pts had DR; no significant difference in PFS or OS was observed at most landmarks, except for longer OS in the DR cohort at cycle 4 (HR 0.53, 95% CI (0.29, 0.98), p = 0.042) and cycle 5 (HR 0.43, 95% CI (0.19, 0.99), p = 0.048). Conclusions: In this real-world retrospective analysis, EVP efficacy was maintained despite DR and dose holds. Survival difference noted in the time-dependent analyses were not consistently reproduced in landmark analyses, suggesting exposure-related selection bias rather than causal effect. Prospective studies are warranted to validate these hypothesis-generating findings. Association of EV DR with PFS/OS (time-dependent analyses). Early DR Late DR DR vs no DR outcomes UVAHR (95% CI), p MVAHR (95% CI), p UVAHR (95% CI), p MVAHR (95% CI), p PFS 0.50 (0.35, 0.72), <.001 0.56 (0.38, 0.84), 0.005 0.32 (0.21, 0.49), <.001 0.36 (0.23, 0.57), <.001 OS 0.51 (0.32, 0.79), 0.003 0.57 (0.35, 0.92), 0.022 0.26 (0.15, 0.45), <.001 0.31 (0.17, 0.55), <.001

3022 Background: Pharmacological blockade of Aurora-A mitotic kinase (AURKA) oncogenic pathway represents a promising therapeutic strategy to inhibit breast cancer plasticity and progression. However, treatment with the selective AURKA inhibitor alisertib is followed by acquired on-target mutations in a subset of patients that are linked to alisertib resistance and tumor progression. Current resistance mechanisms are typically identified retrospectively after therapeutic failure. We evaluated whether Dynaptive, a structure- and evolution-aware artificial intelligence (AI) platform, could prospectively predict treatment-induced AURKA resistance mutations prior to experimental observation. Methods: We identified acquired on-target mutations in patients from the alisertib Phase-II clinical trial. These mutations were cross-matched against Dynaptive predictions that had been generated independently of any experimental resistance data. Dynaptive integrates protein conformational ensembles and evolutionary sequence constraints to predict mutational hotspots and assess their functional and drug-binding impact. Identified mutations were evaluated against large-scale population datasets to determine natural occurrence. Results: Several AURKA mutations observed in patients that showed resistance to alisertib were prospectively predicted by Dynaptive despite being entirely absent from prior population datasets. These mutations were not observed previously in either healthy or cancer cohorts described in the public domain. Significantly, the most frequently occurring AURKA resistance mutation occurred at a residue ranked second among predicted mutational hotspots and were predicted to reduce alisertib binding affinity by ≥10-fold. Across all variants, absence from population datasets and emergence only following treatment support a treatment-induced resistance mechanism. Conclusions: A structure-aware AI platform prospectively identified clinically relevant, treatment-induced AURKA resistance mutations prior to experimental detection. These findings demonstrate the feasibility of predictive modeling to anticipate resistance mechanisms and support the development of next-generation AURKA inhibitors optimized to overcome mutations-driven resistance and to improve therapeutic efficacy, safety and durability.