Citations

e19564 Background: Risk stratification in multiple myeloma (MM) relies on baseline staging systems and cytogenetic abnormalities, yet early relapse occurs in a subset of patients despite favorable risk features. Prior studies showed that clonal plasma cell S-phase assessed by flow cytometry using the plasma cell proliferation (PCPRO) assay at diagnosis and at autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) identifies biologically high-risk disease. The prognostic significance of clonal plasma cell S-phase following ASCT has not been well defined. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed MM patients who underwent ASCT within one year of diagnosis between January 1, 2013, and August 31, 2024. Patients without available post-ASCT clonal plasma cell S-phase assessment were excluded, yielding 150 evaluable patients. The proportion of clonal plasma cells in S-phase was determined by DNA content between G0/G1 and G2/M peaks and reported as a percentage. S-phase was assessed at the first post-ASCT marrow evaluation at day +60 (D45–75) and/or day +100 (D76–130), using the earlier assessment when both were available. Patients were classified as low (<2%) or high (≥2%) post-ASCT S-phase. Landmark progression-free survival (PFS) analyses were performed from the post-transplant assessment. Multivariable Cox models adjusted for cytogenetic risk, maintenance therapy, disease response at transplantation, International Staging System (ISS), and age. Results: Among 150 evaluable patients, 36 (24%) had high post-ASCT S-phase (≥2%) and 114 (76%) had low post-ASCT S-phase (<2%). Median age at ASCT was higher in the high S-phase group (64.5 vs 61.0 years; p=0.063), and advanced ISS stage (II/III) was more frequent (78% vs 57%; p=0.02). Cytogenetic risk, induction regimen, depth of response at transplantation, and maintenance therapy were similar between groups. Patients with high post-ASCT S-phase had significantly inferior PFS compared with those with low S-phase (median 17.0 vs 39.7 months; p=0.0003). On multivariable analysis, post-ASCT S-phase ≥2% remained independently associated with inferior PFS (HR 1.76, 95% CI 1.00–3.09; p=0.049). In an exploratory analysis among patients with paired S-phase assessments at the time of ASCT and post-ASCT, dynamic S-phase trajectories further stratified outcomes. Median PFS was longest in patients with persistently low S-phase (low→low; 39.7 months), intermediate in those converting from high to low S-phase (high→low; 27.2 months), and shortest in patients with newly emergent or persistently high post-ASCT S-phase (low→high: 15.0 months; high→high: 11.0 months) p=0.0019. Conclusions: Elevated proliferative activity of residual clonal plasma cells following ASCT identifies a biologically high-risk subset of MM patients with early relapse. Dynamic changes in post-ASCT S-phase further refine post-transplant risk stratification.

9567 Background: Resected stage IIB/C and microscopic stage IIIA/B/C/D melanoma presents a significant risk of recurrence risk of 37 to 62% at 5 years (yrs). While 1 year of adjuvant PD1 therapy reduces this risk by approximately half, the individual patient’s baseline risk without treatment and their specific benefit from adjuvant PD1 remain unknown. We aimed to generate two separate predictive models for recurrence – one for untreated and one for treated pts - to calculate the individualised benefit of adjuvant PD1. Methods: Pts with resected stage IIB/C or microscopic stage IIIA/B/C/D melanoma, either treated with adjuvant PD1 or untreated at 13 major melanoma centres, and with at least 2 years of follow-up from surgery were included. We analysed pts demographics, disease characteristics, blood parameters, pathological and imaging data at baseline, and clinical outcomes. Propensity scores were estimated using logistic regression with covariates associated with treatment in univariate screening (p<0.05). Separate penalised multivariable logistic regression models were built to predict recurrence for treated and untreated pts. A tool based on these models was created to calculate the individual patient benefit from adjuvant PD1. Results: A total of 3560 pts was included, divided into untreated (discovery n=2384 and validation n=597) and treated (discovery n=404 and validation n=175) cohorts. The model for untreated pts included age, gender, primary site, histological subtype, Breslow thickness, ulceration, mitosis, number and site of regional lymph nodes (LN), mutation status and LDH (AUC 0.70 in discovery, 0.69 in validation). The model for treated pts included age, gender, Breslow thickness, site of regional LN, and mutation status (AUC 0.69 in discovery, 0.61 in validation). ADAPT-M (ADjuvant Anti-PD-1 Tool for Melanoma) calculates the individualized benefit of adjuvant PD1. For example, patient A, a woman ≤45 years old with a primary head & neck melanoma (superficial spreading, thickness >1-2 mm, no ulceration, 1 mitosis/mm 2 ), 2 clinically occult LN metastases in the neck, NRAS mutant, and normal LDH, has a 12-month recurrence risk of 21.9% untreated vs 2.3% treated (benefit 19.6%), and a 24-month risk of 41.1% untreated vs 6.4% treated (benefit 34.7%). While, patient B, a man ≤45 years old with a primary melanoma in the lower limb (nodular, thickness >1-2 mm, no ulceration, 1 mitosis/mm 2 ), 2 clinically occult LN metastases in the groin, BRAF V600 mutant, and normal LDH, has a 12-month recurrence risk of 14.2% untreated vs 11.8% treated (benefit 2.5%), and a 24-month risk of 28.0% untreated vs 30.1% treated (no benefit). Conclusions: ADAPT-M, a clinical tool that estimate individualized recurrence risks with and without adjuvant anti-PD1 therapy, quantifies the absolute benefit of treatment for pts with high-risk resected melanoma, facilitating personalized adjuvant therapy decisions.

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.

7563 Background: Subcutaneous (SC) drug delivery options have become more widely available in multiple myeloma (MM). SC delivery of isatuximab (Isa), an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody, has been investigated across clinical trials via a novel hands-free on-body injector (OBI). Isa SC OBI features a small, retractable needle, establishing the first device-enabled delivery of an oncologic treatment. The Phase 3 IRAKLIA, Phase 2 IZALCO, and Phase 1b (TCD15484) trials consistently demonstrated similar efficacy and safety of Isa SC OBI vs Isa IV in relapsed/refractory MM (RRMM) patients (pts). Here, we present a cross-trial analysis exploring safety and reliability of Isa SC OBI in RRMM pts. Methods: Pts with RRMM in IRAKLIA (N=263) and the Phase 1b expansion cohort (N=22) received 1400 mg Isa SC OBI plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone (d). In IZALCO, RRMM pts (N=64) received 1400 mg Isa SC OBI + carfilzomib (K)-d. Pts were monitored for 4 hrs (IRAKLIA) or 1-2 hrs (IZALCO) following first administration and for 1 hr for the following cycle (C) 1 administrations to assess local tolerability. Pre-infusion medications included montelukast (C1), steroids, acetaminophen and H1 antihistamines. Pts without systemic infusion-related reactions (IRRs) after 4 consecutive administrations of Isa SC OBI had subsequent pre-medication reassessed at investigator’s discretion. Safety and device performance explored in this cross-trial analysis of company sponsored studies were assessed in the Isa SC OBI cohorts by the duration of injection, IRRs, local injection-site reactions (ISRs), and injection/device success, which were defined similarly across all trials. Results: The median duration of Isa SC OBI injection was 13 mins in IRAKLIA, 12 mins in IZALCO, and 10 mins in the Phase 1b trial (6426 total injections, N=349 pts). IRRs across trials occurred in 6/6426 (0.09%) injections and 4/349 (1.15%) pts. IRRs were mostly grade 1 (G; 3/6426, 0.05%) with 1 G3 (0.02%); none leading to discontinuation. In IRAKLIA, 80/263 (30.4%) pts did not require premedication (931/5145 injections, 18.1%); no IRRs occurred in this group. Across trials, ISRs occurred in 21/349 (6.02%) pts resulting in 35 (0.54%) ISR events. Most ISRs were G1 (33, 0.51%), the remaining were G2 (2, 0.03%) and generally occurred on the day of injection. 99.9% (6421/6426) of injections in 98.6% (344/349) pts were successful (completed without interruption) across all trials. Conclusions: These findings support overall low, self-limiting rates of IRRs and ISRs across trials, with >6000 (99.9%) Isa SC OBI injections successfully delivered. Isa SC OBI shows reproducible safety and reliability in IRAKLIA, IZALCO and Phase 1b trials, supporting it as a novel administration option for MM pts and its potential for future exploration in at-home administration. Clinical trial information: NCT04045795 , NCT05405166 , and NCT05704049 .

7514 Background: Iberdomide (Iber) is a CELMoD that binds with greater specificity & affinity to the cereblon protein of the E3 ligase complex than a traditional IMiD. Both transplant-eligible (TE) & ineligible (TIE) patients (pts) with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) are currently treated with quadruplet induction, consisting of an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody, a proteasome inhibitor, an IMiD & dexamethasone (dex). We conducted a clinical trial (NCT05392946, IDEAL) to examine the efficacy of a novel finite-duration approach, using Iber, daratumumab, bortezomib & dex (Iber-DVd) quadruplet induction followed by Iber monotherapy maintenance. Methods: Both TE and TIE pts with NDMM were enrolled in this Phase 1 (3+3 design)/Phase 2 (single stage) trial. The primary goal was to assess the ≥complete response (CR) rate — utilizing the more sensitive serum MASS-FIX assay in lieu of serum immunofixation — during induction. Treatment involved twelve 28-day cycles of induction with Iber, given PO at the recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D), days 1-21, daratumumab 1800mg SQ, weekly for 2 cycles, every other week during Cycles 3-6, & every 4 weeks thereafter, bortezomib 1.3 mg/m 2 SQ, weekly & dex 40 mg, weekly, followed by Iber monotherapy (24 cycles). Growth factor was not allowed during the dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) assessment period (Cycle 1). Results: Among 47 pts enrolled, 9 pts were in Phase 1 portion which assessed the maximum tolerated dose (MTD), with Iber starting at 1 mg/day dose, days 1-21 [Dose Level (DL) 1]. DLT (all grade 4 neutropenia) was noted in 3 pts, 2 at DL 1 & 1 at DL -1. This analysis includes 44 pts who received Iber at the RP2D (0.75 mg/day, days 1-21), including 6 pts from the Dose Confirmation Cohort (Phase 1, DL -1), dosed at MTD, & 38 pts in the Dose Expansion Cohort. The median age at registration was 65 years (range 36-86 years), & 23 pts (52.3%) were deemed high-risk. At data cut-off, pts had received a median of 15 cycles (range 3-36) of therapy. Overall response rate was 100%; ≥CR rate, 36.4% (95% CI: 22.4, 52.2) during induction & 52.3% (95% CI: 36.7, 67.5), overall, including the maintenance phase. The marrow flow-based (10 -5 ) MRD negative rate was 29.5% during induction & 47.7% overall. At a median follow-up (FU) 18.3 mos, 2 pts have died (one during FU due to progressive disease & the other on-treatment due to COVID-19). 12- (& 18-) month progression-free survival & overall survival rates were 91% (88%) & 97% (94%), respectively. Most common toxicities at RP2D were lymphopenia, neutropenia (leading 27% of pts to require pegfilgrastim support), rash, peripheral neuropathy, diarrhea, & infections. Cases of high-grade fatigue were low (<5%). Updated data will be presented at the meeting. Conclusions: Iber-DVd is an active and safe regimen for both TE and TIE pts with NDMM, leading to high response rates which improved over time, with nearly one-half of the pts achieving MRD negative state. Clinical trial information: NCT05392946 .

7518 Background: Monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance (MGUS) is common, yet only a minority progress to malignant plasma-cell disorders. Mayo risk stratification uses baseline factors and is commonly implemented/validated in a Cox proportional hazards (CoxPH) framework, which may miss prognostic longitudinal patterns. Methods: We assembled 15,158 MGUS patients with longitudinal laboratory data and progression outcomes (smoldering multiple myeloma, multiple myeloma, AL amyloidosis, or Waldenström macroglobulinemia). We compared a Mayo-factor Cox proportional hazards (CoxPH) baseline versus STRaTS, a transformer-based survival model, to predict progression risk at 3-, 5-, and 10-year horizons. STRaTS leveraged longitudinal trajectories of routine labs including hemoglobin, platelets, differential counts (neutrophils/lymphocytes/monocytes), immunoglobulins (IgG/IgA/IgM), free light chains (kappa/lambda), M-spike, and creatinine. To minimize bias, we used laboratory results collected from 1–3 years after diagnosis and started follow-up at year 3; patients progressing before year 3 or lacking follow-up beyond year 3 were excluded. A total of 7,305 patients met eligibility and were split into train/validation/test cohorts of 4,383/1,461/1,461. Discrimination was assessed by concordance index (C-index). Clinical operating performance was evaluated on a held-out test cohort by comparing sensitivity and specificity at the same proportion of patients selected for intensified surveillance (same workload). Results: Among MGUS patients with complete baseline Mayo factors(N=3,388), Kaplan–Meier–estimated 3-/5-/10-year cumulative progression risk was 0.1/0.4/3.4% (Low), 3.0/4.3/7.9% (Low-Intermediate), 4.4/6.4/14.1% (High-Intermediate), and 8.9/12.5/16.9% (High). On a held-out test cohort, STRaTS demonstrated superior discrimination versus the Mayo-factor CoxPH (C-index 0.75 vs 0.538; p<0.0001). Both models were trained and evaluated on identical train/test splits. At the same surveillance workload, STRaTS achieved higher sensitivity with comparable specificity; when 40.3% of patients were selected for closer surveillance, 3-year sensitivity was 81.0% for STRaTS versus 47.6% for CoxPH (Table). Conclusions: Among MGUS patients who remain progression-free at 3 years, transformer-based survival modeling of longitudinal laboratory trajectories provides more accurate individualized conditional progression risk estimates and improved workload-matched identification of progressors compared with the conventional Mayo/Cox approach. Sensitivity/specificity (%). Operating Point Flagged % STRaTS Sens / Spec (%) CoxPH Sens / Spec (%) Int+High, 3y 40.3 81.0 / 58.5 47.6 / 58.9 Int+High, 5y 40.3 81.2 / 60.4 46.9 / 58.8 Int+High, 10y 40.3 25.0 / 56.3 23.8 / 58.7 Two-Group High (≥2 factors), 5y 5.6 37.4 / 93.4 35.4 / 93.1

560 Background: Patients (pts) with early stage hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HR+/HER2-) breast cancer (BC) remain at both short and long term risk of recurrence. While clinico-pathological and gene-based biomarkers provide insight into early and late recurrence risk, additional prognostic tools are needed. We previously developed (Saha et al. Clin Cancer Res , 2025) a new breast MRI image-based artificial intelligence prognostic tool (TumorSight Risk) composed of both radiographic and clinical information. Here we sought to validate this tool in an independent cohort. Methods: In this multi-center, blinded, prospective/retrospective validation study, we sought to validate the 5-year recurrence-free survival (RFS) according to pre-defined risk scores (0-100) and categories (“high” or “low”) via pre-specified cutoff (≥47) for pts with HR+/HER2- BC. Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression analyses were then used to assess the unadjusted and adjusted association between risk category/score and the 5-year RFS. Results: 2,129 pts with HR+/HER2- BC diagnosed between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2024, who underwent breast MRI prior to surgery (no neoadjuvant therapy) were included from four institutions. Median age was 57 years, 16% were Black, 15% had grade 3 disease, 93% were clinical T1 or T2, and 85%/15% were clinical N0/N1. At a median follow up of 6.24 years, the unadjusted hazard ratio (HR) for RFS comparing low (n=1808) and high risk (n=321) pts was 2.71 (95% CI = 1.95 – 3.76, p = 3x10 -9 ). The estimated 5 year RFS rate according to risk score (low and high) was 95.5% (95% CI: 94.63 – 96.3%) and 89.6% (95% CI = 86.4 – 92.6%) while the 10 year RFS estimates were 88.9% (95% CI = 86.5 - 90.9%) and 69.6% (95% CI = 59.1 – 77.9%). Univariate subgroup analysis demonstrated that the risk score was prognostic by age (< 50 vs. ≥50 years), pathologic nodal status, grade, and surgery type, regardless of chemo-, endocrine, or radiation therapy administration. The observed continuous risk score was strongly associated with risk of recurrence, with a 22% increase in relative risk per 10-unit change in risk score (0-100), translating to a 2.4% (95% CI = 1.2 – 4.5%) and 25.5% (95% CI = 15.4 – 40.4%) risk of recurrence at 5-years for pts at the lowest (0-9) versus highest (90-100) risk score. The prognostic association between risk score and RFS remained after adjusting for pathologic T- and N-stage, grade, age, race, and treatment (p = 0.002). Conclusions: TumorSight Risk is a new image-based biomarker for HR+/HER2- BC that provides prognostic information independent of standard clinico-pathological parameters. Given the ready availability of breast MRI in most pts with BC, TumorSight Risk may be a convenient tool for estimating risk for recurrence.

4013 Background: Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is driven predominantly by oncogenic KRAS signaling, yet prior attempts to target the MAPK pathway have been limited by toxicity and emergence of resistance. Atebimetinib is a next-generation, deep cyclic inhibitor (DCI) of MEK designed to achieve pulsatile pathway inhibition with improved tolerability. We report a Phase 2a cohort evaluating atebimetinib in combination with modified gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel (mGnP) in the first-line treatment of advanced or metastatic PDAC (NCT05585320). Methods: In this multicenter, open-label, nonrandomized Phase 2a study, patients with previously untreated advanced or metastatic PDAC were eligible for participation and were treated with orally administered atebimetinib daily in combination with mGnP (modification: every other week dosing). The primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR) per investigator assessment using RECIST 1.1 criteria in response-evaluable patients. The cohort was powered (~80%, one sided alpha 0.05) using an optimal Simon’s 2-stage design. Results: Fifty-five patients were enrolled and treated with 320 mg atebimetinib daily + mGnP. ECOG performance status was 0-1 (100%); median age was 68 years (range 42-85 years), 62% were ≥65 years, and 55% were male. No grade 5 treatment-related adverse events (AE) were observed. No AE related to atebimetinib were higher than grade 3. Grade 3 AE related to atebimetinib occurred in 29% of participants, with the most frequent being rash (5%), ALT increased (5%), and AST increased (5%). Among the 50 response-evaluable patients, best overall response (BOR) achieved were 21 PR, 21 SD, 7 PD, 1 NE. The ORR was 42%, and DCR was 84%. With a median follow-up of 10.4 months (data cutoff Jan 7, 2026), 6- and 9-month OS rates were 88% and 79%, respectively; median PFS was 8.3 months and median OS was not reached. Conclusions: Atebimetinib in combination with mGnP demonstrated favorable safety and promising efficacy compared to historic standard-of-care (SoC) GnP. 1 A phase 3 registrational trial is planned to start in mid-2026 for evaluation of atebimetinib + mGnP versus SoC GnP. 1. Von Hoff DD, Ervin T, Arena FP, et al. Increased survival in pancreatic cancer with nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine. N Engl J Med . 2013;369(18):1691-1703. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1304369 (PMID: 24131140). Clinical trial information: NCT05585320 .

11059 Background: Payments from the drug industry to oncologists are common and influence physicians’ prescribing decisions. However, whether payments affect the likelihood that patients receive optimal cancer treatment has not been assessed. Methods: This was a population-based cohort study. We used fee-for-service Medicare claims to identify patients with incident cancer diagnosis (new cancer diagnosis code after >= 1 year with no cancer diagnosis codes) from 2014-2020. We used National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) Guidelines to identify treatment scenarios (e.g., metastatic melanoma, stage III colon adjuvant therapy) with variation in the clinical benefit among recommended treatment options. The patient cohort corresponding to each scenario was identified using claims. We used NCCN Guidelines to identify the “optimal” treatment for each scenario (defined as the designated “preferred” treatment, with NCCN Evidence Blocks scores used for tiebreaks) at each time point across the study period. The primary outcome was whether a patient received the treatment that was, as of their diagnosis date, the optimal treatment for their cancer (vs. any non-optimal treatment). The primary exposure[s] were whether a patient’s medical oncologist received personal (“general”) payments (source: linked Open Payments data) related to 1) optimal treatment or 2) any non-optimal treatment, during the year prior to the patient’s cancer diagnosis. We fit Poisson-family generalized estimating equations, with physician-level clustering and adjustment for scenario, year, and patient characteristics, to estimate the relative risk (RR) of optimal treatment. Results: There were 14 clinical scenarios comprising 15,835 patients. There were 3,429 (21.7%) patients whose oncologist received payment for the optimal treatment, 4,891 (30.9%) for non-optimal payments, and 1,993 (12.6%) to both payment types. Oncologist receipt of payment for optimal treatment was associated with a greater likelihood (RR=1.07, 95%CI:1.01-1.13), and payment for non-optimal treatment was associated with lower likelihood (RR= 0.94, 95%CI:0.89-0.98) of patients receiving optimal treatment. Associations became stronger as payment dollar value increased; for optimal payments ≥$10,000, RR=1.26 (95%CI:1.02-1.57), and for non-optimal payments ≥$10,000, RR=0.70 (95%CI: 0.49-1.00). An estimated 41.6% of unexposed patients received optimal treatment; versus 52.6%, 29.3%, and 33.8% among patients exposed to ≥$10,000 of payments for optimal treatment only, ≥$10,000 non-optimal payments only, and ≥$10,000 of both payment types, respectively. Conclusions: Industry payments related to the optimal cancer treatment were associated with increased use of the optimal treatment. However, payments related to non-optimal treatments were more common and were associated with decreased use of optimal treatment.

Estimates of fibromyalgia prevalence vary widely worldwide due to differences in diagnostic criteria, study methodology, and population characteristics. Accurate estimates are essential to inform population-level surveillance, guide resource allocation, and highlight disparities in disease recognition and access to care. The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to determine the global prevalence of fibromyalgia in the general population, and secondarily to identify factors moderating prevalence variation and to assess prevalence in defined at-risk subpopulations. Pooled prevalence estimates with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using the inverse variance heterogeneity model with Freeman–Tukey transformation. Subgroup analyses were performed by sex, diagnostic criteria, country, and other study characteristics, and meta-regression assessed moderators including publication year and Human Development Index (HDI). Of 21,645 records identified, 1,728 underwent full-text review and 882 studies were included in the final analysis. Across 38 countries and 30,070,032 individuals (188 studies), the pooled fibromyalgia prevalence in the general population was 1.40% (95% CI, 0.49–2.47), with substantial heterogeneity (I 2 = 100%) and very low certainty of evidence. Among at-risk subpopulations (9,771,123 participants; 768 studies), prevalence was markedly higher in autoimmune and inflammatory conditions, such as chronic urticaria (37.1%), interstitial cystitis (30.8%), systemic sclerosis (20.6%), celiac disease (20.5%), and inflammatory bowel disease (19.9%), and elevated in chronic pain, rheumatologic, and post-infection cohorts. Meta-regression identified publication year (β = 0.008, P < .001) and HDI (β = 0.725, P = .002) as significant moderators of prevalence. In conclusion, fibromyalgia affects 1% to 2% of the global population, with substantially higher rates in at-risk subpopulations. Temporal and socioeconomic trends emphasize diagnostic inconsistency and global disparities in care.