Citations

LBA2 Background: Dedifferentiated liposarcoma (DDLS) remains a difficult disease to treat with limited systemic therapy options. Approved drugs offer modest benefit such as trabectedin (median progression-free survival [mPFS] 2.2 months [m]) or eribulin (mPFS 2.0m). The Cyclin-dependent kinase 4 (CDK4) oncogene is ubiquitously amplified in DDLS and is a rational therapeutic target. In single-arm phase 2 studies, treatment with selective CDK4 inhibitors resulted in mPFS 4.2m with palbociclib and mPFS 7.7m with abemaciclib. We hypothesized that treatment with abemaciclib would improve PFS compared to placebo in patients with recurrent or metastatic DDLS. Methods: SARC041 was a phase 3 randomized double-blind study of abemaciclib versus placebo. The study was open at 9 academic medical centers in the USA. Eligible patients (pts) had recurrent or metastatic DDLS (purely well-differentiated liposarcoma excluded), progression of disease by RECIST 1.1 in the 6 months prior to study entry, any number of prior systemic therapies, and adequate organ function and performance status. Pts were stratified by prior lines of therapy (0 vs 1 or more) and randomized 1:1 between abemaciclib 200 mg PO twice a day or matching placebo. Scans were every 6 weeks (every 12 weeks after week 36) and pts with progression of disease on placebo could cross over to open label abemaciclib. The primary endpoint was PFS. The design provided 80% power with two-sided 10% significance level to detect a hazard ratio of 0.6 by log-rank test. Secondary endpoints were overall response rate (ORR), PFS and response rate after crossover, and overall survival (OS). Data cutoff was March 1, 2026. Results: In total, 108 pts were randomized to receive abemaciclib (n = 54) or placebo (n = 54). Demographic/baseline characteristics were generally similar across treatment arms. Abemaciclib demonstrated a statistically significant improvement in PFS at 9.67m vs placebo at 1.52m (hazard ratio [HR] 0.39; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.25–0.59; p < 0.001). ORR was 9.3% for abemaciclib vs 0% for placebo (p = 0.057). mOS was not reached with abemaciclib vs 25.45m with placebo (HR 0.55; 95% CI, 0.28–1.07; p = 0.077). mPFS after crossover from placebo to abemaciclib was 3.44m (95% CI 2.66, 6.84). ORR after crossover was 4.3% (95% CI 0.53%, 15%). mOS after crossover was 24.03m (95% CI: 11.7, NA). Grade 3 or higher adverse event rates were similar in both arms (p > 0.99). No new safety signals were observed. Conclusions: Abemaciclib demonstrated a statistically significant improvement in PFS vs placebo in pts with dedifferentiated liposarcoma, with an encouraging OS trend. These results support abemaciclib as a new treatment option for dedifferentiated liposarcoma. Clinical trial information: NCT04967521 .

TPS655 Background: Early (14-28 day) on-treatment suppression of tumor proliferation during neoadjuvant endocrine therapy (NET) is strongly associated with favorable long-term outcomes in estrogen receptor–positive (ER+) HER2– breast cancer. In premenopausal women, tamoxifen with or without ovarian function suppression (OFS) results in suboptimal Ki-67 suppression compared with aromatase inhibitor + OFS. (Z)-endoxifen (ENDX), the active metabolite of tamoxifen, dually inhibits ER signaling and PKCβ1-mediated AKT activation, supporting its evaluation as an alternative NET strategy in this population. Methods: EVANGELINE (NCT05607004) is an ongoing, multicenter, open-label Phase 2 study evaluating daily 40 mg ENDX plus goserelin administered every 28 days as neoadjuvant therapy in premenopausal women with ER+/HER2–, cT2–3, cN0–1 breast cancer. The primary objective is to determine the proportion of patients with baseline Ki-67 >10% who achieve Ki-67 ≤10% after 4 weeks of therapy. A Simon two-stage design is used to test whether the Week 4 Ki-67 ≤10% rate is at least 65%, with 20 patients enrolled into the first stage and, if promising, another 25 patients enrolled into the second stage (cohort A). A parallel cohort of 20 patients with baseline Ki-67 ≤10% (cohort B) is enrolled to assess objective response rate (ORR) at 24 weeks per RECIST v1.1. Secondary objectives include examining safety and tolerability, residual cancer burden, and PEPI score. Correlative analyses include examining effect of treatment on select tumor and plasma biomarkers. Clinical trial information: NCT05607004 .

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 .

TPS10057 Background: Ewing sarcoma (EWS) is an aggressive tumor of the bone and soft tissue primarily affecting adolescents and young adults. For patients with recurrent disease, outcomes remain poor with 5-year survival rates of 10%–15%, highlighting the need for novel approaches. STEAP1 is highly expressed in EWS cell lines, xenograft models, and patient tumor samples 1 and is transcriptionally regulated by EWSR1::FLI1 , the main oncogenic driver in EWS. Xaluritamig, a humanized bispecific XmAb 2+1 T-cell engager targeting STEAP1 and CD3, has demonstrated potent, antigen-dependent T-cell–mediated lysis of STEAP1-expressing EWS cell lines 1 and induced robust in vivo antitumor activity in EWS xenograft models with concomitant CD8+ T-cell activation. In metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, another STEAP1-expressing solid malignancy, xaluritamig has shown meaningful antitumor activity and a manageable safety profile 2 supporting its clinical evaluation in R/R EWS. Methods: This ongoing, phase 1b, single-arm, open-label, two-part, multicenter study (NCT07297979) is evaluating xaluritamig in pediatric, adolescent, and adult patients with a histologic diagnosis of EWS and an EWSR1 :: ETS fusion gene locally confirmed by next-generation sequencing. Patients must have R/R EWS following ≥1 line of systemic therapy and Karnofsky or Lansky performance status ≥70. Part 1 (dose confirmation) consists of cohort 1 (age ≥12 years) and cohort 2 (age ≥2 to <12 years), and part 2 (dose expansion) includes patients aged ≥2 years with no upper age limit at enrollment. This study includes a 21-day screening period, a treatment period, a safety follow-up period, and a long-term follow-up period. Patients receive xaluritamig every 2 weeks once reaching the target dose until radiographic disease progression per RECIST v1.1, clinical disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, initiation of other anticancer therapy not permitted per protocol, withdrawal of consent, death, or end of study as determined by the sponsor, whichever is earlier. Primary endpoints are safety, tolerability, and determination of recommended dose(s) for expansion. Secondary endpoints are pharmacokinetics, preliminary antitumor activity, and immunogenicity. Biomarker evaluation as an exploratory endpoint includes assessment of serum cytokines, other pro-inflammatory markers, immune-cell subsets, circulating tumor DNA, STEAP1 protein expression, and tumor genomic profile and their association with safety and efficacy. CRS mitigation plan includes step-up dosing, steroid premedication, and administration of interleukin-6 inhibitors as needed. Site activation commenced in January 2026 and enrollment is ongoing. 1. Nolan-Stevaux O. Cancer Res. 2020;80(16_Suppl):DDT02–03. 2. Kelly WK, Danila DC, Lin CC, et al. Cancer Discov . 2024;14(1):76-89. Clinical trial information: NCT07297979 .

e18026 Background: Immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy is part of standard of care first-line therapy for recurrent or metastatic (R/M) HNSCC. However, less than 20% of patients (CPS ≥1) have an objective response to ICI monotherapy, and most tumors progress within ~3 months. We sought to improve the proportion of patients who benefit from a chemotherapy-free regimen by combining intratumoral (IT) VV1 oncolytic virus (VSV-IFNβ-NIS) injections with the anti-PD-1 antibody, cemiplimab. We report a pre-planned analysis of Simon's stage 1 results. Methods: We activated a phase 2 study testing the efficacy of first line IT VV1 plus cemiplimab in 1 st line patients with R/M HNSCC. A Simon's two-stage design was employed whereby 10 patients would be accrued in stage 1, and if 3 or more responses were observed, 12 additional patients would be accrued for stage 2. The primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR) per investigator (RECIST 1.1). Eligible patients had untreated R/M HNSCC from primary oropharynx, oral cavity, hypopharynx, or larynx sites with CPS ≥1. Patients had to have at least one measurable lesion amenable to IT injection. Treatment comprised of IT injections to 1-5 lesions of oncolytic VV-1 virus and IV cemiplimab 350 mg on day 1, repeated every 21 days. Each lesion could be injected 3 times; a 4th injection was allowed if a partial response (PR) was achieved after 3 injections. Cemiplimab could be continued for up to 2 years until progression or unacceptable toxicity. Results: Patient and tumor characteristics, as well as efficacy and toxicity are summarized in the table below. Ten patients were treated at the time of Stage 1 analysis, with 3 showing a confirmed PR for ORR of 30%. Responder CPS scores were 45, 12 and 20%. Two of the responders subsequently showed progression after 6.2 and 9.9 months, the third has maintained PR at 7.7 months to date. Eight of 10 patients showed decrease in the sum of target lesion size (mean decrease of 16%; range -57 to 77%). One grade 2 event of ICI nephritis resolved with corticosteroid treatment. Conclusions: Three patients showed confirmed PR by RECIST 1.1 in Simon's stage 1, meeting criteria to proceed to Simon's stage 2. A total of 22 patients in the HNSCC will be enrolled. VV1 plus cemiplimab shows promise in first line R/M HNSCC based on these initial results. Clinical trial information: NCT04291105 . Patient demographics. N (treated) 10 Sex 20% female Median age (y) 60 (54 – 76) Oropharynx 7 HPV+ 7 Oral cavity 3 PD-L1 CPS median (range) 7.5 (1-45%) Locoregional injection 3 Distant injection 6 Local and distant injection 1 Best response (RECIST 1.1) PR 3 SD 5 PD 2 Adverse Events #pts any VV1/cemiplimab-related G3 AE 4 Lymphopenia 3 Elevated ALK 1

e15509 Background: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly explored for oncology decision support, yet comparative evidence evaluating medical-specific versus general-purpose LLMs using expert-reviewed clinical cases is limited. We compared a medical-specific LLM (Google MedGemma 27B) with a general-purpose LLM (ChatGPT-5) using gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary (GU) oncology vignettes. Methods: This cross-sectional study evaluated 32 de-identified oncology vignettes (26 GI, 6 GU) created by a U.S. board-certified medical oncologist and informed by real-world cases. Vignettes included text-only information on the clinical context, description of pathology, tumor staging, biomarkers, and relevant comorbidities. Both LLMs were prompted to provide National Comprehensive Cancer Network(NCCN) guideline-based treatment recommendations, monitoring strategies, maintenance therapy considerations, and references, along with a self-reported confidence score (0–100). Board-certified U.S. medical oncologists independently reviewed outputs using a structured instrument; two disease specific expert oncologists evaluated each case. Outcomes included correctness and comprehensiveness (1–10 scales), hallucinations (factually fabricated or unsupported statements), NCCN traceability, potential patient harm, and clinician trust. Associations between accuracy and comprehensiveness were assessed using correlation coefficients. Inter-rater reliability was assessed using a two-way random-effects intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Results: ChatGPT-5 demonstrated higher mean correctness (8.65 vs 4.68) and comprehensiveness (8.68 vs 5.22) scores compared with MedGemma 27B. Accuracy and comprehensiveness were strongly correlated overall (Pearson r = 0.93, p < 0.001), with significant model-specific correlations (ChatGPT-5 r = 0.86, p < 0.001; MedGemma r = 0.77, p < 0.001). Hallucinations occurred less frequently with ChatGPT-5 (12.3% vs 65%), and NCCN-traceable recommendations were more common (75.4% vs 36.7%). Responses judged as potentially harmful occurred in 18.5% of ChatGPT-5 outputs versus 70% of MedGemma outputs. Clinician trust favored ChatGPT-5 (84.6% vs 15%). Inter-rater reliability improved with rater averaging (ICC(A,k): correctness 0.72; comprehensiveness 0.64). Conclusions: In expert-reviewed GI and GU oncology cases, ChatGPT-5 demonstrated higher clinical accuracy, comprehensiveness, and guideline alignment than a medical-specific LLM; however, a substantial rate of hallucinations and potentially harmful recommendations persisted across models. These findings underscore that, despite performance differences, current LLMs require rigorous clinician oversight and should not be used as standalone decision-support tools in oncology.

e13661 Background: The process of data abstraction and curation represents a significant proportion of clinical trial costs, requiring up to $30,000 per patient depending on the data complexity. Research variables such as stage, performance status (PS), and cancer disease status are typically present in the electronic health record (EHR) in free text but require abstraction for research use. Structuring these real-world data (RWD) in an exportable format utilizing minimum common oncology data elements (mCODE) could reduce the need for abstraction and the potential for erroneous transcription that has been shown to be 5.51-7.72% in a meta-analysis. We assessed the feasibility, availability, and accuracy of RWD for use across Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology sites by comparing RWD to matched electronic case report form data (CRF data) at 2 sites where EHR-integrated tools collect structured RWD for all solid tumor patients. Methods: Stage, PS, and cancer disease status (CDS) were extracted from the EHR as RWD and from eCRFs for 100 patients enrolled in National Clinical Trials Network trials across multiple disease sites from 2022 through 2025. Data from baseline and day 1 of cycles 1-4 were compared (500 encounter timepoints). Results: Stage, PS, and CDS were available from RWD more often than CRFs (85 vs 70 / 100 patients, 436 vs 416 / 500 encounters, and 345 vs 83 / 500 encounters respectively). When stage was present in both (n = 58), there were 5 mismatches (8.6%). PS had 22 mismatches (4%) and CDS had 45 mismatches (11.4%). After correcting for differences in CRF vs RWD definitions, CDS mismatches dropped to 1.2% (n = 4). Discordance between RWD and CRF data was related to differences in the timepoint of data collection (e.g., systemic staging scans completed after the initial consult), CRF data obtained from other EHR notes (e.g., oncology research nurse notes containing PS), inherent discordance between RWD and CRF data choices (e.g., responding vs complete or partial response), and failure to update EHR data capture tool fields. RWD were available 21 days (median) before CRF data. Conclusions: Our results suggest that RWD captured directly within clinical notes match CRF data, are more often present, and are available sooner. RWD could serve as a data source for trials, decreasing the need for manual curation and cost. Although some discordance exists, overall rates are low and close to the published error rate for abstraction.

8045 Background: Surgical resection is the primary therapy for stage I-II NSCLC but not performed in a subset of patients due to comorbidities or self-election, who instead undergo radiation with or without systemic therapy (RT±ST). Little is known about the demographic, tumoral, therapeutic, and quality-of-life (QOL) characteristics of this non-surgical group. Understanding their differences from the surgical group is essential for developing precision treatment strategies and tailored survivorship guidelines. Methods: In a prospectively enrolled (1997-2016) and followed (through 2025) cohort of 20,951 primary lung cancer patients, 6,486 (31%) had stage I-II NSCLC, including 5,359 (83%) treated surgically (Surgical) and 1,113 (17%) otherwise (Non-surgical). Preexisting diseases were grouped into cancer, lung, and other comorbidities. QOL data were available for 40% of all patients. Descriptive analysis of demographics, tumor features, treatment patterns, and QOL metrics, as well as survival analysis (median years and overall survival [OS] rates) were conducted. QOL measures, on overall and 15 symptom and functional domains, were scored 0 (worst) to 10 (best), with 1-unit difference considered clinically and statistically meaningful. Results: At time of diagnosis, compared to the Surgical, the Non-surgical patients were older (median 73 v 68 years), more likely to have smoked cigarettes (91% v 83%), squamous cell and unspecified NSCLC (53% v 28%), stage IIB (19% v 12%), and preexisting lung comorbidities (71% v 58%). Non-surgical patients more frequently received RT±ST than the Surgical (70% v 21%) and had shorter median survival (2.5 v 7.8) years. Within the Non-surgical, 28% had no cancer treatment (No-Tx), 44% RT-only, 7% ST-only, and 19% both (RT+ST); their respective median diagnosis ages were 74, 76, 68, 70 years; median survival were 1.7, 2.7, 2.2, 3.2 years; 5-year OS (95%CI) at 25% (21-31), 25% (21-29), 26% (17-38), 30% (25-37); and 10-year OS at 9% (7-14), 7% (5-10), 10% (5-21), 9% (6-14), respectively. RT-only group had highest rates of comorbidities (37-84%) and the No-Tx the lowest (31-66%). Although the overall QOL scored the same for all groups, RT-only patients reported the worst scores on multiple symptoms burden, and the No-Tx reported the least pain and lung cancer symptoms but the worst on mental well-being and social activities. Conclusions: Non-surgically managed stage I-II NSCLC cases present clinically distinct patients with the shortest median survival in No-Tx group and highest 5-year survival in RT+ST. RT-only patients were oldest, had the most comorbidities, and reported the worst symptom burdens. These differences highlight the need for more in-depth analyses and studies (considering age, histology, comorbidity, QOL, etc.) to support tailored therapeutic strategies and survivorship care for patients who decline or are not suitable for surgery.

632 Background: Prospective data on the risk of breast cancer (BC) recurrence among young BC survivors who have a subsequent pregnancy are limited. We sought to evaluate the long-term impact of pregnancy and live birth on BC outcomes in the Young Women’s Breast Cancer Study (NCT01468246), a prospective multicenter study of women aged ≤40 years at BC diagnosis. Methods: Women with stage 0-III BC without prior hysterectomy were included. The primary endpoint was breast cancer-free interval (BCFI) between patients with and without a (a) pregnancy and (b) live birth after BC. Secondary endpoints were distant recurrence-free interval (DRFI) and overall survival (OS). A time-varying Cox proportional hazards model was performed by estrogen receptor (ER) status, controlling for age at diagnosis, tumor stage, HER2 status, tumor grade, parity at diagnosis, and germline pathogenic variant status. Results: Among 1,016 BC survivors at a median follow-up of 12 (range, 0.5-18.5) years, 198 reported ≥1 pregnancy and 165 reported ≥1 live birth post-diagnosis. Among survivors who reported a post-diagnosis pregnancy, median age at diagnosis was 32 (range, 17-40) years; most had stage I (35%) or II (40%) BC, with 72% hormone receptor (HR)-positive and 25% HER2+; 42% were nulligravid and 60% were nulliparous at diagnosis. Among BC survivors who did not become pregnant post-diagnosis, median age at diagnosis was 37 (range, 21-40) years; most had stage I (35%) or II (43%) BC, with 75% HR-positive and 28% HER2+; 25% were nulligravid and 29% were nulliparous at diagnosis. Among BC survivors with ER-positive tumors (n = 737), pregnancy after BC was not associated with a difference in BCFI (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0.60, 95% CI 0.31-1.16, P = 0.130), DRFI (HR 0.73, 95% CI 0.35-1.55, P = 0.416), or OS (HR 0.58, 95% CI 0.24-1.40, P = 0.227). Similarly, live birth after BC did not impact BCFI (HR 0.83, 95% CI 0.45-1.55, P = 0.560), DRFI (HR 1.04, 95% CI 0.52-2.06, P = 0.923), or OS (HR 0.77, 95% CI 0.34-1.76, P = 0.541). Outcomes among BC survivors with ER-negative tumors (n = 278) were also not affected by post-diagnosis pregnancy (BCFI [HR 1.48, 95% CI 0.70-3.14, P = 0.304], DRFI [HR 1.59, 95% CI 0.68-3.75, P = 0.287], OS [HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.39-2.49, P = 0.975]) or live birth (BCFI [HR 1.02, 95% CI 0.41-2.53, P = 0.974], DRFI [HR 0.80, 95% CI 0.24-2.69, P = 0.722], OS [HR 0.39, 95% CI 0.09-1.69, P = 0.208]). Conclusions: In this multicenter, prospective study with 12 years of median follow-up, pregnancy and live birth after BC did not impact BC events or overall survival, irrespective of ER status. These long-term data from a modern cohort provide reassurance for young BC patients interested in future fertility. Clinical trial information: NCT01468246 .