Citations

TPS11591 Background: Tebentafusp (Kimmtrak) is a first-in-class bispecific T-cell engager, specifically a T-cell receptor (TCR)-anti-CD3 fusion protein, approved for HLA-A*02:01+ metastatic or unresectable uveal melanoma. Tebentafusp binds to the HLA-A02:01/gp100 peptide complexes on the tumour cell surface, recruiting polyclonal T cells, via CD3, to release cytokines and cytolytic mediators against the tumour. Clear cell sarcoma (CCS) is an ultra-rare soft-tissue sarcoma subtype with poor prognosis and limited therapeutic options. On histopathology, CCS is characterised by the expression of melanocytic antigens, including gp100. Methods: This Phase 2 trial evaluates the efficacy of Tebentafusp in HLA-A*02:01 positive patients with advanced CCS. Twenty-three patients will be treated with weekly I.V. infusion of Tebentafusp at the recommended dose until evidence of clinical benefit or patient withdrawal from study. Baseline and on-treatment biopsies, as well as longitudinal peripheral blood samples will be collected for translational analyses. Prospective data will also be collected from an observational non-comparative cohort of up to 24 patients with advanced CCS not eligible for the study due to incompatible HLA. Enrolment to the study has commenced in October 2025 in the US, with two currently active sites (Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center and University of Southern California). One additional US site (Northwestern University) and one UK site (The Royal Marsden Hospital) are due to open. At the time of submission, 1 HLA-A*02:01 advanced CCS patient had started treatment with Tebentafusp. Clinical trial information: NCT06942442 .

e23276 Background: More than 50,000 patients with cancers of all stages were enrolled in the E2C2 trial, which captured patient-reported data across 6 symptom domains (SPPADE): sleep, pain, impaired physical function, anxiety, depression, and energy deficit or fatigue. This trial offers a unique opportunity to evaluate the evolution of symptom burden as prostate cancer (PCa) advances and the association of symptom burden with prognosis in the various disease states. Methods: The cohort was derived by cross-referencing participants in the E2C2 study with the Mayo Clinic Cancer Registry for more granular data on disease state and treatment characteristics, focusing on PCa. Symptoms were patient-reported on a 0-10 numerical rating scale, categorized as none/mild (0-3), moderate (4-6), and severe (7-10). We compared the prevalence of symptom burden across disease states, using the first survey completed by patients, in 3 groups: (1) non-metastatic (localized, locally advanced, and biochemically recurrent), (2) metastatic hormone sensitive (mHSPC), and (3) castration resistant (CRPC), using chi square tests. We then used log-rank tests to compare survival distributions based on symptom severity within each disease state. Results: A total of 1,011 patients were included. The distribution of moderate to severe symptoms by disease state is shown in Table 1. Fatigue, impaired physical function, and pain were more prevalent in patients with advanced disease, whereas the prevalence of depression and anxiety was not statistically different by disease state. Greater fatigue and physical impairment were consistently associated with poorer OS across all disease states, including patients with non-metastatic disease (p < 0.001). Pain was most strongly associated with inferior outcomes in the more advanced disease states of mHSPC (p < 0.001) and CRPC (p < 0.001). Anxiety (p < 0.001) and depression (p = 0.001) were only prognostic in CRPC patients. Conclusions: SPPADE symptoms are common in PCa. Physical symptoms are greater in more advanced disease, yet the high burden of unmet psychologic needs is similar across the disease states. Notably, severe patient-reported fatigue and physical dysfunction are strongly prognostic even in early disease, suggesting they are markers of physiologic vulnerability. Structured symptom monitoring may improve the identification of high-risk patients. Clinical trial information: NCT03892967 . Moderate to severe symptoms by disease state. Non-Metastatic (N= 243) mHSPC (N= 479) CRPC (N= 289) P-value Pain, n (%) 51 (21.3) 121 (25.5) 100 (35.1) 0.001 Fatigue, n (%) 92 (38.3) 230 (48.6) 163 (57.2) <0.001 Impaired Physical Function, n (%) 79 (32.5) 180 (37.7) 146 (50.7) <0.001 Sleep Disturbance, n (%) 72 (30.1) 167 (35.2) 104 (36.1) 0.3 Depression, n (%) 47 (19.6) 92 (19.4) 63 (22.0) 0.67 Anxiety, n (%) 56 (23.4) 93 (19.6) 68 (23.9) 0.3

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.

4514 Background: Maintenance avelumab is a standard of care in patients (pts) with la/mUC who do not progress after first-line PBC. Cabozantinib (CABO) is an oral inhibitor of MET, VEGFR and TAM, active in multiple solid tumors. We hypothesized that an avelumab (Av)-CABO combination would improve outcomes in pts with mUC with an acceptable safety profile compared to avelumab maintenance alone. Methods: MAIN-CAV (NCT05092958) is a phase III randomized, multicenter, international trial for la/mUC pts who did not progress after 4-6 cycles of any PBC (gemcitabine-cisplatin, gemcitabine-carboplatin, MVAC, ddMVAC). Pts were randomized 1:1 to Av 800 mg IV every 2 weeks alone or with CABO 40 mg daily for ≤2 years. Stratification factors were response to first-line PBC (complete response [CR] vs partial response [PR] vs stable disease [SD]) and visceral metastases. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS); secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS), safety and quality of life. The target accrual was 654 pts; the trial closed early after enrollment of 68 pts following adoption of enfortumab vedotin plus pembrolizumab as the new preferred first-line standard in the US. Results: From 3/2022 to 3/2024, 68 pts were randomized (Av n = 33; CABO-Av n = 35). Median OS was 24.8 months (mo) with Av and 23.0 mo with Avb-CABO (Hazard ratio 1.41; 95% CI 0.66–3.01; p = 0.186). Median PFS was 4.6 mo with Av vs 6.0 mo with Av-CABO (p = 0.343). Objective response rate among pts with PR or SD after first-line PBC was 20.8% with Av vs 11.5% with Av-CABO (p = 0.424). Grade ≥3 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 24.2% pts on the Av arm vs 39.4% of pts on the Av-CABO arm and CABO dose reductions occurred in 63% of pts. Conclusions: Addition of CABO to Av did not improve OS or PFS compared with Av alone in this underpowered, prematurely closed phase III trial; safety was consistent with known profiles. U10CA180821,U10CA180882; U24CA196171, U10CA180863. (CCTG);U10CA180888 (SWOG); https://acknowledgments.alliancefound.org. Clinical trial information: NCT05092958 .

4513 Background: The AMBASSADOR trial (NCT03244381) showed that in patients with high-risk muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma after radical surgery, adjuvant pembrolizumab for one year improved disease-free survival from 14.2 to 29.6 months (Apolo et al, NEJM 2024). Here we report the HRQOL results. Methods: HRQOL was completed by 560 randomized patients and included the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) QLQ-C30 plus the bladder cancer supplement BLM30, and the EQ-5D-5L, which assesses overall quality of life or health state. Published minimally important difference thresholds for EQ-5D-5L is 0.06, and for EORTC instruments is 5-10 points. For all reported HRQOL data, higher score is better except BLM30 urinary symptoms, where higher score indicates more symptoms. Results: Mean changes from baseline to 12 months (corresponding to end of treatment) for each HRQOL measure are summarized in the Table. No statistically significant difference was seen between the observation vs. pembrolizumab arms. Further, numerical differences between arms for these HRQOL measures do not meet (are lower than) the published minimally clinically important difference thresholds. Conclusions: Adjuvant pembrolizumab after radical surgery for patients with high-risk muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma improved disease-free survival without negatively affecting HRQOL. These HRQOL results add further support to adjuvant immune checkpoint blockade therapy in these patients. Support: U10CA180821, U10CA180882, UG1CA189823 (https://acknowledgments.alliancefound.org). Clinical trial information: NCT03244381 . HRQOL mean change from baseline to 12 months and between-arm comparisons. A) Observation B) Pembrolizumab Difference A vs B P-value EQ-5D-5L Index Value -.029 -.012 -.02 .45 QLQ-C30 Global Health 0.07 1.45 -1.38 .55 QLQ-C30 Physical Functioning -.089 -.069 -0.02 .99 QLQ-C30 Role Functioning 3.22 -1.23 4.45 .15 BLM30 Urinary Symptoms -3.44 -3.02 -.42 .87 BLM30 Sexual Functioning -.53 4.15 -4.68 .07

2090 Background: A subset of meningiomas has an aggressive clinical course requiring multimodal therapies. Yet, treatment options beyond surgery and radiation are limited. Somatostatin receptor 2 (SSTR2) is uniformly expressed in meningiomas and can be targeted by the radiopharmaceutical agent [ 177 Lu]Lu-DOTA-TATE ( 177 Lu-Dotatate). [ 68 Ga]Ga-DOTA-TATE ( 68 Ga-Dotatate) PET is emerging as a promising imaging modality to assess treatment response in SSTR2-expressing tumors. However, prospective clinical data supporting the use of 177 Lu-Dotatate and 68 Ga-Dotatate in treatment-refractory meningiomas is limited. Methods: In this multicenter, open-label, phase 2 clinical study (NCT03971461), adult patients with progressive intracranial meningiomas received 177 Lu-Dotatate at 7.4 GBq (200 mCi) every 8 weeks for 4 doses. The primary endpoint was 6-month progression-free survival (PFS-6). Up to 5 meningioma lesions per patient were assessed by gadolinium-enhanced T1 MRI every 12 weeks. 68 Ga-Dotatate PET was obtained before/after 177 Lu-Dotatate treatments. Lesional 68 Ga-Dotatate PET activity was assessed relative to liver/spleen or superior sagittal sinus (SSS). Results: 32 patients (female = 21, male = 11) with progressive meningiomas (WHO grade 1 = 7, grade 2 = 24, grade 3 = 1) were enrolled. Median age was 65.5 (range 41-78) years. All patients had at least one prior tumor surgery and at least one course of radiation. Overall, 177 Lu-Dotatate was well tolerated and the most common grade 3/4 adverse events were transient cytopenia in 15 patients (47%). One patient (3%) discontinued treatment due to grade 4 thrombocytopenia. PFS-6 was reached in 22 patients (69%), which includes 5 of 7 (71%) with grade 1 and 17 of 24 (71%) with grade 2 meningiomas. Best radiographic response by MRI was partial response (PR) in 5 (16%) and stable disease (SD) in 20 (63%) patients. Eight patients (16 lesions) were evaluable by paired MRI and 68 Ga-Dotatate PET pre- and post-treatment. Referenced to SSS, 68 Ga-Dotatate avidity reduced by ≥50% in 2 lesions (PR), 25-49% (minor response, MR) in 3 lesions and remained stable ( < 25% reduction and < 25% increase) in 11 lesions. Using liver/spleen as a reference (6 patients, 14 lesions), 68 Ga-Dotatate uptake was reduced in 9 lesions and stable in 5 lesions. 68 Ga-Dotatate PET assessments were generally concordant with MRI-based treatment response assessments. Conclusions: The primary endpoint (PFS-6) was met in this phase 2 study with 69% of patients achieving PFS-6, thereby surpassing established historical benchmarks. 177 Lu-Dotatate was generally well tolerated and deserves further study in patients with advanced meningiomas. Exploratory 68 Ga-DOTATATE PET studies showed decreased uptake in a subset of lesions and bears promise as an imaging biomarker to assess treatment response. Clinical trial information: NCT03971461 .

1587 Background: Rehabilitation services (physical medicine and rehabilitation [PM&R], physical therapy [PT], occupational therapy [OT], and speech-language pathology [SLP]) improve physical function, symptom burden, and quality of life for cancer survivors, yet utilization remains low due to persistent barriers. The collaborative care model–based Enhanced Electronic Health Record–Facilitated Cancer Symptom Control (E2C2) pragmatic trial improved symptom burden and palliative care utilization. Using post hoc exploratory analyses of population-level trial data, we evaluated whether this EHR-facilitated approach also increased rehabilitation service use. Methods: E2C2 was conducted across Mayo Clinic Midwest medical oncology practices using an unblinded, stepped-wedge, cluster-randomized cohort design. The EHR-embedded intervention targeted SPPADE symptoms (sleep interference, pain, impaired physical function, anxiety, depression, and fatigue). Symptoms and physical function were assessed using 11-point numerical rating scales linked to oncology encounters. Patients received self-management materials for moderate symptoms (4–6/10) and care manager support for severe symptoms (7–10/10). All outpatient rehabilitation encounters across the Mayo Clinic Enterprise were abstracted. Mixed-effects Poisson models estimated intervention effects on rehabilitation visits during the first 365 days of exposure. Results: Between March 28, 2019, and January 31, 2023, 50,207 patients were enrolled. Intervention and control conditions included 31,719 and 28,938 patients, respectively, with 10,450 contributing data to both periods. Cross-sectionally, 25% of participants reported moderate and 9% severe physical function impairment. Of 91,220 rehabilitation encounters scheduled, 57,669 (63.3%) were completed. Completed encounters were predominantly PT (68.3%), followed by OT (16.4%), physician visits (9.4%), and SLP (4.2%). The intervention was associated with a more than fourfold increase in completed rehabilitation encounters during the six weeks following index symptom assessment (adjusted mean 2.22 [95% CI, 0.14–4.29] vs 0.54 [0.40–0.68]; incidence rate ratio 4.11 [1.43–11.82]; P =0.009). Scheduled encounters also favored the intervention but did not reach statistical significance. Conclusions: An EHR-embedded symptom surveillance intervention increased short-term rehabilitation service completion, but overall utilization remained low relative to the prevalence of physical function impairment, highlighting the need for system-level strategies to translate symptom identification into sustained rehabilitation engagement.

1584 Background: Decades of evidence demonstrate that patients across the cancer continuum may benefit from validated rehabilitation services, yet delivery remains inconsistent. Prior reports of underuse have largely relied on small, single-site cohorts and have lacked population-level estimates of service need, referral, and visit completion, contributing to the assumption that provider reluctance to refer is a primary driver. Using post hoc exploratory analyses of population-level trial data, we evaluated patient- and system-level factors associated with non-use of rehabilitation services. Methods: This secondary analysis used data from the Enhanced Electronic Health Record–Facilitated Cancer Symptom Control (E2C2) pragmatic trial, an unblinded, stepped-wedge, cluster-randomized cohort study comparing an EHR-embedded symptom surveillance and management system with usual care. All patients receiving care in Mayo Clinic Midwest medical oncology practices were enrolled regardless of cancer stage or phase. Symptoms and physical function were assessed using 11-point numerical rating scales linked to oncology encounters. Sociodemographic and clinical characteristics and all outpatient rehabilitation encounters across the Mayo Clinic Enterprise were extracted from the EHR. Rates and types of completed, canceled, and no-show rehabilitation encounters were examined. Results: Between March 28, 2019, and January 31, 2023, 50,207 patients were enrolled; 34% reported moderate or severe physical function impairment during follow-up. Despite this, only 8,818 patients (17.6%) completed at least one rehabilitation encounter. Of 91,220 encounters scheduled, 57,669 (63.3%) were completed (mean 6.5; median 3 per participant), leaving a substantial proportion canceled or no-showed (n=33,523, 36.7%). Completed encounters were predominantly physical therapy (68.3%), with fewer occupational therapy (16.4%), physician (9.4%), and speech therapy (4.2%) visits. Encounters were concentrated among patients with breast, hematologic, gastrointestinal, and genitourinary cancers. Completion was more likely among patients who were older, female, partnered, retired, and federally insured, whereas cancellations and no-shows were more common among younger, racial or ethnic minority, urban, unpartnered, employed, college-educated, and commercially insured patients (all P <0.001). Virtual visits and encounters in community (vs academic) settings were more likely to be completed (all P <0.001). Conclusions: A substantial gap persists between cancer survivors’ rehabilitation needs and service receipt, varying by cancer type and sociodemographic factors. High cancellation and no-show rates suggest that underuse extends beyond referral and underscore the need for redesigned, more accessible rehabilitation delivery models.

12007 Background: YAs with cancer, defined as those diagnosed prior to the age of 40, may experience greater symptom burden compared to those diagnosed at older ages. We evaluated the impact of an ePROM-triggered, CC-based, supportive care intervention on symptom burden in YAs with cancer. Methods: The Enhanced, Electronic Health Record-facilitated Cancer Symptom Control (E2C2) trial was a cluster-randomized, pragmatic trial (NCT03892967) that enrolled oncology patients seen at Mayo Clinic Rochester and within the Mayo Clinic Health System (sites in Minnesota and Wisconsin) between March 2019 and January 2023. Patients routinely reported the severity of six SPPADE symptoms (Sleep deficit, Pain, Physical function impairment, Anxiety, Depression, and Energy deficit/fatigue) on 11-point numerical rating scales. Symptom severity was classified as none to mild (0-3), moderate (4-6), or severe (7-10). Those with moderate or severe symptoms were offered symptom management education, while those with severe symptoms were also offered the option to work virtually with a symptom care manager. In this post hoc analysis, we examined the effects of the intervention on change in symptom scores among YAs and time to improvement to a mild/moderate level in those with at least one severe symptom. Results: Among 40,659 patients who responded to at least one survey, 2,598 were YAs and 38,061 were adults ≥ 40 years. Among YAs, 10.7%, 24.3%, and 65.1% were 18-24 years, 25-31 years, and 32-39 years, respectively. A greater proportion of YA patients were female (61.5% vs 57.0%), of a non-white race (12.4% vs 5.3%), living in an urban setting (65.7% vs 55.1%), single (36.4% vs 9.6%), on non-government insurance (78.1% vs 36.6%), employed (72.6% vs 37.4%), and had a Bachelor’s degree or greater (37.8% vs 28.3%, p < 0.001 for all). Fewer YA patients had metastatic disease compared to older patients (24.2% vs 35.2%, p < 0.001). Compared to a pre-intervention baseline, the mean change in symptom score for YA patients following the intervention demonstrated improvements in anxiety (-0.195) and depression (-0.168, p < 0.0001 for both), while physical function impairment worsened over the intervention period (0.101, p = 0.014). Compared to adults ≥ 40 years, YAs experienced greater intervention effects for management of depression ( p < 0.001), fatigue ( p = 0.01), pain ( p < 0.0001), and physical function impairment ( p < 0.0001). Among YAs with a severe symptom during the intervention period, median time to improvement to a mild/moderate level was longer for anxiety compared to those ≥ 40 years (3.5 vs 2.7 months, p = 0.009). Conclusions: Routine ePROM surveillance, coupled with CC-based symptom management, led to improvements in anxiety and depression among YAs with cancer, although, time to improvement was longer for anxiety compared to adults ≥ 40 years.