Citations

PURPOSE BRCA carriers face high risks of developing both breast and ovarian/fallopian tube cancers (hereafter referred to as ovarian ). Among BRCA carriers with ovarian cancer, it is not clear whether the risk of breast cancer is sufficiently high that risk-reducing mastectomy should be offered. This study aimed to assess the risk of breast cancer BRCA carriers after a diagnosis of ovarian cancer. METHODS We included women with a pathogenic/likely pathogenic variant in BRCA1 or BRCA2 , a diagnosis of ovarian cancer, and no other cancer history and no risk-reducing bilateral mastectomy. Women were followed for incident breast cancer from the date of ovarian cancer diagnosis or the date of baseline questionnaire, whichever came last. The 5-, 10-, and 15-year cumulative risks of breast cancer were compared for women with ovarian cancer and an age-matched set of control women without ovarian cancer. RESULTS A total of 960 participants with ovarian cancer were identified (814 BRCA1 and 146 BRCA2 carriers). After a mean follow-up of 4.9 years, 41 women (4.3%) developed breast cancer, at a mean age at diagnosis of 57.5 years (range, 39-74). Actuarial cumulative breast cancer risks after ovarian cancer were 4.4%, 8.9%, and 11.5% at 5, 10, and 15 years, respectively. Only three breast cancer–related deaths occurred. Among 741 age-matched BRCA carriers without ovarian cancer, actuarial cumulative risks of breast cancer were 20.9%, 38.6%, and 47.2% at 5, 10, and 15 years, respectively. The hazard ratio for breast cancer, after an ovarian cancer diagnosis, compared with no ovarian cancer, was 0.18 ([95% CI, 0.12 to 0.27]; P < .0001). CONCLUSION After ovarian cancer, BRCA carriers have a relatively low risk of breast cancer. Risk-reducing mastectomy should not be recommended routinely, but might be considered for long-term survivors. Magnetic resonance imaging surveillance and/or mammography is a realistic alternative.

Background and Aims: Liver transplantation has evolved from a treatment restricted to patients with end-stage liver disease to a therapeutic option for selected patients with primary and metastatic liver malignancies. This review explores the rapidly expanding field of transplant oncology, highlighting its role in hepatocellular carcinoma, colorectal liver metastasis, neuroendocrine liver metastasis, and intrahepatic and perihilar cholangiocarcinoma. Emphasis is placed on strategies to broaden eligibility, optimize donor organ use, and improve oncologic outcomes. Approach and Results: We synthesized current evidence from clinical series, registries, and experimental protocols to evaluate patient selection criteria, outcomes, and peri-transplant management. Key topics include downstaging approaches to meet transplant criteria, such as locoregional therapies and systemic regimens, and their prognostic implications. Advances in donor utilization have been analyzed for their capacity to expand the graft pool. In addition, the review addresses the integration of oncologic principles into immunosuppression regimens, balancing graft protection with cancer control. Collectively, the reported studies demonstrate improved survival and reduced recurrence when stringent selection and multimodal therapy were applied. Conclusions: Transplant oncology reshapes the therapeutic landscape of liver malignancies, with growing evidence supporting liver transplantation in carefully selected patients beyond traditional indications. Optimized downstaging, innovative donor strategies, and tailored immunosuppression are pivotal for safe expansion. Continued collaboration between the transplant and oncology disciplines, along with prospective trials, is essential to further define standardized protocols and solidify transplantation as a cornerstone of multidisciplinary cancer care.

Abstract Background: Male breast cancer (MaBC) is a rare malignancy, accounting for approximately 1% of all breast cancer cases. Our previous studies suggest that MaBC is biologically distinct from female breast cancer (FeBC), exhibiting a unique mutational profile and immune-genomic microenvironment. While the impact of these molecular alterations on site-specific metastases has been explored in FeBC, it remains poorly understood in MaBC. This gap limits accurate risk stratification and prediction of disease trajectory in male patients. In this study, we investigated site-specific genomic and immune alterations across metastatic sites in MaBC. Methods: 238 MaBC samples were tested by NGS (592, NextSeq; WES, NovaSeq) and WTS (NovaSeq; Caris Life Sciences, Phoenix, AZ). We performed analysis in hormone receptor-positive (HR+) and HER2-negative (HER2-) subtypes which are most common in male. HR+HER2- was defined as estrogen receptor (ER) or progesterone receptor (PR) positive and HER2 IHC 1+ or 2+ with negative chromogenic in situ hybridization (CISH) assay. Immune cells were estimated using WTS deconvolution (Quantiseq). Gene expression profiles were analyzed for T-cell inflamed score, interferon-gamma (IFN-gamma) score and MAPK Activation Score. We classified patients by site of biopsy/specimen site. Statistical significance was assessed with chi-square and Mann-Whitney U tests, p&lt;0.05 is considered statistically significant. Results: Our cohort included 86 HR+HER2- MaBC samples biopsied from primary breast cancer (pBC) (n=39), bone (n=15), liver (n=8), lung (n=8), lymph nodes (n=7), and skin (n=9) mets. We report here only the data on statistically significant differences, but the overall landscape has been depicted across all defined-sites investigated. pBC showed a significantly lower prevalence of PIK3CA mutations (23.6% vs. 53.3%, p&lt;0.05) compared to bone mets. ESR1 mutations were absent in pBC but present in 25% of liver and 25% of lung mets (all comparisons p&lt;0.05). Immune profiling revealed reduced infiltration of M2 macrophages (4.3% vs. 6%, p&lt;0.05) and neutrophil (2.2% vs. 6.9%, p&lt;0.05) in pBC relative to bone Mets. Further, CD4+ T cells were lower in pBC compared to lymph nodes (0% vs. 2.4%, p&lt;0.05). pBC had lower expression of immune checkpoint genes (PDCD1LG2, HAVCR2 and CD47) compared to other mets. pBC exhibited lower MAPK pathway activation score (-1.6 vs. 0.17, p=0.03) and a trend toward lower T cell-inflamed gene expression scores (-65 vs. 8, p=0.06) compared to bone mets. Bone mets had higher infiltration of M2 macrophage compared to lung (6% vs. 4.4%, p&lt;0.05) and lymph node (6% vs. 4.5%, p&lt;0.05). Neutrophil infiltration was elevated in bone versus liver (6.9% vs. 2%, p&lt;0.05) but T regulatory cells were lower in bone compared to lymph nodes (1% vs. 2.4%, p&lt;0.05). Bone showed reduced expression of CD47 (median TPM 50.6 vs. 109.9, p&lt;0.05) compared to skin. Further bone had lower IFN-gamma scores (-0.41 vs. -0.17, p&lt;0.05) compared to lymph node. Data on prior number and types of cancer treatment to give a context to the findings will be presented at the meeting. Conclusions: Our study highlights that each MaBC metastatic site harbors a unique genomic and immune landscape that can influence tumor behavior and potentially impact patient prognosis. Better understanding of metastatic site-specific molecular features in larger cohorts can help in the future research efforts and guiding treatment decisions. Citation Format: D. Trapani, S. Deshmukh, S. Wu, J. Xiu, N. Lin, G. Curigliano, P. Spanheimer, P. Advani, P. Barreto Coelho, M. Lustberg, G. Sledge Jr, S. Tolaney, J. Leone. Site specific Genomic and Immune Landscapes Underpinning in metastatic Male Breast Cancer [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium 2025; 2025 Dec 9-12; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Clin Cancer Res 2026;32(4 Suppl):Abstract nr PS2-08-04.

Abstract Advancements in the understanding of chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) have transformed patient care, leading to the development of novel targeted therapies. Traditionally, patient fitness for treatment was based on the tolerability of chemoimmunotherapy such as fludarabine–cyclophosphamide–rituximab. As the CLL patient population is predominantly older, age has historically been a major factor in how a physician selects a patient's treatment. However, as a patient's fitness goes beyond age, the definition of patient fitness should also evolve. Here, we provide suggestions for the current best practice on assessing fitness for treating CLL. Considerations for treatment include assessment of polypharmacy, history of infections, cardiovascular and renal comorbidities, functional status, cognitive and psychological status, nutritional status, and social support. The flow of assessments can start with a typical clinical evaluation followed by geriatric, cardiovascular, and renal reviews, if needed, and include collecting a patient's full history to evaluate their risk of complications with specific CLL treatments. The severity of a patient's cardiovascular profile can range from low to high risk; for those at high risk, collaboration with a cardiologist is recommended. Geriatric assessment is advised to determine baseline frailty and resilience to tolerate treatments, to avoid inappropriate treatment or undertreating patients based on chronological age, and to align the patient's fitness status with the most optimal treatment. Continuous monitoring and assessment, regardless of therapy, are recommended. Patient preferences are also integral to this decision‐making process. Looking beyond a patient's age and basing treatment selection on their fitness is key in the new era of treatment in CLL.

Abstract Background: Most patients with estrogen receptor-positive (ER+), metastatic breast cancer (mBC) treated with endocrine therapy (ET) will ultimately develop resistance. A large unmet need exists especially when resistance occurs following treatment with a cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitor (CDK4/6i), which is potentially driven by a mutation in the ERα-coding gene, ESR1. Lasofoxifene (LAS), an oral, next-generation ET and ER breast antagonist, was evaluated in two phase 2 studies of women with ER+/HER2- mBC and an ESR1 mutation who had disease progression on previous ET and CDK4/6i. In the ELAINE 1 trial, LAS monotherapy provided numerically greater progression-free survival (PFS, median 5.6 mos vs 3.7 mos; HR: 0.669 [95% CI, 0.445‒1.125], P=0.138), objective response rate (ORR, 13% vs 3%; P=0.124), and clinical benefit rate (CBR, 37% vs 22%; P=0.117) compared with the ER degrader fulvestrant (fulv), with a favorable safety profile (Goetz MP et al. Ann Oncol 2023;34:1141‒51). The single-arm, ELAINE 2 trial showed that LAS combined with abemaciclib (Abema) was well tolerated with a median PFS of ∼13 mos, ORR of 56%, and CBR of 66% (Damodaran S et al. Ann Oncol 2023;34:1131‒40). The phase 3, registrational, ELAINE 3 trial was initiated based on these promising earlier-phase data. Recent results from postMONARCH confirmed superior efficacy of fulv/Abema over fulv/placebo (mPFS 6.0 mos vs 5.3 mos, HR 0.73 [0.57‒0.95], nominal P-value 0.017) in non-biomarker‒selected, mBC patients after progression on a prior CDK4/6i and aromatase inhibitor (AI), with similar HR in an ESR1-mutated cohort (Kalinsky K et al. J Clin Oncol 2025;43:1101‒12). Additionally, recent data from EMBER-3 demonstrated meaningful PFS with a novel ET combined with abemaciclib after progression on AI/CDK4/6i (Jhaveri KL et al. N Engl J Med 2025;392:1189‒202). The ELAINE 3, global trial will compare LAS/Abema with fulv/Abema in a post-CDK4/6i, ESR1-mutation‒selected, mBC population. Methods: ELAINE 3 (NCT05696626) is an open-label, phase 3, multicenter study evaluating the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of LAS plus Abema versus fulv plus Abema. Patients are being enrolled at approximately 152 sites in 13 countries (Australia, Belgium, Canada, China, France, Italy, Israel, Poland, Romania, Spain, Taiwan, United Kingdom, United States). Key inclusion criteria are pre- and postmenopausal women and men aged ≥18 yrs; ER+/HER2-, locally advanced and/or mBC (measurable and/or non-measurable disease); ≥1 acquired ESR1 mutation; progression on an AI plus palbociclib or ribociclib as their first hormonal treatment for advanced/mBC; and ≤1 line of chemotherapy in the advanced/metastatic setting. Patients will be randomized 1:1 to receive LAS 5 mg/day plus Abema 150 mg BID, or fulv 500 mg IM (days 1, 15, and 29, then once monthly) plus Abema 150 mg BID. Treatment will continue until progression, death, unacceptable toxicity, or withdrawal from the study. The primary endpoint is PFS per RESIST 1.1 by blinded independent central review (BICR); key secondary endpoints are ORR, overall survival, CBR, duration of response, and time to response. Safety, time to cytotoxic chemotherapy, and quality of life (including vaginal health) will also be evaluated. Blood samples for circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) will be collected for genomic analyses at screening, at weeks 4 and 8 and every 8 weeks thereafter, and at the final visit. Outcomes with LAS/Abema and fulv/Abema will be compared using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model and stratified logrank test with an expected PFS hazard ratio of 0.68 at final analysis. Enrollment is currently ongoing to meet the target sample size of 500 patients. Citation Format: M. P. Goetz, S. A. Wander, T. Bachelot, G. Curigliano, A. de Nonneville, E. N. Gal-Yam, K. Jhaveri, S. L. Sammons, S. Shen, C. J. Twelves, G. Gasper, P. V. Plourde, D. J. Portman, S. Damodaran. Open-label, randomized, multicenter, phase 3, ELAINE 3 study of the efficacy and safety of lasofoxifene plus abemaciclib for treating ER+/HER2-, locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer with an ESR1 mutation [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium 2025; 2025 Dec 9-12; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Clin Cancer Res 2026;32(4 Suppl):Abstract nr PS5-07-30.

Abstract Background: Antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs) are increasingly used in the treatment of breast cancer due to their superior efficacy compared to conventional chemotherapy. The management of male breast cancer is largely extrapolated from clinical data in females and evidence regarding the efficacy of ADCs in men remains limited. This study aimed to compare survival outcomes between male and female breast cancer patients treated with ADCs across the spectrum of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) expression. Methods: We included total of 2,954 (Male: 34, Female: 2,920 breast cancer samples) from patients who underwent treatment with ADCs. We excluded patients with triple-negative breast cancer status due to the rarity of this subtype in males and the worse prognosis of triple-negative breast cancer, so that the cohorts would be more homogeneous without overrepresentation of triple-negative breast cancer in females. We categorized patients by HER2 status as: HER2-null (if there was 0% stain on HER2 IHC), HER2-ultra low (if HER2 IHC was 0 but with stain 1-10%), HER2-low (if HER2 IHC was 1+ or 2+ with a negative chromogenic in situ hybridization [CISH] assay), and HER2-positive (if HER2 IHC was 3+ or 2+ with a positive CISH assay). Real-world median overall survival was derived from insurance claims and calculated from the start of first ADC with either trastuzumab deruxtecan (T-DXd) or trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1) or sacituzumab govitecan (SG) to last contact using Kaplan-Meier. Statistical significance was assessed using chi-square and Mann-Whitney U. Results: The distribution of sex by HER2 expression group was: HER2-null: 8 males vs 612 females; HER2-ultra low 6 males vs 467 females; HER2-low 11 males vs 903 females; HER2-positive 9 males vs 938 females. Median survival from treatment initiation with either T-DXd or SG in the HER2-null cohort was 21.31 months in males vs 15.72 months in females (HR 0.82, 95% CI 0.33 - 2.01, p=0.67); in the HER2-ultra low cohort was 17.73 months in males vs 14.47 months in females (HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.26 - 2.63, p=0.76); in the HER2-low cohort was 11.08 months in males vs 18.62 months in females (HR 1.53, 95% CI 0.63 - 3.7; p=0.34). In the HER2-positive cohort, 5/9 males (55.5%) and 544/938 females (58%) were treated with T-DXd. Median survival from treatment initiation with either T-DXd or T-DM1 in the HER2-positive cohort was 36.55 months in males vs 46.52 months in females (HR 1.77, 95% CI 0.84 - 3.74, p=0.12). Conclusions: In this study, survival appears to be comparable between males and females with breast cancer across the spectrum of HER2 expression when both are treated with ADCs, although the survival in the HER2-positive cohort appears numerically lower in males, consistent with data on HER2-positive MaBC. An important limitation is the small sample size of the male breast cancer cohorts, and the lack of a categorization of HER2 in HR+ vs HR-, for the small MaBC sample size. However, to our knowledge this is the first analysis evaluating outcomes of men treated with ADCs across the spectrum of HER2 expression. Citation Format: D. Trapani, S. Deshmukh, S. Wu, J. Xiu, N. Lin, G. Curigliano, P. Spanheimer, S. Gandhi, S. Chumsri, S. Graff, M. Lustberg, G. Sledge Jr, S. Tolaney, J. Leone. Comparative efficacy of antibody drug conjugates (ADCs) in male versus female breast cancer across the spectrum of HER2 expression [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium 2025; 2025 Dec 9-12; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Clin Cancer Res 2026;32(4 Suppl):Abstract nr PS4-01-13.

Abstract Background: TheTAILORx trial established that adjuvant endocrine therapy (ET) is non-inferiorto chemotherapy plus ET (CET) in T1-2N0 HR+/HER2-negative early breast cancer(EBC) with an Oncotype DX (ODX) 21-gene recurrence score (RS) of 11-25, RS 0-10is associated with low distant recurrence (DR) rates with ET alone, and RS26-100 is associated with higher DR rates despite CET. Although ODX isprognostic for 10-year DR, it has limited value for late DR &gt;5 years. Inorder to develop improved DR risk prognostication, we developed multimodal AImodels integrating clinical, molecular, and histopathology features to provideprognostic information for early (&lt;5years), late (&gt;5 years), and overall DR at 15 years using primary tumorsamples and clinical data from volunteers who participated in TAILORx. Methods: DigitizedH&E slides were generated and nucleic acids extracted and sequenced from∼5000 primary tumor samples using Caris MI Tumor Seek-Hybrid, of which 2,808(56%) were used for model training and 5-fold nested cross validation (60/20/20split). Models included single-modality (clinical [C], image [I], molecular [M:ODX genes]), dual-modality (CM, IC), and multimodal (ICM). An expandedmolecular model (M+) model was also derived from expanded molecular inputsderived from whole transcriptome sequencing (WTS) data, including 5 commercialgene signatures (ODX, MammaPrint, Prosigna, EndoPredict, BCI) and 57 high-variancegenes; only EndoPredict, BCI, and ODX gene signatures were retained for model M+.Model-CM+ combined clinical plus expanded molecular features, while ICM/ICM+integrated image, clinical, and (expanded) molecular inputs. Risk scores were dichotomized into high vs. low risk groups usingthresholds chosen to yield risk group proportions closely matching thosedefined by the ODX RS cutoff of 25 for distinguishing high vs. low genomicrisk. Theprimary endpoint was distant recurrence (DR). Prognostic performance wasassessed using truncated concordance index (C-index, 90th percentile of eventtimes), hazard ratios (HRs), and log-rank tests. DNA-level whole exomesequencing (WES) features were also tested but did not provide additionalprognostic information and thus excluded from final models. Results: Theactual ODX continuous RS achieved a C-index of 0.625 for overall DR and 0.743early DR, but no prognostic value for late DR (0.52). Similar results for theC-index were observed for ODX+C for overall DR (0.619), early DR (0.724), andlate DR (0.514). Of all modelsevaluated, model-ICM+ gave the best overall prognostic accuracy for overall DR (C-index0.713; hazard ratio [HR] 3.56 for comparison of high vs. low risk, p&lt;0.001)and late DR (C-index 0.655; HR 2.36, p&lt;0.001), and ranked second for earlyDR (C-index 0.772; HR 6.59, p&lt;0.001) behind the CM+ model (C-index 0.782). Amongsingle-modality models, Model-M+ improved early DR prognostication comparedwith a molecular model including only ODX genes(C-index 0.767 vs 0.744 for M),whereas Model-I was strongest for late DR prognostication (C-index 0.635). Conclusions: Molecularfeatures primarily drove prognostic accuracy for early DR within 5 years,whereas histopathology features strengthened the prognostic accuracy for lateDR after 5 years. Multimodal models captured these complementary signals, withICM+ giving the best overall accuracy for individualized prognostic assessment.Additional validation of the optimized ICM+ model and other models is beingperformed in an intendent validation sample of 2000 TAILORx volunteers, withresults to be presented at the meeting.Supported by the Breast CancerResearch Foundation and the U.S. NIH/NCI U10CA180820 and 5U24CA196172, and theU.S. Postal Service Breast Cancer Stamp Fund. Citation Format: J. A. Sparano, V. Wang, R. J. Gray, D. F. Makower, K. S. Albain, D. F. Hayes, C. E. Geyer, E. C. Dees, M. P. Goetz, J. A. Olson, S. S. Badve, T. J. Saphner, T. J. Whelan, M. Radovich, V. G. Kaklamani, G. W. Sledge. Multimodal artificial intelligence (AI) models integrating image, clinical, and molecular data for predicting early and late breast cancer recurrence in TAILORx [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium 2025; 2025 Dec 9-12; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Clin Cancer Res 2026;32(4 Suppl):Abstract nr GS1-08.

Abstract Background: The current standard of care for first-line (1L) treatment of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive (HER2+) metastatic breast cancer (MBC) consists of induction chemotherapy combined with trastuzumab (TRAS) and pertuzumab (PERT) followed by maintenance therapy with TRAS + PERT. Although this regimen has been associated with sustained disease control, most patients eventually experience disease progression. The HER2CLIMB-05(NCT05132582) study is investigating the efficacy and safety of adding tucatinib to TRAS + PERT as maintenance therapy in patients with HER2+ MBC after completion of 1L chemotherapy-based induction therapy. Methods: Patients with centrally confirmed HER2+MBC without evidence of progression after 1L induction therapy with 4 to 8cycles of a taxane combined with TRAS + PERT, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) of 0 or 1, and no or asymptomatic brain metastases (BM) were enrolled in HER2CLIMB-05. Contrast-enhanced brain magnetic resonance imaging was performed at screening and regular intervals during the study. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive either tucatinib 300 mg or placebo twice daily, in combination with either TRAS (6 mg/kg IV or 600 mg SC) plus PERT (420 mg/kg IV) or a SC fixed-dose combination of TRAS, PERT, and hyaluronidase administered every 21 days. Endocrine therapy was permitted for patients with hormone receptor-positive tumors. The primary endpoint is investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS) per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors v1.1. Secondary endpoints include overall survival (OS), PFS by blinded independent central review, investigator-assessed central nervous system (CNS)-PFS, and safety. Results: Between March 2022 and July 2024, 654 patients were randomly assigned to receive tucatinib (n = 326) or placebo (n = 328) with1L maintenance therapy. All patients were female (median age: 54 years [range, 24-83]);45.0% were White, 35.2% were Asian, 2.9% were Black/African American, and 19.3%were Hispanic/Latino(a)/Spanish origin. Most patients had ECOG PS of 0 (64.1%)and de novo metastatic disease (69.3%). At baseline, 12.4% of patients had presence or history of BM and 52.6% had hormone receptor-positive MBC. As of September5, 2025, PFS was statistically significantly improved with the addition of tucatinib versus placebo to 1L maintenance therapy (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.641 [95%confidence interval (CI), 0.514-0.799]; 2-sided P &lt; 0.0001). All prespecified patient subgroups demonstrated a PFS benefit with tucatinib combination 1L maintenance therapy consistent with the overall population and regardless of presence or absence of BM at baseline or hormone-receptor status. OS is still immature (observed number of deaths = 51;tucatinib arm versus control arm HR = 0.539 [95% CI, 0.303-0.957; 2-sided P= 0.032]). In the safety analysis set, the most common treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) in the tucatinib arm (n = 326) were diarrhea (72.7%), nausea (33.1%), and elevated liver enzymes (alanine aminotransferase: 28.2%; aspartate aminotransferase:25.8%), of which 6.1%, 0.9%, 13.5%, and 7.1% were, respectively, grade ≥ 3. In the tucatinib arm, 13.5% of patients discontinued tucatinib due to TEAEs. Conclusions: In the HER2CLIMB-05 trial, the addition of tucatinib to TRAS + PERT as 1L maintenance therapy demonstrated a statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in PFS with a manageable safety profile in patients with HER2+ MBC. Citation Format: E. Hamilton, G. Curigliano, M. Martin, F. Lerebours, J. Tsurutani, M. Savard, K. Jerzak, X. Hu, L. Martins de Aquino Pimentel, C. O'Sullivan, E. Tokunaga, A. Okines, C. Huang, W. Jacot, J. Sohn, E. Cronemberger Silva, V. Mueller, S. Yang, G. Granata, Q. Shen, L. Santarpia, V. Dieras Her2climb-05: a randomized, double-blind, phase 3 study of tucatinib versus placebo in combination with trastuzumab and pertuzumab as maintenance therapy for her2+ metastatic breast cancer [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium 2025; 2025 Dec 9-12; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Clin Cancer Res 2026;32(4 Suppl):Abstract nr GS1-01.

ABSTRACT This international, multidisciplinary consensus report represents the first effort to systematically define and characterize fatty pancreas. A key outcome of this endeavor was the recommendation to adopt “fatty pancreas” as the standardized and inclusive term to describe all forms of fat accumulation in the pancreas. This terminological consensus provides a critical foundation for unified reporting and clinical communication. Another major contribution of the report is the consensus on diagnostic imaging findings, which was based on radiological and endoscopic modalities. The proposed criteria aim to enhance consistency in clinical assessment and support the development of standardized research protocols. In addition to establishing terminology and diagnostic frameworks, the report also synthesizes current knowledge across a wide range of relevant domains. These include the etiology and epidemiology of fatty pancreas, as well as its associations with alcohol consumption, smoking, acute and chronic pancreatitis, pancreatic exocrine insufficiency, type 2 diabetes mellitus, and surgical outcomes. The potential links between fatty pancreas and neoplastic conditions such as intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms and pancreatic cancer are also addressed, alongside the current understanding of its metabolic implications (beta‐cell function and glucose homeostasis) and treatment strategies. Throughout the consensus process, a consistent theme emerged: the limited availability of high‐quality, prospective clinical data. Therefore, many of the recommendations in this report are based on expert consensus rather than strong empirical evidence. As such, the statements require rigorous prospective validation before they can be adopted into routine clinical practice. This underscores a critical need for further research, particularly studies aimed at clarifying causal relationships, validating diagnostic tools, and determining the clinical relevance of fatty pancreas across diverse patient populations. This report serves as both a summary of our current understanding and a roadmap for future investigations, aiming to close existing knowledge gaps and guide evidence‐based clinical practice in this emerging field.