Citations

Complement-mediated hemolytic uremic syndrome (CM-HUS), commonly referred to as atypical HUS, is a rare thrombotic microangiopathy caused by uncontrolled activation of the alternative complement pathway, typically triggered by a “two-hit” mechanism. It is characterized by microangiopathic hemolytic anemia, thrombocytopenia, and end-organ damage, most commonly affecting the kidneys. While our understanding of the complement system has advanced significantly, CM-HUS remains a complex, heterogeneous disorder influenced by a spectrum of genetic variants, risk haplotypes, and acquired factors such as anti-factor H autoantibodies. This review highlights the current knowledge of CM-HUS pathogenesis, focusing on genetic variants in regulatory and activating proteins of the complement system. We also discuss the diagnostic complexity posed by incomplete penetrance, overlapping phenotypes, and limitations of genetic and functional assays. Emerging ex-vivo assays and complement biomarkers are explored as tools for refining diagnosis and risk stratification. The use of complement inhibitors such as eculizumab and ravulizumab has significantly improved renal outcomes and survival. This review provides a comprehensive, clinically grounded update on the genetics, pathophysiology, diagnostics, and therapeutic considerations in CM-HUS, aiming to provide clinicians and researchers with a deeper understanding of this complex, complement-driven disease.

TPS646 Background: SSTR-targeted RPT has transformed the treatment landscape for NETs, significantly improving clinical outcomes in phase 3 studies versus other targeted therapies. Nevertheless, disease progression and renal toxicity after treatment highlight the need for further improvement. Use of the α-emitter 225 Ac as the radioactive component has shown promising results in clinical studies: initial data from ACTION-1 suggest promising efficacy for RYZ101, a first-in-class, highly potent α-emitting RPT, in patients with SSTR+ GEP-NETs progressing after 2–4 cycles of 177 Lu-somatostatin analogs. RYZ401 is a cyclic 6-amino acid SSTR-targeting peptide agonist conjugated to a DOTA chelator bound to 225 Ac. Preclinical data have shown an improved therapeutic window versus DOTATATE. RYZ401 has the potential to deliver higher radiation doses to tumors, with improved renal clearance and lower kidney absorbed dose, potentially eliminating the need for amino acid infusion. Methods: RYZ401-101 is a global, multicenter, phase 1, first-in-human, dose-escalation/-expansion study designed to determine the recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) and optimal treatment regimen, safety and tolerability, and preliminary efficacy of RYZ401 in patients with NETs and other selected solid tumors expressing SSTRs. Key eligibility criteria: histologically confirmed metastatic or unresectable well-differentiated NETs; WHO grade 1–3 (Ki-67 ≤55%); ≥1 SSTR PET-positive measurable lesion; and disease progression after ≥1 prior treatment line. In dose escalation, 6–18 patients will receive escalating doses of RYZ401 (2.0–11.1 MBq IV Q6W × 2–4 cycles); no amino acid co-infusion is planned. In dose expansion, approximately 80 patients will receive RYZ401 at the RP2D, 40 patients with well-differentiated GEP-NETs (cohort A) and 40 with other SSTR+ tumors including non-GEP-NETs (cohort B). Primary endpoints: dose-limiting toxicities in weeks 1–4 of treatment (dose escalation) and safety (dose expansion). Secondary endpoints: safety, pharmacokinetics, and efficacy outcomes (dose escalation and expansion). RYZ401 dosimetry will be evaluated in a sub-study of 10−16 patients. Enrollment is ongoing in the USA. Clinical trial information: NCT07165132 .

741 Background: IP strategies directly target the peritoneal compartment in PDAC, where systemic chemotherapy alone demonstrates poor efficacy. Approaches include HIPEC, normothermic intraperitoneal paclitaxel (NIPEC/IP-PTX) given with systemic therapy, and PIPAC. This systematic review synthesizes evidence on feasibility, perioperative safety, and clinical outcomes of IP therapy in PDAC. Methods: We conducted a systematic search in PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane databases for studies published through August 2025. Eligible studies included prospective or retrospective studies evaluating HIPEC, NIPEC/IP-PTX, or PIPAC with extractable safety or oncologic outcomes. Outcomes included feasibility, 30-day mortality, perioperative complications, locoregional recurrence (LRR) in the adjuvant setting, overall survival (OS) from peritoneal metastasis (PM) diagnosis or first IP therapy, conversion-to-resection, and histologic/radiologic response. Results: Sixteen studies met criteria, including 7 on HIPEC, 5 on NIPEC/IP-PTX, and 4 on PIPAC. In the adjuvant setting, 2 HIPEC studies demonstrated high feasibility (>85%), 0–5% 30-day mortality, and complication rates comparable to pancreatectomy. A randomized trial reported significantly lower LRR with adjuvant gemcitabine HIPEC. Median OS in treated arms was ~17–18 months, with 1-year OS ~63%. In the cytoreductive surgery (CRS) plus HIPEC setting for isolated peritoneal metastases, patients achieved CC-0/1 cytoreduction in most cases, with median OS ~24–41 months and 1-, 2-, and 3-year OS ranging 60–91%, 33–66%, and 39–59%, respectively. Thirty-day mortality was 0–4.3%, and major morbidity 20–43%. For NIPEC/IP-PTX, multicenter and single-institution cohorts consistently reported median OS ~14–16 months, 1-year OS ~60%, and conversion-to-resection rates of 17–24%. Ascites control and feasibility were reproducible, and device-related adverse events were generally manageable. PIPAC programs established oxaliplatin at 120 mg/m² as the recommended dose, with ~50–60% histologic regression by PRGS and disease stabilization in 50–60% after 1–2 cycles. Median OS in PDAC subsets was ~9–13 months, with low major toxicity, though early discontinuation was frequent in progressive disease. Conclusions: Intraperitoneal therapies for PDAC are feasible and show promising biologic and clinical signals. Adjuvant HIPEC reduces locoregional recurrence without excess mortality; CRS plus HIPEC can achieve multi-year survival in selected patients with isolated PM metastases; NIPEC/IP-PTX offers reproducible survival and conversion-to-resection; and PIPAC provides histologic regression with acceptable safety.

707 Background: Due to insufficient data, therapy for unresectable, locally advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma (LAPAC) is based on trials in metastatic disease, and outcomes remain poor. TTFields disrupt cancer cell division using alternating low-frequency electric fields delivered externally by a portable device. In the phase 3 PANOVA-3 trial (NCT03377491), TTFields with gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel (GnP) significantly improved overall survival (OS; HR 0.82) and pain-free survival (HR 0.74) vs GnP in patients with unresectable LAPAC. Methods: In PANOVA-3, patients with newly diagnosed LAPAC were randomized 1:1 to receive GnP with or without concomitant TTFields. Kaplan-Meier methodology was used for time-to-event analyses. Response evaluations were based on RECIST V1.1. OS, pain-free survival, and safety were analyzed post-hoc in subgroups based on sex (male, female), age ( < 65, ≥65 years), and BMI (<25, ≥25 kg/m 2 for efficacy; ≤20, 20–25, 25–30, ≥30 kg/m 2 for safety). Differences between treatment arms were compared using the log-rank test. Results: Efficacy outcomes are shown in the table. TTFields significantly extended pain-free survival in females and patients ≥65 years. Device-related adverse events (AEs) were comparable between sexes, older and younger patients, and across BMI ranges. Some device-related skin adverse events occurred more frequently in females (e.g. dermatitis, 33.1% vs 22.7%; rash 21.8% vs 13.5%, females vs males, respectively); others occurred more often in males (e.g. maculo-papular rash, 9.8% vs 14.2%; erythema, 9% vs 12.1%, females vs males, respectively). Dermatitis and pruritus had a higher incidence in the BMI ≥30 kg/m 2 subgroup (38.5%), whereas patients with BMI <30 kg/m 2 did not show noticeable differences in device-related AEs. Skin irritation (11.5% vs 5.5%) and skin reactions (8.5% vs 2.8%) were more common in patients ≥65 years than patients <65 years. Conclusions: Median OS and pain-free survival in these post-hoc subgroup analyses are generally consistent with the overall analysis, supporting use of TTFields with GnP in unresectable LAPAC. No new safety concerns were noted; observations were consistent with the general PANOVA-3 population. Clinical trial information: NCT03377491 . Survival outcomes for the subgroup analyses. Median OS, months TTFields + GnP GnP P value Age<65 years≥65 years 18.6 (n=113)15.4 (n=172) 16.0 (n=114)12.9 (n=172) 0.2060.061 SexFemaleMale 16.8 (n=138)15.7 (n=147) 14.5 (n=161)13.4 (n=125) 0.1140.145 BMI<25≥25 16.7 (n=166)16.2 (n=117) 14.2 (n=174)14.5 (n=108) 0.1550.105 Median pain-free survival, months Age<65 years≥65 years 16.5 (n=113)13.1 (n=172) 9.2 (n=114)8.3 (n=172) 0.4070.035 SexFemaleMale 16.5 (n=138)15.2 (n=147) 8.3 (n=161)9.3 (n=125) 0.0260.478 BMI<25≥25 16.6 (n=166)14.7 (n=117) 9.1 (n=174)8.3 (n=108) 0.1170.088

632 Background: Paltusotine is an oral, nonpeptide, selective somatostatin receptor 2 agonist. In a phase 2 study, treatment with once-daily paltusotine reduced the frequency and severity of carcinoid syndrome (CS) symptoms and was well tolerated. The effect of paltusotine on biomarkers of serotonin and 5-hydroxyindoleacetic acid (5-HIAA) was further explored. Methods: This exploratory study, without formal power calculations, included an 8-week randomized treatment phase (completed) and a 102-week open-label extension phase (currently ongoing). The purpose was to evaluate safety, pharmacokinetics, and exploratory efficacy endpoints, including changes in biomarkers of paltusotine treatment. Enrolled patients were adults with a stable, documented grade 1 or 2 neuroendocrine tumor (NET) and CS. These patients were actively symptomatic and either untreated with somatostatin receptor ligand (SRL) therapy (average of ≥4 bowel movements [BMs] per day or >2 flushing episodes per day in ≥2 days over a 2-week period) or washed out of SRL therapy (symptoms previously controlled on SRL), with demonstrated symptom worsening after washout. Patients were randomized to once-daily paltusotine 40 mg or 80 mg; one optional uptitration (from 40 mg to 80 mg or 80 mg to 120 mg) was permitted. Blood samples for assessment of biomarkers (serum serotonin and plasma 5-HIAA) were collected longitudinally from screening to end of treatment. Upper limit of normal was prespecified as 541 ng/mL for serotonin and 22 ng/mL for 5-HIAA. This analysis focuses on changes in biomarker from baseline to the end of 8-week randomized treatment phase and after approximately one year (48 weeks). Results: Thirty-six patients (n=9 untreated; n=27 SRL washout) were randomized. Mean age was 60.8 years (range 35-83), and 52.8% were female. Nineteen patients had grade 1 NETs, and 17 had grade 2 NETs. As reported previously, treatment with once-daily, oral paltusotine was well tolerated and reduced the frequency and severity of CS symptoms, justifying further clinical development of the 80 mg dose. Mean serum serotonin decreased from 1553.0 ng/mL at baseline to 643.9 ng/mL at Week 8, and mean plasma 5-HIAA decreased from 245.1 ng/mL to 159.7 ng/mL. There was a trend of untreated patients achieving a greater reduction in comparison to washout patients. At 48-week follow-up, mean serum serotonin was stabilized at 791.50 ng/mL (n=20), and mean plasma 5-HIAA was stabilized at 190.45 ng/mL (n=20). Conclusions: Paltusotine significantly reduced serotonin and 5-HIAA levels, with effects maintained at 48 weeks. Biomarker reductions paralleled reductions in BM and flushing frequency. These findings support further investigation in the ongoing phase 3 study (CAREFNDR, NCT07087054). Clinical trial information: NCT05361668 .

622 Background: Colorectal small and large cell neuroendocrine carcinoma (SCNEC and LCNEC) comprise <1% of colorectal cancers and have poor prognosis. Detailed survival information is limited due to rarity. We analyzed survival outcomes using Survival, Epidemiology, and End Result (SEER) database (2000-2022) and compared with NETs and adenocarcinoma (AC). Methods: All patients with SCNEC, LCNEC, NETs or AC with colorectal primaries were extracted. AJCC stage was calculated with 8 th ed. TNM classification. Kaplan-Meier estimator, log-rank test, and Cox regression (including AJCC stage, surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy variables) were used to analyze survival outcomes. Results: Comparing colon and rectal primaries, the only significant mOS difference was in stage IV SCNEC (2 vs 7 months, p<0.0001). Comparing LCNEC and SCNEC, the only significant mOS difference was in stage IV colon SCNEC and LCNEC (2 vs 5 months, p<0.0001). Stage III and IV colorectal SCNEC and LCNEC had significantly shorter mOS than stage III and IV AC and NETs. In multivariate Cox regressions, surgery and chemotherapy were associated with significantly improved survival for both SCNEC and LCNEC at both primaries (p<0.001), while radiation was never significant. Conclusions: Most colorectal SCNEC and LCNEC patients present with stage IV disease. Stage IV colon SCNEC had significantly shorter mOS than both stage IV colon LCNEC and stage IV rectal SCNEC. Further research should explore early diagnosis and effective therapies for this rare, aggressive malignancy. Median overall survival (months) Colon SCNEC (n/mOS) Colon LCNEC (n/mOS) Colon NETs (n/mOS) Colon AC (n/mOS) SCNEC vs NETs in colon: P-value LCNEC vs NETs in colon: P-value SCNEC vs AC in colon: P-value LCNEC vs AC in colon: P-value SCNEC vs LCNEC in colon: P-value Rectal SCNEC (n/mOS) Rectal LCNEC (n/mOS) Rectal NETs (n/mOS) Rectal AC (n/mOS) SCNEC vs NETs in rectum: P-value LCNEC vs NETs in rectum: P-value SCNEC vs AC in rectum P-value LCNEC vs AC in rectum SCNEC vs LCNEC in rectum: P-value Colon SCNEC vs rectal SCNEC P-value Colon LCNEC vs rectal LCNEC: P-value Stage I 19/32 17/122 4496/NA 114,213/144 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 0.34 0.25 27/23 10/28 5185/NA 54,702/160 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 0.00047 0.88 0.99 0.24 Stage II 17/38 30/49 259/NA 121,757/106 0.0015 <0.0001 0.4 0.0068 0.65 17/16 3/NA 33/NA 38,417/106 <0.0001 0.57 <0.0001 0.87 0.3 0.065 0.55 Stage III 40/14 107/13 582/184 104,793/82 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 0.48 50/19 37/17 103/102 46,687/107 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 0.45 0.48 0.47 Stage IV 245/2 217/5 393/49 83,542/13 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 260/7 57/6 158/36 36,652/17 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 0.25 <0.0001 0.95

392 Background: PAC+RAM is the standard second-line therapy for advanced GEA. However, PAC-related neuropathy is a major challenge, particularly since many pts have pre-existing neuropathy from prior platinum exposure. An effective “neuropathy-free” regimen remains an unmet need. We evaluated FTD-TPI+RAM as an alternative to PAC+RAM. Methods: This multi-center, randomized, phase II study enrolled GEA pts who progressed on or were intolerant to fluoropyrimidine+ platinum therapy. Pts were randomized to FTD-TPI+RAM (Arm A) or PAC+RAM (arm B) at a 1:1 ratio. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS), defined as time interval between randomization date and the date of disease progression or death; Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS) and adverse events (AEs). The design hypothesized non-inferiority (NI) of Arm A to Arm B with a NI margin of hazard ratio 1.19. 90 PFS events from 116 pts provide 80% power with a one-sided alpha of 0.15. The interim futility analysis, conducted in December 2024 with 20 events, did not cross the futility boundary (Z statistic ≥ 1.172 ) and continued enrolling pts. The trial closed enrollment in March 2025 due to slow accrual. At the time of interim analysis, 20 events had occurred and the Z statistic was 0.4532. Final analysis included the 29 pts that were eligible, consented, randomized, and received any protocol treatment. Results: Among 29 pts (15 Arm A; 14 Arm B), baseline characteristics were balanced (in Arms A vs B, median age 64 vs 63; 80% vs 85.7% male; 86.7%% vs 78.6% White; 80% vs 78.6% ECOG 1). At data freeze of 8/4/2025, 26 PFS events were reported. Median PFS was 3.2 vs. 3.9 months in Arm A vs. Arm B (HR 1.37, 95% CI 0.61-3.02). NI was not demonstrated (Z =0.34, threshold for NI<-1.036). Median OS was 8.4 vs. 10.7 months, in Arms A and B, respectively. Grade ≥3 AEs occurred in 93% (Arm A) vs 71% (Arm B) with hematologic AEs occurring more frequently in Arm A than Arm B (53% vs 29%). Peripheral sensory neuropathy (any grade) occurred more frequently in Arm B (86%) vs. Arm A (47%). Conclusions: Although NI was not achieved due to early closure and small sample size, FTD-TPI+RAM was relatively safe and associated with less neuropathy compared with PAC+RAM. This regimen warrants further evaluation for pts in whom neuropathy limits taxane use. Clinical trial information: NCT04660760 .

381 Background: In RATIONALE-306 (NCT03783442), patients (pts) with LA unresectable or metastatic ESCC who received TIS (intravenously, 200 mg, every 3 weeks) + CT (platinum + fluoropyrimidine or paclitaxel) had longer median overall survival (OS) than pts who received PBO + CT at the interim analysis; improvement was maintained after a ≥3-year follow-up. Post hoc analyses in the PD-L1 TAP ≥1% subgroup showed clinically meaningful improvement with TIS + CT. These data supported the US FDA approval for unresectable or metastatic ESCC. Here we report the subgroup analysis of pts who had LA ESCC with PD-L1 TAP score ≥1%. Methods: Pts who had LA unresectable ESCC with PD-L1 TAP score ≥1% were included in this post hoc analysis. Efficacy outcomes (OS, progression-free survival [PFS], objective response rate [ORR], duration of response [DoR]) and safety were analyzed. Results: At data cutoff (Feb 28, 2022), of 649 pts randomized, 63 had LA ESCC with PD-L1 TAP score ≥1% (TIS + CT n=31; PBO + CT n=32; median age 67.0 years; 85.7% male). At median follow-up (TIS + CT 24.4 months; PBO + CT 24.5 months), efficacy with TIS + CT was improved vs PBO + CT (Table) and was consistent with the intent-to-treat (ITT) population. Efficacy was maintained after a ≥3-year follow-up (data cutoff: Nov 24, 2023; Table). Conclusions: In this post-hoc analysis, the median OS for pts receiving TIS + CT exceeded two years. The regimen was well tolerated. While the findings require validation in future clinical trials, first-line TIS + CT is an encouraging option for pts who have LA unresectable ESCC with PD-L1 TAP score ≥1%. Clinical trial information: NCT03783442 . Interim Analysis 3-Year Follow-up TIS + CT (n=31) PBO + CT (n=32) TIS + CT (n=32) e PBO + CT (n=31) f Median OS, mo(95% CI) 25.6 (15.3, NE) 11.5(9.0, 21.8) 25.6 (15.3, NE) 12.3(9.0, 21.8) HR (95% CI) a 0.36 (0.17, 0.77) – 0.50 (0.26, 0.95) – Median PFS, a mo(95% CI) 13.2(6.8, NE) 6.7(4.2, 9.7) 13.2(6.8, 27.7) 6.7(4.2, 9.7) HR (95% CI) a 0.46 (0.22, 0.96) – 0.47 (0.23, 0.96) – ORR, b,c n (%) 18 (58.1) 10 (31.3) 19 (59.4) 10 (32.3) Median DoR, b,d mo(95% CI) Not reached (8.4, NE) 5.7 (1.5, 9.6) 22.1 (6.1, NE) 5.7 (1.5, 9.6) a Stratified. b Investigator assessed. c Unconfirmed. d Based on unconfirmed ORR. e One patient’s disease status at baseline was changed to LA after interim analysis. f One patient’s disease status at baseline was changed to metastatic after interim analysis. NE, not estimable.

380 Background: KRAS amplifications (amp) occur in ~2% of solid tumors, representing a high unmet need for effective targeted therapies. BI3706674 binds to GDP-bound KRAS and locks KRAS protein in an inactive form. In preclinical models, BI3706674 has shown potent inhibition of KRAS-amp tumors. Methods: This is a Phase Ia/b trial (NCT06056024) to explore the safety, pharmacokinetics (PK), pharmacodynamics (PD) and efficacy of BI 3706674 in patients (pts) with unresectable or metastatic KRAS wild type amp or KRAS G12V mutated (mut) solid tumors. The trial aimed to define the maximum tolerated dose (MTD). Pts (ECOG 0 -1) received BI 3706674 daily per os at 50 - 1200 mg doses. Dose escalation (DE) was guided by a Bayesian logistic regression model. This report focuses on KRAS wt amp pts from Phase Ia (DE). Results: As of 31 July 2025, 46 pts had received BI 3706674. Pts (n=15/46) with KRAS wt amp tumors had upper gastrointestinal tract (uGI) cancer [n=9: gastric (GAC;n=5), oesophageal (EAC; n=2), gastroesophageal junction (GEJC; n=2) cancers], Cholangiocarcinoma (n=1), colorectal (CRC; n=4), and ovarian (OC; n=1) cancers. Pts were treated at 200 mg (n=2), 400 mg (n=1), 800 mg (n=5), 1200 mg (n=7) doses; males: n=11; ECOG 1: n=10; median age - 62 years (range 38–83); median number of prior treatment lines was 3 (range 1-6). AEs were reported in 15 pts (100%), including 12 pts (80%) with treatment-related AEs (TRAE). High-grade AEs (Grade 3-5) were reported in 10 pts (66.7%), including 4 pts (26.7%) with TRAEs. SAEs were reported in 7 pts (46.7%), including 2 pts (13.3%) with TRAEs. The most-frequent AEs were mostly low-grade (Grade 1-2) diarrhoea (10 pts, 66.7%), nausea (10 pts, 66.7%), and vomiting (9 pts, 60.0%), often reported as TRAE. Two dose limiting toxicities were observed in 1200 mg group: nausea (Grade 3) and vomiting (Grade 3). MTD was not reached. BI 3706674 PK parameters followed the predicted non-linear PK model; dose dependent systemic exposure reached plateau at 800 mg. 12/15 pts with KRAS wt amp tumors, including 10/12 pts in 800 – 1200 mg groups, were efficacy evaluable; Disease control rate (DCR) was 58.3% (7/12 pts): 3/ 12 pts with partial response (PR), 4/12 had stable disease (SD), 5/12 pts - disease progression (PD). In 800 – 1200 mg groups 1 - OC, 2 – CRC pts achieved SD. PK/PD/efficacy correlation data is pending. Conclusions: BI 3706674 showed a tolerable safety profile and clinical efficacy in pts with KRAS amp tumors. Study results provide clinical proof of concept. KRAS wt amp is a druggable target and KRAS-targeting treatment is active in KRAS wt amp uGI cancer pts. Clinical trial information: NCT06056024 . Anticancer activity of BI 3706674 in efficacy evaluable pts with KRAS wt amp tumors. All pts, 200 – 1200 mg, N=12 Pts with uGI cancers,800 – 1200mg, N=7 ORR, n (%) 3* (25%) 3* (43%) SD, n (%) 4 (33.3%) 1 (14%) DCR, n (%) 7 (58.3%) 4 (57%) PD, n (%) 5 (41.7%) 3 (43%) *Tumor shrinkage: -60.3%, -34% and 34.3%.