Citations

11177 Background: Early detection of recurrence after curative-intent treatment is a critical priority, traditional imaging often detects relapse when disease burden is high, potentially limiting treatment efficacy. ctDNA has emerged as an established prognostic biomarker for molecular residual disease (MRD) detection and early relapse. We performed a real-world meta-analysis on published datasets that utilized personalized, tumor-informed ctDNA testing to assess its performance across tumor types and clinical management approaches. Methods: Real-world studies published from December 2022 to December 2025 using the personalized, tumor-informed Signatera ctDNA assay (Natera, Inc.) were included. Eligibility required ctDNA assessment in the MRD (2–16 weeks post-surgery (histology dependent)/pre adjuvant therapy (ACT)) and/or surveillance (post-ACT/end of the MRD window if no ACT was given) settings, with outcomes stratified by ctDNA status and hazard ratios (HR) reported from univariable or time-dependent Cox regression analysis. Exclusions included: clinical trials, biobanks, metastatic disease treated with palliative intent, case reports, reviews, editorials, or commentaries. Clinical outcomes were harmonized into a composite event-free survival (EFS) endpoint (time to recurrence, progression, or death). Pooled HRs and 95% CIs were estimated using random and fixed effects models and heterogeneity between studies was assessed using the I 2 and Cochran’s Q test. Median lead time from ctDNA-positivity to radiographic or clinical recurrence was summarized when available. Results: We identified 18 eligible publications comprising 3,004 unique patients across 15 solid tumor types. During the MRD window, ctDNA positivity was associated with a significantly increased risk of an EFS event compared with ctDNA negativity (pooled HR: 8.15; 95% CI: 6.12–10.85, I 2 = 0.00%, P = 0.844, n = 13). During the surveillance window, inclusive of post-definitive treatment, ctDNA positivity conferred an even greater EFS risk (pooled HR: 18.30; 95% CI: 14.17–23.65, I 2 = 0%, P = 0.911 for heterogeneity, n = 16). Across studies, ctDNA detection during surveillance preceded radiographic or clinical recurrence by a median of 3.20 months (95% CI: 2.50-4.10, P < 0.0001, n = 10), although this varied substantially by study/tumor type (I 2 = 80.9%). Conclusions: In this pan-cancer real-world meta-analysis, ctDNA positivity assessed using a tumor-informed assay was highly prognostic following curative-intent therapy at all timepoints evaluated with low heterogeneity between studies. These findings support the broad clinical utility of tumor-informed ctDNA testing for post-treatment risk stratification and longitudinal disease monitoring across solid tumors.

PURPOSE Tumor treating fields (TTFields) use alternating electric fields to disrupt cancer cell proliferation. Feasibility of TTFields therapy with gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel was previously demonstrated in patients with advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma. PANOVA-3 was designed to confirm safety and efficacy of TTFields in patients with unresectable locally advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma (LA-PAC). METHODS In this global phase III trial, 571 patients with newly diagnosed LA-PAC were randomly assigned to receive gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m 2 and nab-paclitaxel 125 mg/m 2 by intravenous infusion once a day on days 1, 8, and 15 of a 28-day cycle with or without TTFields. The primary end point was overall survival (OS). Secondary end points included progression-free survival (PFS), local PFS, pain-free survival, and overall response rate (ORR). Distant PFS was analyzed post hoc. RESULTS OS was significantly prolonged using TTFields with gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel versus gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel (median, 16.2 months [95% CI, 15.0 to 18.0] v 14.2 months [95% CI, 12.8 to 15.4]; hazard ratio [HR], 0.82 [95% CI, 0.68 to 0.99]; P = .039). PFS, local PFS, and ORR were not improved. Pain-free survival was significantly prolonged with TTFields with gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel (median, 15.2 months [95% CI, 10.3 to 22.8] v 9.1 months [95% CI, 7.4 to 12.7]; HR, 0.74 [95% CI, 0.56 to 0.97]; P = .027), as was distant PFS (median, 13.9 months [95% CI, 12.2 to 16.8] v 11.5 months [95% CI, 10.4 to 12.9]; HR, 0.74 [95% CI, 0.57 to 0.96]; P = .022). Device-related skin adverse events (AEs) were experienced by 76.3% of patients. Most device-related skin AEs were mild to moderate, with 7.7% of patients reporting a grade 3 AE. CONCLUSION This study demonstrated significant OS, pain-free survival, and distant PFS benefits for TTFields with gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel versus gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel in patients with unresectable LA-PAC, with no additive systemic toxicity.

Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the characteristics, clinical outcomes, and resource use of patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (uHCC) treated with first-line (1L) atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (A+B) at five United States (US) institutions: the Mayo Clinic, Houston Methodist, Moffitt Cancer Center, Mays Cancer Center, and University of Arizona. Methods: Treating oncologists extracted data from medical charts of patients with uHCC who were treated with A+B after 1 January 2019. Real-world progression-free survival (rwPFS) and overall survival (OS) were assessed using the Kaplan–Meier method for the overall cohort and for a “trial-like” subgroup with characteristics similar to those in the IMbrave150 trial (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status [ECOG PS] 0–1, Child–Pugh [CP] class A, albumin–bilirubin grade 1–2). Results: Of the 300 patients in the overall cohort (median age of 68 years; 12% ECOG PS ≥ 2; 73% CP A; 26% CP B; median follow-up of 8.7 months), the median rwPFS was 6.8 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 5.8, 8.4) months, and the median OS was 14.4 (95% CI: 12.3, 18.2) months. In the trial-like subgroup (n = 194), the median rwPFS was 8.8 (95% CI: 7.6, 12.1) months and the median OS was 19.5 (95% CI: 14.6, 24.7) months. A significantly lower proportion of patients with CP A compared with CP B (39.7% vs. 73.4%) experienced hospitalization within one year of A+B initiation, whereas hospitalizations due to treatment-related adverse events were similar. Conclusions: This study provides insights into the real-world effectiveness of 1L A+B in a diverse US patient cohort, with results from trial-like patients supporting the reproducible efficacy of A+B in clinical practice.

e16052 Background: Patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) who fail definitive treatment are candidates for second-line therapy. They often present with more aggressive disease and suboptimal responses to definitive treatments. In this individual patient-level meta-analysis, we aim to evaluate the efficacy of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors as second-line treatment in advanced ESCC. Methods: A systematic search of PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane databases (December 5, 2024) identified randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors to chemotherapy as second-line treatment for advanced ESCC. Kaplan-Meier (KM) curves were reconstructed, and individual patient data (IPD) were extracted using R scripts. A patient-level meta-analysis was performed using the reconstructed IPDs and the Cox proportional hazards regression model. The Schoenfeld residuals test and Restricted Mean Survival Time (RMST) were also applied. The following R packages were used: MASS, Splines, survival, survRM2, survminer, and dbplyr . Results: Out of 3,930 records, five RCTs met the criteria: four phase 3 trials and one phase 2 trial (ORIENT-2), all were open-label, comparing PD-1 inhibitors to chemotherapy. Overall survival (OS) improved significantly with PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors compared to chemotherapy (HR: 0.718, 95% CI: 0.650–0.793, p < 0.001). For patients with CPS ≥ 10, OS further improved (HR: 0.626, 95% CI: 0.446–0.878, p = 0.007), ), indicating an additional beneft in those with high PD-1 expression. The proportional hazards assumption was met for both OS and CPS ≥ 10 (Schoenfeld residuals test: p > 0.05). Progression-free survival (PFS) showed no significant difference (HR: 0.913, CI: 0.828–1.007, p = 0.069). However, the proportional hazards assumption was violated (Schoenfeld residuals test p < 0.001); therefore, these results should be interpreted with caution. PFS was further evaluated using RMST at 6, 12, 18, and 24 months. At 6 months, no significant difference was observed (RMST difference: -0.047, p = 0.593). However, PD-1 inhibitors showed significant differences at 12 months (0.37 months, p = 0.022), 18 months (0.74 months, p = 0.001), and 24 months (0.97 months, p < 0.001). Despite these significant differences, the magnitude of the difference is relatively small and may not be clinically meaningful. Conclusions: PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors as second-line therapy improve overall survival in patients with advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma, compared to chemotherapy. However, the improvements in progression-free survival (PFS) were modest, and the clinical significance of these PFS benefits may be limited.

537 Background: A+B is the preferred first-line (1L) standard of care for uHCC, with emerging RW evidence supporting its use in a broad patient (pt) cohort. We evaluated pt characteristics, clinical and treatment outcomes in pts treated at five U.S. institutions: Mayo Clinic, Houston Methodist, Moffitt Cancer Center, Mays Cancer Center, and University of Arizona. Methods: This is a retrospective study of uHCC pts who initiated A+B after January 1, 2019. De-identified pt data were extracted by treating oncologists. Overall survival (OS) and real-world progression-free survival (rwPFS) were assessed using Kaplan-Meier methods for all pts and for a “trial-like” subgroup with characteristics similar to those in the IMbrave150 trial (ECOG performance status [PS] 0-1, Child-Pugh [CP] class A, albumin-bilirubin [ALBI] grade 1-2). HCC-related hospitalizations were evaluated within 1 year of A+B initiation. Results: A total of 300 eligible pts were treated with 1L A+B (median age 68 years, 79% male, 79% White, 82% BCLC C, 44% viral etiology,12% ECOG PS >1). Liver function was CP A in 73% (36% A5, 31% A6, 6% not reported), CP B in 26% pts (15% B7, 7% B8, 5% B9), and CP C in 2 (<1%) pts. Compared with CP A, more CP B pts had characteristics of compromised liver function (CP A vs B: cirrhosis: 61% vs 91%; ascites: 7% vs 46%; encephalopathy: 4% vs 17%; esophageal varices: 14% vs 32%), bile duct invasion (2% vs 11%), and ECOG PS>1 (8% vs 22%), all Ps<0.001. Over a median follow-up of 8.7 mos, 244 (81%) pts discontinued A+B, primarily due to disease progression. Toxicity-related treatment discontinuation and hospitalizations due to treatment-related adverse events (TRAE) were similar between the two groups (Table). Median OS (mOS) was 14.4 mos (95% CI: 12.3, 18.2) and median rwPFS was 6.8 mos (95% CI: 5.8, 8.4). In the trial-like subgroup (n=194), mOS was 19.5 mos (95%CI: 14.6, 24.7) and median rwPFS was 8.8 mos (95% CI: 7.6, 12.1). In the CP B subgroup, mOS was 5.6 mos (95% CI: 4.6, 11.3) and median rwPFS was 3.1 mos (95% CI: 2.4, 5.8). Conclusions: This study demonstrates the RW outcomes of 1L A+B in a diverse pt cohort. Results from the “trial-like” pts further confirm the reproducible efficacy of A+B in clinical practice. Although pts with CP-B had higher hospitalization rates due to disease progression or symptoms, consistent with their underlying liver complications, they had similar rates of toxicity-related treatment discontinuation and TRAE-related hospitalizations compared to CP-A. Further characterization of safety for A+B in CP B pts within a prospective, controlled trial is warranted. N (%) CP A (n=219) CP B (n=79) Treatment discontinuation* 167 (76) 75 (95) Atezolizumab-related toxicity 20 (12) 13 (17) Bevacizumab-related toxicity 26 (16) 16 (21) Hospitalization* 87 (40) 58 (73) Symptom-related 42 (48) 35 (60) Progression 8 (9) 11 (19) TRAE 7 (8) 6 (10) *P-value comparing CP A vs CP B <0.001.

Background:Injectable azacitidine (AZA) has been evaluated in a variety of malignancies, including acute myeloid leukemia (AML), myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS), and solid tumors. CC‐486, the oral formulation of AZA, allows extended dosing schedules (>7 days per 28‐day treatment cycle) to increase AZA exposure to malignant cells over the course of the cycle. CC‐486 is under investigation in phase 3 clinical trials as maintenance therapy for patients with AML in first complete remission after induction chemotherapy (NCT01757535) and in lower‐risk MDS with concurrent thrombocytopenia and RBC transfusion dependence (NCT01566695). In these studies, patients receive CC‐486 300 mg QD administered in two 150 mg tablets. A single 300 mg CC‐486 tablet is in development for market approval.Aims:Evaluate the bioequivalence (BE) of a single 300 mg CC‐486 tablet relative to two 150 mg CC‐486 tablets, and the food effect (FE) on the bioavailability of the CC‐486 300 mg tablet.Methods:This was a phase 1, randomized, crossover study (NCT01519011). Adult patients had hematologic malignancies or solid tumors relapsed/refractory to prior therapy for which no standard treatments were available, and ECOG PS scores 0‐2. The BE phase assessed pharmacokinetic (PK) parameters of CC‐486 administered as two 150 mg tablets (formulation A) and as one 300 mg tablet (formulation B). Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive each formulation at least 48 hours apart. In the FE phase, patients were randomized to receive formulation B on each of 2 PK study days under fed (high fat, ∼800‐1000 calories) and fasted conditions. PK parameters, including area under the plasma concentration‐time curve from time 0 extrapolated to infinity (AUC∞), maximum plasma concentration (Cmax), time to Cmax (Tmax), terminal half‐life (t1/2), apparent total clearance (CL/F) and volume of distribution (Vz/F) were analyzed. BE of formulations A and B, and absence of FE on formulation B, were indicated when the 90% CI of the ratios of geometric means (RGM) based on log‐transformed data for AUC∞ and Cmax between formulations A and B, and between fed and fasted conditions, were within 80%>125%.Results:30 patients were enrolled in the BE phase (median age 68.5 yrs, range 46‐86); 3 patients (10%) had hematologic malignancies and 27 (90%) had solid tumors. Formulations A and B were bioequivalent: the Cmax RGM was 101.5% (90% CI 89.9, 114.7) and AUC∞ RGM was 105.7% (95.0, 117.6). Median Tmax was 1.0 hour for both formulations.57 patients enrolled in the FE phase (median age 62 yrs, 31‐88); all had solid tumors. Despite a lower Cmax under fed condition (RGM 78.9% [90%CI 68.6, 90.7]), overall drug exposure was similar (AUC∞ RGM 108.9% [90%CI 98.5, 120.5]) (Figure A). Consistent with an effect of gastric emptying, median Tmax was reached at 2 hrs and 1 hr post‐dose in fed and fasted states, respectively (Figure B) and mean t1/2 was 0.78 and 0.58 hr postdose. CL/F and Vz/F were comparable in fed and fasted states. Moderate to high intersubject variability was observed for all CC‐486 PK parameters (Figure A).Summary/Conclusion:A single oral CC‐486 300 mg tablet is bioequivalent to two 150 mg tablets. The PK profile for the CC‐486 300 mg tablet under fed and fasted conditions was comparable although Cmax occurred later and was decreased in fed vs. fasted condition. Systemic drug exposure (AUC∞) in fed and fasted states was similar and within the bioequivalence limits. Limited differences in other CC‐486 PK parameters between fed and fasted states are not expected to have a clinical impact.image