Jones, Jeremy C

Abstract Background The increasing reliance on accelerated approvals and surrogate endpoints for Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approvals of gastrointestinal (GI) cancer therapies raises concerns about their clinical benefit and long-term patient outcomes. The shift toward single-arm trials in regulatory decisions further complicates treatment evaluation. Material and Methods This retrospective observational study evaluated all FDA approvals for GI cancer therapies from January 2006 through January 2025. Data were extracted from FDA archives, ClinicalTrials.gov, and PubMed. Approvals were categorized by regulatory pathway (accelerated vs regular), trial design (single-arm vs randomized), and primary endpoint (surrogate vs overall survival [OS]). Clinical benefit was assessed based on OS improvement and the European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS). The primary outcome was the proportion of approvals based on surrogate versus OS endpoints. Secondary outcomes included use of single-arm designs, frequency of accelerated approvals, OS gain, and the proportion meeting ESMO-MCBS substantial benefit (score ≥ 4). Results The FDA granted 60 GI cancer drug approvals from 67 trials. Approvals rose from 15 (25%) in 2006-2014 to 45 (75%) in 2015-2025. Single-arm trials increased to 24%, and surrogate endpoints were used in 41.8% (ORR 20.9%, PFS 19.4%). Median OS improvement was 2.1 months (IQR: 1.6-2.65). Only 24.3% of trials met ESMO-MCBS substantial benefit. Of 15 accelerated approvals, 66.7% remained pending, 13.3% received full approval, and 20% were withdrawn. Conclusion Expedited approvals have improved drug access in GI oncology, but modest benefits highlight the need to balance speed with outcomes that truly matter to patients.

Despite European colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) transplant trials having been performed entirely using deceased donor liver transplant (DDLT), there has been speculation about whether similar results can be achieved in the United States, given the lack of MELD score prioritization. A formal transplant protocol for unresectable CRLM was implemented in our center at the start of 2022 with the plan to utilize DDLT. Between 2022 and 2025, 86 patients with CRLM were referred to our program, and 19 patients underwent a formal transplant evaluation. Median time from listing until transplant was 31 days (range 3–115 d). Median allocation MELD was 8 (range 6–15). The donor livers were from DCDs, older donors, or National Share livers, which had been declined by all other centers. All but 2 of the cases underwent advanced perfusion. There were no cases of primary nonfunction, postreperfusion syndrome, acute kidney injury, hepatic artery thrombosis, or ischemic cholangiopathy. The length of stay for the median posttransplant was 5 days. Graft and patient survival were 100% at the time of maximal follow-up. Recurrence developed in 3 recipients (25.0%), 1 of whom was treated and has no evidence of disease. These findings support the viability of DDLT for CRLM using advanced perfusion, contingent on strict protocol adherence. Center-specific waitlist dynamics must inform the choice between DDLT and living donor liver transplant (LDLT).

Importance The prognosis of advanced pancreaticobiliary tumors is poor. Next-generation sequencing (NGS) of tissue samples is utilized to identify actionable alterations, but there are occasional limitations due to inadequate tissue acquisition. Circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) is an alternative method, but its correlation with tissue-based NGS remains unexplored. Objectives To assess the mutation concordance (mCR) rates between ctDNA and tissue testing for patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) and cholangiocarcinoma (CC) and to evaluate how ctDNA performs as a treatment response biomarker. Design, Setting, and Participants This retrospective cohort study was conducted among patients with PDAC and CC treated at academic institutions from January 2014 to January 2025. Patients underwent ctDNA testing using 1 platform and tissue NGS testing using 2 platforms. Main Outcomes and Measures mCR, which measures the shared gene alterations observed by both ctDNA and tissue-based NGS testing, was calculated using the Spearman correlation for PDAC and CC. The performance of ctDNA as a treatment response biomarker was assessed by comparing serial ctDNA data with restaging scans and cancer antigen 19-9 levels in patients with PDAC. Results Our cohort included 790 patients: 570 with advanced PDAC (265 [46.5%] female; median [IQR] age, 64 [33-84] years) and 220 with advanced CC (95 [43.2%] female; median [IQR] age, 66 [42-88] years). Overall, 461 patients with PDAC (80.9%) and 192 patients with CC (87.2%) underwent ctDNA testing, while 239 patients with PDAC (41.9%) and 70 patients with CC (31.8%) had tissue NGS testing. Among patients with PDAC, 85 of 130 patients (65.4%) showed shared specific gene alterations between ctDNA and tissue testing; there was a significant mCR, with a Spearman correlation of 0.47 (95% CI, 0.28-0.62; P < .001). For patients with CC, 32 of 48 (66.7%) had shared alterations between ctDNA and tissue testing; there was a significant mCR, with a Spearman correlation of 0.56 (95% CI, 0.35-0.70; P < .001). A subgroup analysis of patients with PDAC who underwent serial ctDNA testing suggested that new TP53 subclones and increased ctDNA variant allele frequency levels of TP53 and KRAS were associated with higher odds of progressive disease (eg, increased TP53 frequency: odds ratio, 7.28; 95% CI, 2.15-24.66; P = .001). Conclusions and Relevance In this cohort study of patients with pancreaticobiliary tumors, there was a significant mCR between ctDNA and tissue NGS testing. Additionally, results suggest that ctDNA might detect resistant clones and enable assessment of treatment response.

LBA1551 Background: Traditional cancer therapy is primarily delivered in clinical settings, imposing logistical, emotional, and financial burdens, particularly on rural and underserved patients. While international studies have demonstrated the safety of home-based chemotherapy, no randomized U.S. trials have evaluated this approach. Mayo Clinic’s CCBW program aims to expand access to high-quality cancer care by providing in-home cancer treatment, lab testing, telemedicine, remote patient monitoring, command center and paramedic support. This pragmatic randomized controlled trial evaluates feasibility and impact of home-based versus in-clinic cancer directed therapy on patient preference, acceptability, safety, and patient-reported outcomes. Methods: Adult patients (ECOG 0-2) receiving chemotherapy or hormonal therapy at Mayo Clinic Florida were randomized 1:1 after confirmation of treatment tolerance in clinic to receive (1) home-based care for 24 weeks or (2) in-clinic care for 8 weeks followed by home-based care for 16 weeks. Target accrual is 200 patients. A planned interim analysis after 50 enrollments assessed accrual, data completeness, technical challenges, safety, and study outcomes. The primary endpoint is patient ratings of their overall cancer care experience (0–10 scale, CAHPS Cancer Care Survey) at 8 weeks. 200 patients provide 80% power to detect a 0.45 standard deviation difference in mean ratings between arms with a 2-sided 2-sample t-test (α=0.05) and 20% missing data rate. Secondary endpoints are patient preference, comfort with home infusions, treatment worthwhileness, functional/symptom assessments (EORTC QLQ-F17, PRO-CTCAE, GP5), grade ≥3 AEs, hospitalizations, and overall survival. Cost is a tertiary endpoint. The trial is IRB-approved (#23001719) and registered (NCT05969860). Results: Enrollment began 8/23/23. As of 2/21/25, 52 patients (26 per arm) were enrolled and 36 started protocol treatment. Common cancers were breast (38%), colorectal (21%), prostate (19%), and multiple myeloma (14%). 64% (28/44) of patients were female; 84% identified as White, 14% as Black, and 2% as multiple races. Median distance to clinic was 20 miles (range 2-66). After 8 weeks, patients in both arms rated their overall cancer care experience highly (mean [SD]=9.69 [0.85] versus 9.54 [0.66] for home-based vs. in-clinic care, n=26). After 24 weeks, 73% preferred home-based care, 18% had no preference, and 9% preferred in-clinic care; 100% felt comfortable with home infusions. No grade ≥3 AEs related to location of care have occurred. Conclusions: Early findings support the feasibility, safety, and high patient acceptability of home-based cancer therapy. No safety concerns related to care location were observed and most patients preferred home-based treatment. Ongoing accrual and analysis will assess clinical outcomes and cost implications. Clinical trial information: NCT05969860 .

3553 Background: Vilastobart (XTX101) is tumor-activated, high affinity, Fc-enhanced aCTLA-4 designed to focus activity toward the tumor and minimize systemic adverse events. Fc-enhancement augments FcγR co-engagement on antigen presenting cells and has been linked with efficacy of aCTLA-4 combinations in patients (pts) with microsatellite stable (MSS) colorectal cancer (CRC) and other tumors [Fakih ASCO GI 2025]. Vilastobart was generally well-tolerated and demonstrated evidence of anti-tumor activity in pts with immunologically “cold” advanced solid tumors, both as a monotherapy and in combination with atezolizumab [Davar SITC 2024]. Methods: Phase 2 of the NCT04896697 study evaluated the initial recommended Phase 2 dose of vilastobart 100 mg Q6W in combination with atezolizumab 1200 mg Q3W in pts with MSS CRC who had at least 1 prior chemotherapy regimen in the metastatic setting, excluding pts with prior immune checkpoint inhibitors. Pts with (LM) and without liver metastasis (NLM) were eligible. Tumor biopsies were obtained before and during treatment for translational analyses. Results: As of January 13, 2025, 40 pts were dosed in Phase 2. Median age was 55 (25-82) and 70% of pts had 3 or more prior lines of therapy. Of the 24 enrolled NLM pts, 11 were response-evaluable with an available on-treatment scan as of the data cut. In these 11 pts, two confirmed and one unconfirmed partial response (PR) were reported, all accompanied by significant decreases in ctDNA and serum tumor marker CEA and with each pt ongoing on therapy, for a preliminary ORR of 27%. One additional pt (with peritoneal metastasis) had a 24% reduction in target lesions (first scan) and was ongoing on therapy. Of the 16 enrolled LM pts, 7 were response evaluable, with one stable disease and another pt reporting a mixed response with significant serum tumor marker reductions, both ongoing on therapy. Of note, one LM pt in Phase 1C dose escalation treated with vilastobart (150 mg Q6W) combination had a confirmed PR with LM resolution. Six pts (15%) reported G3+ treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs), with two G4 laboratory TRAEs and no G5 TRAEs. Only three pts discontinued therapy for TRAEs. TRAEs occurring in ≥10% (all grade) or ≥5% (G3) of pts are summarized in the Table. Conclusions: The combination of vilastobart, a novel tumor-activated, Fc-enhanced a-CTLA-4, and atezolizumab demonstrated initial evidence of anti-tumor activity in late line, metastatic MSS CRC where immune checkpoint blockade has historically been relatively ineffective. Vilastobart was observed to have a differentiated safety profile distinct from systemically active a-CTLA-4, consistent with tumor-selective activation. Clinical trial information: NCT04896697 . AE term All Graden (%) Grade 3n (%) Fatigue 12 (30%) 0 Diarrhea 8 (20%) 0 Infusion related reactions 5 (13%) 0 Pyrexia 4 (10%) 0 ALT increased 4 (10%) 0 AST increased 4 (10%) 1 (3%) Colitis 2 (5%) 2 (5%)

TPS1657 Background: Cancer treatments are traditionally administered in clinical settings, which can isolate patients from their familiar environments and exacerbate physical, psychosocial, and financial burdens. Travel requirements further amplify these challenges, particularly for underserved populations. Studies indicate that patients prefer receiving care at home, and international models have demonstrated the safety of home-delivered chemotherapy since the 1990s; however, no U.S. clinical trial data exists. In response, Mayo Clinic has developed the Cancer CARE (Connected Access and Remote Expertise) Beyond Walls (CCBW) program, a distributed cancer care delivery model that expands access to quality cancer care by bringing it to the home environment, providing in-home cancer treatment, lab testing, telemedicine, and community paramedic support. This trial evaluates the safety, acceptability, and impact of home-based subcutaneous (SC) nivolumab (Nivo) administration compared to in-clinic treatment within the CCBW initiative. Methods: This open-label, single-arm trial evaluates the impact of SC Nivo administration location—home versus infusion center—on patient reported cancer care experience, patient-preferred treatment location, acceptability, safety, and patient-reported outcomes. Eligible adult patients (ECOG 0-1) receiving IV Nivo for an FDA-approved indication and residing within 75 miles of Mayo Clinic Florida will transition to SC Nivo, receiving two initial in-clinic cycles. If tolerated without injection reactions, four cycles will be administered at home before resuming in-clinic treatment. Exclusion criteria include concurrent investigational/standard treatments or contraindications to immunotherapy. Fifty patients will be enrolled, with an estimated 75% (n=38) providing cancer care ratings after 8 weeks in-clinic and 8 weeks at-home, offering 85% power to detect a mean difference in ratings of 0.50 standard deviations. The primary endpoint is within-patient change in cancer care rating (0–10 scale, CAHPS Cancer Care Survey) comparing 8 weeks of in-clinic vs. at-home care. Secondary endpoints include patient-preferred treatment location, comfort with home injections, safety (grade 3+ adverse events), function (EORTC QLQ-F17), symptoms (PRO-CTCAE), side effect impact (GP5), and healthcare utilization (ER visits, hospitalizations). Cost will be assessed as a tertiary endpoint. The trial has FDA approval (IND #170079), Mayo Clinic IRB approval (#23009663), and ClinicalTrials.gov registration (NCT06265285). Enrollment began in April 2024, with an expected accrual period of 24 months. To date, 10 patients have been enrolled, and final analysis is expected 2.5 years after trial activation. Clinical trial information: NCT06265285 .

e16330 Background: Sarcomatoid hepatocellular carcinoma (SHC) is a rare and aggressive variant of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), accounting for less than 2% of all primary liver cancers. Characterized by the presence of both epithelial and mesenchymal components, SHC demonstrates a high degree of cellular plasticity, often associated with epithelial-mesenchymal transition. This phenotypic heterogeneity contributes to its aggressive clinical behavior, including rapid tumor progression, early metastasis, and poor response to conventional therapies. As a result, patients diagnosed with SHC typically have a median survival of less than 12 months, significantly lower than that observed in patients with conventional HCC. Methods: We conducted a retrospective study at the Mayo Clinic Comprehensive Cancer Center, focusing on patients diagnosed with SHC between April 2017 and December 2023. The data collected included demographics, performance status, underlying risk factors, alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) levels, next generation sequencing (NGS) testing, and the treatment received. Results: A total of ten patients with confirmed diagnoses of SHC were included, with median age at the time of diagnosis 63.5 years (37-77), predimonantly male (9 out of 10), and identifying white (8 out of 10). Alcoholic cirrhosis was identified as an underlying risk factor in three patients, NASH cirrhosis in two, and HCV in two patients. The majority (6 out of 10) of the patients had localized disease, with 4 patients having denovo metastatic disease with abdominal lymph node involvement. Five patients had NGS testing (Tempus, Guardant 360, and ProvsSeq523), with resultant pathogenic variants including TP53 in 3 patients, NTRK3 fusion, IDH2, EGFR, TERT, MLH1, ARIS1A, and PALB2. Four patients were treated with combined Yitrrium-90 and systemic therapy. Three patient started systemic therapy, and two patients underwent surgical resection. Systemic Therapy used included combined Atezolizumab/ Bevacizuamab, Pembrolizumab/ Lenvatinib, Gemcitabine/ Docetaxel, Gemcitabine/ Cisplatin, Cabozantinib, and pembrolizumab monotherapy. The median overall survival for this group was 11.5 months; 95% confidence interval (CI): 4.66-40.1 months. Seventy percent experienced progression, with a median progression-free survival after first line of treatment of 2.5 months; 95% CI: 1-15.3 months. Conclusions: Sarcomatoid HCC remains aggressive and difficult to treat cancer with limited overall survival. Immunotherapy based regimens have limited efficacy for this HCC variant.

e16265 Background: The pivotal TOPAZ-1 trial established durvalumab plus gemcitabine and cisplatin (GC) as a new first-line standard of care for advanced biliary tract cancer (ABTC). However, weekly administration of GC can lead to significant toxicity limiting its tolerability in clinical practice. Based on previous studies, we implemented biweekly regimen of GC on days 1 and 15 together with durvalumab on day 1 of each 28-day cycle to optimize the treatment delivery and improve tolerability. Here, we report the Mayo Clinic experience with biweekly GC with monthly durvalumab in patients with ABTC. Methods: At our three-site institution, we retrospectively identified patients with ABTC between January 2021 and August 2024, who received biweekly GC with monthly durvalumab. Patient demographics, tumor characteristics, treatment details - treatment related adverse events (trAEs) graded according to the NCTCAE V5.0 were collected. Outcomes included median progression-free survival (mPFS), median overall survival (mOS) and clinically assessed overall response rate (ORR) and disease control rate (DCR). Results: 57 patients were included in our analysis, median age was 68 years (range 35-90), and 57.9% were females. 91.2% of patients had ECOG performance status of 0-1. 71.9% had intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma, 19.3% extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma and 8.7% gallbladder carcinoma. 70.2% had metastatic disease, 21 % locally advanced unresectable disease and 8.7% recurrent metastatic disease. Patients were followed for a median of 9.1 months (2.3-28.5). 91.2% of the patients received biweekly GC plus monthly durvalumab while 8.8% switched from weekly to biweekly GC plus monthly durvalumab due to treatment toxicities. Median number of treatment cycles was 5. Maintenance regimens included durvalumab (19.3%), gemcitabine/durvalumab (8.8%) and GC/durvalumab (8.8%). Median duration of follow up was 9.1 months (range 2.3 – 28.5). ORR was 36.9% and DCR was 72% (complete response 5.3%, partial response 31.6% and stable disease 35.1%). mPFS was 7.2 months, while mOS was 16 months. Grade(G) 3 or 4 trAEs included abnormal liver function tests (15.7%), infections (11.5%), anemia (8.7%), thrombocytopenia (5.2%), peripheral neuropathy (1.7%), acute kidney injury (1.7%). Immune-related AEs were noted in 6 patients (10.5%) including colitis, gastritis, hepatitis, myocarditis and hypothyroidism. There was no patient with severe neutropenia or febrile neutropenia. Only 5 patients (8.8%) stopped treatment due to trAEs. Conclusions: Biweekly GC on days 1 and 15 plus durvalumab on day 1 of each 28-day cycle is associated with a more favorable toxicity profile while maintaining efficacy similar to that observed in the TOPAZ-1 trial indicating that a de-escalation strategy is feasible with improvement in patient centered outcomes.

4166 Background: GN is a front-line therapy for aPDAC. A Phase I/II study demonstrated that GCN has a higher overall response rate and median overall survival (mOS). Our previous study found no difference in outcomes among patients with DNA damage repair gene mutations; however, stromal gene expression correlated with mOS in patients receiving GCN. Here, we further evaluate differences in the outcomes with GCN and GN by site of biopsy. Methods: PDAC samples (n = 4,463) were analyzed by NGS (NextSeq/NovaSeq) or RNA (NovaSeq) (Caris Life Sciences, Phx, AZ). Expression of stromal and related genes ( ACTA2, ADIRF, HAS2, IL-6, MMP-2, MMP-9, SPARC, STAT3, TBGB1, TGFB2, TGFBR3, IDO1, HLA-DRB4, VEGFB) from different biopsy sites [high expression (H) >50% of RNA transcripts per million] was correlated with outcomes to GCN or GN. mOS was obtained from insurance claims and calculated from first treatment to last contact. The hazard ratio (HR) was calculated by the Cox proportional hazards model, and p-values were calculated using the log-rank test. Results: 4325 patients [primary biopsy (PT), n = 1,878; non-liver metastatic biopsy (N-LM), n = 818; Liver biopsy (LM), n = 1,629] received GN while 138 patients (PT, n = 45; N-LM, n = 28; LM, n = 65) received GCN. GCN was associated with longer mOS than GN [∆: 5.2 months (m), HR: 0.76, 95% CI 0.63-0.92, p = 0.01]. GCN was associated with longer mOS compared to GN in LM (∆: 5.6 m, HR: 0.66, 95% CI 0.50-0.87, p = 0.003), but it was not significant in PT (∆: 4.6 m, p = 0.13) and N-LM (∆: 4.4 m, p = 0.35). Median MMP2 (38.5 vs. 163.1 vs. 162.2), VEGFB (14.4 vs. 16.9 vs. 16.2) and TGFBR3 (11.4 vs. 15 vs. 16.4) expression were lower in LM compared to PT and N-LM while TGFB1 (41.6 vs. 34.5 vs. 39.8) and IL6 (1.61 vs. 1.19 vs. 1.41) expression were highest in LM (p < 0.05). In LM, IL6 -H (∆: -11 m, p = 0.037) and TGFB1 -H (∆: -5.9 m, p = 0.10) were associated with worse post-GCN survival compared to GN (p = 0.82 and p = 0.57). Whereas, in N-LM, TGFBR3 -H trended towards longer post-GCN survival (∆: 12 m, p = 0.18), while ADIRF -H trended towards shorter post-GCN survival (∆: -12 m, p = 0.056) compared to GN (p = 0.42 and p = 0.10). While in PT, MMP2 -H (∆: 11.3m, HR: 0.46, p = 0.16), TGFB1 -H (∆: 11.3 m, HR: 0.33, p = 0.09), HLA-DRB4 -H (∆: 12.9 m, HR: 0.44, p = 0.11) and VEGFB -H (∆: 10.7, HR: 0.34, p = 0.09) trended towards longer post-GCN survival compared to GN ( MMP2 -H, ∆: 3.4 m, p = 0.03, TGFB1 -H, p = 0.661, HLA-DRB4 -H, p = 0.67, VEGFB-H , ∆: 1.3 m, p = 0.03). Conclusions: GCN is associated with improved mOS compared to GN, especially in LM.Stromal gene expression in the liver differs from that in N-LM and the pancreas. While high stromal gene expression trends towards worse post-GCN survival in LM, it is associated with improved survival in N-LM and PT. Further validation is needed to understand the impact of stromal gene expression in different tumor sites on survival outcomes and signature development.