Citations

Background Tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) are established determinants of clinical outcomes in breast cancer. 1–6 While stromal TILs (sTILs) are commonly evaluated due to easier scoring and higher interobserver reproducibility, intraepithelial TILs may provide additional insights into anti-tumor immunity. 7 We aimed to comprehensively characterize immunotype-associated cellular landscapes in triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) and identify features associated with clinical outcomes. Methods 212 TNBC tumors were classified into three immunotypes based on immune infiltrate location and density: immune desert (ID), immune excluded (IE), and immune inflamed (IN). 8 Single-cell spatial transcriptomics was performed on 75 tumors to define the cellular composition and functional states of the tumor microenvironment across immunotypes. Findings were validated and integrated with bulk RNA sequencing data and clinical outcome datasets from FinXX, CALGB-40603, I-SPY 2, and Real-World Clinico-Genomic Data (RWCGD) cohorts. Results Patients with IN tumors had significantly improved outcomes compared with ID tumors. Despite high sTILs, IE tumors showed poor outcomes similar to ID tumors. Single-cell spatial analysis revealed that ID and IE tumors exhibited reduced major histocompatibility complex I/II expression and fewer tumor-resident plasmacytoid dendritic cells (pDCs) compared with IN tumors, which were enriched for interferon-alpha (IFNα) and interferon-gamma (IFNγ) responses. High IFN response scores were associated with favorable outcomes across multiple therapy types in independent datasets. Deconvolution of RWCGD bulk RNA-seq data confirmed that pDC abundance correlated with improved outcomes specifically in hormone receptor–negative subtypes. Conclusions Our study highlights pDCs and IFN signaling as hallmarks of effective anti-tumor immunity in TNBC. Immunotype-based profiling underscores the limited prognostic value of sTILs alone in immune-excluded tumors and supports pDCs and IFN pathways as potential biomarkers for prognosis and therapeutic development in TNBC.

Abstract Objective This study was undertaken to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of responsive thalamic stimulation as adjunctive therapy for drug‐resistant idiopathic generalized epilepsy (IGE) with generalized tonic–clonic seizures (GTCSs). Methods NAUTILUS is a prospective, multicenter, single‐blind, randomized sham‐controlled pivotal trial. Patients were ≥12 years of age with drug‐resistant IGE and ≥2 GTCSs over a 3‐month baseline. Bilateral depth leads were targeted to the centromedian thalamus. One month later, patients were randomized to Active (responsive stimulation, n = 44) or Sham (no stimulation, n = 43). The effectiveness evaluation period (EEP) began 3 months postimplant through 1 year. After a second GTCS in the EEP, patients transitioned to open‐label active stimulation. The primary safety endpoint was the serious adverse device‐related event (SADE) rate at 84 days postimplant. The primary effectiveness endpoint was time‐to‐second‐GTCS during the EEP. Additional endpoints included median percent change in days with any generalized seizure, GTCS frequency, and responder rate (RR). Results Eighty‐seven patients were implanted across 23 US centers. The SADE rate was significantly below the performance goal (6.9%, p < .0001), with no adverse effects on cognition, mood, or sleep. The prespecified primary effectiveness endpoint was not significant. However, a post hoc mixed‐effects model considering all EEP days demonstrated greater GTCS reduction in the originally randomized Active group (61%) compared to patients originally randomized to Sham (49%, p = .030). Eighteen‐month outcomes included 76.8% median GTCS reduction, 62.5% RR, 40% GTCS‐free at that timepoint, and 77.8% median reduction in days with any generalized seizure. More than 90% of patients and 86% of physicians reported improvement on Global Impression of Change scales. Significance NAUTILUS is the first randomized controlled neuromodulation trial in IGE. Responsive thalamic stimulation provided a clinically meaningful and durable reduction in seizures with an acceptable safety profile, offering a much‐needed option for drug‐resistant IGE.

Prostate cancer is a growing public health concern in Kenya, where it is frequently diagnosed at advanced stages and managed within resource-constrained health systems. This study examined the lived experiences of men diagnosed with prostate cancer, focusing on how the illness shaped their identities, relationships, and daily lives. We conducted a qualitative study using in-depth interviews with 130 men recruited from oncology clinics across five counties (Nairobi, Garissa, Meru, Machakos, and Kisii). Audio recordings were transcribed and translated verbatim into English, where necessary, by trained research assistants. Thematic analysis was conducted following the Braun and Clarke’s six-phase framework, with NVivo 12 Plus supporting data management. Five core themes emerged: 1) emotional and existential disruption at diagnosis; (2) treatment as both a source of hope and hardship; (3) geographic and financial barriers to care; (4) challenges to masculine identity and dignity; and (5) the dual role of family and community as sources of both support and stigma. Prostate cancer precipitated profound identity shifts for Kenyan men, transforming lived experiences from those of strong providers to vulnerable patients and disrupting deeply rooted social and personal roles. These findings underscore the need for holistic, culturally responsive cancer care that integrates psychosocial support from the point of diagnosis and addresses structural barriers to access. Such approaches are essential for advancing patient-centered prostate cancer care in Kenya and similar settings.

LBA7000 Background: ~40% of DLBCL pts are not cured with first-line (1L) R-CHOP, underscoring a significant unmet need for more effective 1L regimens. Tafa (anti-CD19 mAb) + Len-R-CHOP in the phase 1b First-MIND study demonstrated safety and efficacy in pts with newly diagnosed disease. frontMIND, a phase 3, double-blind, placebo-controlled study, compared Tafa-Len-R-CHOP vs R-CHOP in pts with high-risk aggressive BCLs. Methods: Pts aged 18–80 y with newly diagnosed, high-intermediate/high-risk DLBCL or HGBL (IPI 3–5, aaIPI 2–3 if ≤60 y) and ECOG PS 0–2 were randomized 1:1 to Tafa-Len-R-CHOP or R-CHOP. Primary endpoint was investigator-assessed PFS; secondary endpoints included: EFS, OS, CR, ORR, safety. Results: At primary analysis (data cutoff Oct 20, 2025), 899 pts were randomized to Tafa-Len-R-CHOP (n=448) or R-CHOP (n=451); baseline characteristics were similar between arms. With a median follow-up of 35.2 mo, Tafa-Len-R-CHOP achieved a statistically significant improvement in PFS vs R-CHOP (HR 0.75 [95% CI: 0.59, 0.96]; P =0.019) in the overall population; in pts with centrally confirmed lymphoma subtypes (n=773), PFS HR was 0.68 (95% CI: 0.52, 0.88) and 24-mo PFS was 72.7% vs 62.2%. PFS benefit was observed with Tafa-Len-R-CHOP in both molecular COO subtypes, ABC and GCB (data will be presented). Tafa-Len-R-CHOP significantly improved EFS vs R-CHOP; CR and ORR were similar between arms and HR for OS was 0.85 (final OS planned at 5y) (Table). Any-grade TEAEs were similar in treatment arms (98.6% vs 97.1%); more grade ≥3 TEAEs occurred with Tafa-Len-R-CHOP vs R-CHOP (86.7% vs 76.1%). Discontinuations due to TEAEs occurred in 25.7% vs 17.9% and deaths due to TEAEs in 5.9% vs 3.8% of pts for Tafa-Len-R-CHOP vs R-CHOP. Overall, there were fewer deaths with Tafa-Len-R-CHOP vs R-CHOP (18.5% vs 21.7%). Conclusions: The primary endpoint of frontMIND was met; Tafa-Len-R-CHOP resulted in a significant 25% reduction in risk of disease progression or death compared with R-CHOP, with an 8.2% difference in 24-month PFS rate in the overall population and 10.5% difference in pts with centrally confirmed lymphoma subtypes. TEAEs were manageable and consistent with the expected safety profile. Tafa-Len-R-CHOP represents a potential new 1L standard of care for pts with both COO subtypes of high-risk DLBCL or HGBL. Clinical trial information: NCT04824092 . Efficacy outcomes by treatment arm.* Variable Tafa-Len-R-CHOP(n=448) R-CHOP(n=451) HR or OR(95% CI) P value PFS, # events (%) † 121 (27.0) 155 (34.4) 0.75 (0.59, 0.96) 0.019 PFS rate at 24 mo, % 71.1 62.9 − − PFS rate at 36 mo, % 67.3 60.7 − − EFS, # events (%) 154 (34.4) 191 (42.4) 0.79 (0.64, 0.97) 0.026 OS, # events (%) 82 (18.3) 95 (21.1) 0.85 (0.63, 1.14) 0.270 CR at EOT, n (%) 292 (65.2) 294 (65.2) 0.998 (0.76, 1.31) 0.987 ‡ ORR at EOT, n (%) 360 (80.4) 343 (76.1) 1.290 (0.94, 1.78) 0.120 ‡ *Investigator-assessed. † Progressive disease or death from any cause. ‡ Nominal P value.

LBA514 Background: Preclinical and clinical data show that antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs) such as T-DXd may synergize with immunotherapy. Rilvegostomig (R) is a monovalent, Fc-reduced, dual checkpoint bispecific IgG1 monoclonal antibody against PD-1 and TIGIT receptors. R + T-DXd was evaluated as neoadjuvant therapy for up to 4 cycles. Methods: I-SPY2.2 is a phase II neoadjuvant trial with three neoadjuvant sequences (Blocks A/B/C). All HER2-negative subtypes were eligible for R + T-DXd in Block A. Predicted responders at the end of Block A or B could undergo surgery; otherwise, they continued to Block B +/- C. Block B pts received paclitaxel +/- carboplatin +/- pembrolizumab and Block C pts doxorubicin + cyclophosphamide (AC) +/- pembrolizumab, HR+ immune+ received IO in Blocks B/C. Results are analyzed by receptor and response predictive subtypes (RPS), that include expression-based immune, and luminal signatures with hormone receptor (HR) and HER2 status. Some pts were randomized to a control regimen (skipping R + T-DXd in block A and starting in block B). To minimize risk of interstitial lung disease (ILD) that could lead to treatment discontinuation, pts underwent pulmonary function tests and high-resolution chest CTs every 6 weeks. Abnormalities were reviewed in real time. The primary endpoint was pathologic complete response (pCR), within each RPS and HR/HER2 signature, with estimated pCR (EpCR) rates compared to subtype-specific block A goal rates and control pts in those groups. Other endpoints included safety and treatment discontinuation. Results: 105 pts were treated with R + T-DXd in block A, while 31 pts were randomized to the control regimen. Block A EpCR rate was 57% in the 12 HR+Immune+ pts vs a pre-specified goal of 15% (posterior probability, PP > .99). In 35 HR-Immune+ pts EpCR was 52% vs a pre-specified goal of 40% (PP = .87). No other groups (Immune-) had a PP > .85 for their respective pCR goal rate. HER2-IHC was 0 (27.6%), 1+ (49.5%) and 2+ (22.9%) in the treatment arm vs. 37.7%, 37.7%, and 24.7% in the control arm, with no difference in distribution between arms in immune subtypes. The most common adverse events in Block A were fatigue (84.8%), nausea (81.0%) and alopecia (58.1%). ILD was the most common adverse event of special interest in Block A and overall, occurring in 12 pts (11.4%; 7G1, 4G2, 1G3) during Block A and in 3 pts (G1, 2.9%) in other Blocks. 8 pts discontinued T-DXd + R due to ILD and proceeded to the next Block. Conclusions: When considering the full treatment strategy including block B and C regimens, experimental strategies had similar EpCR rates vs. controls in immune+ subtypes but block A rates exceeded pre-defined goal thresholds. This infers that treatment beginning with R + T-DXd has equivalent efficacy to standard of care for immune+ pts, but 64% pts with pCR skip chemotherapy (Block B) and 97% avoid AC (Block C). R + T-DXd participants avoided persistent ILD. Clinical trial information: NCT01042379 .

LBA5012 Background: There is a critical evidence gap on the relative benefits and harms of proton therapy (PT) compared with photon-based intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) in prostate cancer. Herein we report early results from COMPPARE, a non-randomized comparative study of outcomes with PT and IMRT in prostate cancer. Methods: Between 2018-2022, 2524 patients from 51 facilities (28 PT and 23 IMRT) enrolled in COMPPARE, including 1501 treated with PT and 1023 treated with IMRT, and were followed prospectively. Treatment naïve patients with localized prostate cancer except those with very high-risk disease were eligible. Treatment was pragmatic with daily standard fractionation (1.8-2.1 Gy) and moderate hypofractionation (2.4-3.1 Gy) permitted. Use of rectal spacers and androgen deprivation were at physician discretion. Patient-reported quality of life data and treatment team-reported toxicity and disease control outcomes were collected at baseline and pre-specified time intervals via VisionTreeOptimalCare; treatment planning and delivery data were collected via the Advanced Treatment Consortium. We analyzed 1404 PT patients and 939 IMRT patients. We report the early primary endpoint of the study, a comparison of patient reported bowel urgency and bowel frequency at 2-years using the EPIC tool, and the secondary endpoints of 2-year CTCAE v5 ≥ grade 2 gastrointestinal toxicity outcomes and 3-year freedom from biochemical progression (FFBP) results reported by the study teams. Results: Study sample size was targeted at 1,500 PT patients and 1,000 IMRT patients, and median follow-up time was 4.0 years. The primary endpoint and secondary toxicity 2-year endpoints focused on the alternative hypothesis of PT superiority. All results include inverse probability of treatment weighting. Using generalized linear mixed effects models, we found there to be no significant difference in EPIC bowel urgency scores (p = 0.324) or bowel frequency scores (p = 0.514) between PT and IMRT cohorts over time up to the 2-year endpoint. For grade 2 gastrointestinal toxicity, the 2-year cumulative incidence was 5.2% for PT and 5.6% for IMRT. Gray’s Test for competing risks showed a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.91 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.65-1.28, p = 0.6] for PT versus IMRT. The exploratory non-inferiority endpoint of 3-year FFBP was 98.0% for PT and 97.9% for IMRT, and Gray’s Test showed a HR of 0.95 (95% CI: 0.52-1.71, p = 0.90). Conclusions: Analysis of early results of COMPPARE show no significant differences between PT and IMRT in patient reported bowel frequency and urgency, grade ≥2 gastrointestinal toxicity, or FFBP. Assessment of long-term disease control, late toxicity and secondary malignancy will require longer follow-up. Clinical trial information: NCT03561220 .

LBA5 Background: Available 2L therapies offer limited clinical benefit in mPDAC with reported mPFS of 3–4 mo and mOS of 6–7 mo. Aberrant RAS pathway activation is the key driver of PDAC, with oncogenic RAS mutations (mut) identified in >90% of cases, most commonly at codon G12. Daraxonrasib is an oral, RAS(ON) multi-selective, tri-complex inhibitor of the active, GTP-bound state of mutant and wild type RAS. Methods: RASolute 302 (NCT06625320) is a global, randomized, open-label, Ph 3 study in pts with 2L mPDAC and ECOG PS 0-1. Pts were randomized 1:1 to receive daraxonrasib 300 mg PO QD or investigator’s choice of SOC cytotoxic chemo. Dual primary endpoints were OS and PFS by BICR in the RAS G12 mutant (RAS G12) population. Key secondary endpoints included OS and PFS by BICR in the overall population, ORR by BICR in RAS G12 and overall populations. Results: 248 pts were randomized to daraxonrasib and 252 to chemo. Baseline characteristics were balanced between arms. At data cutoff (Feb 10, 2026; mFU: 8.5 mo), all primary and key secondary endpoints were met. Statistically significant, clinically meaningful improvements in OS and PFS were observed with daraxonrasib vs chemo in the RAS G12 and overall populations (Table). Gr ≥3 TRAEs occurred in 43.6% of pts receiving daraxonrasib vs 57.5% receiving chemo. The most common (≥10%) Gr ≥3 TRAEs were rash (13.7%) and stomatitis (12.0%) for daraxonrasib; neutrophil decrease (18.2%) and anemia (16.4%) for chemo. TRSAEs occurred in 10.8% of pts receiving daraxonrasib vs 18.7% receiving chemo. Discontinuation due to TRAEs occurred in 1.2% of pts for daraxonrasib vs 11.2% for chemo. Median/mean daraxonrasib dose intensity was 93.1%/84.7%. Conclusions: Daraxonrasib demonstrated unprecedented improvements in OS and PFS vs chemo in pts with 2L mPDAC with or without an identified tumor RAS mut. Daraxonrasib was generally well tolerated, with a manageable safety profile and with no new safety signals. Results support daraxonrasib as the new SOC for 2L mPDAC. Clinical trial information: NCT06625320 . RAS G12 Overall b Daraxonrasibn=228 Chemo n=231 Daraxonrasib n=248 Chemo n=252 OS Median; mos(95% CI) 13.2(10.0–NE) 6.6(5.4–8.2) 13.2(10.0–NE) 6.7(5.8–8.0) HR(95% CI)P-value 0.40(0.30-0.54)<0.0001 0.40(0.30-0.53)<0.0001 PFS a Median; mos(95% CI) 7.3(6.3–8.1) 3.5(2.9–3.8) 7.2(5.7–7.5) 3.6(2.9–4.2) HR(95% CI)P-value 0.45(0.34-0.59)<0.0001 0.49(0.38-0.64)<0.0001 ORR a %(95% CI) 33.2(27.0–39.9) 11.8(7.8–16.8) 31.6(25.8–38.0) 11.2(7.5–15.9) a By BICR. b RAS G12, G13 or Q61 mut or no RAS mut identified.

LBA2 Background: Dedifferentiated liposarcoma (DDLS) remains a difficult disease to treat with limited systemic therapy options. Approved drugs offer modest benefit such as trabectedin (median progression-free survival [mPFS] 2.2 months [m]) or eribulin (mPFS 2.0m). The Cyclin-dependent kinase 4 (CDK4) oncogene is ubiquitously amplified in DDLS and is a rational therapeutic target. In single-arm phase 2 studies, treatment with selective CDK4 inhibitors resulted in mPFS 4.2m with palbociclib and mPFS 7.7m with abemaciclib. We hypothesized that treatment with abemaciclib would improve PFS compared to placebo in patients with recurrent or metastatic DDLS. Methods: SARC041 was a phase 3 randomized double-blind study of abemaciclib versus placebo. The study was open at 9 academic medical centers in the USA. Eligible patients (pts) had recurrent or metastatic DDLS (purely well-differentiated liposarcoma excluded), progression of disease by RECIST 1.1 in the 6 months prior to study entry, any number of prior systemic therapies, and adequate organ function and performance status. Pts were stratified by prior lines of therapy (0 vs 1 or more) and randomized 1:1 between abemaciclib 200 mg PO twice a day or matching placebo. Scans were every 6 weeks (every 12 weeks after week 36) and pts with progression of disease on placebo could cross over to open label abemaciclib. The primary endpoint was PFS. The design provided 80% power with two-sided 10% significance level to detect a hazard ratio of 0.6 by log-rank test. Secondary endpoints were overall response rate (ORR), PFS and response rate after crossover, and overall survival (OS). Data cutoff was March 1, 2026. Results: In total, 108 pts were randomized to receive abemaciclib (n = 54) or placebo (n = 54). Demographic/baseline characteristics were generally similar across treatment arms. Abemaciclib demonstrated a statistically significant improvement in PFS at 9.67m vs placebo at 1.52m (hazard ratio [HR] 0.39; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.25–0.59; p < 0.001). ORR was 9.3% for abemaciclib vs 0% for placebo (p = 0.057). mOS was not reached with abemaciclib vs 25.45m with placebo (HR 0.55; 95% CI, 0.28–1.07; p = 0.077). mPFS after crossover from placebo to abemaciclib was 3.44m (95% CI 2.66, 6.84). ORR after crossover was 4.3% (95% CI 0.53%, 15%). mOS after crossover was 24.03m (95% CI: 11.7, NA). Grade 3 or higher adverse event rates were similar in both arms (p > 0.99). No new safety signals were observed. Conclusions: Abemaciclib demonstrated a statistically significant improvement in PFS vs placebo in pts with dedifferentiated liposarcoma, with an encouraging OS trend. These results support abemaciclib as a new treatment option for dedifferentiated liposarcoma. Clinical trial information: NCT04967521 .