Citations

e21607 Background: The association between timing of palliative care referral and survival outcomes in patients with melanoma brain metastases (MBM) treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors remains poorly characterized. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients with MBM treated with combination ipilimumab and nivolumab at Mayo 3 sites from 2016 to 2024. Palliative care referral timing relative to MBM diagnosis was categorized as early (≤56 days), late ( > 56 days), or none. Patients without referral documentation were excluded from referral-based analyses. Overall survival (OS) was estimated using Kaplan–Meier methods and compared with log-rank tests. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards models were used to identify factors independently associated with OS, with stepwise selection (entry p < 0.25; stay p < 0.15). Results: Among 147 patients, 139 had referral information: 33 (23.7%) early, 56 (40.3%) late, and 50 (36.0%) no referral. Median OS differed significantly by referral timing (log-rank p < 0.0001): 2.8 months (early), 7.9 months (late), and 47.8 months (no referral). Among patients with ECOG 2–3, a higher proportion had early or late referral (each 42.9%) compared with no referral (14.3%), whereas patients with ECOG 0–1 were more evenly distributed across referral groups (early 21.6%, late 40.0%, none 38.4%). In multivariable analysis of 88 patients with complete covariate data, both early (HR 4.54; p = 0.0016) and late referral (HR 2.86; p = 0.011) were independently associated with worse OS compared with no referral. Progressive disease versus objective response (HR 4.45; p = 0.0002), hemorrhagic metastases (HR 2.79; p = 0.0015), male sex (HR 2.07; p = 0.044), and increasing age (HR 1.02 per year; p = 0.032) were also associated with inferior OS. Treatment with ipilimumab 1 mg/kg plus nivolumab 3 mg/kg showed a trend toward improved OS compared with ipilimumab 3 mg/kg plus nivolumab 1 mg/kg (HR 0.48; p = 0.055). Conclusions: Timing of palliative care referral was strongly associated with overall survival in patients with MBM treated with ipilimumab and nivolumab. Although patients with ECOG 2–3 were more frequently referred early or late, ECOG category overall did not clearly differentiate referral timing groups, suggesting referral may reflect unmeasured clinical factors beyond baseline performance status. Prospective studies incorporating more granular functional and symptom measures are needed to better define the role of palliative care integration in this population. Multivariable cox model for overall survival. Variable Comparison HR P value Referral timing Early vs None 4.54 0.0016 Late vs None 2.86 0.011 Best overall response PD vs ORR 4.45 0.0002 SD vs ORR 2.16 0.098 Hemorrhagic metastases Yes vs No 2.79 0.0015 Sex Male vs Female 2.07 0.044 Age Per year increase 1.02 0.032 Regimen Ipi1+Nivo3 vs Ipi3+Nivo1 0.48 0.055

e21561 Background: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have become the standard first-line systemic therapy for metastatic Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC). Radiotherapy (RT) remains commonly used for local control and palliation, and growing biologic interest suggests that RT may enhance antitumor immune responses when combined with ICIs. However, population-level evidence regarding contemporary patterns of RT use and its association with survival in immunotherapy-treated patients with metastatic MCC is limited. Methods: We conducted a retrospective population-based cohort study using the National Cancer Database (NCDB), including adults diagnosed with metastatic MCC between 2011 and 2022. Temporal trends in treatment utilization were described across the study period. Among patients diagnosed in the immunotherapy era (2017–2022), factors associated with receipt of RT were examined using multivariable logistic regression. To evaluate survival, analyses were restricted to immunotherapy-treated patients, and overall survival was compared between those who received RT and those who did not using propensity score-matched Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional hazards analyses, with a focus on 2-year overall survival. Results: A total of 1,736 patients with metastatic MCC were included. Following 2017, immunotherapy use increased substantially, while chemotherapy use declined; RT utilization remained relatively stable over time. In multivariable analyses restricted to the immunotherapy era, higher primary tumor stage and lymph node dissection were independently associated with RT receipt. Among immunotherapy-treated patients in the propensity score-matched cohort, RT was not associated with improved 2-year OS (aHR,1.09; 95% CI, 0.84-1.42), and Kaplan-Meier analyses demonstrated no significant survival difference. Conclusions: In the contemporary immunotherapy era, RT continues to be selectively incorporated into the management of metastatic MCC, particularly in patients with greater local or regional disease burden. However, among immunotherapy-treated patients, RT was not associated with improved short-term overall survival at the population level. These findings support a continued role for RT in local disease management while underscoring the need for prospective studies to better define its optimal integration with immunotherapy.

e21533 Background: Clinical decision-making in melanoma is challenged by heterogeneous disease biology, evolving treatment paradigms, and fragmented longitudinal data. Although EMRs contain real-world information, clinicians often lack tools that organize these data around clinically meaningful milestones to support pre-visit decision-making. We developed CODE-M, an AI–enabled framework designed to identify clinically similar patients (“patients like mine”) and surface outcome-relevant insights using real-world data. Methods: CODE-M was developed using data derived from EMRs at a large academic cancer center. Patient data were normalized and aligned to a clinically defined ordinal timeline spanning diagnosis, adjuvant therapy, recurrence, progression, systemic treatment, and outcomes. Similarity modeling incorporated demographics, disease stage, treatment history, longitudinal outcomes, and available molecular and genomic attributes, represented as contextual features within the timeline. AI-based similarity modeling generated retrospective cohorts reflecting shared clinical features of an index patient and supported iterative cohort generation for competing progression-free and overall survival analyses using automated Kaplan–Meier, Cox proportional hazards, and feature association models. A clinician-facing pre-visit summary presents cohort characteristics, outcomes, and relevant clinical trial options prior to patient encounters. Results: The framework reliably aligned heterogeneous longitudinal EMR data to a shared clinical timeline and generated reproducible, clinically coherent patient cohorts reflecting shared disease stage, treatment exposure, and melanoma care patterns. Iterative cohort generation enabled comparative analyses across competing cohorts, resulting in predictable shifts in observed progression-free and overall survival distributions. Pre-visit summaries and analytic outputs were reviewed by clinicians and demonstrated interpretability and relevance for visit preparation. The platform also identified clinical trials based on eligibility criteria, trial availability, and patient geographic proximity, integrating trial matching into the clinical decision workflow. Conclusions: An AI-enabled, ordinal timeline–based approach can structure real-world melanoma data to support pre-visit clinical context through patient similarity analysis and comparative outcome visualization. CODE-M summarizes observed outcomes among clinically similar patients and is intended to support contextual understanding of prior care experiences rather than generate treatment recommendations or patient-specific predictions. This framework supports clinical insight, hypothesis generation, and shared decision-making using longitudinal EMR-derived data, with applicability across oncology disease types.

e21521 Background: Outcomes following tumor-infiltrating lymphocyte (TIL) therapy vary in real-world practice, and accessible predictors are needed to inform patient selection and timing of referral. We evaluated whether baseline disease burden, metastatic distribution, and treatment delivery factors are associated with outcomes following TIL therapy. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed patients with metastatic melanoma treated with TIL therapy across Mayo Clinic sites (N = 27 infused). Baseline disease burden was characterized using AJCC metastatic stage and organ-specific involvement. A composite high visceral burden variable was defined as the presence of M1d disease and/or liver metastases. Bridging therapy use prior to infusion was recorded. Post-infusion IL-2 exposure was categorized as low (0-2 doses) vs. high (3-6 doses). Best overall response (BOR) was summarized using RECIST-based standard criteria. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were measured from TIL infusion and estimated using Kaplan–Meier methods with univariable Cox regression. Results: Median age at infusion was 62.0 years; 59.3% were male. Melanoma subtypes included cutaneous (81.5%) and mucosal (18.5%). Bridging therapy was used in 48.1%. Baseline metastatic stage was M1a/M1b in 18.5%, M1c in 63.0%, and M1d in 18.5%. Median follow up was 8.3 months. BOR included complete response (18.5%), partial response (37.0%), stable disease (22.2%), and progressive disease (22.2%), yielding an objective response rate of 55.6% and disease control rate of 77.8%. Patients with high visceral disease burden experienced inferior OS vs. those without high visceral burden (median 5.2 vs 13.4 months; HR 4.77, 95% CI 1.22–18.63; p = 0.014). Bridging therapy was not associated with OS or PFS. Higher post-infusion IL-2 exposure (seen in 77.8% of patients) was associated with improved OS (median 9.0 vs 3.7 months; HR 0.16, 95% CI 0.04–0.67, p = 0.005), likely reflecting early post-infusion clinical tolerance rather than a causal treatment effect. Median PFS for the cohort was 3.6 months and did not differ by IL-2 exposure ( p = 0.3), metastatic stage ( p = 0.8), bridging therapy ( p = 0.7), liver metastases ( p = 0.2), or LDH above upper limit of normal ( p = 0.1). Conclusions: The above findings are hypothesis generating and will support evaluation in larger cohort. In this real-world cohort of patients treated with TIL therapy, baseline visceral disease burden was strongly associated with survival outcomes, while bridging therapy did not compromise post-infusion efficacy among patients proceeding to infusion. Post-infusion IL-2 exposure correlated with OS and likely reflects early treatment tolerance. These readily available clinical features may inform patient counseling, referral timing, and sequencing decisions as TIL therapy enters broader clinical use.

e20761 Background: The prognostic role of serial circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) dynamics during osimertinib treatment has been described mainly in Asian and European populations; however, it remains poorly defined in Hispanic patients with advanced EGFR-mutant non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Our aim was to determine whether serial plasma EGFR testing identifies patients at high risk of early mortality. Methods: This multicenter, retrospective study included 64 Hispanic patients with stage IIIB–IV EGFR-mutant NSCLC treated with first-line osimertinib between 2018 and 2023. Tumor tissue genotyping was performed using hybrid-capture next-generation sequencing. Plasma EGFR mutations were assessed at baseline, week 8, and week 24. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were analyzed using Cox models adjusted for p53 status, RAF-pathway alterations, and metastatic burden. Results: The cohort had a median age of 61 years, with 65.6% of patients being female and 56.2% being never-smokers. Sensitizing EGFR mutations consisted mainly of exon 19 deletion (59.4%) and L858R (39.1%). Relevant co-mutations were identified in TP53 (29.7%) and RAF-pathway genes (6.2%). Plasma ctDNA remained positive in 42.2% of patients at week 8 and 22.0% at week 24. Week-8 ctDNA persistence was strongly associated with an inferior OS (HR 9.36, 95% CI 3.80–23.03, p < 0.001) after multivariable adjustment. Week-24 positivity also predicted worse OS (HR 3.34, 95% CI 1.13–9.89, p = 0.02). ctDNA status at week 8 or 24 was not significantly associated with PFS. Patients with TP53 or RAF pathway mutations demonstrated higher rates of molecular persistence. Conclusions: In Hispanic patients receiving Osimertinib, ctDNA positivity at 8-24 weeks is able to identify patients with poor survival outcomes. ctDNA monitoring may provide an early, non-invasive biomarker to guide treatment intensification and trial enrollment in EGFR-mutant NSCLC.

e20731 Background: Selective RET (REarranged during Transfection) inhibitors (RETi) have become standard treatment for RET fusion-positive non-small cell lung cancer ( RET + NSCLC), which represent 1–2% of NSCLC cases. Clinical factors that drive front-line versus later-line RETi use and outcomes are not well understood. This retrospective chart review evaluates physician decision drivers alongside real-world effectiveness and safety for pralsetinib (PRAL) in RET + NSCLC. Methods: A retrospective chart review was conducted via a standardized web-based form among US oncologists treating advanced RET + NSCLC. Eligible patients initiated PRAL for RET + NSCLC between October 2020 and December 2024. Data gathered included physician treatment considerations, patient baseline characteristics, and efficacy outcomes. Results: Eighty-two charts from patients who received PRAL as their first (index) RETi were collected from 43 physicians across both academic (41.9%) and community (58.1%) sites. Of the 82 patients, 51.2% received PRAL front line (1L) and 31.7% in the second line (2L). From a predefined list, physicians most often cited comorbidities (36.6%) and ECOG performance status (31.7%) as clinical factors when considering index PRAL therapy and efficacy profile (56.1%), followed by intracranial activity (24.4%) and hypersensitivity to immuno-oncology agents (24.4%) as therapy-related considerations. Although not a primary therapy selection driver, in 13 patients with safety as a consideration, 6 (46.2%) had myelosuppression noted as a concern for index PRAL treatment. RET + NSCLC patients treated in the 1L setting with PRAL had an overall response rate (ORR) of 73.8% (14 CR; 17 PR). For 2L line PRAL, the ORR was 61.5% (1 CR; 15 PR). Anemia (17.1%), diarrhea (13.4%), and constipation (13.4%) were the most frequently reported adverse events (AE). Discontinuation was mainly due to loss of/no response (80.6%), insurance (16.1%), and AEs (3.2%). The single PRAL patient that discontinued due to an AE had edema. There were an additional 7 patients that switched to PRAL due to an AE on a different RETi. The post-switch ORR was 57.1% (4/7); of these patients, 3 maintained their previous response and 1 improved their response. Conclusions: In this retrospective chart review, pralsetinib was used across treatment lines with high real-world response rates, consistent with results from the ARROW trial. Treatment selection was influenced by specific clinical factors including patient comorbidities, ECOG performance status, and safety concerns, with AE-driven switching uncommon yet associated with continued responses.

e20700 Background: Leptomeningeal metastases (LM) are a particularly challenging complication of EGFR-mutant non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and are often associated with rapid neurologic decline. Intrathecal (IT) chemotherapy is frequently used in this setting, but its efficacy and safety have not been well defined. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess neurologic response and treatment-related toxicity associated with IT chemotherapy in EGFR-mutant NSCLC with LM. Methods: We performed a PRISMA-guided search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL, and targeted grey literature to identify prospective and retrospective studies reporting outcomes of IT chemotherapy in EGFR-mutant NSCLC with LM. Quantitative analyses were restricted to studies with extractable endpoints. Neurologic response and grade ≥3 toxicity were pooled using random-effects generalized linear mixed models with logit transformation. Heterogeneity was assessed using I² and τ². Prespecified sensitivity analyses examined neurologic response by route of administration (lumbar puncture vs Ommaya reservoir), concomitant EGFR-TKI use, and study design or era. Results: Four studies comprising 76 patients reported extractable neurologic response data. The pooled neurologic response rate was 81.9% (95% CI, 64.0%–92.0%), with moderate heterogeneity (I² = 63.4%, p = 0.04). Grade ≥3 toxicity was reported in three studies (n = 59), with a pooled incidence of 11.8% (95% CI, 3.2%–34.9%) and substantial heterogeneity (I² = 71.3%, p = 0.03). Myelosuppression was the most frequently reported severe adverse event, and no consistent signal of severe neurologic toxicity was identified. Exploratory sensitivity analysis suggested higher neurologic response in LP-treated cohorts compared with mixed LP/Ommaya cohorts; however, this finding was driven by a single small study and is likely influenced by limited sample size and selection bias and should be considered hypothesis-generating only. Neurologic response was otherwise consistent across study designs and eras. Stratification by concomitant EGFR-TKI use was limited by incomplete reporting. Median overall survival was variably reported and ranged from approximately 7 to 12 months. Conclusions: In EGFR-mutant NSCLC with leptomeningeal metastases, IT chemotherapy is associated with a high pooled neurologic response and relatively uncommon severe toxicity, although heterogeneity across studies remains substantial. The observed neurologic benefit appears consistent across study designs and is more likely related to underlying EGFR-sensitive disease biology than to a definitive effect of route of administration. These findings support further prospective evaluation of IT chemotherapy as part of multimodal treatment strategies in this high-risk population.

e20648 Background: Immune checkpoint inhibitors have become a mainstay of treatment for lung cancer. However, their effectiveness varies, and is strongly influenced by patient characteristics. Smoking is the most important etiologic factor for lung cancer, and is expected to be associated with a high tumor mutational burden, which may in turn influence immunotherapy response. However, the extent to which smoking status modifies the benefit of immunotherapy in real-world populations is not well established. Methods: We identified 43,437 cases of invasive lung cancer with documentation of smoking status from the California Cancer Registry 2010-2021. Immunotherapy was documented as given or not given. Smoking status was defined as never, current or former. Cox regression was used to assess the unadjusted risk of mortality associated with immunotherapy and after adjusting for age, sex, race/ethnicity, stage, socio-economic status (SES), Charlson Comorbidity Index and insurance status. Analyses were conducted separately for current and former and never smokers. Results: Smoking status was documented for 43,347 cases (never = 15.887, current = 27,056, and former = 404). There were 4,014 cases treated with immunotherapy. The unadjusted risk of mortality for patients treated with immunotherapy was increased in non-smokers whereas immunotherapy reduced the risk of mortality in current and former smokers. After adjustment, all patients had a reduced risk of mortality, but current and former smokers had a higher risk reduction than non-smokers. Conclusions: Smoking modifies the effect of immunotherapy in patients with lung cancer, and our data suggests patients who currently or formerly smoked may derive a greater benefit from immunotherapy. This will need careful patient messaging as we continue public efforts towards smoking cessation. Unadjusted and adjusted* hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals for immunotherapy. Unadjusted Adjusted* HR (95%CI) HR (95%CI) Never smokers 1.35 (1.26, 1.45) 0.76 (0.70, 0.82) Current or former smoker 0.86 (0.82, 0.91) 0.52 (0.49, 0.55) *Adjusting for age, sex, race/ethnicity, stage, SES, Charlson Comorbidity Index and insurance status.

e20629 Background: Concomitant inhibition of the vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) pathway together with PD-1 or PD-L1 immune checkpoint blockade has demonstrated synergistic activity in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, comparative evidence across individual immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) and anti-VEGF combinations remains limited. This network meta-analysis (NMA) aimed to evaluate and compare the efficacy of available ICI plus anti-VEGF combination strategies in NSCLC. Methods: A systematic search of three electronic databases and two clinical trial registries was conducted to identify randomized controlled trials evaluating combinations of ICIs with anti-VEGF agents. A frequentist NMA framework was applied using the netmeta package in R. Hazard ratios (HRs) were used for overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS), while odds ratios (ORs) were used for objective response rate (ORR). Treatment ranking was performed using P scores. Results: A total of 24 randomized controlled trials were included in the network. For survival outcomes, the combination of nivolumab plus bevacizumab demonstrated significantly improved OS (HR = 0.66, 95% CI 0.50–0.88) and PFS (HR = 0.46, 95% CI 0.27–0.81) compared with standard chemotherapy. In addition, atezolizumab plus bevacizumab was associated with a significant OS benefit over chemotherapy (HR = 0.79, 95% CI 0.65–0.95). Indirect comparisons showed that nivolumab plus bevacizumab significantly improved PFS compared with pembrolizumab monotherapy, as well as pembrolizumab combined with lenvatinib or chemotherapy. Furthermore, nivolumab combined with sitravatinib demonstrated significantly superior OS and PFS compared with ramucirumab and chemotherapy. For ORR assessed using RECIST 1.1, nivolumab-based combinations could not be incorporated into the network due to insufficient data, and no other combination demonstrated a statistically significant advantage over chemotherapy. However, indirect comparisons showed that pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib was superior to lenvatinib monotherapy (OR = 4.76, 95% CI 1.04–25.0). P-score rankings identified nivolumab plus bevacizumab as the top-ranked regimen for survival outcomes, followed by atezolizumab plus bevacizumab. For ORR, pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib ranked highest, followed by atezolizumab plus bevacizumab. Conclusions: Nivolumab-based ICI and anti-VEGF combinations, particularly with bevacizumab and sitravatinib, demonstrate the most favorable survival outcomes in NSCLC. Evidence for ORR remains limited, and further randomized comparisons are required to better define the relative efficacy of these combinations.

e20595 Background: Circadian regulation of immune function has been proposed as a modifier of immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) efficacy, with retrospective studies suggesting improved outcomes with earlier infusion timing. Whether these findings translate to routine oncology practice, where ICIs are administered across multiple lines, frequently combined with chemotherapy, and subject to treatment interruptions, remains uncertain. We evaluated the association between ICI infusion timing and overall survival (OS) in a real-world cohort of patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Methods: A retrospective cohort study included adults with NSCLC who received at least one line of ICI therapy at a community oncology center between January 2018 and December 2024. Infusion timing was defined at the patient level as morning-only ( < 1300 hours), evening-only (≥1300 hours), or mixed timing, reflecting receipt of infusions exclusively in different time-of-day categories across treatment lines. OS was measured from diagnosis to death or last follow-up. Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional hazards models were used. Multivariable analyses adjusted for stage, ECOG performance status, body mass index, and premature ICI discontinuation. Line of therapy was excluded due to collinearity with mixed-timing classification and risk of immortal time bias. Results: A total of 127 patients were included (morning-only n = 77; mixed timing n = 36; evening-only n = 14). Staging data were available for 99.2%, and 94 deaths occurred. Median OS was 495 days for morning-only, 850 days for mixed timing, and 388 days for evening-only patients. Kaplan-Meier analysis showed no statistically significant OS differences across groups. In sensitivity analysis excluding patients with mixed infusion timing, morning-only and evening-only groups demonstrated overlapping survival curves, with no evidence of a time-of-day–specific survival advantage. In univariate analysis, mixed timing was associated with a borderline reduction in mortality compared with morning-only infusions (HR 0.63, 95% CI 0.39-1.00), while evening-only timing was not (HR 1.63, 95% CI 0.85-3.16). In multivariate analysis restricted to stage III-IV disease, infusion timing was not independently associated with OS. ECOG performance status, premature ICI discontinuation and advanced staging were the strongest predictors of mortality. Conclusions: In this real-world NSCLC cohort, ICI infusion timing was not independently associated with overall survival after adjustment for patient fitness and treatment continuity. These findings suggest that in pragmatic settings, clinical factors may outweigh subtle chronotherapy effects reported in more selected populations.