Citations

1005 Background: In the phase 3 HER2CLIMB-05 study (NCT05132582), TUC + maintenance HP demonstrated a statistically significant improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) vs control treatment (Tx) (hazard ratio: 0.641, P < 0.0001) in patients (pts) with HER2+ locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer (MBC). Here we report additional efficacy and safety outcomes by stratified subgroups. Methods: Pts with centrally confirmed HER2+ MBC without evidence of progression following chemotherapy-based induction Tx (taxane + HP) were randomly assigned 1:1 to TUC (300 mg) or PBO BID + HP. Randomization was stratified by diagnosis ( de novo /recurrent), hormone receptor (HR) status (positive/negative), and presence or history of brain metastases (BM; yes/no). Endocrine therapy (ET) is permitted for pts with HR+ disease. The primary endpoint is investigator-assessed PFS. Confirmed objective response rate (cORR), duration of response (DOR), and safety were evaluated in stratified subgroups. Results: Among pts assigned to TUC + HP (n = 326) or PBO + HP (n = 328), ∼69% had de novo MBC, ∼53% had HR+ status with ∼45% having received concurrent ET, and ∼12% had baseline BM. At data cutoff (Sep 5, 2025), median PFS was longer with TUC than PBO + HP in all stratified subgroups; TUC + HP consistently improved cORR vs PBO + HP (Table). Safety outcomes in subgroups aligned with the overall population. Conclusions: TUC + HP demonstrated clinically meaningful efficacy vs PBO + HP in pts with de novo or recurrent disease, HR+ or HR− disease, and baseline BM or not, with no new safety signals identified. Results were consistent with the overall population and support TUC + HP as a potential new maintenance therapy across pts with HER2+ MBC. Clinical trial information: NCT05132582 . Efficacy outcomes. Overall De novo Recurrent HR+ (± ET) † HR− BM (yes) BM (no) TUC+HP(n=326) PBO+HP(n=328) TUC+HP(n=227) PBO+HP(n=226) TUC+HP(n=99) PBO+HP(n=102) TUC+HP(n=168) PBO+HP(n=176) TUC+HP(n=158) PBO+HP(n=152) TUC+HP(n=41) PBO+HP(n=40) TUC+HP(n=285) PBO+HP(n=288) Median PFS, mos (95% CI) 24.9(21.3−NE) 16.3(12.6−18.7) 28.9(22.7−NE) 16.8(12.9−19.2) 21.3(15.6−27.2) 12.7(8.3−18.1) 25.0(16.5−NE) 18.1(13.0−20.8) 24.9(19.4−NE) 12.6(9.4−16.8) 8.5(4.2−16.5) 4.2(2.2−8.1) 27.2(24.3−NE) 18.1(14.8−20.7) cORR*, % (95% CI) 22.6(18.0−27.8) 15.2(11.3−19.7) 26.1(20.2−32.7) 18.5(13.5−24.4) 15.1(8.5−24.0) 7.0(2.6−14.6) 20.1(14.0−27.5) 12.9(8.2−19.0) 25.2(18.4−33.0) 17.9(11.8−25.5) 15.0(5.7−29.8) 8.3(1.8−22.5) 23.8(18.7−29.5) 16.1(11.9−12.1) Median DOR*, mos (95% CI) 20.9(16.4−NE) 16.9(12.3−NE) NR(16.4−NE) 16.3(10.4−NE) 17.9(8.3−NE) NR(7.2−NE) 20.9(12.6−NE) 18.7(7.8−NE) NR(8.6−NE) 14.5(10.4−NE) 12.6(8.1−NE) 16.3(12.5−NE) 20.9(16.4−NE) 18.7(10.4−NE) *ORR and DOR were assessed in patients with target or non-target lesions at baseline. † Data on HR+ w/ ET will be presented.

1042 Background: The primary analysis of the phase 3 HER2CLIMB-05 study (NCT05132582) showed the addition of TUC to 1L maintenance HP yielded a statistically significant improvement in progression-free survival (per investigator) versus control treatment (hazard ratio: 0.641, P < 0.0001) in patients with HER2+ MBC. Here we report our findings from an in-depth safety analysis of HER2CLIMB-05. Methods: Patients with centrally confirmed HER2+ MBC without evidence of progression following chemotherapy-based induction treatment (taxane + HP) were randomly assigned 1:1 to TUC (300 mg) or placebo (PBO) BID, both in combination with HP. The safety analysis set included all randomly assigned patients who received ≥1 dose of any study treatment. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), laboratory values, and TUC/PBO dose modifications and discontinuations were examined. Results: Among patients in the safety analysis set (TUC arm = 326; PBO arm = 324), median treatment durations of TUC and PBO were 17.1 months (range: 0.4–36.5) and 15.5 months (range: 0.5–41.3), respectively. Grade (G) ≥3 TEAEs occurred in 42.3% of patients in the TUC arm and 24.4% in the PBO arm; the most frequent G ≥3 TEAEs in the TUC arm were elevated alanine aminotransferase (ALT; 13.5%) and aspartate aminotransferase (AST; 7.1%). TUC was discontinued in 13.5% of patients due to a TEAE. Cardiac TEAEs were similar between TUC and PBO arms (4.3% vs 6.2%). TEAEs of hepatic events (43.6% vs 15.7%) and diarrhea (72.7% vs 51.2%) occurred at higher incidence in the TUC arm versus the PBO arm (Table). In the TUC arm, increased ALT (28.2%) and AST (25.8%) accounted for the majority of hepatic TEAEs. Most hepatic and diarrhea TEAEs were managed with TUC dose modifications and/or discontinuation; 7.7% of patients discontinued TUC due to hepatic TEAEs and 1.5% discontinued due to diarrhea (Table). Among the patients with a TEAE of diarrhea, 57.7% and 29.9%, respectively, in the TUC and PBO arms used antidiarrheals; the most used medication was loperamide. Further details of the in-depth safety analysis will be presented. Conclusions: TUC addition to 1L HP maintenance therapy may be an effective option for HER2+ MBC with a clinically manageable safety profile. Clinical trial information: NCT05132582 . TEAEs* Any Any hepatic Increased ALT/AST Diarrhea Arm TUC PBO TUC PBO TUC PBO TUC PBO Any G, % 99.1 96.6 43.6 15.7 28.2/25.8 7.1/9.0 72.7 51.2 G ≥3 42.3 24.4 18.1 1.2 13.5/7.1 0.6/0.6 6.1 4.0 Any G: Median time to onset (days) 34.5 85.0 11.0 32.0 Median time to resolution (days) 25.0 22.0 2.0 5.0 Any G: TUC/PBO dose hold, % 49.4 25.3 19.3 2.5 12.6/4.0 0.6/0.6 8.6 3.4 TUC/PBO dose reduction, % 29.1 11.1 16.3 0.9 11.7/2.8 0.3/0.6 6.4 3.1 TUC/PBO discontinuation, % 13.5 2.2 7.7 0 4.0/0.3 0/0 1.5 0.9 *As of data cutoff, Sep 5, 2025.

1024 Background: Invasive lobular carcinoma (ILC) is a distinct breast cancer (BC) subtype with dissemination patterns differing from invasive breast carcinoma of no special type (IBC-NST). While genomic differences between ILC and IBC-NST have been described, the extent to which molecular and immune profiles vary by metastatic organ and histology is poorly characterized. Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis to evaluate organ- and histology-specific molecular features of metastatic BC (mBC). Patients with metastatic IBC-NST or pure ILC underwent NGS (592, NextSeq; WES/WTS, NovaSeq; Caris Life Sciences). Tumor mutational burden (high ≥10 mut/Mb), PD-L1 expression (22C3), and immune cell fractions (RNAseq deconvolution, quanTIseq) were assessed. Analyses were restricted to sites with ≥10 biopsies per histology. Comparisons used chi-square or Mann–Whitney U tests with multiple testing correction (q < 0.05). Results: A total of 2645 mBC biopsies (605 ILC; 2040 IBC-NST) were analyzed (Table). In ILC, ERBB2 mut frequency differed by metastatic site (q<0.01), with higher prevalence in liver (32.7%) and lower in gastrointestinal (GI) lesions (3.7%). In IBC-NST, ESR1 and GATA3 mut and FGFR1 amplification were enriched in liver metastases, whereas PD-L1 expression was highest in skin (20.7%) and lowest in liver (5.0%). No organ-specific differences were observed for PIK3CA, AKT, PTEN, BRCA1/2 or RB1 . Across metastatic sites, both ILC and IBC-NST showed differences in B cells, macrophages (M1/M2), neutrophils, NK cells, dendritic cells, CD8+ T cells, and Tregs (all q < 0.05); CD4+ T-cell differences were observed only in IBC-NST (q = 0.002). In organ-specific ILC vs IBC-NST comparisons, CDH1 mut were more frequent in ILC across sites, along with higher PIK3CA mut in skin (ILC 51.3% vs IBC-NST 34.4%) and higher ERBB2 mut in liver (32.7% vs 3.3%), whereas a higher TP53 mut frequency was observed in IBC-NST in skin (28.5% vs 52.3%) and lymph nodes (LND) (23.5% vs 55.5%) (all q < 0.01). Conclusions: mBC exhibits marked organ-specific molecular and immune heterogeneity that differs by histology. These findings support histology- and site-aware interpretation of metastatic biopsies and may inform biomarker assessment and treatment decisions in advanced disease. BC-NST ILC Skin LND Bone Breast Liver Perit. CNS q-value Skin LND Bone Breast GI Liver GYN Perit. CNS q-value N (specimens) 785 401 109 361 220 15 44 - 172 84 62 56 56 54 43 37 11 - ERBB2 mut (%) 3.2 3.1 3.2 2.3 3.3 7.1 2.5 1.0 7.1 7.4 16.4 15.4 3.7 32.7 2.4 5.7 11.1 <0.01 ESR1 mut (%) 9.4 5.2 8.3 16.0 28.2 7.1 2.4 0.0 7.8 7.2 8.9 9.8 16.7 26.0 4.9 20.0 0.0 0.9 FGFR1 amp (%) 10.1 6.6 5.6 12.8 16.5 0.0 9.7 0.02 4.4 3.4 6.7 6.1 2.4 5.6 7.7 18.5 0.0 1.0 IHC-PD-L1 (%) 20.7 - 5.3 16.0 5.0 11.1 10.3 0.02 8.9 - 5.0 5.7 6.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.3 1.0 TMB-High (%) 10.7 10.1 8.8 8.8 8.5 14.3 21.4 0.8 27.6 11.0 19.6 28.0 11.3 19.6 9.8 32.4 22.2 0.8 Perit: peritoneum; CNS: central nervous system; GYN: genital tract.

10043 Background: Tumor resection is a cornerstone of therapy for neuroblastoma (NB) and Wilms tumor (WT). Minimally invasive surgical approaches such as laparoscopic or robotic tumor resection hold promise to reduce surgical morbidity while maintaining excellent oncologic outcomes. This study aims to determine the utilization and outcomes of laparoscopic and robotic resection of NB and WT among children in a national cohort, hypothesizing that utilization is increasing over time and outcomes are not inferior to open resection. Methods: A retrospective cohort analysis of patients <18 years old in the 2020-2023 National Cancer Database who underwent resection of NB or WT was performed. Surgical approach trends were assessed via Cochran-Armitage tests. Conversions to open surgery, length of stay (LOS), and readmissions were compared between approaches using Kruskal-Wallis, Chi-square, and Fisher’s exact tests. Results: Among 1,262 children who underwent resection of NB (n=581) or WT (n=681), open procedures were most common (83.4%), followed by laparoscopic (13.9%), and robotic (2.7%). Utilization of each approach was stable over time aside from increased robotic resection of NB from 0% to 4% (p=.024). Approach did not vary by patient age (Table 1). Median WT size and lymph node yield were similar between approaches (both p>.05). In NB, laparoscopic procedures were performed on smaller tumors than open or robotic (p<.001). There were no robotic conversions to open; 11.4% of laparoscopic procedures were converted without change over time or difference between NB and WT (both p>.05). Median LOS was greater for open procedures than laparoscopic or robotic (p<.001). Readmission rates (p=.64) and margin status (p=.63) were similar between approaches. Outcomes did not vary by diagnosis. Conclusions: Utilization of minimally invasive approaches for NB or WT resection remains low despite noninferior or improved outcomes. Efforts to safely increase utilization are needed, especially for robotics, so that survivorship can be improved through reduced surgical morbidity. Differences in patient characteristics and outcomes by surgical approach. Characteristic or Outcome Open Laparoscopic Robotic p value Age in years (median, IQR) 3 (1, 4) 3 (1, 5) 3 (1, 7) 0.08 % female 53% 53% 44% 0.59 NB tumor size in mm (median, IQR) 72 (50, 101) 47 (35, 71) 70 (51, 86) <0.001 WT tumor size in mm (median, IQR) 110 (75, 140) 115 (93, 150) 93 (54, 125) 0.10 % metastatic disease 33% 30% 15% 0.07 % neoadjuvant therapy 35% 27% 22% 0.014 % conversion to open n/a 11% 0% 0.05 Negative margins 86% 83% 96% 0.63 # Lymph nodes assessed in WT (median, IQR) 5 (3, 8) 6 (3, 10) 4 (3, 9) 0.62 LOS in days (median, IQR) 5 (4, 7) 4 (2, 6) 4 (1, 5) <0.001 % readmission 15% 14% 9% 0.64

10030 Background: CABO is a multi-targeted kinase inhibitor of VEGFR2, c-MET, AXL and RET and has shown clinical evidence of activity in two prior studies of adult and pediatric patients with advanced OS. We report results of a feasibility cohort of CABO + MAP chemotherapy in patients with newly diagnosed high-risk OS. Methods: Patients <40 years, body surface area ≥ 0.8 m 2 and new diagnosis of high-grade OS with metastatic disease and resectable primary tumor were eligible. Patients were enrolled to two CABO dose levels (Dose Level 1 (DL1) 25 mg/m 2 /day, maximum 40 mg/day; Dose Level 2 (DL2) 35 mg/m 2 /day; maximum 60 mg/day) using a modified IQ 3+3 design. CABO was orally administered concomitantly with six 35-day cycles of MAP (cisplatin 60 mg/m 2 on days 1-2 (cycles 1-4), doxorubicin 37.5 mg/m 2 on days 1-2 (with dexrazoxane), methotrexate 12 g/m 2 on days 22, 29) and for 24 weeks as maintenance monotherapy. CABO was held after 7 weeks and resumed during 4 th MAP cycle to allow for primary tumor resection and metastatic surgeries. Dose-limiting toxicities (DLT) were assessed during weeks 1-6 of treatment; additional monitoring for post-surgical complications was conducted through completion of 4 th MAP cycle. The primary endpoint for this cohort was feasibility of combination therapy. Results: Ten patients (median age 11.5 years, 70% male) were enrolled and treated with CABO + MAP (DL1, n=4; DL2, n=6). Median cumulative doses of all MAP agents were maintained throughout treatment with no dose reductions. Concomitant dosing of CABO with MAP was tolerated with no protocol-specified DLTs occurring during the evaluation period. DL2 (35 mg/m 2 ) was established as the recommended dose for further study of combination therapy. Commonly reported adverse events included hematologic toxicities, febrile neutropenia, and alanine/aspartate aminotransferase (AST/ALT) elevation. Interruption of CABO was required in 6 patients for Grade 3+ AST/ALT elevation following methotrexate (n=3), wound complications (n=3), and Grade 3 pneumothorax (n=1). Wounds included two Grade 3 port site events and one Grade 1 primary tumor resection site; two patients later resumed CABO after healing without wound recurrence. Dose reduction of CABO was required in one patient for Grade 4 amylase elevation. Conclusions: The combination of CABO + MAP is feasible with no protocol-specified DLTs during the evaluation period. Generalizability is limited based on cohort size. Further evaluation of CABO + MAP is ongoing in a phase II/III randomized efficacy study in newly diagnosed standard and high-risk patients using CABO dose of 35 mg/m 2 /day (max 60 mg), with delayed initiation of CABO in patients with port placement and early safety monitoring for wound-related events, as well as full study monitoring of dose delivery, wound complications and systemic toxicity. Clinical trial information: NCT05691478 .

Telehealth may improve access to specialized oncology care for Medicaid beneficiaries with hematological malignancies who face geographic and financial barriers. During the COVID-19 public health emergency, telehealth use expanded rapidly, yet state policies governing telehealth coverage/payment parity varied. Evidence is limited on how these policy differences influenced oncology telehealth use for Medicaid patients. We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of 2020–2021 multistate Medicaid claims. Adult and pediatric oncology specialists were identified based on board certification data. Telehealth video visits were measured monthly at the extensive margin, defined as the proportion of specialists providing any telehealth, and the intensive margin, defined as average monthly telehealth visits among telehealth providing specialists. States were categorized by private insurance telehealth policy environment: coverage and payment parity, coverage parity only, or no or unspecified parity. Telehealth use increased sharply across all states in early 2020, rising from less than 1% of specialists before the pandemic to peak levels by April 2020. Specialists practicing in coverage and payment parity states demonstrated higher and more sustained telehealth use through 2021 compared with those in coverage only or no parity states. By December 2021, 15.1% of adult specialists in coverage and payment parity states provided telehealth, compared with 8.1% in coverage-only states and 7.8% in no-parity states. Pediatric specialists showed similar patterns, though overall telehealth use remained lower. Specialists in parity states also maintained higher monthly telehealth visit volumes over time. State-level coverage and payment parity policies may have been associated with greater and sustained telehealth provision by oncology specialists treating Medicaid beneficiaries with hematologic malignancies. Maintaining supportive telehealth policies may be essential for promoting equitable access to specialized cancer care and reducing disparities among underserved populations. These findings inform future telehealth policy decisions nationally statewide.

Estimates of fibromyalgia prevalence vary widely worldwide due to differences in diagnostic criteria, study methodology, and population characteristics. Accurate estimates are essential to inform population-level surveillance, guide resource allocation, and highlight disparities in disease recognition and access to care. The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to determine the global prevalence of fibromyalgia in the general population, and secondarily to identify factors moderating prevalence variation and to assess prevalence in defined at-risk subpopulations. Pooled prevalence estimates with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using the inverse variance heterogeneity model with Freeman–Tukey transformation. Subgroup analyses were performed by sex, diagnostic criteria, country, and other study characteristics, and meta-regression assessed moderators including publication year and Human Development Index (HDI). Of 21,645 records identified, 1,728 underwent full-text review and 882 studies were included in the final analysis. Across 38 countries and 30,070,032 individuals (188 studies), the pooled fibromyalgia prevalence in the general population was 1.40% (95% CI, 0.49–2.47), with substantial heterogeneity (I 2 = 100%) and very low certainty of evidence. Among at-risk subpopulations (9,771,123 participants; 768 studies), prevalence was markedly higher in autoimmune and inflammatory conditions, such as chronic urticaria (37.1%), interstitial cystitis (30.8%), systemic sclerosis (20.6%), celiac disease (20.5%), and inflammatory bowel disease (19.9%), and elevated in chronic pain, rheumatologic, and post-infection cohorts. Meta-regression identified publication year (β = 0.008, P < .001) and HDI (β = 0.725, P = .002) as significant moderators of prevalence. In conclusion, fibromyalgia affects 1% to 2% of the global population, with substantially higher rates in at-risk subpopulations. Temporal and socioeconomic trends emphasize diagnostic inconsistency and global disparities in care.