Citations

707 Background: Due to insufficient data, therapy for unresectable, locally advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma (LAPAC) is based on trials in metastatic disease, and outcomes remain poor. TTFields disrupt cancer cell division using alternating low-frequency electric fields delivered externally by a portable device. In the phase 3 PANOVA-3 trial (NCT03377491), TTFields with gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel (GnP) significantly improved overall survival (OS; HR 0.82) and pain-free survival (HR 0.74) vs GnP in patients with unresectable LAPAC. Methods: In PANOVA-3, patients with newly diagnosed LAPAC were randomized 1:1 to receive GnP with or without concomitant TTFields. Kaplan-Meier methodology was used for time-to-event analyses. Response evaluations were based on RECIST V1.1. OS, pain-free survival, and safety were analyzed post-hoc in subgroups based on sex (male, female), age ( < 65, ≥65 years), and BMI (<25, ≥25 kg/m 2 for efficacy; ≤20, 20–25, 25–30, ≥30 kg/m 2 for safety). Differences between treatment arms were compared using the log-rank test. Results: Efficacy outcomes are shown in the table. TTFields significantly extended pain-free survival in females and patients ≥65 years. Device-related adverse events (AEs) were comparable between sexes, older and younger patients, and across BMI ranges. Some device-related skin adverse events occurred more frequently in females (e.g. dermatitis, 33.1% vs 22.7%; rash 21.8% vs 13.5%, females vs males, respectively); others occurred more often in males (e.g. maculo-papular rash, 9.8% vs 14.2%; erythema, 9% vs 12.1%, females vs males, respectively). Dermatitis and pruritus had a higher incidence in the BMI ≥30 kg/m 2 subgroup (38.5%), whereas patients with BMI <30 kg/m 2 did not show noticeable differences in device-related AEs. Skin irritation (11.5% vs 5.5%) and skin reactions (8.5% vs 2.8%) were more common in patients ≥65 years than patients <65 years. Conclusions: Median OS and pain-free survival in these post-hoc subgroup analyses are generally consistent with the overall analysis, supporting use of TTFields with GnP in unresectable LAPAC. No new safety concerns were noted; observations were consistent with the general PANOVA-3 population. Clinical trial information: NCT03377491 . Survival outcomes for the subgroup analyses. Median OS, months TTFields + GnP GnP P value Age<65 years≥65 years 18.6 (n=113)15.4 (n=172) 16.0 (n=114)12.9 (n=172) 0.2060.061 SexFemaleMale 16.8 (n=138)15.7 (n=147) 14.5 (n=161)13.4 (n=125) 0.1140.145 BMI<25≥25 16.7 (n=166)16.2 (n=117) 14.2 (n=174)14.5 (n=108) 0.1550.105 Median pain-free survival, months Age<65 years≥65 years 16.5 (n=113)13.1 (n=172) 9.2 (n=114)8.3 (n=172) 0.4070.035 SexFemaleMale 16.5 (n=138)15.2 (n=147) 8.3 (n=161)9.3 (n=125) 0.0260.478 BMI<25≥25 16.6 (n=166)14.7 (n=117) 9.1 (n=174)8.3 (n=108) 0.1170.088

679 Background: DNA-damaging agents improve outcomes in metastatic pancreatic cancer (mPC) with homologous recombination repair (HRR) deficiency, albeit use is limited to 6-9% of patients (pts) with BRCA1/2 or PALB2 mutations. We hypothesized that BRCA/PALB2 wildtype mPC may exhibit platinum sensitivity driven by altered HRR gene expression. We correlated HRR gene RNA profiles with real-world overall survival (rwOS) following first-line (1L) platinum therapy (PT). Methods: Tempus Lens, a platform used to query multimodal data from millions of de-identified patient records in the Tempus Database was used to identify mPC pts with wildtype somatic BRCA1/2 and PALB2 who had Tempus xT DNA and xR RNA testing. RNA-seq data were normalized to correct for assay/batch effects, quantified as transcripts per million (TPM) and reported as log2(TPM+1) for 17 HRR genes and GATA6 . Pts were classified as high and low expressors based on the top and bottom quartile gene expression. Pts were grouped as PT-treated (received 1L PT) or PT-naïve (never received PT). Real world overall survival (rwOS) was calculated from 1L start to death or loss to follow up. Risk set adjustment was applied to mitigate immortal time bias. Median rwOS was estimated using Kaplan-Meier and univariate Cox models. A multivariate Cox Proportional (CoxPh) model included PT use, RAS status, and expression of genes (as continuous variables). Results: Among 1,068 pts, the median age was 66 years and 609 (57%) received 1L PT. In low RAD51 expressors, PT-treated pts (n=136) had significantly longer rwOS than PT-naïve (n=112): 11.4 months (95% CI, 7.8–13.8) vs 8 months (95% CI, 5.5–9.0); p=0.028. In contrast, in high RAD51 expressors, rwOS was similar between PT-treated (n=150) and PT-naïve (n=97): 7.9 vs 6.9 months (p=0.236). High GATA6 expression was also associated with improved rwOS in PT-treated pts vs PT-naïve: 13.5 vs. 9.3 months; p=0.011. In multivariate analysis, increased GATA6 expression remained a positive predictor of rwOS (HR 0.82; 95% CI, 0.76–0.88; p<0.001), and high RAD51 expression was associated with shorter rwOS with PT (HR 1.18; 95% CI, 1.01–1.39; p=0.043). Conclusions: In BRCA/PALB2 wt mPC, transcriptomic profiling identified low RAD51 and high GATA6 expression as predictors for improved rwOS when treated with PT. Integrating these biomarkers may improve development of DNA-damaging therapies beyond canonically defined HRD. Hazard ratios of mPC mortality by selected HRR genes estimated by multivariate CoxPh models. HR 95% CI p value 1L PT (vs PT-naïve) 0.87 0.75, 1.00 0.054 BRCA1 1.15 0.98, 1.35 0.079 BRCA2 0.89 0.77, 1.04 0.14 GATA6 0.82 0.76, 0.88 <0.001 NBN 0.97 0.81, 1.15 0.7 RAD51 1.18 1.01, 1.39 0.043 RECQL4 0.94 0.84, 1.04 0.2 Any RAS mutation 1.43 1.14, 1.81 0.002

653 Background: Elraglusib (9-ING-41), a novel small molecule inhibitor of GSK-3ß, has a multimodal mechanism of action that enhances chemotherapy cytotoxicity and regulates anti-tumor immune cell response. Elraglusib was evaluated in a randomized, open-label, phase 2 study (NCT03678883) comparing elraglusib/GnP vs GnP in previously untreated mPDAC. Methods: Pts were randomized 2:1 to GnP plus elraglusib 9.3 mg/kg IV once weekly or GnP. Primary endpoint was mOS, with 1-yr OS rate estimates summarizing clinical benefit throughout the study. Secondary endpoints were ORR, mPFS, and TEAEs/TRAEs. Pre-dose cytokines, mutational analysis, and immunophenotyping were correlated with outcomes. An oral presentation at ASCO 2025 discussed preliminary data. Results: As of 27 April 2025, the primary analysis set included 155 pts in the elraglusib/GnP arm and 78 pts in the GnP arm, with 52.8% males and 57.5% ECOG PS 1. The 1-yr OS rate was 44.1% with elraglusib/GnP vs 22.3% with GnP; the mOS was 10.1 mo with elraglusib/GnP vs 7.2 mo with GnP (HR, 0.62; p=0.01) with approximately 79% events recorded (25.8% of pts on elraglusib/GnP and 10.3% on GnP were censored with the majority at >12 mo OS). Improved OS with elraglusib/GnP was consistent across all randomized pts and subgroups regardless of liver metastases, ECOG status, or baseline CA 19-9 levels. Most common TRAE with elraglusib/GnP was grade 1-2 transient visual impairment (66.5% pts vs 0 with GnP). Most common grade ≥3 TEAEs with elraglusib/GnP (vs GnP) were neutropenia 52.3% (vs 30.8%) and anemia 25.2% (vs 29.5%). No differences in sepsis/febrile neutropenia rates were between arms. RAS , TP53 and CDKN2A co-mutations were associated with worse OS in the elraglusib/GnP arm only (p<0.05). Elevation in pre-dose cytokines including CXCL2 correlated with improved OS in the elraglusib/GnP arm. Additionally, increased CD8+ T cells, granzyme B, and NK cells and reduced MDSCs were observed in elraglusib-treated tumors. Conclusions: A significant benefit for 1-yr OS and mOS and a favorable trend for ORR were observed with the addition of elraglusib to GnP. The mOS was lower in the GnP arm vs historical studies, likely due to early deaths in the first 2 months, but aligns with mOS estimates in the real-world analysis with broad heterogeneous population. Our study included 19.7% pts with albumin <3.0 g/dL and >25% with CA 19.9 levels > 8,000 U/mL. Immune correlates support elraglusib’s immune-modulatory role. Final efficacy data cut-off in Dec 2025 and correlative studies will be presented. Clinical trial information: NCT03678883 . Outcome Elraglusib/GnPN=155 GnPN=78 Primary endpoint: mOS (mo)HR=0.62; log-rank p=0.01 10.1 7.2 Events, n (%) 115 (74.2) 70 (89.7) Primary endpoint: 1-yr OS (%) 44.1 22.3 18-month OS (%) 20.5 4.4 24-month OS (%) 13.2 0 mPFS (mo)HR=0.9; p=NS 5.6 5.1 Events, n (%) 136 (87.7) 75 (96.2) ORR, n (%) 44 (28.4) 17 (21.8)

64 Background: The incidence of eoCRC (diagnosed at age <50) is increasing. We have previously shown higher rates of severe anxiety and depression in this group compared to adults diagnosed at age ≥50 (average-onset CRC, aoCRC). We assessed the impact of ePROM collection coupled with a CC-based supportive care intervention on symptom burden in patients with eoCRC. Methods: The Enhanced, EHR-facilitated Cancer Symptom Control (E2C2) trial was a cluster-randomized, pragmatic trial conducted at Mayo Clinic Rochester and within the Mayo Clinic Health System (in Minnesota and Wisconsin) between 2019 and 2023. Enrolled patients serially reported the severity of six SPPADE symptoms (Sleep deficit, Pain, Physical function impairment, Anxiety, Depression, and Energy deficit/fatigue) on 11-point numerical rating scales. Symptom scores were interpreted as none to mild (0-3), moderate (4-6), or severe (7-10). Those with moderate symptoms were offered symptom management education and self-management materials, while those with severe symptoms were offered the option to work with a symptom care manager. In this post hoc analysis we examined the effects of the intervention on change in symptom scores among those with eoCRC, and using the Kaplan-Meier method, the median time to improvement to a mild/moderate level in those with a severe symptom, comparing eoCRC with aoCRC. Results: Among 4,422 patients with CRC, 887 had eoCRC. Forty-six percent of patients were female ( p =0.61), and a greater proportion of eoCRC patients were of a non-white race (11.6% vs 4.7%), lived in an urban setting (65.6% vs 50.5%), had a Bachelor’s degree or higher (36.8% vs 24.4%), were employed (78.5% vs 36.7%), on a non-government insurance plan (83.4% vs 35.3%), single (19.7% vs 11.2%) or married (74.2% vs 67.9%), and had metastatic disease (54.8% vs 46.1%, p <0.0001 for all). Compared to a pre-intervention baseline, the mean change in symptom scores for eoCRC patients following the intervention demonstrated improvements in anxiety (-0.238), depression (-0.134), and fatigue (-0.146, p <0.05 for all). Time to symptom improvement from severe to mild/moderate was longer for anxiety and depression in eoCRC patients compared to aoCRC patients (Table 1). Conclusions: Collection of ePROMs coupled with a CC-based intervention led to improvements in anxiety, depression, and fatigue among eoCRC patients, although time to symptom improvement was longer among eoCRC patients compared to aoCRC patients. Time to improvement of severe symptom (months), median (95% CI). eoCRC aoCRC p -value Sleep 4.2 (3.1-5.8) 3.8 (2.7-5.4) 0.4 Pain 4.1 (3.0-7.5) 3.2 (2.3-5.0) 0.5 Physical function impairment 3.1 (1.9-6.3) 2.8 (2.2-4.2) 0.5 Anxiety 4.3 (3.4-9.1) 2.6 (2.0-3.5) 0.009 Depression 4.3 (2.6-7.5) 2.6 (2.1-3.5) 0.04 Fatigue 4.3 (3.7-9.5) 3.4 (2.7-4.2) 0.06

635 Background: [ 212 Pb]VMT-a-NET is an alpha therapy agent targeting somatostatin receptor subtype 2 (SSTR2)-expressing tumors. Here, we report the results of a prospective, open-label, Phase I/IIa trial (NCT05636618), assessing safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics, and preliminary efficacy of [ 212 Pb]VMT-a-NET in patients with advanced neuroendocrine tumors (NETs). Methods: Adults with well-differentiated unresectable or metastatic SSTR2-expressing NETs, who are peptide receptor radionuclide therapy (PRRT) naïve, and who progressed on at least one prior line of systemic therapy, are eligible. Participants can receive up to four cycles of [ 212 Pb]VMT-a-NET at the assigned dose level. Participants are followed for dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) observation up to 42 days after the first dose. Efficacy is evaluated by investigators according to RECIST criteria v1.1. Results: As of 16-Aug-2025 (data cut-off [DCO]) a total of 48 participants were enrolled into cohorts 1 and 2 and received at least one dose of [ 212 Pb]VMT-a-NET (n=2 in Cohort 1, and n=46 in Cohort 2 at a dose level of 92.5 MBq and 185 MBq, respectively). Among all participants treated with at least one dose of [ 212 Pb]VMT-a-NET (n=48), no DLTs, no grade 4 or 5 adverse events (AEs), and no treatment-related discontinuations, were observed. Median follow-up time was 28 weeks (range: 6-93). Nine participants were followed for DLT observation (n=2 in cohort 1 and n=7 in cohort 2).Seven of these patients were with no progression as of the DCO. Three out of the seven participants enrolled at the dose level of 185 MBq achieved a confirmed partial response (PR). Median follow-up time for participants included in the efficacy group was 72 weeks (range: 6-93). Cohort 3, at a dose level of 222 MBq, has recently been opened for enrollment. At the DCO, 4 participants were enrolled in this cohort. Updated safety outcome for all participants along with updated efficacy findings for participants in Cohort 1 and 2 with sufficient maturity, will be presented during the congress. Conclusions: [ 212 Pb]VMT-a-NET showed a favorable safety profile and promising clinical benefit for patients with advanced SSTR2-expressing NETs treated at the dose levels of 92.5 MBq and 185 MBq. The study is ongoing with Cohort 3 (222 MBq) currently open for enrollment. Clinical trial information: NCT05636618 .

632 Background: Paltusotine is an oral, nonpeptide, selective somatostatin receptor 2 agonist. In a phase 2 study, treatment with once-daily paltusotine reduced the frequency and severity of carcinoid syndrome (CS) symptoms and was well tolerated. The effect of paltusotine on biomarkers of serotonin and 5-hydroxyindoleacetic acid (5-HIAA) was further explored. Methods: This exploratory study, without formal power calculations, included an 8-week randomized treatment phase (completed) and a 102-week open-label extension phase (currently ongoing). The purpose was to evaluate safety, pharmacokinetics, and exploratory efficacy endpoints, including changes in biomarkers of paltusotine treatment. Enrolled patients were adults with a stable, documented grade 1 or 2 neuroendocrine tumor (NET) and CS. These patients were actively symptomatic and either untreated with somatostatin receptor ligand (SRL) therapy (average of ≥4 bowel movements [BMs] per day or >2 flushing episodes per day in ≥2 days over a 2-week period) or washed out of SRL therapy (symptoms previously controlled on SRL), with demonstrated symptom worsening after washout. Patients were randomized to once-daily paltusotine 40 mg or 80 mg; one optional uptitration (from 40 mg to 80 mg or 80 mg to 120 mg) was permitted. Blood samples for assessment of biomarkers (serum serotonin and plasma 5-HIAA) were collected longitudinally from screening to end of treatment. Upper limit of normal was prespecified as 541 ng/mL for serotonin and 22 ng/mL for 5-HIAA. This analysis focuses on changes in biomarker from baseline to the end of 8-week randomized treatment phase and after approximately one year (48 weeks). Results: Thirty-six patients (n=9 untreated; n=27 SRL washout) were randomized. Mean age was 60.8 years (range 35-83), and 52.8% were female. Nineteen patients had grade 1 NETs, and 17 had grade 2 NETs. As reported previously, treatment with once-daily, oral paltusotine was well tolerated and reduced the frequency and severity of CS symptoms, justifying further clinical development of the 80 mg dose. Mean serum serotonin decreased from 1553.0 ng/mL at baseline to 643.9 ng/mL at Week 8, and mean plasma 5-HIAA decreased from 245.1 ng/mL to 159.7 ng/mL. There was a trend of untreated patients achieving a greater reduction in comparison to washout patients. At 48-week follow-up, mean serum serotonin was stabilized at 791.50 ng/mL (n=20), and mean plasma 5-HIAA was stabilized at 190.45 ng/mL (n=20). Conclusions: Paltusotine significantly reduced serotonin and 5-HIAA levels, with effects maintained at 48 weeks. Biomarker reductions paralleled reductions in BM and flushing frequency. These findings support further investigation in the ongoing phase 3 study (CAREFNDR, NCT07087054). Clinical trial information: NCT05361668 .

629 Background: NENs are a heterogeneous group of tumors with variable clinical behavior. While most NENs occur sporadically, a subset arises in the context of germline cancer predisposition syndromes. The prevalence of GPVs in NENs is increasingly recognized, but the reported frequency and spectrum of genes involved remain inconsistent across studies. Therefore, systematic review and meta-analysis is helpful to clarify the prevalence and clinical significance of PGVs in pts with NENs. Methods: A systematic review with meta-analysis of prospective and retrospective studies reporting germline testing in pts with NENs was conducted according to the PRISMA guidelines. The primary outcome was the prevalence of GPVs. Random-effects models (GLMM) with logit transformation were applied to estimate pooled prevalence with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results: Nine studies comprising 1304 patients with NENs were included. The median age was 53.8 (10-88.5) years, 52% were female (n=678/1304), and 56% (n=736/1304) were unselected cohorts (all-comers) and 44% (568/1304) were selected cohorts (testing based on clinical suspicion and high-risk features defined by each study). Across all cohorts, the pooled prevalence of PGVs was 19.6% (95% CI: 10.68–33.15%), with high heterogeneity (I² ≈ 96%). Subgroup analyses demonstrated comparable GPV prevalence between selected (13.2%, 95% CI 6.3–25.8) and unselected cohorts (23.0%, 95% CI 12.0–39.6) (p=0.25). GPV prevalence stratified by pancreatic NENs (17.8%, 95% CI 12.6–24.5) and other NENs (10.6%, 95% CI 6.5–17.0) was also not statistically different (p=0.08). The most altered genes involved DNA repair and cellular signaling pathways, including APC, ATM, BRCA1/2, BAP1, CHEK2, MEN1, MUTYH, VHL, RET, and TSC1/2. Germline variants in mismatch repair (MMR) genes were reported in approximately 2.5% of cases. Conclusions: This study represents the first systematic review and meta-analysis evaluating the prevalence of germline mutations in NENs. Approximately 20% of pts with NENs harbor a germline pathogenic variant, underscoring the importance of genetic counseling and germline testing. The wide variability across studies highlights the need for standardized genetic testing approaches. These findings support routine referral for genetic counseling and panel testing in patients with NENs to guide management and familial risk assessment.

622 Background: Colorectal small and large cell neuroendocrine carcinoma (SCNEC and LCNEC) comprise <1% of colorectal cancers and have poor prognosis. Detailed survival information is limited due to rarity. We analyzed survival outcomes using Survival, Epidemiology, and End Result (SEER) database (2000-2022) and compared with NETs and adenocarcinoma (AC). Methods: All patients with SCNEC, LCNEC, NETs or AC with colorectal primaries were extracted. AJCC stage was calculated with 8 th ed. TNM classification. Kaplan-Meier estimator, log-rank test, and Cox regression (including AJCC stage, surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy variables) were used to analyze survival outcomes. Results: Comparing colon and rectal primaries, the only significant mOS difference was in stage IV SCNEC (2 vs 7 months, p<0.0001). Comparing LCNEC and SCNEC, the only significant mOS difference was in stage IV colon SCNEC and LCNEC (2 vs 5 months, p<0.0001). Stage III and IV colorectal SCNEC and LCNEC had significantly shorter mOS than stage III and IV AC and NETs. In multivariate Cox regressions, surgery and chemotherapy were associated with significantly improved survival for both SCNEC and LCNEC at both primaries (p<0.001), while radiation was never significant. Conclusions: Most colorectal SCNEC and LCNEC patients present with stage IV disease. Stage IV colon SCNEC had significantly shorter mOS than both stage IV colon LCNEC and stage IV rectal SCNEC. Further research should explore early diagnosis and effective therapies for this rare, aggressive malignancy. Median overall survival (months) Colon SCNEC (n/mOS) Colon LCNEC (n/mOS) Colon NETs (n/mOS) Colon AC (n/mOS) SCNEC vs NETs in colon: P-value LCNEC vs NETs in colon: P-value SCNEC vs AC in colon: P-value LCNEC vs AC in colon: P-value SCNEC vs LCNEC in colon: P-value Rectal SCNEC (n/mOS) Rectal LCNEC (n/mOS) Rectal NETs (n/mOS) Rectal AC (n/mOS) SCNEC vs NETs in rectum: P-value LCNEC vs NETs in rectum: P-value SCNEC vs AC in rectum P-value LCNEC vs AC in rectum SCNEC vs LCNEC in rectum: P-value Colon SCNEC vs rectal SCNEC P-value Colon LCNEC vs rectal LCNEC: P-value Stage I 19/32 17/122 4496/NA 114,213/144 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 0.34 0.25 27/23 10/28 5185/NA 54,702/160 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 0.00047 0.88 0.99 0.24 Stage II 17/38 30/49 259/NA 121,757/106 0.0015 <0.0001 0.4 0.0068 0.65 17/16 3/NA 33/NA 38,417/106 <0.0001 0.57 <0.0001 0.87 0.3 0.065 0.55 Stage III 40/14 107/13 582/184 104,793/82 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 0.48 50/19 37/17 103/102 46,687/107 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 0.45 0.48 0.47 Stage IV 245/2 217/5 393/49 83,542/13 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 260/7 57/6 158/36 36,652/17 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 0.25 <0.0001 0.95

619 Background: Well-differentiated G3 GEP-NETs are rare and heterogeneous diseases, limiting phase III trials and definition of clear standards of care. Building upon our preliminary cohort of 76 patients (pts), we present an updated and expanded retrospective analysis across three Mayo Clinic tertiary centers. Methods: We included pts with histologically confirmed well-differentiated G3 GEP-NETs diagnosed since 2017 (new WHO classification) from the three Mayo Clinic sites (Rochester, Phoenix, Jacksonville). Endpoints were ORR, DCR, PFS, and OS across treatment lines. PFS/OS were estimated by Kaplan-Meier. OS was defined from treatment start. Multivariate Cox regression was used to evaluate the association of clinic-pathologic features (age, sex, tumor functionality, Ki-67, primary tumor site, stage at diagnosis, presence of liver metastasis, number of metastatic sites at diagnosis) with OS (p<0.05). Results: 111 pts (median age 62 y, range 22–83). Primary sites were pancreas (58%), small bowel (19%), unknown (9%), and rectum (5%). Most tumors were G3 at diagnosis (88%); the remainder evolved from prior G1/G2. Ki-67 was 20–55% in 83% of cases. Most were nonfunctional (70%); functional subtypes included carcinoid (13%) and gastrinoma (8%). Median plasma 5-HIAA was 38.5 ng/ml (5–1394). Advanced disease was present in 85%. Common metastatic sites included liver (85%), lymph nodes (32%), bone (26%), peritoneum (10%), and lung (9%). Median number of metastatic sites was 1 (range 0–5). Median number of systemic treatment lines was 2 (range 0–8). The most frequent regimens and outcomes are shown in the Table. Insulin-secreting tumors (HR 2.16, 95% CI 1.33–25.73, p=0.019) and ≥2 metastatic sites (HR 2.13, 95% CI 1.05–4.31, p=0.035) were associated with inferior OS. Conclusions: This represents one of the largest real-world datasets of well-differentiated G3 GEP-NETs and provides a deeper evaluation of treatment strategies and prognostic factors. CAPTEM, SSAs, and PRRT with Lu-177 emerged as the most commonly used therapies, with PRRT showing the most favorable outcomes. Insulin secretion and higher metastatic burden were confirmed as adverse prognostic factors. CAPTEM SSAs PRRT Lu-177 Carboplatin plus etoposide FOLFOX Everolimus Sunitinib N of pts (%) 64 (58) 44 (40) 37 (33) 24 (19) 18 (13) 11 (10) 8 (7) Line of therapy (%) First 36 (56.3) 27 (61.4) 5 (13.5) 13 (59.2) 5 (7.2) 1 (9.0) 1 (12.5) Second 15 (23.4) 13 (29.5) 13 (35.2) 3 (13.6) 5 (35.7) 3 (27.3) 2 (37.5) Third or higher 13 (20.3) 4 (9.1) 19 (51.3) 6 (27.2) 8 (57.1) 7 (63.7) 5 (62.5) DCR (%) 60.9 56.8 75.0 52.2 71.4 45.5 37.5 ORR (%) 34.4 13.6 44.4 30.4 35.7 18.2 12.5 mPFS (95% CI) 8.0 (5.3-10.6) 6.2 (2.8-9.5) 11.2 (9.1-13.3) 7.3 (2.8-11.8) 4.4 (2.4-6.4) 3.9 (2.2-5.6) 3.9 (1.54-6.26) mOS (95% CI) 40.1 (23.0-57.2) 50 (22.6-77.4) 76.1 (16.3-135.8) 33.0 (21.0-45.0) 21.1 (15.0-27.2) NE NE

605 Background: Multiple treatment modalities are available for localized hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), and current Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) guidelines recommend ablation for patients with a limited number of small tumors, not amenable to resection or transplantation. However, in recent years, stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) has been increasingly used for localized disease. Patient outcomes based on treatment modality are not well understood. Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis using the National Cancer Database (NCDB) to identify patients with a history of stage I/II HCC with tumors ≤ 5 cm who had received local therapy with either radiofrequency ablation (RFA) or SBRT between 2006 and 2021. A propensity score matched analysis was conducted accounting for patient demographics, facility region and tumor level characteristics, as well as an inverse probability of treatment weight-adjusted (IPTW) analysis. Overall survival was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Results: We identified 14,516 patients meeting inclusion criteria, including 13,036 who received RFA and 1,480 who received SBRT. Demographic factors associated with receipt of SBRT included age >50 years, female sex, and treatment in the Middle Atlantic and East North Central regions, as well as clinical factors including larger tumor size (>3 to 5 cm), severe fibrosis/cirrhosis, and stage II disease ( p <0.05 for all). Factors associated with receipt of RFA include black race, higher Charlson-Deyo Comorbidity Scores, treatment at a comprehensive cancer program or integrated network cancer program, and treatment in the East South Central, West North Central, West South Central, Mountain, and Pacific Regions ( p <0.05 for all). Median time from diagnosis to treatment initiation was longer for those who received SBRT (66.3 vs 84.6 days, p <0.001). In a propensity matched analysis, mOS was 45.1 months for those receiving RFA vs 30.8 months for those receiving SBRT ( p <0.001). An IPTW analysis showed similar survival benefit with RFA over SBRT (mOS 51.0 vs 30.5 months, p <0.001). This OS benefit was observed in subset of patients with tumors <3cm in size. Conclusions: In this propensity matched analysis controlling for relevant patient and tumor factors, RFA was associated with improved survival. Prospective studies will be important to further analyze differences in patient outcomes.