Citations

8045 Background: Surgical resection is the primary therapy for stage I-II NSCLC but not performed in a subset of patients due to comorbidities or self-election, who instead undergo radiation with or without systemic therapy (RT±ST). Little is known about the demographic, tumoral, therapeutic, and quality-of-life (QOL) characteristics of this non-surgical group. Understanding their differences from the surgical group is essential for developing precision treatment strategies and tailored survivorship guidelines. Methods: In a prospectively enrolled (1997-2016) and followed (through 2025) cohort of 20,951 primary lung cancer patients, 6,486 (31%) had stage I-II NSCLC, including 5,359 (83%) treated surgically (Surgical) and 1,113 (17%) otherwise (Non-surgical). Preexisting diseases were grouped into cancer, lung, and other comorbidities. QOL data were available for 40% of all patients. Descriptive analysis of demographics, tumor features, treatment patterns, and QOL metrics, as well as survival analysis (median years and overall survival [OS] rates) were conducted. QOL measures, on overall and 15 symptom and functional domains, were scored 0 (worst) to 10 (best), with 1-unit difference considered clinically and statistically meaningful. Results: At time of diagnosis, compared to the Surgical, the Non-surgical patients were older (median 73 v 68 years), more likely to have smoked cigarettes (91% v 83%), squamous cell and unspecified NSCLC (53% v 28%), stage IIB (19% v 12%), and preexisting lung comorbidities (71% v 58%). Non-surgical patients more frequently received RT±ST than the Surgical (70% v 21%) and had shorter median survival (2.5 v 7.8) years. Within the Non-surgical, 28% had no cancer treatment (No-Tx), 44% RT-only, 7% ST-only, and 19% both (RT+ST); their respective median diagnosis ages were 74, 76, 68, 70 years; median survival were 1.7, 2.7, 2.2, 3.2 years; 5-year OS (95%CI) at 25% (21-31), 25% (21-29), 26% (17-38), 30% (25-37); and 10-year OS at 9% (7-14), 7% (5-10), 10% (5-21), 9% (6-14), respectively. RT-only group had highest rates of comorbidities (37-84%) and the No-Tx the lowest (31-66%). Although the overall QOL scored the same for all groups, RT-only patients reported the worst scores on multiple symptoms burden, and the No-Tx reported the least pain and lung cancer symptoms but the worst on mental well-being and social activities. Conclusions: Non-surgically managed stage I-II NSCLC cases present clinically distinct patients with the shortest median survival in No-Tx group and highest 5-year survival in RT+ST. RT-only patients were oldest, had the most comorbidities, and reported the worst symptom burdens. These differences highlight the need for more in-depth analyses and studies (considering age, histology, comorbidity, QOL, etc.) to support tailored therapeutic strategies and survivorship care for patients who decline or are not suitable for surgery.

Adoptive cellular immunotherapy (ACT) has revolutionized hematologic malignancies, yet translation to solid tumors has historically been limited. This landscape shifted significantly in 2024 with US Food and Drug Administration approvals of lifileucel, a tumor-infiltrating lymphocyte (TIL) therapy for advanced melanoma, and afamitresgene autoleucel, an engineered T-cell receptor (TCR) therapy for synovial sarcoma. These approvals mark the clinical arrival of ACT for solid tumors and highlight a rapidly expanding therapeutic landscape. Beyond these indications, multiple ACT platforms including TIL, TCR, chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell, CAR-natural killer, and CAR-macrophage therapies are under active clinical investigation across diverse solid tumor indications. Clinical experience to date has defined key barriers to efficacy, including impaired tumor trafficking, antigen heterogeneity, immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment, and limited cellular persistence. In parallel, rapid advances in cellular engineering are reshaping the field, with the development of armored constructs, logic-gated and multiantigen targeting strategies, innate immune–based platforms, and novel manufacturing approaches including allogeneic and in vivo cell engineering. As ACT enters clinical practice for select solid tumors, distinct toxicity profiles and logistical requirements necessitate careful patient selection and multidisciplinary coordination. Early biomarker testing, timely referral to specialized centers, and familiarity with evolving toxicity management frameworks are increasingly critical. Here, we seek to provide a practice-oriented framework for understanding emerging ACT platforms, clinical data, toxicity considerations, and implementation strategies relevant to contemporary solid tumor oncology care.

Circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) testing is a minimally invasive alternative to tissue biopsy and is ideal for inaccessible tumors or limited samples. It captures tumor heterogeneity over time and different anatomic locations, unlike the static snapshot provided by a biopsy. In this report, we describe a 68-year-old female with an initial diagnosis of metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma (a pancreas head mass with multiple bilateral lung nodules). Mutation profiling of the pancreatic mass biopsy using a comprehensive cancer next-generation sequencing (NGS) panel was unsuccessful due to insufficient tissue. Consequently, ctDNA testing using a pan-cancer NGS panel was performed, and an EGFR p.L858R variant at 2.15% was identified. Interestingly, this activating variant is highly specific to non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), which raised the possibility of a synchronous tumor unrelated to the pancreatic mass. Immunohistochemistry showed the EGFR variant in station 7 lymph nodes but not in pancreatic biopsy tissue, supporting the inference that the variant originated from the lung mass. Droplet digital PCR on the limited pancreatic biopsy identified a KRAS p.Q61 variant, which was absent by ctDNA testing, suggesting a pancreatic primary with low ctDNA levels. In addition to diagnosing a primary lung cancer, ctDNA testing guided treatment decisions. With a primary EGFR p.L858R–mutant NSCLC, osimertinib was administered, resulting in a partial response within 10 months. In addition, given the synchronous primary pancreatic adenocarcinoma, germline testing was performed, revealing a CDKN2A p.I49T variant consistent with melanoma-pancreatic cancer syndrome, prompting comprehensive cancer surveillance and familial testing. This case illustrates how ctDNA testing enabled a comprehensive evaluation by clarifying the diagnosis, identifying actionable biomarkers, and facilitating genetic risk assessment, ultimately having a significant impact on the patient’s clinical management.

Abstract INTRODUCTION Leptomeningeal disease (LMD) represents a serious neurological complication of systemic malignancies. Once diagnosed, LMD has been associated with limited life-expectancy. Herein, we report a patient with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with LMD who achieved almost 7-year overall survival (OS) from her LMD diagnosis. CASE REPORT A 60-year-old female developed worsening dry cough at age of 52. A 3-cm FDG-avid right lower lobe lung mass was found. Biopsy revealed NSCLC with EGFR exon 19 deletion. Surveillance imaging was implemented given early-stage disease. Two years later, she was found to have focal LMD along with parenchymal brain metastases. She underwent surgical resection with concomitant placement of Ommaya Reservoir. She was initiated on Osimertinib. This resulted in improvement of her focal LMD, and control of extracranial disease for 33 months when neuroimaging revealed evidence of recurrent LMD over right lateral temporal lobe. Osimertinib dose was then increased from 80 mg to 160 mg daily. At 42 months, she developed LMD progression. Despite treatment with stereotactic radiosurgery, she had further LMD progression, and another surgical resection was performed at 55 months, yet LMD recurred at 62 months, and she was enrolled in phase-2 WSD0922 clinical trial utilizing an oral brain-penetrant non-competitive reversible EGFR inhibitor with complete radiological resolution of LMD. At 73 months, she had LMD relapse and was initiated on intrathecal pemetrexed and intravenous amivantamab, and has thus far received 11 doses of intrathecal pemetrexed and amivantamab every two weeks with complete radiological response. At last follow-up, the patient is alive 82 months from her LMD diagnosis with excellent functional status. DISCUSSION our case highlights that leveraging different mechanisms of action to target EGFR mutation in sequential fashion along with consideration of intrathecal chemotherapy in patients with LMD related to metastatic EGFR-mutated NSCLC can potentially help control LMD and prolong OS.

e20141 Background: TET are rare and challenging entities in clinical practice. Prospective trials in thymoma and thymic carcinoma (TC) are scarce. Limited number of small trials investigated the role of ICI in TET, and showed some clinical efficacy, but also with immune related adverse events (irAE). Guidelines list ICI as a treatment option in the 2 nd line, although no FDA approval was granted. Aside from the small trials, there is limited real world data about the efficacy and toxicity of ICI in TET. Methods: We performed a retrospective chart review of the medical records of all patients (pts) with TET who were treated with ICI between 3/25/2011 and 11/30/2024 at 5 Mayo Clinic sites. We collected data about baseline characteristics, diagnosis, irAE, and outcomes. Kaplan-Meier method was used to calculate median progression free survival (mPFS), and hazard ratio (HR) with Cox proportional hazards regression. Results: 30 pts were included, 28 diagnosed with TC, and 2 with malignant thymoma. 70% of pts were male. Median age at time of diagnosis was 61 years (range: 15 to 82), and median ECOG at the time of diagnosis was 0. 29 pts received Pembrolizumab, and one received Durvalumab. Prior to ICI, 86.67% of patients received chemotherapy. 70% of pts discontinued ICI use, 60% due to progression, and 10% due to irAE. Overall response rate (ORR) was 23.33%, with 3.33% complete response, and 20% partial response. Disease control rate (DCR) was 63.33%. The mPFS was 10.13 months. At the time of analysis 60% of pts were still alive. 40% of patients had irAE. While the two patients with thymoma experienced irAE, only 33.33% of those with TC had these events. 26.67% of pts had thyroiditis. Pancreatitis, pneumonitis, dermatitis, and encephalitis each occurred in 3.33% of pts. The median time to irAE onset was 75 days. 25% of irAE were grade 1, 66.67% grade 2, 0% grade 3, and 8.33% grade 4, represented by the case of encephalitis. Resolution of irAE occurred in 33.33% of cases. When stratified according to the occurrence of irAE, the mPFS was the same in both groups, with or without irAE, being 10.13 months, HR=0.99 (95% CI 0.39 – 2.54). Conclusions: In this real-world cohort of pts with TET, efficacy of ICI matched what has been previously reported, with similar ORR and DCR, but with longer mPFS. However, irAE incidence was higher, but with less grade 3/4 events. Differently than what has been suggested in other diseases, irAE occurrence did not correlate with better outcomes. These results validate the role of ICI in the treatment of TET, especially TC. Nonetheless, improving patient selection, and developing other therapeutic strategies, including combinations of ICI and other drugs, for these malignancies remain essential. Importantly, the high incidence of irAE indicates that future investigations must also focus on safety of interventions and supportive care in TET.

e20120 Background: In May 2024, the FDA approved tarlatamab, a Delta-like ligand (DLL3)/CD3-targeted bispecific T-cell engager, for patients with extensive-stage small cell lung cancer (SCLC) with disease progression following platinum-based chemotherapy and at least one other prior line of therapy. We aim to evaluate the real-world outcomes of agent. Methods: We conducted a retrospective multi-site single center analysis of adult patients who received tarlatamab at Mayo clinic sites including Arizona, Florida, Iowa, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. Data analysis was performed with Blue Sky statistics version 10.4. Results: Twenty patients with a median age 67 years (range 43-76) were included. Patients were predominantly women (55%) and all had a history of tobacco use. Metastatic disease commonly involved liver (55%) and CNS (60%). Majority (90%) had received prior PDL-1 therapy. 25% (5/20) of patients received prior gamma knife and in addition 10% (2/20) received whole brain radiation treatment in our cohort. Median time from CNS radiation and tarlatamab initiation was 4 months (range 3-28). Other characteristics, outcomes, and toxicity are presented in Table 1. Cytokine release syndrome (CRS) Grade (G) 1 was observed in 45% patients. G 2, 3 and 4 CRS were observed in 5% patients respectively. G 1 CRS was managed with acetaminophen initially followed dexamethasone 10mg or methylprednisone 1g if no improvement in 24 hours. Tocilizumab was used 20% patients for G 1,2,3 and 4 CRS depending on clinical course. Immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity (ICANS) G 1 occurred in 10% patients, followed by G 2 in 15% and G 3 in 5% patients. ICANS was managed in a multidisciplinary fashion. All patients had resolution of CRS and ICANS. Conclusions: In this study investigating the real-world outcomes and toxicity of tarlatamab, a higher incidence of ICANS was observed than that reported in the DeLLphi-301 trial. The association between presence of CNS metastatic disease, prior CNS radiation and incidence of ICANS needs to be explored further. Mayo Clinic report of tarlatamab real world outcomes and toxicity. Patient Characteristics, Tarlatamab Outcomes and Toxicity Mayo Clinic Report DeLLphi-301 trial- Part 1 & 2 DeLLphi-301 trial- Part 3 ECOG no. (%) 2-4 4 (20) 0 (0) 0 (0) Metastatic Disease no.(%) 19 (95) 98 (98) 32 (94) Median no. of previous lines of therapy (range) 3 (2-4) 2 (1-6) 2 (2-6) Objective Response (%) 30% 40% CRS no (%) 12 (60) 49 (49) 19 (56) ICANS no (%) 6 (30) 7 (7) 4 (12) Neutropenia Grade 3 no (%) 2 (10) 6 (6) 2 (6) Fatal CRS, ICANS or Neutropenia 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)

Small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) is an aggressive form of lung cancer that displays rapid proliferation and early metastatic potential. It accounts for approximately 15% of lung cancers and is strongly associated with tobacco carcinogens. Despite patients' initial response to systemic therapy, the majority develop early resistance and relapse. The outcomes of patients with metastatic SCLC are poor, prompting the need for new therapies. Over the past decade, the treatment landscape for NSCLC (non-small cell lung cancer) has significantly changed with the immergence of novel targeted therapies and immunotherapies. However, inroads of these therapies into SCLC have posed significant challenges due to its molecular and genomic heterogeneity. Despite the challenges of this disease, promising new first-in-class immunomodulatory agents have emerged and are currently undergoing extensive research. Herein, we review the current treatment paradigm of immunotherapy in SCLC and discuss future directions of this evolving field.

e20588 Background: MET exon 14 skipping mutations are seen in about 3% of patients (pts) with NSCLC, with 2 FDA approved METi for pts with stage IV NSCLC harboring it. Besides the original clinical trials, there is a paucity of real-world data about their outcomes, and adverse events (AE). Our aim was to compare and analyze the utilization of capmatinib (cap) and tepotinib (tep) in this population. Methods: We performed a retrospective chart review of the electronic medical records of all pts with stage IV NSCLC treated with METi between the date of FDA-accelerated approval of these drugs, 5/6/20 for cap and 2/3/21 for tep, and 12/1/23. All pts were treated at the Mayo Clinic Health System. We collected data about baseline characteristics, diagnosis, AE, and outcomes. Chi-squared test was used to compare the frequency of AE, while Kaplan-Meier method was used to calculate median progression free survival (mPFS). Results: A total of 49 pts were treated with METi. Cap was used in 45 pts, 14 received tep, and 10 pts received both, with tep following cap. In the cap group, median age of diagnosis was 74 years (y), 42.22% were male, and the median number of previous lines of therapy (mPLT) was 0. In the tep group, median age of diagnosis was 72 y, 21.43% were male, and the mPLT was 2. Median ECOG at the time of diagnosis was 1 in both groups. There was no statistically significant difference between AE in both groups. Peripheral edema occurred in 75.56% pts who received cap, and in 64.29% with tep (p = 0.41). Pneumonitis happened in 4.44% with cap, and 7.14% with tep (p = 0.69). Creatinine elevation was seen in 37.78% with cap, while 42.86% with tep (p = 0.73), grade 3 elevation was seen in 5.88% and 16.67% respectively. Abnormality in liver function tests occurred in 35.56% of pts in the cap group, and 28.57% in the tep group (p = 0.63), grade 3/4 abnormality occurred in 31.25% and 0% respectively. Finally, pancreatic enzymes elevation was seen in 33.33% of patients in each group (p = 0.67), with none being grade 3/4. Cap was discontinued in 20% of pts due to AE, while it happened in 28.57% of pts with tep. Dose reduction happened in 64.44% of pts who received cap, and 42.86% who received tep. The mPFS was 12.03 months (m) in the cap group, and 8.94 m in the tep group, which was not statistically significant (p = 0.18). Similarly, the mPFS in those treated with tep following cap was 8.94 m. Conclusions: We performed the first real-word comparison between cap and tep. The results demonstrated similar outcomes with both drugs, and no significant differences in AE, suggesting these agents can be employed equivalently. Importantly, rates of therapy discontinuation and dose reduction were high with both, indicating the importance of closely monitoring these pts. The retrospective nature and small sample size are initial limitations that can be overcome with future multi-centric prospective studies.