Citations

Abstract Background Regorafenib and anti-EGFR monoclonal antibodies are standard therapies for RAS/BRAF wild-type (WT) metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) in the refractory setting, but the optimal sequencing remains unknown. Herein, we report results from REVERCE II, a randomized phase II trial evaluating the efficacy and safety of sequencing these therapies. Methods Patients with RAS WT mCRC previously treated with fluoropyrimidine, oxaliplatin, and irinotecan were randomized to receive (R-E) regorafenib followed by anti-EGFR therapy ± irinotecan or (E-R) anti-EGFR therapy ± irinotecan, followed by regorafenib sequentially. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). Key secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS) with initial (PFS1) and second treatment (PFS2), sequential treatment PFS (stPFS), objective response rate (ORR), and safety. Exploratory endpoints included serial biomarker analyses. Unfortunately, the trial was closed prematurely due to slow enrollment and lack of funding. Results Twenty-two patients were enrolled (R-E: n = 12; E-R: n = 10) with sequential treatment initiated in 33% (4/12) and 80% (8/10) of patients in R-E and E-R, respectively. Median OS for R-E and E-R was 21.9 and 13.3 months, respectively (one-sided P = .114). PFS1 was 2.5 (R-E) vs 5.6 months (E-R) (one-sided P = .998), while PFS2 was 3.7 vs 2.0 months (one-sided P = .086). stPFS was similar (9.3 vs 9.6 months; one-sided P = .358). ORR for initial treatment was 0% in R-E and 20% (2/8) in E-R. Sequential treatment ORR was 25% (n = 1/4) in R-E and 0% in E-R. No significant differences were observed adverse effects between arms. Conclusion While the study was closed prematurely prior to completion, the sequence of regorafenib before to anti-EGFR therapy suggested a possible survival benefit. Further studies may help better determine the optimal treatment sequencing strategy in refractory mCRC.

Abstract Background Optimal treatment following first-line immunotherapy for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) remains uncertain. This study evaluated futibatinib, a pan-FGFR inhibitor, combined with pembrolizumab in previously treated patients with FGF19-expressing HCC. Methods Eligible patients were ≥18 years old with advanced HCC, prior systemic therapy, Child-Pugh A-B7 liver function, ECOG 0–2, and FGF19 overexpression. Patients received futibatinib 20 mg orally daily plus pembrolizumab 200 mg intravenously every 3 weeks. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival at 6 months (PFS6). Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), quality of life, and safety. Results Between August 2021 and March 2024, 14 patients enrolled and 13 were evaluable. Median age was 72 years (range, 60–87), 53.8% were male, 92.3% had Child-Pugh A liver function, and all had received prior immunotherapy. Median progression-free survival was 15 weeks (95% CI, 9.0–NE), with a PFS6 rate of 23.1% (95% CI, 8.6–62.3%). ORR was 0% (95% CI, 0–24.7%), while stable disease was observed in 53.9% of patients. Median OS was 55.7 weeks (95% CI, 47.3–NE). Grade ≥3 adverse events occurred in 69.2% of patients, and grade ≥4 adverse events in 15.4%. One grade 5 event (acute-on-chronic kidney injury) was deemed unrelated to treatment. Common adverse events included hyperphosphatemia, fatigue, diarrhea, elevated transaminases, dry eye, nail changes, rash, and oral mucositis. Conclusions Futibatinib plus pembrolizumab demonstrated an acceptable safety profile but did not meet efficacy thresholds supporting further study in FGF19-expressing HCC. Effective post-immunotherapy treatment strategies remain an unmet need.

Objectives: Rates of locoregional recurrence and distant metastases are high following curative-intent resection for patients with localized pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Adjuvant therapies have been investigated with the intent to reduce the risk of recurrence and improve OS. The objective of this study is to update and summarize the current evidence for adjuvant therapy following surgical resection for nonmetastatic PDAC with a focus on high-level evidence and randomized controlled trials is provided. Methods: This multispecialty-led committee included gastrointestinal radiation and medical oncology, gastroenterology, radiology, and surgical oncology. Using the population, intervention, comparator, outcome, timing and study design framework, evidence regarding treatment outcomes was assessed using Cochrane and PRISMA methodology. Eligible studies included prospective and retrospective (n≥25) studies published between January 1, 2013 and February 13, 2026, from Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE, Ovid Cochrane Database of Systematic Review, and Scopus databases. Study type and quality were assessed. Well-established RAND/UCLA consensus methodology (modified Delphi) was used to rate the appropriateness of the treatment options. Results: Of the 74 references used as evidence, 74 are categorized as therapeutic references. Study type and quality for the references were assessed, and included 31 well-designed studies (phase II randomized and phase III), 14 moderately well-designed studies that account for most common biases (matched cohort and phase II studies), 28 studies with design limitations (retrospective reviews), and 1 reference meta-analysis. Conclusions: This systematic review and guidelines provide up-to-date recommendations focusing on recent advancements for adjuvant treatment of resected PDAC using modern systemic therapy regimens and selective use of radiotherapy using modern techniques.

PURPOSE Incorporation of structured data elements within the electronic health record generates real-time data for many potential uses. However, this requires a change in documentation practices, which may increase documentation effort. The best strategies to support structured documentation interventions have not been thoroughly investigated. Herein, we report the results of extending a data capture tool across multiple disease sites and practice locations. METHODS A note-based data capture tool was developed to collect five data elements using minimum common oncology data elements language. Soft-stop close visit validation (CVV), offloading of data entry tasks to allied health staff, group education, individualized e-mails, and one-on-one assistance were used to support utilization. Baseline and follow-up surveys were collected. For each provider, we compared data capture in the 6 months before and after their CVV go-live. RESULTS Forty-five providers participated (31 physicians, 14 nurse pracationers and physician assistants [NPPAs]), resulting in 23,274 encounters pre-CVV go-live and 23,146 post-CVV go-live visits. Median percentage of all data elements captured increased from 69.5% to 82.6% across all providers. The effect of CVV was immediate and sustained. When surveyed, most respondents agreed with the value propositions of understanding practice population, outcomes, selecting trials to open, and identifying patients for trial enrollment. Most respondents (15/20, 75%) felt the soft stop was a helpful reminder. CONCLUSION Structured data can be successfully collected in provider notes with >80% data capture. Personalized assistance incorporating the structured data elements into users' preexisting templates and soft-stop CVV, along with monitoring the results of implementation and personalized follow-up, was used to support the structured data capture intervention.

TPS160 Background: Up to 50% of patients with gastric cancer (GC) may develop peritoneal metastasis (PM) that is associated with resistance to systemic therapy and poor prognosis. Although cytoreductive surgery and intraperitoneal (IP) chemotherapy were shown to modestly improve the survival of patients with PM from gastric GC (PM-G), these clinical trials were performed in the pre-immunotherapy era. The significant heterogeneity in trial design and patient selection criteria further limit the applicability of these trial results to current clinical practice where anti-PD-1/L1 immunotherapy and/or targeted therapy in combination with chemotherapy have become a common, standard first-line therapy for the majority of patients with metastatic GC, raising the question of whether chemotherapy such as paclitaxel remains the most effective IP therapy. IP therapy using novel immunotherapy such as bispecific antibodies and chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy have demonstrated safety and promising antitumor activities in PM-G. We are conducting a phase 1b clinical trial that evaluates the efficacy of IP interleukin-2 (IL-2) in patients with PM-G with stable disease on first-line chemo-immunotherapy based on the hypothesis that IP IL-2 may synergize with intravenous (IV) chemo-immunotherapy to improve the treatment of PM-G. Multi-omics studies using patient blood, peritoneal fluid, and tissue specimens serially collected from this trial will be performed to characterize the changes in the tumor immune microenvironment of PM-G and identify new therapeutic targets. Methods: Patients with PM only from gastric adenocarcinoma are eligible for this phase 1b trial. All participants will continue IV fluorouracil-containing chemotherapy with nivolumab every 2 weeks and concurrently receive up to 16 doses of IP IL-2 (aldesleukin 6 × 10 5 IU/m2) weekly through an indwelling peritoneal catheter (Bard). Diagnostic laparoscopy (DL) will be performed before initiation of IP IL-2 and after 8 doses of IP therapy to assess treatment response based on the peritoneal cancer index (PCI), which is the primary endpoint of the trial. Patients with at least stable radiographic disease will continue to receive another 8 doses of IP IL-2 and undergo a third DL. Secondary endpoints include safety, peritoneal regression grading score, overall survival, and progression-free survival. Major inclusion criteria include mismatch repair-proficient or microsatellite-stable GC, PCI of 3-24, absence of distant metastasis other than PM, stable disease on first-line IV chemo-immunotherapy, tolerability of anti-PD-1 therapy, and adequate organ function. Enrollment began in 2024 and remains active. To date, seven of planned 15 patients have received study treatment without significant treatment-related adverse events and three of these patients underwent curative-intent cytoreductive surgery. Clinical trial information: NCT05802056 .

Background: Colorectal neuroendocrine carcinomas (NECs), including small cell (SCNEC) and large cell (LCNEC) subtypes, are rare but aggressive malignancies with limited population-level data. Moreover, prior studies have limited stratification by histologic subtype and anatomic location, despite evidence of disease heterogeneity in colorectal malignancies. This study aimed to characterize the clinical characteristics, treatment patterns, and outcomes of colorectal NEC by histologic subtype and tumor location, and to compare them with neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) and adenocarcinomas (ACs). Methods: A retrospective cohort review was conducted utilizing the SEER database from 2000 to 2022 to identify patients with colorectal SCNEC, LCNEC, NET, and AC. Demographic, clinical, therapeutic and survival data were analyzed and compared using Kaplan–Meier methods, log-rank tests, and Cox proportional hazards regression. Results: A total of 790 SCNEC, 498 LCNEC, 31,200 NET, and 638,898 AC cases were identified. SCNEC and LCNEC were associated with advanced stage at diagnosis (66% and 55% stage IV, respectively) and inferior survival outcomes compared to NET and AC (median OS (mOS) of 7 and 8 months for SCNEC and LCNEC, respectively, p = 0.0002). Stratified by location, colonic SCNEC had the poorest survival (mOS 5 months), worse than rectal SCNEC (mOS 9 months); this pattern was not observed in LCNEC. Surgical resection was associated with improved OS in both NEC subtypes (HR range 0.25–0.56, all p < 0.012). Radiation therapy was associated with improved survival in NEC overall (SCNEC HR 0.58; LCNEC HR 0.71, both p < 0.05), with the observed benefit appearing greatest in rectal NEC. Demographic factors were associated with survival in NET and AC but had no significant impact in NEC. Conclusions: Colorectal SCNEC and LCNEC are highly aggressive malignancies with poor outcomes, with SCNEC demonstrating modestly inferior outcomes compared to LCNEC. This study demonstrates that both histologic subtype and anatomic site of disease are important determinants of prognosis and treatment response. This supports the concept that colorectal NEC represents a biologically heterogeneous disease, with colonic SCNEC showing the worst outcomes and rectal NEC associated with a potential enhanced response to radiation. These findings support the need for further prospective and molecular studies to better define treatment approaches and targeted therapies for these rare malignancies.

Abstract This literature‐based systematic review and associated guidelines provide evidence‐based paradigms for the management of locoregionally recurrent rectal cancer (LRRC). This multispecialty committee included gastrointestinal radiation and medical oncology, gastroenterology, radiology, and colorectal surgery. As is the standard, the previously described American Radium Society Appropriate Use Criteria methodology for this project was followed rigorously, with the Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome, Timing, and Study Design framework and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses methodology to assess the evidence. RAND/University of California Los Angeles consensus methodology (modified Delphi) was used to rate the appropriateness of treatment options. Published between January 1, 2013, and July 16, 2025, 116 peer‐reviewed trials provided the evidence: 10 were well‐designed randomized phase 2/3 trials, 29 were moderately well designed trials that accounted for most common biases (matched cohort and phase 2), 76 trials had design limitations (retrospective), and one was a meta‐analysis. Clinical cases were created as examples to illustrate current acceptable management of LRRC. Treatment and prognosis are influenced by prior therapy and the site(s) and extent of LRRC. The ability to achieve a margin‐negative surgical resection is the ultimate determinant of survival and local control. Preoperative systemic therapy, radiation therapy, or a combination of the two can facilitate tumor downsizing and improve the likelihood of a margin‐negative resection. An individualized multidisciplinary approach is required to ensure the best outcome. Although this review does not suggest a major alteration of current practice, it provides reassuring evidence of the importance of combined‐modality therapy.

Recent advances in gastroesophageal cancer highlight the continued evolution of systemic therapy across disease stages, including refinements in perioperative strategies and expansion of biomarker‐directed treatment in advanced disease. Emerging therapeutic approaches, including next‐generation antibodies and combination strategies, are expected to further shape treatment selection and improve outcomes.

e15501 Background: CP is the backbone of first-line therapy for recurrent or metastatic ASCC. In practice, Q3-week CP has been explored as a potential alternative to the standard (d1,8,15 Q28-day cycle) dosing, though its efficacy is not known. This study evaluated CP scheduling and clinical survival associations in metastatic ASCC. Methods: This multicenter retrospective cohort study included patients with metastatic ASCC treated with first-line CP, identified using the Mayo Data Explorer database. Electronic health records were reviewed to collect baseline clinical characteristics, treatment regimens, responses, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). Descriptive statistics were used to summarize patient demographics. Survival was estimated using Kaplan–Meier methods. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards models were used to compare survival by dosing schedule, adjusting for age, ECOG performance status, HPV (p16) status, liver metastasis, and prior chemoradiation. Results: 54 patients treated between 2020-2025 with first-line CP for metastatic ASCC were included. Baseline patient demographics were balanced between dosing groups (Table 1). Median follow-up time was 26.2 months. For Q3-week CP (n = 21), median PFS and OS were 9.8 (95% CI 8.1, NR) and 27.0 (95% CI 15.7, NR) months, respectively, while median PFS was 6.5 (95% CI 4.5,15.3) months with standard CP (n = 33) and median OS was not reached (95% CI 11.2, NR). Response rate was 76% with Q3-week and 60.6% with standard CP (p = 0.23) dosing. Survival outcomes were similar when comparing Q3-week CP relative to standard CP dosing using multivariable analysis (PFS HR 0.68, 95% CI 0.33–1.41; OS HR 1.67, 95% CI 0.67–4.14). Higher ECOG and liver metastasis were independently associated with inferior outcomes, while HPV was associated with improved survival. Subsequent therapy patterns were similar between CP schedule groups. Ten patients (16.9%) received local therapy, and 24 of 28 patients with progression received further systemic therapy, including 21 (87.5%) treated with immunotherapy. Conclusions: Survival outcomes were similar across dosing schedules, suggesting Q3-week CP may be a reasonable alternative to standard CP, with potential to reduce treatment-related burden in metastatic ASCC. Future analysis will compare toxicity profiles between CP dosing schedules, including in combination with PD1 inhibitors given the results of the POD1UM-303 trial. Patient demographics (n=54). Variable Q3-week CP (n=21) Standard CP (n=33) p-value Sex Female 16 (76.2%) 24 (72.7%) 0.77 Male 5 (23.8%) 9 (27.3%) Age Median (Q1, Q3) 62 (50.5, 69) 64 (55.5, 70) 0.57 BMI Median (Q1, Q3) 27.1 (21.9, 34.4) 27.4 (22.5, 31.7) 0.72 ECOG 0 9 (42.9%) 11 (34.4%) 0.53 ≥ 1 12 (57.1%) 21 (65.6%) Confirmed HPV (p16) Positive 16 (76.2%) 24 (72.7%) 0.77 Prior chemoradiation Yes 17 (81.0%) 21 (63.6%) 0.17

12007 Background: YAs with cancer, defined as those diagnosed prior to the age of 40, may experience greater symptom burden compared to those diagnosed at older ages. We evaluated the impact of an ePROM-triggered, CC-based, supportive care intervention on symptom burden in YAs with cancer. Methods: The Enhanced, Electronic Health Record-facilitated Cancer Symptom Control (E2C2) trial was a cluster-randomized, pragmatic trial (NCT03892967) that enrolled oncology patients seen at Mayo Clinic Rochester and within the Mayo Clinic Health System (sites in Minnesota and Wisconsin) between March 2019 and January 2023. Patients routinely 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 severity was classified as none to mild (0-3), moderate (4-6), or severe (7-10). Those with moderate or severe symptoms were offered symptom management education, while those with severe symptoms were also offered the option to work virtually with a symptom care manager. In this post hoc analysis, we examined the effects of the intervention on change in symptom scores among YAs and time to improvement to a mild/moderate level in those with at least one severe symptom. Results: Among 40,659 patients who responded to at least one survey, 2,598 were YAs and 38,061 were adults ≥ 40 years. Among YAs, 10.7%, 24.3%, and 65.1% were 18-24 years, 25-31 years, and 32-39 years, respectively. A greater proportion of YA patients were female (61.5% vs 57.0%), of a non-white race (12.4% vs 5.3%), living in an urban setting (65.7% vs 55.1%), single (36.4% vs 9.6%), on non-government insurance (78.1% vs 36.6%), employed (72.6% vs 37.4%), and had a Bachelor’s degree or greater (37.8% vs 28.3%, p < 0.001 for all). Fewer YA patients had metastatic disease compared to older patients (24.2% vs 35.2%, p < 0.001). Compared to a pre-intervention baseline, the mean change in symptom score for YA patients following the intervention demonstrated improvements in anxiety (-0.195) and depression (-0.168, p < 0.0001 for both), while physical function impairment worsened over the intervention period (0.101, p = 0.014). Compared to adults ≥ 40 years, YAs experienced greater intervention effects for management of depression ( p < 0.001), fatigue ( p = 0.01), pain ( p < 0.0001), and physical function impairment ( p < 0.0001). Among YAs with a severe symptom during the intervention period, median time to improvement to a mild/moderate level was longer for anxiety compared to those ≥ 40 years (3.5 vs 2.7 months, p = 0.009). Conclusions: Routine ePROM surveillance, coupled with CC-based symptom management, led to improvements in anxiety and depression among YAs with cancer, although, time to improvement was longer for anxiety compared to adults ≥ 40 years.