Citations

ABSTRACTObjectiveTo build consensus from different stakeholders on the content and digital interactivity of a shared decision making (SDM) tool to guide patient‐clinician collaborative conversations about treatment for bipolar depression.Patients and MethodsThis study was conducted between September 2022 and September 2023. In the first phase, we conducted a narrative review on pharmacological, neuromodulatory, and psychotherapeutic treatments available for bipolar depression. For each option, we assessed treatment effectiveness, side effects, need for clinical monitoring, clinical considerations, and cost. In the second phase, committees comprised of mental health clinicians and people with lived experience with bipolar disorder from a national mood disorders advocacy group identified key features and content to be included in the SDM tool. A thematic analysis of these data then contributed to populate the SDM tool.ResultsTwenty‐one evidence‐based treatment options identified from the narrative review were presented to the four convened committees (clinical, lived experience, peer council, and integrated steering committees) in five meetings. After discussions and thematic analysis, 12 outcomes of interest for each of the therapeutic interventions were delineated for inclusion in a web‐based SDM tool. A detailed description of the development process and SDM tool is provided.ConclusionThis is the first partnership between clinicians and persons with bipolar disorder lived experience charged with the development of a patient‐centered SDM tool to integrate clinical evidence with real‐world clinical practice and patient preferences for use during clinical encounters. Human‐centered design and testing in real clinical encounters will now contribute to refining the instrument and readying it for rigorous evaluation and implementation in practice.

BACKGROUND: Small, randomized trials of patients with cervical artery dissection showed conflicting results regarding optimal stroke prevention strategies. We aimed to compare outcomes in patients with cervical artery dissection treated with antiplatelets versus anticoagulation. METHODS: This is a multicenter observational retrospective international study (16 countries, 63 sites) that included patients with cervical artery dissection without major trauma. The exposure was antithrombotic treatment type (anticoagulation versus antiplatelets), and outcomes were subsequent ischemic stroke and major hemorrhage (intracranial or extracranial hemorrhage). We used adjusted Cox regression with inverse probability of treatment weighting to determine associations between anticoagulation and study outcomes within 30 and 180 days. The main analysis used an as-treated crossover approach and only included outcomes occurring with the above treatments. RESULTS: The study included 3636 patients (402 [11.1%] received exclusively anticoagulation and 2453 [67.5%] received exclusively antiplatelets). By day 180, there were 162 new ischemic strokes (4.4%) and 28 major hemorrhages (0.8%); 87.0% of ischemic strokes occurred by day 30. In adjusted Cox regression with inverse probability of treatment weighting, compared with antiplatelet therapy, anticoagulation was associated with a nonsignificantly lower risk of subsequent ischemic stroke by day 30 (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 0.71 [95% CI, 0.45–1.12]; P =0.145) and by day 180 (adjusted HR, 0.80 [95% CI, 0.28–2.24]; P =0.670). Anticoagulation therapy was not associated with a higher risk of major hemorrhage by day 30 (adjusted HR, 1.39 [95% CI, 0.35–5.45]; P =0.637) but was by day 180 (adjusted HR, 5.56 [95% CI, 1.53–20.13]; P =0.009). In interaction analyses, patients with occlusive dissection had significantly lower ischemic stroke risk with anticoagulation (adjusted HR, 0.40 [95% CI, 0.18–0.88]; P interaction =0.009). CONCLUSIONS: Our study does not rule out the benefit of anticoagulation in reducing ischemic stroke risk, particularly in patients with occlusive dissection. If anticoagulation is chosen, it seems reasonable to switch to antiplatelet therapy before 180 days to lower the risk of major bleeding. Large prospective studies are needed to validate our findings.

PURPOSE Tumor treating fields (TTFields) use alternating electric fields to disrupt cancer cell proliferation. Feasibility of TTFields therapy with gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel was previously demonstrated in patients with advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma. PANOVA-3 was designed to confirm safety and efficacy of TTFields in patients with unresectable locally advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma (LA-PAC). METHODS In this global phase III trial, 571 patients with newly diagnosed LA-PAC were randomly assigned to receive gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m 2 and nab-paclitaxel 125 mg/m 2 by intravenous infusion once a day on days 1, 8, and 15 of a 28-day cycle with or without TTFields. The primary end point was overall survival (OS). Secondary end points included progression-free survival (PFS), local PFS, pain-free survival, and overall response rate (ORR). Distant PFS was analyzed post hoc. RESULTS OS was significantly prolonged using TTFields with gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel versus gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel (median, 16.2 months [95% CI, 15.0 to 18.0] v 14.2 months [95% CI, 12.8 to 15.4]; hazard ratio [HR], 0.82 [95% CI, 0.68 to 0.99]; P = .039). PFS, local PFS, and ORR were not improved. Pain-free survival was significantly prolonged with TTFields with gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel (median, 15.2 months [95% CI, 10.3 to 22.8] v 9.1 months [95% CI, 7.4 to 12.7]; HR, 0.74 [95% CI, 0.56 to 0.97]; P = .027), as was distant PFS (median, 13.9 months [95% CI, 12.2 to 16.8] v 11.5 months [95% CI, 10.4 to 12.9]; HR, 0.74 [95% CI, 0.57 to 0.96]; P = .022). Device-related skin adverse events (AEs) were experienced by 76.3% of patients. Most device-related skin AEs were mild to moderate, with 7.7% of patients reporting a grade 3 AE. CONCLUSION This study demonstrated significant OS, pain-free survival, and distant PFS benefits for TTFields with gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel versus gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel in patients with unresectable LA-PAC, with no additive systemic toxicity.

Abstract Background Magnetic Resonance‐guided Radiation Therapy (MRgRT) systems are increasingly used in clinical practice, necessitating a dedicated dosimetry protocol to address the challenges posed by the presence of strong magnetic fields. Purpose AAPM TG351 introduces a reference dosimetry protocol for external beam MRgRT systems, aligning with AAPM TG51 reports and incorporating elements from the IAEA TRS398 code of practice. Methods The protocol offers practical guidance on beam quality and dosimetry setup in the presence of strong magnetic fields. It reviews relevant literature to identify reference‐class chambers suitable for external beam MRgRT systems and determines their beam quality conversion and other relevant correction factors through a detailed analysis of available data and associated uncertainties. Results AAPM TG351 offers a comprehensive dosimetry protocol for external beam MRgRT systems, addressing the unique challenges posed by the presence of magnetic fields. It includes detailed guidance for measurement setups, a list of reference‐class chambers appropriate for reference dosimetry in MRgRT systems, and updated beam quality conversion and correction factors. Additionally, the protocol presents an in‐depth analysis of the uncertainty budget, identifying key contributors and providing strategies to minimize uncertainties, thereby enhancing clinical accuracy and reliability. Conclusions This protocol provides a practical, evidence‐based reference for medical physicists conducting reference dosimetry in external beam MRgRT systems.

1089 Background: T-DXd has become an important treatment option in mBC and other malignancies. Interstitial lung disease/pneumonitis (ILD) occurred in 10-14% of pts in the DESTINY-Breast trials (0-2% G5 ILD), and with potential lower incidence/severity in earlier line settings (Krop et al, ASCO 2023). We previously reported the Mayo Clinic Rochester, MN experience with T-DXd related ILD in mBC (Hoppenworth et al, ASCO 2024). Here, we expand the data to include patients treated at all locations of the Mayo Clinic Enterprise. Methods: We retrospectively identified pts with mBC who received ≥1 dose of T-DXd across the Mayo Clinic enterprise (Rochester, MN; Mayo Clinic Health System locations in MN/WI; Scottsdale, AZ; and Jacksonville, FL) between July 2022-December 2023. Demographic, mBC characteristics, and pulmonary clinical variables were abstracted from the clinical records. Data were summarized using descriptive statistics. Diagnosis of ILD was determined by treating clinicians, and severity was approximated to CTCAE V5 based on clinical documentation. Results: 252 pts with mBC received T-DXd during the study period. The majority were Caucasian (86%) and female (99%) with a median age of 63. 91 pts (36%) were current/formers smokers and 97 (39%) had prior pulmonary comorbidities. The majority had HER2 low (155, 62%) and HR positive (164, 65%) mBC. 35 (14%) developed any grade ILD [G1: 6 (17%), G2: 13 (37%), G3: 3 (8.6%), G4: 3 (8.6%), G5: 10 (29%)], with 15 (43%) presenting with ≥G3. 29 (83%) presented with at least 1 symptom (cough or SOB). Among those with previous pulmonary toxicity, 4 (33%) had previous pneumonitis in the ILD cohort. The median prior lines of all therapies (including endocrine therapy) were 5, with a median of 3 prior lines of chemotherapy in both the ILD (range 1-13) and non-ILD cohorts (range 1-13). Median onset to any grade ILD was 7 cycles. 20 pts (57%) received steroids for ILD. 14 (40%) had a bronchoscopy, all had a CT chest, 16 (46%) were hospitalized, 7 (20%) were intubated and 1 (3%) had a lung biopsy. Pts with G5 ILD had a median of 3 lines of chemo and a median of 8 cycles prior to onset of ILD, compared to 3 lines of chemo and a median of 7 cycles for those with G1-4 ILD. G5 pts were all Caucasian females, 5 were former smokers, 5 were non-smokers, 1 had a history of pneumonitis. T-DXd was rechallenged in 4 pts (G1-2 ILD) without ILD recurrence. Conclusions: In this retrospective case series,14% of pts treated with T-DXd experienced any grade ILD (4% G5) which is in alignment with the rate observed in the pivotal DESTINY-Breast trials, though with higher rates of G5 toxicity. Among those with ILD, increased lines of therapy were not associated with increased risk. Further research is needed to correlate risk.

1051 Background: Hispanics or Latinos (HL) and African Americans or Black (AA) have a higher prevalence of advanced-stage breast cancer (BC) at diagnosis compared to Non-Hispanic Whites (NHW). To understand the role of immune system, we evaluated the tumor immune microenvironment (TIME) by race/ethnicity among HL, AA, and NHW BC patients. Methods: 15544BC samples were tested by NGS (592, NextSeq; WES, NovaSeq) and WTS (NovaSeq; Caris Life Sciences, Phoenix, AZ). Race/ethnicity data is self-reported. Immune cell were estimated using WTS deconvolution (Quantiseq). Gene expression profiles were analyzed for T-cell inflammation score (TIS) and interferon-gamma (IFN-gamma) score. Real-world overall survival (OS) was obtained from insurance claims and calculated from date of tumor biopsy to last contact using Kaplan-Meier estimates. Statistical significance was determined by chi-square and Mann-Whitney U test with p -values adjusted for multiple comparisons (q < .05). Results: 7170 NHW (35.3%, N = 2528) biopsied (bx) from primary breast cancer (pBC), 64.7% (N = 4642) metastatic bx (mBC), 1,508 AA (pBC 39.3% N = 592, mBC 60.7% N = 916), and 1,754 HL (pBC 44.1% N = 774, mBC 55.9% N = 980) cases were included. By subtype, there were 1,956 (60.4% NHW, 20.7% NHB, 18.9% HL) TNBC, 3425 HR+/HER2- (72.6% NHW, 11.9% NHB, 15.6% HL), and 694 HER2+ (64.6% NHW, 15.7% NHB, 19.7% HL). Across all cases, AA (20.5%) and HL (20.4%) had greater incidence (%) of PD-L1+ cases versus (vs) NHW (17.4%), all q < .05. TMB-High (³10 mut/Mb) was similar in NHW (11.5%), AA (10.8%), and HL (10.9%). AA tumors had lower median % cell infiltration of M2-like macrophages (M2 Mφ), B cells, and neutrophils vs NHW (Table). HL had a lower fraction of M2 Mφ and higher CD8+ T cells (Table). AA had lower TIS (-8 vs 1, p = .02) while HL had lower IFN-gamma (-0.38 vs. -0.35, q < .05) vs NHW. By subtype, AA had lower neutrophils (4% vs 4.3%) and increased DC fractions (3.1% vs 2.8%) in TNBC vs NHW, all q < .05; no significant changes seen in HL vs NHW. AA had worse mOS than NHW overall (31.8 vs 36.8 months (mo)), HR 1.1, 95% CI 1 – 1.2, p = < .01), in pBC (40.3 vs 49.9 mo, HR 1.3, 95% CI 1.1 – 1.5, p = < .01), but not mBC (27.4 vs 29.1 mo, HR 1, p = 0.2). HL had similar mOS vs NHW overall (37.4 vs 36.8 mo, HR 0.9, p = 0.9) and in mBC (29.1 vs 31 mo, HR 0.96, p = 0.4), but worse mOS in pBC (44.7 vs 50.0 mo, HR 1.1, 95% CI 1 – 1.3, p = .01). Conclusions: Our study shows worse mOS in AA and HL pBC cases vs NHW, possibly from a less inflamed TIME in AA and HL and lower fraction of neutrophils and M2 Mφ despite higher % of PD-L1+. Targeting Mφ and CD8+ T cells and converting cold to hot TIME may lessen race/ethnic disparities, especially in early-stage BC. Immune cell fraction of NHW, AA and HL BC. NHW (median %) AA (median %) HL (median %) q-valueNHW vs AA q-value NHW vs HL B cell 5.2 4.8 5.0 <.05 0.7 DC 2.6 2.7 2.6 0.08 0.4 M1 Mφ 2.5 2.4 2.4 0.4 0.9 M2 Mφ 4.6 3.7 4.2 <.05 <.05 Neutrophils 3.7 3.5 3.4 <.05 <.05 NK cell 2.9 2.9 2.9 0.7 0.6 CD8+ T cell 0.1 0.15 0.26 0.8 <.05 Treg 1.5 1.5 1.6 0.6 <.05

529 Background: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) is commonly administered to patients (pts) with estrogen receptor alpha (ER) negative (immunohistochemistry [IHC] 0%) and ER-low (IHC 1-10%) breast cancer (BC). For pts without pathological complete response (pCR), ER expression may differ between baseline and residual BC following NAC. We previously demonstrated adjuvant endocrine therapy (ET) omission in ER-low early-stage BC was associated with significantly worse overall survival (OS); however, this effect was restricted to pts with residual BC following NAC and those with higher baseline ER levels (IHC 6-10%) (Choong et al., ASCO 2024). Here, we assessed how often ER was expressed in residual invasive BC for pts treated with NAC for ER-negative and ER-low BC. Methods: Weidentified pts with pre-treatment (tx) ER-negative and ER-low (regardless of HER2 expression) stage I-III BC treated with NAC who underwent BC surgery at Mayo Clinic Rochester between 2009 and 2023. ER IHC was performed in a CAP/CLIA laboratory. We evaluated ER expression in residual invasive BC for pts without pCR. The percent of pts with a post-tx change in ER status was estimated and reported with 95% Wilson confidence intervals. Results: 955 pts (838 [88%] pre-tx ER-negative; 117 [12%] pre-tx ER-low) met inclusion criteria, of whom 69% had HER2-negative and 31% HER2-positive BC. The median age at diagnosis was 52 (range: 24-86). 496 (52%) had residual BC. Residual BC was more common in HER2-negative versus (vs) positive tumors (56% vs 42%, p < 0.001) but did not differ significantly by ER status (ER-negative 51% vs ER-low 57%, p = 0.22). Of those with residual BC, 277/496 (56%) had ER re-testing. Rates of ER re-testing did not vary for pre-tx ER-negative vs -low (57% vs 51%, p = 0.37) but were significantly lower for HER2-positive vs HER2-negative tumors (39% vs 62%, p < 0.001). Among those with post-tx testing, 31/277 (11%, 95% CI: 8-15%) had an increase in ER expression from pretreatment levels (defined as ER IHC < 1% to either 1-10% or > 10%; or ER IHC 1-10% to > 10%). In these 31 pts, the original NAC was for either TNBC (21/31; 68%) or HER2+ BC (10/31; 32%). In pts with pre-tx ER-negative BC, 27/243 (11%, 95% CI: 8-16%) had ER expression in the residual BC including 14/243 (6%, 95% CI: 3-9%) with ER > 10% and 13/243 (5%, 95% CI: 3-9%) with ER 1-10%. For pts with baseline ER-low BC, 4/34 (12%, 95% CI: 5-27%) had ER > 10% in the residual BC. Among the 31 pts where ER increased following NAC, 21/31 (68%) received adjuvant ET, including 17/18 if ER was > 10% in the residual disease and 4/13 in those with ER 1-10%. Conclusions: In pts treated with NAC for ER-negative or ER-low BC not achieving pCR, we identified higher ER expression in the residual breast cancer in > 10% of pts. Given that omission of ET in ER-low BC with residual cancer following NAC is associated with worse survival, repeat biomarker testing should be considered in those without pCR, and ET individualized according to ER expression.

569 Background: Several studies established the prognostic role of both the amount and locations of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) in TNBC. Three distinct immunotypes were described based on the amount and locations of TILs: immune enriched (IN), immune excluded, and immune desert. Using single-cell spatial transcriptomic analysis in the Mayo Clinic TNBC cohort, our previous studies showed the central role of interferon (IFN) signaling in IN phenotype. Herein, we evaluated the association between IFN and outcomes in TNBC in 3 independent datasets. Methods: NanoString IO360 was performed in 114 samples from FinXX (NCT00114816) to generate 22-gene IFNα and 33-gene IFNγ signatures. RNA sequencing was performed in 388 samples from CALGB 40603 (NCT00861705). 3038 TNBC samples were tested by WTS (NovaSeq; Caris Life Sciences, Phoenix, AZ). Median values were used as cut-offs for high vs low IFNγ RNA expression and 18-gene IFNγ signature scores. Caris Life Science CODEai was used to evaluate real-world overall survival (OS) obtained from insurance claims and calculated from tissue collection to last contact using Kaplan-Meier estimates. Chi-square, Mann-Whitney U, ANOVA, and Cox regression were used. Results: A high 22-gene IFNα signature score was associated with significantly improved recurrence-free survival (RFS) in FinXX (hazard ratio [HR] 0.32, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.14-0.74, p 0.007) and OS (HR 0.28, 95%CI 0.12-0.66, p 0.003). Similar findings were observed with 33-gene IFNγ signature with significant improvement in RFS (HR 0.21, 95%CI 0.09-0.51, p < 0.001) and OS (HR 0.18, 95%CI 0.08-0.44, p < 0.001). Furthermore, in CALGB 40603, both IFNα and IFNγ scores were positively associated with pathologic complete response (pCR: IFNα p 0.019 and IFNγ p 0.007) and residual cancer burden (RCB: IFNα p 0.044 and IFNγ p 0.013). Using the Caris data platform to further validate, we identified 2899 TNBC patients (pts) with genomic and clinical outcome data. High IFNγ expression was associated with significant improvement in OS (25.95 vs 17.43 months; HR 0.65, 95% CI 0.59 – 0.72, p < 0.001). Similarly, pts with high IFNγ signature scores had significant improvement in median OS (25.79 vs 16.22 months; HR 0.66, 95% CI 0.6 – 0.73, p < 0.001). Conclusions: This study underscores the pivotal role of IFN signaling in TNBC. High IFNα and IFNγ signatures were consistently associated with improved RFS, OS, higher pCR rates, and lower RCB across clinical trial cohorts and real-world data. These findings signify IFN signaling as a potential key biomarker and therapeutic target in TNBC. Support: U10CA180821, U10CA180882, U24CA196171; Breast Cancer Research Foundation, Mayo Clinic Breast Cancer SPORE (P50CA116201-17), Bankhead Coley, W81XWH-15-1-0292, P50CA015083, R35CA253187; https://acknowledgments.alliancefound.org . Genentech. Clinical trial information: NCT00114816 and NCT00861705 .

548 Background: TNBC is associated with higher risk of recurrence and poorer survival rates than other breast cancer subtypes. For node-positive TNBC or tumors larger than 0.5 cm, chemotherapy is generally recommended. For stage I TNBC, the benefit from chemotherapy, the optimal regimen, and whether to administer it in the neoadjuvant versus adjuvant setting remain controversial. Here, we report the treatment patterns and clinical outcomes of patients with stage I TNBC treated at Mayo Clinic. Methods: Using the Mayo Clinic Tumor Registry data, we identified patients with stage I TNBC treated between 2010 and 2021. We used the pathologic tumor (T) category for patients treated with upfront surgery and the clinical T category for patients receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy. We used the Kaplan-Meier method and log-rank test to compare recurrence-free survival (RFS) according to treatment groups, measured from the day of surgery. RFS was reported at a median follow-up of 3.9, 6.2, and 7.3 years for patients who received chemotherapy neoadjuvantly, adjuvantly, and surgery alone with no chemotherapy, respectively. Results: A total of 602 patients with Stage I TNBC were included, with a median age of 62 years. 290 (48%) underwent upfront surgery followed by adjuvant chemotherapy (pT1a: 2%, pT1b: 25%, pT1c: 74%), 127 (21%) received neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by surgery (cT1a: 2%, cT1b: 11%, cT1c: 87%), and 185 (31%) underwent primary surgery without any chemotherapy (pT1mi/T1a: 33%, pT1b: 32%, pT1c: 35%). Most patients treated with neoadjuvant therapy received anthracycline/cyclophosphamide + taxane (70%), while most patients treated in the adjuvant setting received a non-anthracycline containing regimen (60%). The 5-year RFS was 96% (95% CI: 93-100%) for patients who received chemotherapy neoadjuvantly, 95% (95% CI: 92-98%) for those who received chemotherapy adjuvantly, and 85% (95% CI: 80-91%) for those treated with surgery alone and no chemotherapy ( P < 0.0001). 71 (56%) of the 127 patients who received neoadjuvant therapy achieved a pCR, with only 1 RFS event (at 14 months) in that group, compared to 4 RFS events among those not achieving pCR (at 12, 20, 28 and 75 months, respectively). Among patients not receiving chemotherapy (either adjuvantly or neoadjuvantly), the 5-year RFS rates were 94% for pT1mi/T1a, 92% for pT1b and 72% for pT1c (T1mi/a/b vs T1c, P = 0.009). Conclusions: In this large cohort of stage I TNBC, patients who received chemotherapy (adjuvantly or neoadjuvantly) had better 5-year RFS compared with those treated with locoregional therapy only. Among patients receiving chemotherapy, 5-year RFS was nearly identical regardless of whether chemotherapy was administered before or after surgery. Interestingly, patients undergoing upfront surgery were more likely to receive an anthracycline-sparing chemotherapy regimen.

5060 Background: Rucaparib significantly improved radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) in men with BRCA-mutated chemotherapy-naïve metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) vs a control arm of physician’s choice of therapy (docetaxel or androgen-receptor pathway inhibitor [ARPI] therapy: abiraterone acetate or enzalutamide) in the randomized, multicenter, open-label, phase 3 TRITON3 (NCT02975934) study. Herein, we conducted an analysis to determine the impact of germline vs somatic mutation status on the efficacy of rucaparib. Methods: Patients were randomized 2:1 to receive rucaparib 600 mg BID or physician’s choice of docetaxel or ARPI following progression while on 1 prior second-generation ARPI in any setting. The primary endpoint was rPFS. Color Health did genetic testing. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were reported for the BRCA subgroup. Results: In the rucaparib arm, 201/270 patients had BRCA mutations, and in the physician’s choice arm, 101/135 patients had BRCA mutations. Of patients with BRCA mutations: in the rucaparib arm, 80/201 (40%) were germline and 116/201 (58%) were somatic with 5/201 (2%) BRCA mutation status unknown, while in the physician’s choice arm, 39/101 (39%) were germline and 48/101 (48%) were somatic with 14/101 (14%) BRCA mutation status unknown. rPFS was significantly improved with rucaparib treatment vs physician’s choice in both the germline and somatic mutation groups (germline: HR, 0.52 [95% CI, 0.32–0.84]; somatic: HR, 0.38 [95% CI, 0.25–0.59]). Incidence rates of TEAEs were similar overall between patients with germline and somatic BRCA mutations in both arms. Conclusions: Rucaparib improves progression-free survival for patients with mCRPC with either germline or somatic BRCA mutations with a manageable safety profile. These data support the use of rucaparib as a beneficial treatment option for patients with BRCA-mutated mCRPC with germline or somatic mutations. Clinical trial information: NCT02975934 .