Citations

e12532 Background: Mini-chromosome maintenance 2 (MCM2), a protein regulating the initiation of DNA replication, is associated with a high proliferative index and worse clinical outcomes in various cancer types, including breast cancer. MCM2 expression was shown to be more sensitive than Ki-67 in predicting prognosis in lung, head and neck, and thyroid cancer. In contrast to Ki-67, MCM2 is more readily expressed and may provide better prognostic and predictive information in luminal breast cancer. This study aimed to evaluate MCM2 expression in pre-neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) specimens from patients with locally advanced HR+/HER2- breast cancer and its association with tumor response and clinicopathological factors. Methods: Stage 2-3 HR+/HER2- early breast cancer patients who received NACT followed by surgery between January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2020, at KCMH were retrospectively reviewed. MCM2 antibody (rabbit polyclonal, HPA 031496, dilution 1/200, Sigma Aldrich) was used for immunostaining of pre-NACT specimens with scoring by image analysis. NACT response in surgical specimens was assessed with RCB index. The relationship of MCM2 expression with clinicopathologic factors and RCB 0/I response after NACT were evaluated with univariate and multivariate analysis. ROC analysis was performed to identify the optimum MCM2 cut-off for RCB 0/I. Results: 72 patients with locally advanced HR+/HER2- who received NACT were evaluated. The median age was 50 years (ranges 26-80), and 71% of patients had stage 3. RCB 0/I responses were observed in 5 patients (6.9%). MCM2 ≥ 40% was significantly associated with RCB 0/I (OR = 18.3, 95% CI 1.88-178.98, p = 0.012) in univariate analysis. In contrast, Ki-67 expression was not associated with RCB 0/I at any cutoff point. The mean MCM2 expression was numerically higher in patients with RCB 0/I (39.3 ± 7.5 vs. 24.6 ± 2, p = 0.06). In the ROC analysis for predicting RCB 0/I with MCM2 expression, AUC was 0.75 (95% CI 0.51-0.99, p=0.04) with the optimum cut-off of ≥40% (sensitivity 80% and specificity 82%). MCM2 expression ≥ 40% was associated with unfavorable clinical pathological features, including histologic grade 3, ER <10%, PR negativity, and Ki-67 ≥ 20%. Patients with both baseline Ki67 ≥ 20% and MCM2 ≥ 40% had a trend toward worse 1-year recurrence-free survival (98% vs. 86%, p=0.06). Conclusions: High baseline MCM2 expression (≥40%) is associated with a higher chance of achieving RCB 0/I in locally advanced HR+HER2-breast cancer, unlike Ki67. Assessing MCM2 expression may provide additional prognostic and predictive information for HR+/HER2-breast cancer patients receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy.

e13893 Background: For individuals with CNS tumors who have experience difficulties with in-person (IP) evaluations due to disease-related neurologic disability or the costs associated with travel, telehealth (TH) offers a convenient and timely alternative for accessing specialized neuro-oncology care. We report our institution’s experience with telehealth utilization in neuro-oncology. Methods: We conducted a retrospective review of patients who had at least one neuro-oncology telehealth visit between August 2021 and May 2024 at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota. Reasons for visits, outcomes of appointments, acute care utilization following visits was reviewed. Results: A total of 660 patients who had at least one TH visit between August 2021 and May 2024 were included in the analysis. Median age was 56 (range 20-98), 49% were female, and 92% were white. Most patients resided in the US Midwest (84%), followed by the South (8%), West (5%), Northeast (1%), and US Territories (< 1%). Less than two percent were international patients. The most common primary visit diagnosis was glioblastoma (GBM, 26%), followed by astrocytoma, IDH-mutant (17%), meningioma (17%), oligodendroglioma, IDH-mutant, 1p/19q codeleted (7%). Of 6657 visits reviewed, 2745 (41%) were conducted via TH. Telehealth visits served various purposes, including consultation for newly diagnosed tumors or abnormal MRIs (n = 26), second opinion for an established tumor diagnosis (n = 119), discussion about clinical trial participation (n = 108), tumor-related treatment discussions (n = 719), chemotherapy education (n = 161), new symptom assessment (n = 117), symptom management (n = 366), and tumor surveillance (n = 1694). Outcomes from telehealth visits included enrollment in clinical trials (n = 28), proceeding with tumor-directed surgery (n = 46), initiation of radiation therapy (n = 88), starting or changing systemic therapy (n = 377), continuing existing systemic therapy (n = 932), transition to supportive care (n = 45), tumor diagnostic workup (n = 28), continuation of tumor surveillance (n = 1254). Acute care utilization, defined as an emergency department visit or hospitalization within one month of an appointment, was the same following telehealth visits compared to in-person visits (6.9% for IP vs 5% for TH, p = 0.507). Conclusions: Our findings demonstrate that telehealth can effectively support all aspects of neuro-oncology care, ranging from initial diagnosis discussions to systemic therapy management and transitions to supportive care. Telehealth offers a convenient and accessible method of care delivery option for patients faced with neurologic illness. Additionally, THs do not lead to increased acute care utilization compared to IP evaluations.

e13891 Background: Most patients with central nervous system (CNS) malignancy develop cognitive impairment, fatigue, and mood-related symptoms that are impacted by cancer and treatment, including radiation therapy. We currently have limited therapies to mitigate neurocognitive toxicity. It is important to accurately assess neurocognitive function and symptom burden when working to establish therapeutics. The objective of this trial is to assess the effectiveness of therapies aimed at improving neurocognitive function and quality of life by leveraging a decentralized approach incorporating an established digital neurocognitive assessment tool and development of a remote symptom collection/medication log to improve capture of longitudinal neurocognitive data. Methods: This is an open-label decentralized clinical trial (NCT06377696) that randomizes patients who have received intracranial radiation for primary and secondary brain tumors in a 1:1 allocation to health promotion with a wearable device +/- metformin (targeting radiation-related toxicity). Remote symptom collection is reported through digital patient surveys. Medication adherence is being monitored through a digital medication log developed for the study. Remote neurologic examination is performed by clinical neuro-oncologists at telehealth visits. Participants perform serial remote cognitive assessments with an established digital neurocognitive testing platform – Mayo Test Drive (MTD). Cognitive assessments and symptom surveys were designed to be completed on a smartphone, tablet, or computer device. Results: The study started enrollment on May 31, 2024. As of January 27, 2025, 54 of 100 planned participants have enrolled (27 on each arm). 51 participants remain active on trial; 3 withdrew from trial participation (2 prior to treatment, 1 after treatment). The overall completion rate for a quality-of-life questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30) is 85.0%, and each dose of metformin logged is 78.5%. The overall completion rate for virtual neurologic examination and short test of mental status is 94.7%. For MTD, the overall completion rate is 97.9%. The average MTD session duration was 16 minutes. Most participants completed MTD testing using a smartphone (90.5%) at home (89.1%). Conclusions: These results provide preliminary support that a decentralized trial assessing neurocognitive outcomes is feasible in patients with CNS malignancy. The completion rates of questionnaires and objective cognitive evaluation are comparable or higher than expected with historic norms. Final study results will provide real-world cognitive and quality-of-life data for patients with CNS tumors while providing preliminary data on the effectiveness of device-based health promotion +/- metformin for treatment related cognitive decline. Clinical trial information: NCT06377696 .

e13890 Background: Many oncology practices have reported continued use of telemedicine since onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the future sustainability of telemedicine within oncology practices remains unclear, particularly because federal policies that enabled adoption in response to the public health emergency (PHE) have not been made permanent. Understanding similarities and differences in telemedicine utilization at high-volume oncology centers is crucial for shaping evidence-based policy that enables equitable access to oncology care across varying geographies. Methods: This is a cross-sectional, year-over-year, retrospective cohort analysis of trends in telemedicine utilization across all medical oncology clinical appointments conducted among adult patients (age >18) from January 2019 to December 2023 at Stanford Medicine Cancer Center (SM) – comprising multiple campuses in the California Bay Area – and the Mayo Clinic Comprehensive Cancer Center (MC) – a multiregional cancer practice with tertiary referral campuses in Minnesota, Florida, and Arizona, as well as community-based clinics throughout the Upper Midwest. Results: Both institutions exhibited a similar trend in telemedicine adoption over time. This was characterized by an initial surge in utilization following the PHE declaration in March 2020, followed by sustained utilization rates from 2021 to 2023. However, telemedicine use as a proportion of the overall practice differed significantly between institutions. At SM, the rate of telemedicine visits as a proportion of overall clinical practice was 60.3% (49,136/ 81,502) in 2021, 59.9% (52,247/ 87,215) in 2022, and 57.2% (55,007/ 96,163) in 2023. At MC, the proportion of telemedicine utilization was 12.8% in 2021 (23,873/186,086), 14.7% in 2022 (28,985/196,777), and 14.0% in 2023 (30,208/215,941). Deployment in the setting of new versus return visits also differed between institutions. In 2023, telemedicine accounted for 53.7% (6,440/11,998) of new and 57.7% (48,567/84,165) of return visits at SM, compared to 15.5% (3,359/21,728) and 13.8% (26,849/194,213) at MC. Additionally, while video visits were the predominant modality used to conduct telemedicine visits at both institutions from 2021 onward, in 2023 phone visits still made up 17.9% (5,394/30,208) of all telemedicine visits at MC, compared to just 5.4% (2,990/55,007) at SM. Conclusions: Stanford Medicine and Mayo Clinic exhibited a pattern of initial growth of telemedicine adoption in 2020, followed by sustained utilization from 2021-2023. We observed unique differences in the overall proportion, visit type deployment, and modality of telemedicine utilization between institutions. However, this study confirms telemedicine visits have remained a fixture of medical oncology care for many patients at these institutions since the COVID-19 pandemic.

e12562 Background: Previous research has suggested that breast cancer (BC) diagnosed during pregnancy or the postpartum period exhibits more aggressive clinical features, possibly due to pregnancy-related hormonal changes, immune modulation, and alterations in the mammary microenvironment compared to nulligravid or women many years out from pregnancy. Emerging data have demonstrated potential worse outcomes for patients (pts) diagnosed in post-partum. This study evaluated the influence of timing of diagnosis in relation to pregnancy history and recency of childbirth on long-term outcomes in a modern cohort of young pts with early-stage BC. Methods: Pts with stage I–III BC age < 40y in the prospective Young Women’s Breast Cancer Study (YWBCS) were categorized at diagnosis as Nulligravid (no prior pregnancy), Nulliparous (prior pregnancy without live birth), Currently Pregnant, or Parous (subdivided by time since last childbirth: within 5 years [≤ 5y PP], and 5–10 years postpartum [5–10y PP]). Baseline characteristics and outcomes were compared across BC subtypes (estrogen receptor+/HER2- [ER+/HER2-], HER2+, and triple-negative BC [TNBC]). Prognostic analyses for distant recurrence-free survival (DRFS) used Cox models. Results: 859 pts were included, 257 (30%) nulligravid, 50 (6%) nulliparous, 37 (4%) pregnant, and 515 (60%) parous (348 [68%] were ≤5y PP, and 167 [32%] were 5–10y PP). Median follow-up was 133 (6–209) months. Median age at diagnosis was lower in nulligravid pts (33 vs. 35–38 years); T1 tumors were most common in pts >5y PP (62%), and N0 status was highest in nulligravid pts (64%) (all p < 0.0001). Pregnant pts had higher rates of TNBC (27%), and T3 tumors (14%), N1 status, N1 (41%), and Grade 3 (81%) tumors compared to other groups (all p < 0.0001). Overall, only tumor size (T2-T4 vs T1, HR 2.03; 95% CI 1.37–3.03) and nodal status (N1 vs N0, HR 2.22; 1.48–3.34; N2/3 vs N0, HR 3.23; 1.96-5.33) were independently associated with worse DRFS; pregnancy history was not: nulligravid + nulliparous pts had no significant differences in DRFS compared to Pregnant (HR 1.46; 0.75–2.86), Parous <5y PP (HR 0.86; 0.58–1.26), and Parous 5–10y PP (HR 0.89; 0.54–1.48). Subgroup analyses by BC subtype (Table) and sensitivity analyses (excluding currently pregnant pts or separating nulligravid and nulliparous pts) demonstrated no significant associations between pregnancy history and DRFS. Conclusions: In this cohort study of very young patients with early breast cancer with contemporary treatment including management of breast cancer during pregnancy, pregnancy history and recency of pregnancy were not independent predictors of long-term disease outcomes. DRFS results by subgroup. Pregnancy Group N (%) HR (95% CI) ER+/HER2- Nulligravid + Nulliparous 173 (38.1) Ref Pregnant 16 (3.5) 0.93 (0.32–2.70) Parous ≤5y PP 177 (39.0) 0.77 (0.45–1.29) Parous 5–10y PP 88 (19.4) 0.78 (0.39–1.53) HER2+ Nulligravid + Nulliparous 77 (30.8) Ref Pregnant 11 (4.4) 3.27 (0.80–13.38) Parous ≤5y PP 113 (45.2) 1.50 (0.60–3.75) Parous 5–10y PP 49 (19.6) 1.45 (0.45–4.66) TNBC Nulligravid + Nulliparous 56 (36.8) Ref Pregnant 10 (6.6) 1.92 (0.61–6.09) Parous ≤5y PP 57 (37.5) 0.68 (0.28–1.63) Parous 5–10y PP 29 (19.1) 1.16 (0.43–3.14)

5064 Background: FoundationOneCDx (F1CDx) supports two FDA-approved biomarkers to guide treatment decisions for ICI for patients with mCRPC: MSI status and TMB. MSI-H and TMB-H (10+ mut/MB) have strongly overlapping prevalence. We sought to better characterize ICI outcome associations of TMB-H / non-MSI-H population and relative effectiveness of taxanes & ICI among patients who received these agents in sequence. Methods: Following a prespecified analysis plan, this study used the nationwide (US-based) de-identified Flatiron Health-Foundation Medicine mCRPC clinico-genomic database (FH-FMI CGDB), with data originating from ~280 US cancer clinics (~800 sites of care). Inclusion criteria included patients with mCRPC treated with single-agent anti-PD(L)1 therapy in the FH network between 1/1/2011 - 3/30/2024. This study used the MSI and TMB algorithms from the tissue based F1CDx. Time to next treatment (TTNT) and OS were assessed with Kaplan-Meier plots and in multivariable Cox models adjusted for ECOG performance score, socioeconomic status, prior treatment history, and baseline PSA. Among patients who received taxanes in a prior line of therapy, the effectiveness (TTNT1 vs. TTNT2) of taxane and ICI were compared. Results: Among 2995 prostate cancer tissue specimens in the database, 95 (3.1%) were MSI-H and 142 (4.7%) were TMB-H. 94 (3.1%) were MSI-H & TMB-H, 1 was MSI-H & TMB-L, and 48 (1.6%) were TMB-H & not MSI-H. Among these, 84 patients with mCRPC were treated with ICI and met inclusion criteria, including MSI-H & TMB-H (n = 30), non-MSI-H & TMB-H (n = 8), and non-MSI-H and TMB-L (n = 46). The respective median TTNT on ICI was 8.0 vs. 9.6 vs. 3 months. The respective median OS from initiation of ICI was 10.9 vs. not reached vs. 4.4 months. In multivariable models evaluating ICI only, compared to non-MSI-H & TMB-L, the MSI-H & TMB-H group had more favorable TTNT (HR: 0.20, 95%CI: 0.10 – 0.41, p < 0.001) and OS (HR: 0.33, 95%CI: 0.16 – 0.70, p = 0.004), and the non-MSI-H & TMB-H group also had more favorable TTNT (HR: 0.13, 95%CI: 0.04 – 0.45, p = 0.002) and OS (HR: 0.20, 95%CI: 0.05 – 0.75, p = 0.017). 50 of the 84 (60%) patients treated with ICI had prior mCRPC taxane treatment. Better TTNT2 on subsequent ICI vs. prior taxane was observed for MSI-H (HR: 0.49, 95%CI: 0.23 – 1.01, p = 0.051) and TMB-H (0.54, 95%CI: 0.30 – 0.98, p = 0.044), but the opposite was true for non-MSI-H and TMB-L subgroups, with significant treatment interactions for each (p = 0.0018, p = 0.00052). Conclusions: TMB-H (4.7%) is more prevalent than MSI-H (3.1%) by F1CDx in mCRPC. Non-MSI-H / TMB-H (1.6%) in the routine practice cohort have similar outcome associations on ICI to MSI-H. Both MSI-H and TMB-H by F1CDx are predictive of differential benefit for ICI vs. taxanes in later mCRPC treatment lines.

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 .

5048 Background: Ra-223, an alpha-emitting radionuclide, is the first agent of its kind approved for the treatment of mCRPC. Although a pivotal phase 3 study evaluated its short-term safety, there is a need to investigate its long-term safety. The REASSURE study prospectively examined the long-term safety of Ra-223, including secondary primary malignancies (SPMs), in a large patient (pt) population enrolled across Europe, the United States, Israel, and Latin America. Methods: We report final analyses (data cut-off Oct 24, 2024) of REASSURE (NCT02141438), a global, noninterventional study (enrolment 2014–2017). Primary outcomes were the incidence of SPMs, short- (30 days) and long-term (7 years) safety events, and bone marrow suppression (BMS) management in pts who had ≥1 Ra-223 dose. Secondary outcomes included overall survival (OS). Results: Analyses included 1472 pts; median follow-up was 17 months (range 0.3–95.4). Median age was 73 years and 80% of pts had an ECOG PS of 0/1. In evaluable pts, median alkaline phosphatase, prostate-specific antigen, and lactate dehydrogenase levels were 133 U/L, 59 ng/mL, and 266 U/L, respectively. Overall, 81% of pts had bone-only metastases at baseline; 19% of pts had metastases in the bone plus other sites (mostly lymph nodes). Prior treatments included abiraterone (48% of pts), enzalutamide (39%), docetaxel (39%), and cabazitaxel (9%). Pts received a median of 6 Ra-223 doses; 67% received ≥5 doses. SPMs occurred in 2% of pts (25 SPMs in 24 pts). Of these pts, 16 (67%) and 1 (4%) had received prior or concomitant radiotherapy, respectively. Overall, 3% of pts had drug-related serious adverse events >30 days after completing Ra-223. Fractures were reported in 10% of pts and were less common in pts with (7% of 605) than without (12% of 867) concomitant BHA use. During Ra-223 and up to 30 days after the last dose, there was no notable difference in the incidence of abnormal platelet counts between pts with (3%) or without (2%) prior chemotherapy; similar findings were seen for abnormal neutrophil counts (5% and 5%, respectively). BMS treatments, assessed from the start of Ra-223, were more common in pts who had received prior taxanes (38%) than in those who had not (26%). The most common life-prolonging therapies received after Ra-223 were docetaxel (18%), enzalutamide (15%), abiraterone (11%), and cabazitaxel (11%). Median OS was 15.6 months (95% CI, 14.6, 16.4); pt subgroups that survived the longest will be characterized and presented. Conclusions: This real-world safety analysis of pts with mCRPC is the longest follow-up of a radiopharmaceutical reported to date and supports the well-established favorable safety profile of Ra-223. The incidence of SPMs was low. The rate of fracture was low, especially in the presence of BHAs. Prior taxane chemotherapy use had no impact on hematological toxicity. Clinical trial information: NCT02141438 .

504 Background: Axillary surgery in breast cancer is used for staging and therapeutic purposes, but axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) confers high risk of complications including lymphedema. Accordingly, trials have focused on right-sizing axillary surgery, with options ranging from complete omission of surgery, sentinel lymph node (SLN) surgery, targeted axillary dissection (TAD), or ALND. Identifying a biomarker to reliably predict nodal burden would facilitate accurate selection of surgical management. We evaluated whether the presence or absence of ctDNA in the blood pre and post NAC is associated with residual nodal burden. Methods: I-SPY2 is a prospective, multicenter NAC trial for patients with clinical stage II-III high-risk breast cancer. Patients are randomized to novel NAC agents, with pathologic complete response being the primary endpoint. As part of the trial, serial ctDNA is assessed with a highly sensitive tumor-informed assay using up to 16 patient-specific tumor mutations (Signatera) at baseline, 3 weeks, 12 weeks, and post-NAC. We determined whether ctDNA positivity or negativity post-NAC, and the change in ctDNA status baseline/post-NAC (-/-, -/+, +/+, +/-) are associated with ypN category (N0, N1, N2). Results: ctDNA status was available post-NAC in 495 patients and change in ctDNA status from baseline was available in 493. At baseline, ctDNA was detected in 160/220 (72.3%) cN0 patients and 227/273 (83.2%) cN+ patients (p=0.006). Post-NAC, ctDNA was detected in 11/220 (5%) cN0 patients and 34/273 (12.5%) cN+ patients (p=0.004). While baseline ctDNA status was not associated with ypN category, there was a significant association between post-NAC ctDNA status and ypN category. For ctDNA + patients post-NAC, 33.3% were ypN0, 31.1% were ypN1, and 35.6% were ypN2 at surgery; in contrast, for ctDNA - patients post-NAC, 67.1% were ypN0, 23.1% were ypN1, and 9.8% were ypN2 (p<0.0001). Dynamic ctDNA changes were also associated with ypN category, with significantly more ypN0 patients among ctDNA -/- or ctDNA +/- cases, and more ypN2 patients in those who did not clear ctDNA (+/+) (p=0.0001, Table). Conclusions: To our knowledge this is the first study to demonstrate a significant relationship between ctDNA and ypN category, which has important surgical implications. CtDNA negativity was associated with low likelihood of ypN2 disease, making these patients excellent candidates for SLN surgery or TAD. Ongoing analyses will incorporate receptor subtype and timing of clearance of ctDNA. CtDNA in breast cancer may help tailor surgical management of the axilla, potentially reducing patient morbidity without compromising prognostic information. ctDNA baseline/post-NAC ypN0 (n=317) ypN1 (n=116) ypN2 (n=60) ctDNA -/- (n=105) 72.4% 19.1% 8.6% ctDNA -/+ (n=1) 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% ctDNA +/+ (n=44) 34.1% 29.6% 36.4% ctDNA +/- (n=343) 65.9% 23.9% 10.2%

5041 Background: Prior studies suggest that chemotherapy-naïve pts with mCRPC treated with AA have a higher CV event-related hospitalization risk than those treated with ENZA. To further explore this association, this real-world, comparative causal inference study used a large US dataset to assess CV event risk in chemotherapy-naïve pts with mCRPC who initiated treatment (Tx) with ENZA or AA and provide outcome data based on history of (h/o) CV disease (CVD). Methods: Using US Medicare fee-for-service claims (Jan 2010–Dec 2022), we identified chemotherapy-naïve pts aged ≥65 years with mCRPC who initiated ENZA or AA between Sep 2014 and May 2017. The primary endpoint was a 4-point major adverse CV event (MACE-4; composite of acute myocardial infarction [AMI], stroke, unstable angina/revascularization [UA/R], and heart failure). Atrial fibrillation (AFib), venous thromboembolism (VTE), and all-cause death were also analyzed. Groups were propensity score matched (PSM) to adjust for differences in pt characteristics, assessed using standardized mean difference (SMD). Cause-specific Cox proportional hazards models were used to comparethe risk of CV outcomes between intention-to-treat cohorts, with death as a competing event. Subgroup analyses were conducted based on h/o CVD. Sensitivity analysis was performed with a MACE-5 endpoint, defined as MACE-4 or CV-related death. Results: Of 6319 pts in the total study population (ENZA: 2934; AA: 3385), 2913 PSM pts were included from each group. The ENZA and AA cohorts had similar baseline characteristics even before PSM (SMD<0.1), with a mean (standard deviation) age of 78.8 (7.3) years; 76% of pts had prior CVD. Compared with pts on ENZA, pts on AA had a significantly higher risk of experiencing MACE-4—particularly UA/R—as well as a higher risk of AFib and VTE (Table). Similar results were found in the subgroup of pts with a h/o CVD and the sensitivity analyses. Additionally, pts on AA had a higher risk of all-cause death than pts on ENZA, regardless of CVD history (h/o CVD hazard ratio [HR]: 1.14, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.07–1.21, P =0.0001; no h/o CVD HR: 1.12, 95% CI: 1.01–1.26, P =0.036). Conclusions: This matched analysis of US Medicare beneficiaries showed an increased risk for MACE-4, AFib, and VTE in pts with mCRPC treated with AA compared to ENZA, in the overall pt population and pts with a h/o CVD. The risk of all-cause death was higher with AA in all pts. These findings provide insights into Tx decision-making for pts with mCRPC, especially those at high risk of CV events. Outcomes HR* (95% CI) P -value MACE-4 1.12 (1.02–1.24) 0.028 AMI 1.01 (0.76–1.32) 0.987 Stroke 0.92 (0.70–1.20) 0.505 UA/R 1.13 (1.01–1.26) 0.041 Heart failure 1.19 (0.90–1.58) 0.237 AFib 1.73 (1.31–2.29) 0.0001 VTE 1.37 (1.02–1.85) 0.037 All-cause death 1.13 (1.07–1.19) 0.0001 *ENZA = reference group.