Citations

3040 Background: EVEREST-2 is a first-in-human, phase 1/2 trial to assess the safety and efficacy of A2B694, an autologous, logic-gated Tmod CAR T therapy targeted to MSLN, which is normally expressed in the mesothelium and can be upregulated in many solid tumors. A2B694 is designed to overcome challenges of on-target, off-tumor toxicity that have limited other MSLN-targeted approaches by combining a CAR-activating receptor targeting MSLN with a blocker CAR that recognizes HLA-A*02, to distinguish between normal and tumor cells (Tokatlian, et al. J Immunother Cancer. 2022). Methods: Adults with recurrent unresectable, locally advanced, or metastatic cancers with MSLN expression who have progressed after standard-of-care therapy are eligible for EVEREST-2. Enrollment to EVEREST-2 and collection of T-cells occurs through the ongoing prescreening study BASECAMP-1 (NCT04981119). When clinically appropriate, A2B694 is manufactured from cryopreserved T cells, and patients undergo lymphodepletion before A2B694 infusion. The dose-escalation phase is evaluating the safety and tolerability of A2B694 to identify the recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D). Dose escalation was started at 1x10 8 Tmod positive cells (dose level [DL] 1) and will increase up to 14x10 8 in combination with low-dose IL-2 (DL 5). The dose-expansion phase will confirm RP2D and collect biomarker data to further characterize A2B694. Results: As of January 15, 2025, 5 participants (median age: 60 years; range, 50-84) have enrolled on EVEREST-2 and received A2B694 at DLs 1-2; participants had ovarian cancer (n = 3), pancreatic cancer (n = 1), and non-small cell lung cancer (n = 1) and had received a median of 4 prior lines of therapy (range, 1-7). Lymphodepleting chemotherapy was well tolerated with no significant cytopenias observed. The most common adverse events were lymphopenia (7 [14.6%]) and decreased appetite (6 [12.5%]). There were no dose-limiting toxicities, cytokine release syndrome, nor related neurotoxicity. One participant was admitted to the hospital for decreased appetite. No long-term toxicities have been noted up to 7.5 months post-infusion. Of the participants who have received A2B694, 5 were efficacy evaluable at DLs 1-2. A2B694 was detected post-infusion in the peripheral blood in all patients. Additionally, A2B694 was detected in an abdominal tumor biopsy from a patient with pancreatic cancer 42 days post-infusion. Conclusions: The logic-gated approach was successful at reducing toxicity seen with prior MSLN-targeted CAR T therapies, and A2B694 showed successful CAR T expansion and tumor infiltration. The maximum tolerated dose has not been reached, and results from the dose-escalation phase continue to determine the RP2D. Clinical trial information: NCT06051695 .

3008 Background: Numerous studies have demonstrated the prognostic value of ctDNA analysis after neoadjuvant chemotherapy for early-stage high-risk breast cancer. Few studies have characterized ctDNA in pts receiving NET for early-stage hormone receptor positive (HR+)/HER2- BC that is predicted to benefit less from chemotherapy. Methods: Cell-free DNA (cfDNA) was isolated from 432 plasma samples from 108 pts enrolled in the I-SPY2 EOP trial. Pts had Stage 2/3 HR+/HER2-, MammaPrint low or high risk 1 BC. Pts were randomized to one of 7 neoadjuvant-based treatment arms including arms containing AI, Z-endoxifen, Lasofoxifene, vepdegestrant (ARV-471), and Abemaciclib. Pts were treated for 6 months prior to surgery. Blood was collected at baseline (T0), 3 weeks (T1), 12 weeks (T2), and 6 months (T3). A personalized ctDNA test (Signatera) was designed to detect up to 16 patient-specific mutations (from whole-exome sequencing of pretreatment tumor) in cfDNA by ultra-deep sequencing. The chi-square test was used to assess associations between categorical variables, and the Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used to evaluate differences in medians. Results: ctDNA information was available for 101 patients at baseline (T0) (Table 1). At T0, 36 (35.6%) patients were ctDNA-positive. 23/36 (63.9%) became ctDNA-negative and 13/36 (36.1%) remained ctDNA-positive. At T0, 65/101 patients (64.4%) were ctDNA-negative. Of these, 57 (87.7%) remained negative, while 8 (12.3%) became ctDNA-positive at T1 before reverting to ctDNA-negative. A higher percentage of ctDNA-positive patients at T0 were cN+ compared to ctDNA-negative pts (p = 0.036, 64% vs. 40%). Additionally, ctDNA-positivity at T0 was strongly associated with higher Ki67 (p = 0.03) and larger functional tumor volume by MRI at baseline (p = 0.03). T3/T4 and high-grade tumors at baseline were also associated with having ctDNA positivity at baseline, though this was not statistically significant (p = 0.34 and 0.058, respectively). Conclusions: In this study of pts with Stage 2/3 HR+ HER2- BC with largely MammaPrint low risk signatures, over one-third of pts had detectable ctDNA at baseline. Detectable ctDNA at baseline was associated with cN+ disease, larger FTV, and high baseline Ki67. The majority of pts with positive ctDNA at baseline cleared the ctDNA on NET. Clinical trial information: NCT01042379 . Clinicopathologic characteristics of EOP patients. All Patients(N=101) Age at screening 55 (27-80) years* Clinical N Stage Node+ (cN+) 49 (48.5%) Node- (cN-) 52 (51.5%) SET status High 84 (83.2%) Low 14 (13.9%) Missing 3 (2.97%) MammaPrint (MP) risk** High risk 1 (H1) 15 (14.9%) Low risk 86 (85.1%) *Mean(min-max). **H1: MP score between 0 and -0.57; low: MP score between 0 and 0.355.

3005 Background: [ 212 Pb]VMT-α-NET, a next generation 212 Pb-based, SSTR2-targeted alpha-particle radiopharmaceutical therapy (RPT), was designed to achieve superior biodistribution via optimized tumor uptake and retention and rapid renal clearance. Results reported here are from the Phase 1/2a first-in-human study [NCT05636618]. Methods: Safety, pharmacokinetics, dosimetry and efficacy using RECIST v1.1 were investigated in the treatment of participants with [ 212 Pb]VMT-α-NET who had SSTR2-expressing, well-differentiated adult NETs of any grade. Participants received ≥1 prior therapy. No prior peptide receptor radionuclide therapy was allowed. The trial has multiple dose cohorts including 92.5 MBq (2.5 mCi, cohort 1) and 185 MBq (5 mCi, cohort 2) of administered activity based on a Bayesian modified toxicity probability interval (mTPI-2) design. Up to 8 participants per cohort were treated with 4 doses of [ 212 Pb]VMT-α-NET for DLT observation. Cohort 2 enrollment was expanded to further define the safety and efficacy profile at this dose level. Results: Nine (9) gastroenteropancreatic NET participants were enrolled into cohorts 1 and 2 for DLT observation. The ninth of these participants was enrolled more than 1 year prior to presentation of these data. Among these participants at the time of abstract submission, no DLTs were observed, and there were no grade 4, 5 or serious adverse events (SAEs). Specifically, no renal insufficiency or dysphagia were observed. Hematologic AEs were low grade and few in number. No treatment discontinuations due to AE occurred. Three (3) of the 7 cohort 2 participants enrolled for DLT observation achieved investigator-assessed partial responses (PRs). Two PRs were unconfirmed at the time of abstract submission. Durable progression-free survival (PFS) was consistently observed. More than 15 additional participants were enrolled in the cohort 2 expansion. Preliminary data for these patients will be reported at the congress. Conclusions: [ 212 Pb]VMT-α-NET is a well-tolerated, next generation RPT showing signs of clinical activity at early dose-levels in this phase 1/2a study. Based on these clinical data, further dose-escalation and development of this promising therapy are warranted. Clinical trial information: NCT05636618 .

e23345 Background: Telemedicine enables patients to attend visits remotely and is associated with shorter wait times (i.e. scheduling-to-appointment duration). However, its impact on patient–clinic distance and wait times for new patients in high-volume surgical oncology centers remains unclear. In these centers, where appointment availability and travel distance significantly influence care decisions, understanding telemedicine’s impact on access is essential as federal policies supporting telemedicine continue to be under legislative review. To address this, we examined the relationship between new patient visit modality, distance, and wait time across demographics, providing insights to guide policy makers, and clinical practice. Methods: We extracted visit data from a multispecialty surgical oncology center in Northern California from 2019 to 2023 and used linear models with fixed effects for clinician and patient characteristics to assess the association of NPV modality with distance and wait times. We calculated distance using geodesic measurements between residential ZIP codes and care sites and derived median household income and education levels from the American Community Survey. Results: There were 10596 NPVs in 2019, and 13982 in 2023, conducted by 78 and 100 clinicians respectively. The proportion of NPV visits conducted by telemedicine increased from 0% to 28% during this period. From 2021–2023, NPVs conducted by telemedicine were more likely to fall outside the center’s 2019 catchment area (80th percentile of distance) with an adjusted odds ratio of 1.89 (95% CI 1.62, 2.21). Wait times for telemedicine NPVs was 3.0 days shorter (95% CI [2.0, 3.9]) than in-person visits. Compared to the reduction in wait times for patients aged 45–65 (2.8 days, 95% CI [1.8, 3.8]), those 80 and older had a smaller reduction (1.9 days, 95% CI [0.9, 2.8]), while patients aged 65–79 had a greater reduction (3.4 days, 95% CI [2.4, 4.5]). This effect did not significantly vary by sex, race, ethnicity, education, income, or insurance status. Conclusions: At this multispecialty surgical oncology center, new patients seen via telemedicine were more likely to reside outside the center’s traditional catchment area and had shorter wait times, with these differences varying by demographic characteristics. Strategic telemedicine integration tailored to patient needs could enhance access by reducing wait times and expanding specialized surgical oncology care to patients across broader geographic distances.

4085 Background: Cholangiocarcinoma (CC) is a rare disease with an increasing incidence among younger adults, which is poorly understood. Genomic profiling of tumors is both prognostic and predictive of benefit for targeted therapies. We investigated if there are clinical and molecular differences between younger vs older patients with CC. Methods: We collected TEMPUS genetic data via retrospective chart review from tumors in young vs old patients seen at our institution, defined as ≤50 vs > 50 years of age at time of diagnosis. We included patients diagnosed with CC between January 2008 and July 2024 with available clinical follow up and TEMPUS genetic sequencing data. We collected mutation data on the following actionable genes: FGFR2, IDH1/2, BRCA1, BRCA2, BRAF, ATM, ERBB2/3, and KRAS. Patient characteristics and gene expression variables were compared using Chi-square, Fisher’s exact and Wilcoxon rank-sum tests. Kaplan-Meier, log rank tests and a multivariable Cox model were used for survival analysis. This study was IRB exempt. Results: We included 410 patients, 84 in the young group with median age at diagnosis of 40.8 years, and 326 in the old group with median age 68.5 years. 91.5% of patients were white. There was no difference in BMI between groups, however the older group had higher rates of hypertension (15.5% vs 57.7%), hyperlipidemia (6.0% vs 49.7%), cardiovascular disease (1.2% vs 20.6%), and type 2 diabetes (6.0% vs 21.5%), (all p < 0.01). Primary sclerosing cholangitis was more common in the young group (26.2% vs 4.3%, p < 0.01). ECOG status of 0 at first treatment was seen in 65.3% of young vs 52.5% of old patients (p = 0.02). FGFR2 alterations were more common in the young group (17.9% vs 8.0%, p < 0.01), while ATM mutations were more common in old vs young (5.5% vs 0%, p = 0.03). There was no age difference seen for the other genetic alterations. Mean tumor mutational burden was higher in the old group (4.1 vs 3.8 mut/mb, p = 0.01). MSI-high was found in 2% of cases with no difference between groups. There was no significant difference in overall survival between age groups. There was a numeric difference in overall survival in stage IV patients, though not statistically significant (17.8 months vs. 16.3 months, p = 0.08). In a multivariable Cox analysis, female sex, earlier stage at diagnosis and clinical trial enrollment were associated with favorable prognostics. Conclusions: Our data highlight relatively low rates of comorbidities associated with metabolic dysfunction in younger adults with CC, suggesting alternative factors are likely to explain the increasing incidence of early-onset disease. FGRFR2 is a more common pathogenic alteration among the young and could inform targeted therapies. Younger patients with CC may not have improved survival outcomes compared to their older counterparts. This underscores the aggressive nature of CC and the need for more effective therapies to improve outcomes.

4020 Background: In previously treated patients (pts) with advanced extra-pancreatic NET (epNET) or pancreatic NET (pNET), cabozantinib (cabo) demonstrated improved progression-free survival compared to placebo (pbo) in the CABINET trial (NCT03375320). Here we present HRQOL data from CABINET. Methods: Pts with previously treated unresectable, locally advanced or metastatic epNET or pNET were randomized (2:1) in separate cohorts to receive cabo 60 mg daily vs pbo. HRQOL was an exploratory endpoint measured using the EORTC QLQ-C30, QLQ-GI.NET21, Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC), and PRO-CTCAE questionnaires. Optional participation was by paper surveys at baseline and every 12 weeks (wks) until disease progression or new anticancer therapy. Mean changes from baseline were compared between treatment arms at wk12 using general linear mixed models. Minimally important within-arm improvements and between-arm differences were defined as 8 points on the C30 Global Health Status (GHS)/QOL Scale. PGIC was dichotomized as improved vs unchanged/worsened and compared using Chi-squared tests. Rates of pt-reported adverse events (AEs) by PRO-CTCAE were baseline-adjusted and compared using Fisher’s exact tests. Results: 172 pts (113 cabo, 59 pbo) with epNET and 81 pts (53 cabo, 28 pbo) with pNET consented for survey participation. Pts completed 524 (82%) of 640 expected surveys across baseline, wk12, and wk24. For epNET, C30 GHS/QOL was significantly improved at wk12 in pts receiving cabo (mean change 9.5, standard error (SE) 2.2, p < 0.001) but not pbo (mean change 0.2, SE 3.1, p = 0.95) resulting in significantly different mean changes from baseline between arms (p = 0.02). For pNET, C30 QHS/QOL was significantly improved at wk12 in pts receiving cabo (mean change 8.0, SE 3.0, p = 0.008) but not pbo (mean change 6.8, SE 4.4, p = 0.12); mean changes from baseline did not statistically differ between arms (p = 0.82). No significant differences in mean changes from baseline at wk12 in C30 Physical, Role, Emotional, Cognitive and Social Function were observed between arms in the epNET or pNET cohorts. In both cohorts at wk12, pts on cabo reported improved overall status as measured by PGIC more often than those on pbo (epNET: 38% vs 19%, p = 0.04; pNET: 57% vs 18%, p = 0.006). Rates of pt-reported AEs were statistically significantly higher in cabo for diarrhea (68% vs 53%), hand-foot syndrome (57% vs 26%), mouth or throat sores (47% vs 27%), and dysgeusia (67% vs 37%) [all p < 0.05]. GI.NET21 data will be presented. Conclusions: Although cabo is associated with pt-reported AEs consistent with its known safety profile, global HRQOL was maintained. A higher proportion of patients receiving cabo reported improved overall status. Results support cabo as a treatment option for pts with previously treated advanced NET that preserves patient HRQOL. Clinical trial information: NCT03375320 .

e21021 Background: West Africa, especially Nigeria, faces a disproportionate burden of cancer incidence and mortality, along with disparities in cancer care and management. Oncology pharmacists (OPs) play a crucial role in cancer care, treatment, and survivorship and MDTs. OPs have specialized training in designing, administering, monitoring, and modifying oncology chemotherapy, managing adverse events, and evaluating clinical trials and investigational drugs. Yet the educational needs and state of OPs have remained largely unknown in the West African region. Methods: Using a concurrent embedded mixed method design, 35 oncology pharmacists (OPs) completed a questionnaire, and 12 others responded to a semi-structured interview. The data were then subjected to inductive thematic and descriptive analysis. Results: The quantitative findings showed that 54% of the OPs were responsible for chemotherapy reconstitution, and only 60% of the oncology centers had a biosafety cabinet. 91% of OPs were practicing oncology pharmacy (OP); however, only 54% were trained in OP, and none of the OPs were board-certified. Most of the OPs spent time weekly on chemotherapy reconstitution, administrative duties, teaching, and training; only 3% spent on oncology clinical trials and conferences and 8% on other research. Respondents ranked developing medication therapy management programs as the topmost priority area for better OP practices, and chemotherapy reconstitution is the area of OP that requires the most attention for improving patient treatment outcomes and survivorship. Inadequate training, lack of equipment, non-recognition of oncology pharmacy, availability of oncology medicines, and non-integration of multi-disciplinary teams (MDT) were the major challenges in OP practice in Nigeria. In the qualitative findings, four themes were identified: (i.) Some oncology pharmacists are not reconstituting chemotherapy: A Call for MDT, (ii.) For Oncology Pharmacy, No Training is Enough, (iii.) Board Certification will give Oncology Pharmacists Recognition, and (iv.) Introduction of Oncology Pharmacy Course in Universities. Conclusions: The findings suggest that oncology pharmacists should be included in MDTs and other cancer management, which is a critical step toward improving patient outcomes in the region. Our findings show that the safe handling of chemotherapy is problematic in this region. Hence, the National Institute for Cancer Research and Treatment and other West African countries should urgently institute a national and state task force to watchdog all oncology chemotherapy centers and ensure that those preparing chemotherapy to save cancer patients are also saved from carcinogens.

e16408 Background: A2B530 is a logic-gated CEA-targeting Tmod CAR T therapy being evaluated in the EVEREST-1 (NCT05736731) phase 1/2 study. Tmod CAR T therapy addresses challenges of on-target, off-tumor toxicity that have limited application of CAR T therapy to solid tumors (Tabernero, et al. J Clin Oncol. 2017); through use of a CEA-targeted CAR-activating receptor combined with a blocking receptor recognizing HLA-A*02, A2B530 can distinguish between tumor and normal cells (Sandberg, et al. Sci Transl Med. 2022). Methods: Patients with unresectable locally advanced or metastatic solid tumors expressing CEA and tumor-associated HLA-A*02 LOH are enrolled through the ongoing prescreening study BASECAMP-1 (NCT04981119). Eligible patients undergo leukapheresis and, when clinically appropriate, A2B530 is manufactured for the EVEREST-1 study. Patients undergo lymphodepletion before A2B530 infusion. The phase 1 dose escalation will evaluate safety, tolerability, manufacturing feasibility, and biomarkers starting at 1x10 8 Tmod positive cells (dose level [DL] 1) up to 6x10 8 cells and higher doses of lymphodepleting chemotherapy (LDC; DL 5). After the recommended phase 2 dose has been established, dose expansion will confirm safety and activity. Results: As of January 15, 2025, 14 total participants were enrolled on EVEREST-1 and had received A2B530 infusion at DLs 1-5, 4 (29%) with pancreatic (PANC) and 10 (71%) with colorectal cancer. Median age was 57 years (range, 34-76), with a median of 2 prior lines of therapy (range, 1-6). LDC was well tolerated: neutropenia nadired at days 7-10, with recovery in all patients, and no significant episodes of prolonged cytopenia. There were no dose-limiting toxicities, grade > 3 serious adverse events (AEs), or episodes of related neurotoxicity. Most gastrointestinal AEs occurred early and were grade 1 or 2. One patient in DL 2 (2x10 8 cells) experienced possible grade 2 cytokine release syndrome (CRS), which started on day 15 and resolved with supportive therapy within 2 days; later the CRS diagnosis was confounded by a positive blood culture from the participant’s central line. The low rate of CRS is consistent with the low levels of serum cytokines measured up to 28 days post-infusion. Central response assessment has been completed for the 6 participants in DLs 1-2, with a partial response observed in 1 of 3 (33%) of participants with PANC. Peak expansion shows a possible dose response. Conclusions: Treatment with A2B530 was well tolerated, showing potential clinical efficacy and a potential dose response, although these are initial results. Maximum tolerated dose has not been reached, and dose escalation continues to determine the optimal phase 2 dosing of this treatment regimen. Clinical trial information: NCT05736731 .

4185 Background: Elraglusib is a first-in-class inhibitor of GSK-3ß, a well-credentialed target in cancer implicated in intrinsic oncologic processes and tumor immune response. Preliminary results of the 1801 Part 3B trial (NCT03678883) showed statistically significant benefits for elraglusib+GnP versus GnP for 1-year survival and mOS in mPDAC (companion abstract: Mahalingam et al.). We investigated plasma levels of cytokines/chemokines/soluble cell receptors/growth factors (CCSG) as potential biomarkers of favorable outcomes on elraglusib. Methods: Forty CCSGs were evaluated in pre-dose plasma from patients with previously untreated mPDAC enrolled in 1801 Part 3B treated with GnP (n = 78) or elraglusib+GnP (n = 155) using a Luminex immunoassay. Using Kaplan-Meier statistics and cutpoint determination, CCSGs were assessed for OS predictive ability in the elraglusib+GnP arm. Multivariate models were constructed to predict binarized survival at 12 months using machine learning (ML). Fivefold cross-validation was used in both analyses, and all methods were applied to the GnP arm to identify elraglusib+GnP specific predictors. Results: Data shown as of November 15, 2024. Multiple CCSGs significantly stratified elraglusib+GnP patients. The most extreme prognosticators were IFN-ß (average HR = 2.34), and PD-L1 (average HR = 0.52) (HR shown as high CCSG vs low CCSG). Screening of different ML approaches ranked logistic regression at the top, and hyperparameter grid search identified stochastic gradient solver with ridge regularization as the optimal method. The model had an accuracy of 88% (SD: 3.9%) and a balanced accuracy of 80% (SD: 8.5%). IFN-beta had the most substantial effect size (odds ratio (OR) = 72.28), followed by IL-18 (OR = 23.38) and PD-L1 (OR = 15.32). All other CCSGs had an OR between 0.03 and 6.71. When this model was applied to patients in the GnP arm, accuracy was 68.4%, and balanced accuracy was 43.1%. Conclusions: Many CCSG biomarkers were identified as promising predictors of survival benefit in mPDAC patients treated with elraglusib+GnP. Both univariate statistical and multivariate ML approaches show predictive significance with high interpretability. The initial ML model is specific to elraglusib treatment, not GnP alone. These results indicate that patients’ initial immune state plays a role in response to elraglusib+GnP. However, single CCSGs for enrichment currently exclude too many patients ( > 75%), and thus, panels of biomarkers are being investigated with ML to overcome this limitation. The 1801 Part 3B clinical trial recruitment has been completed, and updated biomarker models reflective of topline OS data, available by April 2025, will be presented.

4166 Background: GN is a front-line therapy for aPDAC. A Phase I/II study demonstrated that GCN has a higher overall response rate and median overall survival (mOS). Our previous study found no difference in outcomes among patients with DNA damage repair gene mutations; however, stromal gene expression correlated with mOS in patients receiving GCN. Here, we further evaluate differences in the outcomes with GCN and GN by site of biopsy. Methods: PDAC samples (n = 4,463) were analyzed by NGS (NextSeq/NovaSeq) or RNA (NovaSeq) (Caris Life Sciences, Phx, AZ). Expression of stromal and related genes ( ACTA2, ADIRF, HAS2, IL-6, MMP-2, MMP-9, SPARC, STAT3, TBGB1, TGFB2, TGFBR3, IDO1, HLA-DRB4, VEGFB) from different biopsy sites [high expression (H) >50% of RNA transcripts per million] was correlated with outcomes to GCN or GN. mOS was obtained from insurance claims and calculated from first treatment to last contact. The hazard ratio (HR) was calculated by the Cox proportional hazards model, and p-values were calculated using the log-rank test. Results: 4325 patients [primary biopsy (PT), n = 1,878; non-liver metastatic biopsy (N-LM), n = 818; Liver biopsy (LM), n = 1,629] received GN while 138 patients (PT, n = 45; N-LM, n = 28; LM, n = 65) received GCN. GCN was associated with longer mOS than GN [∆: 5.2 months (m), HR: 0.76, 95% CI 0.63-0.92, p = 0.01]. GCN was associated with longer mOS compared to GN in LM (∆: 5.6 m, HR: 0.66, 95% CI 0.50-0.87, p = 0.003), but it was not significant in PT (∆: 4.6 m, p = 0.13) and N-LM (∆: 4.4 m, p = 0.35). Median MMP2 (38.5 vs. 163.1 vs. 162.2), VEGFB (14.4 vs. 16.9 vs. 16.2) and TGFBR3 (11.4 vs. 15 vs. 16.4) expression were lower in LM compared to PT and N-LM while TGFB1 (41.6 vs. 34.5 vs. 39.8) and IL6 (1.61 vs. 1.19 vs. 1.41) expression were highest in LM (p < 0.05). In LM, IL6 -H (∆: -11 m, p = 0.037) and TGFB1 -H (∆: -5.9 m, p = 0.10) were associated with worse post-GCN survival compared to GN (p = 0.82 and p = 0.57). Whereas, in N-LM, TGFBR3 -H trended towards longer post-GCN survival (∆: 12 m, p = 0.18), while ADIRF -H trended towards shorter post-GCN survival (∆: -12 m, p = 0.056) compared to GN (p = 0.42 and p = 0.10). While in PT, MMP2 -H (∆: 11.3m, HR: 0.46, p = 0.16), TGFB1 -H (∆: 11.3 m, HR: 0.33, p = 0.09), HLA-DRB4 -H (∆: 12.9 m, HR: 0.44, p = 0.11) and VEGFB -H (∆: 10.7, HR: 0.34, p = 0.09) trended towards longer post-GCN survival compared to GN ( MMP2 -H, ∆: 3.4 m, p = 0.03, TGFB1 -H, p = 0.661, HLA-DRB4 -H, p = 0.67, VEGFB-H , ∆: 1.3 m, p = 0.03). Conclusions: GCN is associated with improved mOS compared to GN, especially in LM.Stromal gene expression in the liver differs from that in N-LM and the pancreas. While high stromal gene expression trends towards worse post-GCN survival in LM, it is associated with improved survival in N-LM and PT. Further validation is needed to understand the impact of stromal gene expression in different tumor sites on survival outcomes and signature development.