Citations

e21607 Background: The association between timing of palliative care referral and survival outcomes in patients with melanoma brain metastases (MBM) treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors remains poorly characterized. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients with MBM treated with combination ipilimumab and nivolumab at Mayo 3 sites from 2016 to 2024. Palliative care referral timing relative to MBM diagnosis was categorized as early (≤56 days), late ( > 56 days), or none. Patients without referral documentation were excluded from referral-based analyses. Overall survival (OS) was estimated using Kaplan–Meier methods and compared with log-rank tests. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards models were used to identify factors independently associated with OS, with stepwise selection (entry p < 0.25; stay p < 0.15). Results: Among 147 patients, 139 had referral information: 33 (23.7%) early, 56 (40.3%) late, and 50 (36.0%) no referral. Median OS differed significantly by referral timing (log-rank p < 0.0001): 2.8 months (early), 7.9 months (late), and 47.8 months (no referral). Among patients with ECOG 2–3, a higher proportion had early or late referral (each 42.9%) compared with no referral (14.3%), whereas patients with ECOG 0–1 were more evenly distributed across referral groups (early 21.6%, late 40.0%, none 38.4%). In multivariable analysis of 88 patients with complete covariate data, both early (HR 4.54; p = 0.0016) and late referral (HR 2.86; p = 0.011) were independently associated with worse OS compared with no referral. Progressive disease versus objective response (HR 4.45; p = 0.0002), hemorrhagic metastases (HR 2.79; p = 0.0015), male sex (HR 2.07; p = 0.044), and increasing age (HR 1.02 per year; p = 0.032) were also associated with inferior OS. Treatment with ipilimumab 1 mg/kg plus nivolumab 3 mg/kg showed a trend toward improved OS compared with ipilimumab 3 mg/kg plus nivolumab 1 mg/kg (HR 0.48; p = 0.055). Conclusions: Timing of palliative care referral was strongly associated with overall survival in patients with MBM treated with ipilimumab and nivolumab. Although patients with ECOG 2–3 were more frequently referred early or late, ECOG category overall did not clearly differentiate referral timing groups, suggesting referral may reflect unmeasured clinical factors beyond baseline performance status. Prospective studies incorporating more granular functional and symptom measures are needed to better define the role of palliative care integration in this population. Multivariable cox model for overall survival. Variable Comparison HR P value Referral timing Early vs None 4.54 0.0016 Late vs None 2.86 0.011 Best overall response PD vs ORR 4.45 0.0002 SD vs ORR 2.16 0.098 Hemorrhagic metastases Yes vs No 2.79 0.0015 Sex Male vs Female 2.07 0.044 Age Per year increase 1.02 0.032 Regimen Ipi1+Nivo3 vs Ipi3+Nivo1 0.48 0.055

e17027 Background: Guidelines recommend active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer and definitive therapy for high-risk disease. We evaluated national patterns of risk-misaligned care and the survival consequences of undertreatment. Methods: National Cancer Database prostate cancer cases diagnosed from 2010–2022 were analyzed. Low-risk disease was defined as clinical T1–T2, Grade Group 1, and PSA < 10; overtreatment was definitive treatment vs active surveillance or no treatment. High-risk disease was defined as Grade Group ≥4, PSA ≥20, or clinical T3–T4; undertreatment was no definitive local therapy or incomplete definitive therapy. Multivariable logistic regression evaluated factors associated with misalignment. Overall survival (OS) among high-risk patients was assessed using multivariable Cox regression. Results: Among low-risk patients (N = 124,562), overtreatment occurred in 40% of cases. Overtreatment was more common among young men (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.982; p < 0.001) and less common at academic centers (aOR 0.414; p = 0.015). Compared with White men, odds of overtreatment were lower among Black men (aOR 0.946; p = 0.002) and Asian men (aOR 0.827; p < 0.001), with additional variation by education and region (all p < 0.001). Among high-risk patients (N = 318,532), undertreatment affected 27.3% of patients and was more common among older men (aOR 1.061; p < 0.001). Compared with White men, undertreatment was higher among Black men (aOR 1.479; p < 0.001) and lower among Asian patients (aOR 0.863; p < 0.001) (overall race p < 0.001). Compared with private insurance, undertreatment was higher in Medicaid (aOR 2.038; p < 0.001) and uninsured patients (aOR 2.649; p < 0.001), and slightly lower with Medicare (aOR 0.931; p < 0.001) (overall insurance p < 0.001). Multiple comorbidities were associated with higher undertreatment (≥2 vs 0: aOR 1.252; p < 0.001). Facility type was not independently associated (p = 0.490), while region remained significant (overall p < 0.001). In the survival cohort (high risk) (N = 338,919), undertreatment was associated with substantially worse OS (HR 2.745, 95% CI 2.706–2.784; p < 0.001), adjusted for age (HR 1.056; p < 0.001), race (p = 0.001), insurance (p < 0.001), comorbidity (p < 0.001), income (overall p < 0.001), education (overall p < 0.001), and facility region (overall p < 0.001). Conclusions: Low-risk overtreatment remains common nationwide and varies across patient and health-system factors. In high-risk disease, undertreatment affects over one-quarter of patients and disproportionately impacts Black men and those with Medicaid or no insurance. Undertreatment confers a nearly threefold mortality hazard (adjusted HR 2.75; p < 0.001), highlighting a major national quality gap and the urgent need for system-level interventions to ensure equitable, guideline-concordant delivery of definitive therapy.

e16159 Background: Pivotal trials established atezolizumab-bevacizumab and durvalumab-tremelimumab as first-line therapies for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab demonstrated superior survival outcomes compared to sorafenib for unresectable HCC in the IMbrave150 trial in 2020, while durvalumab plus tremelimumab showed superior survival in the HIMALAYA trial in 2022. However, data on head-to-head comparison of these two combinations as first-line systemic therapy for the patient with decompensated HCC are limited. This study aims to compare survival outcomes between these two treatment regimens in decompensated HCC patients to address a critical gap in the current literature, as decompensated patients have largely been excluded from clinical trials. Methods: This retrospective study utilized electronic health records from 146 U.S. healthcare organizations within the TriNetX Network. Adults aged ≥21 years diagnosed with decompensated HCC receiving atezolizumab/bevacizumab and durvalumab/tremelimumab from 10/21/2022 to 8/20/2024 were included. The comparison group received atezolizumab/bevacizumab, and the control group received durvalumab/tremelimumab. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. A 1:1 propensity score matching was conducted to balance baseline characteristics (age, gender, race/ethnicity, lab results including liver function tests, platelet counts, INR, gamma glutamyl transferase, alpha-fetoprotein, and underlying liver diseases). Kaplan–Meier survival analysis and Cox regression was used to estimate the mortality risk. Subgroup analysis was stratified by HCC etiology. Results: A total of 302 and 664 patients received durvalumab/tremelimumab, atezolizumab/bevacizumab, respectively. After propensity matching, 253 patients per group were included. Median OS was 283 days with durvalumab/tremelimumab and 391 days with atezolizumab/bevacizumab. The two treatment regimens showed no significant difference in survival (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.875, 95% confidence intervals [CI] 0.696–1.101, p=0.254). Subgroup analyses demonstrated no significant differences in survival between the two groups of patients in MASLD (HR: 0.698, 95% CI: 0.468–1.040), alcohol associated liver disease (HR: 0.821, 95% CI: 0.603–1.118), and chronic viral hepatitis (HR: 0.852, 95% CI: 0.596–1.219). Conclusions: There was no statistically significant difference in survival outcomes between atezolizumab plus bevacizumab and durvalumab plus tremelimumab in patients with decompensated advanced HCC. These results support current real-world practice in which both regimens may be considered viable first-line treatment options in this high-risk population with liver decompensation.

e14545 Background: Durable antitumor immunity depends on the maintenance of stem-like CD8⁺ T cells capable of sustaining long-term effector responses. Oncolytic viruses (OVs) are potent immunomodulatory agents that reshape the tumor microenvironment and augment antitumor immunity. We hypothesized that platinum-based chemotherapy alters tumor-intrinsic type I interferon (IFN-I) signaling in a manner that can be functionally restored by OV therapy, thereby promoting the generation and persistence of stem-like CD8⁺ T cells. Methods: Tumor cells treated with platinum chemotherapy were evaluated in vitro for changes in IFN-I pathway activity, OV replication, and markers of immunogenic cell death (ICD). Syngeneic mouse tumor models were used to assess antitumor efficacy and immune remodeling following combination therapy. Tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes were analyzed by single-cell RNA sequencing and multiparameter flow cytometry to define CD8⁺ T-cell states and functional programs. Guided by these preclinical findings, a clinical trial combining XELOX, PD-1 blockade, and OV therapy was initiated (ChiCTR2500107607). Results: Platinum chemotherapy significantly suppressed tumor-intrinsic IFN-I signaling, while OV therapy restored antiviral responses, enhanced viral replication, and increased ICD in vitro. In vivo, the combination strategy resulted in superior tumor control and profound remodeling of the tumor immune microenvironment. The most pronounced immunologic effect was observed within the stem-like CD8⁺ T-cell compartment. Combination therapy induced a distinct population of TCF7⁺ ISG15^high NFATC1^low AP-1^low CD8⁺ T cells, characterized by restrained activation, enhanced persistence, and reduced propensity toward terminal exhaustion. In IRF7-deficient tumors, this stem-like CD8⁺ T-cell population failed to emerge and antitumor efficacy was significantly diminished, indicating that moderate tumor-intrinsic IFN-I signaling is required for this immune state. Conclusions: Tumor-intrinsic type I interferon signaling is a critical determinant of synergy between platinum chemotherapy and oncolytic virotherapy, enabling the maintenance of durable stem-like CD8⁺ T-cell immunity. These findings establish a mechanistic rationale for combining platinum chemotherapy, oncolytic viruses, and immune checkpoint blockade and support ongoing clinical translation. Clinical trial information: ChiCTR2500107607.

e13611 Background: Decentralized cancer care models may reduce treatment burden for patients with advanced prostate cancer (CaP), particularly those facing mobility, transportation, of scheduling challenges. However, prospective patient-reported experience and quality-of-life data comparing home- versus clinic-based oncology care remain limited. Mayo Clinic Cancer CARE Beyond Walls (CCBW) is a patient-centered program designed to deliver selected standard-of-care cancer therapies in the home with virtual clinical oversight. This observational study evaluated patient-reported experience, feasibility, safety, and quality of life among men with advanced or metastatic CaP receiving care at home. Methods: Men with advanced/metastatic CaP receiving active standard-of-care therapy including hormone-based treatments, oral anticancer therapies, anti-bone resorptive agents, or intravenous chemotherapy who were participating in a CCBW randomized trial were enrolled into a companion observational study. After confirmation of treatment tolerance in clinic, patients received home-based care for 24 weeks (Arm A) or in-clinic care for 8 weeks followed by home-based care for 16 weeks (Arm B). Patient-reported outcomes were collected at baseline and Weeks 8, 16, and 24, using CAHPS-based measures and CCBW-specific surveys assessing overall cancer care experience, patient preference for site of care, comfort with home infusions, functional/symptom assessment and quality of life. Descriptive analyses were performed. Results: Eighteen participants were analyzed (Arm A n = 10; Arm B n = 8). Participants were medically stable, and predominantly insured by Medicare. Survey completion was 100% at baseline and 83% at all follow-up time points. At Weeks 16 and 24 when all respondents had received home-based care, 100% and 92% reported being “quite a bit” or “very much” comfortable receiving treatment at home. Communication with at-home and remote nursing teams was rated highly, and most respondents reported transition, scheduling, and equipment use easy or very easy. At Weeks 16 and 24, 45% and 40% of respondents reported improved quality of life from receiving home-based care, with no reports of worsening. No emergency department visits, hospitalizations, or urgent care visits occurred in either arm. Conclusions: In this prospective, observational study, home-based oncology care delivered through CCBW was feasible, safe, and associated with high patient satisfaction among men with advanced CaP receiving diverse systemic therapies. These findings support further evaluation and expansion of decentralized care integrating home-based treatment with virtual clinical oversight.

Abstract Aims To characterize global variation in cardiac rehabilitation (CR) staffing, indications, and prescribed dose by country income classification and compare findings with the International Council of Cardiovascular Prevention and Rehabilitation’s 2016 Global Audit. Methods and results Cross-sectional REDCap survey of Phase II/post-discharge CR programmes (May–September 2025). Outcomes were multidisciplinary team size/composition, accepted cardiac and non-cardiac indications, and centre-based CR dose. Comparisons were made across World Bank country income classifications and Audit decade (2016 vs. 2025). Of 7025 programmes identified globally, 1505 (median programme response rate = 62%/country) initiated a survey, from 90/113 (80%) countries with CR. CR was delivered by a multidisciplinary team of 7 (median; P25–P75 = 5–8; nurses, physiotherapists, cardiologists, and dietitians most common); teams were smaller in low-income countries (median = 4; P &lt; 0.001), and physician specialty varied. Non-low-income programmes consistently accepted (≥90%) patients with acute coronary syndrome, with programmes in low-income countries less often accepting related interventions (e.g. surgery: low-income 0% vs. high-income 97%; P &lt; 0.01), but non-cardiac indications were more frequently accepted (e.g. primary prevention, diabetes, and lung disease). Acceptance of heart failure increased compared with the previous Audit (70% vs. 87%; P &lt; 0.001). Centre-based programmes prescribed a median of 20 h (P25–P75 = 12–30), typically two sessions/week over 8 weeks. Globally, 65 (72%) countries prescribed a median ≥12 sessions/programme. Programmes in upper-middle-income countries prescribed more sessions (median = 24, P25–P75 = 12–36; P &lt; 0.001). Dose did not differ meaningfully between Audits (P = 0.07). Conclusion CR programmes globally are offered by small, but multidisciplinary teams. They accept guideline-indicated patients, with applicable variation by context. Insufficient dose in one-quarter of countries underscores investment need.

9573 Background: Clinical Stage III (cSIII) melanoma patients are at high risk of recurrence following therapeutic lymph node dissection (TLND) and adjuvant therapy. Neoadjuvant immunotherapy based regimens have shown promising results in this setting, with pathological response being the best predictor of recurrence free survival (RFS) and distant metastases free survival (DMFS). T-cell Receptor (TCR) abundance and clonality are being explored as biomarkers. Methods: In the phase II NeoACTIVATE (NCT03554083) trial, patients were treated based on BRAF status with 12 weeks of neoadjuvant atezolizumab, vemurafenib and cobimetinib (Arm A, BRAF-mutated) or atezolizumab and cobimetinib (Arm B, BRAF wildtype), followed by TLND and 6 months adjuvant atezolizumab. TCR sequencing (n=23) was performed on the pretreatment involved lymph node (iLN) and on the same node, along with an adjacent uninvolved node (uiLN) after TLND. The fraction productive of T cells (fpTC) was defined as the percentage of in-frame TCR sequences (capable of encoding a functional expressed receptor protein) of all TCR sequences identified. Simpson Clonality Index (SCI) was used to measure relative abundance of specific clones, with a higher score indicating a more monoclonal repertoire. Comparisons were made using the Wilcoxon Rank Sum test. Results: 30 patients were enrolled, 15 in each arm. 2 patients were not operated on, and one did not receive adjuvant treatment, leaving 27 patients for outcome analysis. 3-year RFS was 55.6% (95% CI 9.5%-77.8%), median of 62.2 months (95% CI 19-NR); DMFS was 64.3% (95% CI 48%-86.3%), median 62.2 months (95% CI 33.9-NR). The fpTC was higher in the pretreatment iLN for those without an RFS event (p=0.04) with a trend in the uiLN as well (p=0.06). Patients without a DMFS event had a higher fpTC in the uiLN (p=0.03) but not in the iLN. The SCI was significantly higher only in the post treatment iLN for patients without an RFS event (p=0.03) and was not significantly different when compared based on DMFS status. When performing pairwise comparisons of nodes based on recurrence status, we found that patients who did not suffer an RFS event had a significantly higher SCI in the post treatment iLN compared to the uiLN (p=0.02). Conclusions: Neoadjuvant immunotherapy and targeted therapy for cSIII melanoma can lead to durable RFS. Higher pretreatment fpTC as well as higher post-treatment iLN TCR clonality were both associated with improved RFS. These data indicate that TCR repertoire characteristics within iLN and uiLN may reflect differential immune responses to neoadjuvant therapy and could inform future studies evaluating biomarkers to stratify risk of recurrence and allow personalization of therapy. Clinical trial information: NCT03554083 . fpTC Simpson Clonality Index RFS event DMFS event RFS event DMFS event Pretreatment iLN 0.04 0.12 0.43 0.11 Posttreatment iLN 0.09 0.09 0.03 0.12 uiLN 0.06 0.03 0.79 0.48 Δ iLN (post-pre) 0.79 0.37 0.07 0.41 Δ posttreatment iLN – uiLN 0.21 0.21 0.02 0.08

9558 Background: Ipilimumab 3 mg/kg plus nivolumab 1 mg/kg (Ipi3+Nivo1) is the standard immunotherapy regimen for metastatic melanoma with brain metastases (MBM) but is associated with significant immune-related toxicity, particularly neurologic toxicity. Ipilimumab 1 mg/kg plus nivolumab 3 mg/kg (Ipi1+Nivo3) has demonstrated improved tolerability in extracranial melanoma, though comparative data in MBM are limited. We compared efficacy and toxicity of these dosing strategies in a multisite real-world cohort. Methods: We retrospectively identified patients with MBM treated with ipilimumab plus nivolumab across three Mayo Clinic sites between 2016 and 2024. Patients were classified by induction dosing as Ipi1+Nivo3 or Ipi3+Nivo1. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were estimated using the Kaplan–Meier method and compared using log-rank tests. Best overall response (BOR) and toxicity outcomes were summarized descriptively. Results: Among 147 patients (Ipi1+Nivo3 n=32; Ipi3+Nivo1 n=115), 144 were evaluable for survival. Median age was higher in the Ipi1+Nivo3 group (69.5 vs 66.0 years); males predominated in both groups (71.9% vs 61.7%), and the cohort was predominantly White (>96%). Most patients had ECOG 0–1 in both groups (84.4% in Ipi1+ Nivo3 and 90.4% in Ipi3+Nivo1). BRAF mutation status was balanced between regimens, with approximately half of patients harboring BRAF-mutant disease (51.6% vs 53.2%). Median OS was 18.5 months (95% CI, 5.7–54.7) with Ipi1+Nivo3 versus 10.6 months (95% CI, 6.5–19.1) with Ipi3+Nivo1 (log-rank p=0.25). Two-year OS was 45.9% and 35.0%, and five-year OS was 24.5% and 19.2%, respectively. Median PFS was 7.3 months (95% CI, 1.8–10.9) versus 2.8 months (95% CI, 2.1–4.4) (log-rank p=0.16). BOR was available for 138 patients; objective response rates were 35.5% and 31.8%, respectively. 3–5 adverse events occurred in 24.1% of Ipi1+Nivo3 versus 30.5% of Ipi3+Nivo1 patients. Hospitalizations were less frequent (16.7% vs 36.1%), and neurologic adverse events occurred only with Ipi3+Nivo1 (11.9% vs 0%). Conclusions: In this multisite real-world MBM cohort, Ipi1+Nivo3 demonstrated comparable efficacy, numerically longer survival, and a more favorable toxicity profile compared with standard Ipi3+Nivo1. Notably, no neurologic toxicity was observed with the Ipi1+Nivo3 regimen. These findings support further prospective evaluation of lower dose ipilimumab strategies. Response and survival outcomes. Outcome Ipi1 + Nivo3 Ipi3 + Nivo1 Complete response (CR) 2 / 31 (6.5%) 8 / 107 (7.5%) Partial response (PR) 9 / 31 (29.0%) 26 / 107 (24.3%) Objective response rate (ORR = CR+PR) 11 / 31 (35.5%) 34 / 107 (31.8%) Disease control rate (DCR = CR+PR+SD) 18 / 31 (58.1%) 51 / 107 (47.7%) Median PFS, months (95% CI) 7.3 (1.8–10.9) 2.8 (2.1–4.4) 2-year PFS 27.6% 22.3% Median OS, months (95% CI) 18.5 (5.7–54.7) 10.6 (6.5–19.1) 2-year OS 45.9% 35.0% 5-year OS 24.5% 19.2%

9551 Background: Lymphodepleting (LD) chemotherapy is required prior to tumor-infiltrating lymphocyte (TIL) therapy, yet the depth, kinetics, and completeness of peripheral T-cell recovery in practice remain poorly defined. Using a pooled, multi-institution cohort, we characterized longitudinal CD4 and CD8 T-cell reconstitution and the prevalence of CD4 lymphopenia following TIL therapy. Methods: We conducted a retrospective multicenter study across Mayo Clinic, Moffitt Cancer Center, and Massachusetts General Hospital of patients with metastatic melanoma treated with TIL (N = 41, median follow-up 7.6 months). Absolute CD4 and CD8 T-cell counts and CD4:CD8 ratios were assessed at baseline (pre-LD), week 4, month 3, and month 6 post-TIL. Clinically significant CD4 lymphopenia was defined as CD4 < 200 cells/µL. All patients received Pneumocystis jirovecii and antiviral prophylaxis, with antibacterial and antifungal prophylaxis administered per institutional protocols. Post-TIL infections were recorded. Paired changes from baseline were evaluated using Wilcoxon signed-rank testing. Results: Median age was 65 years (range 35-79), and 68% were male. At baseline, 16 patients (39%) had CD4 counts below the institutional lower limit of normal prior to LD. Eighteen patients (44%) received bridging therapy prior to TIL and had lower baseline CD4 and CD8 counts compared with those who did not ( p < 0.05 for both); however, post-TIL CD4 and CD8 recovery trajectories did not differ between groups. CD4 counts declined sharply following LD and demonstrated incomplete and heterogeneous recovery. Median CD4 decreased from 490 cells/µL at baseline to 250 at week 4, 290 at month 3, and 220 at month 6, remaining significantly below baseline at all post-TIL timepoints ( p < 0.05). Clinically significant CD4 lymphopenia was observed in 45% (10/22) of evaluable patients at month 3 and in 50% (44%, 7/16) at month 6. In contrast, CD8 counts increased early after TIL (median 240 to 590 cells/µL at week 4; p = 0.004) and remained higher than baseline at month 6. The CD4:CD8 ratio inverted from a median of 2.02 at baseline to 0.46 at week 4 and remained below 1.0 through month 6, reflecting sustained CD4 suppression despite CD8 recovery. Post-TIL infections occurred despite widespread prophylaxis, including bacterial (13%), viral (10%), and fungal (4.9%) infections. Conclusions: In a multi-institution cohort, LD chemotherapy preceding TIL is associated with profound and prolonged CD4 T-cell suppression, persistent CD4:CD8 inversion, and a high prevalence of CD4 < 200 cells/µL through 6 months. These findings identify delayed immune reconstitution as a common and clinically relevant consequence of TIL therapy and support prospective optimization of antimicrobial prophylaxis duration, vaccination timing, and immune monitoring strategies.

8519 Background: Non-classical mutations (NCM) of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) represent a broad group of oncogenic mutations in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), often associated with resistance to osimertinib (e.g., P-loop and αC-helix compressing [PACC] mutations). Patients (pts) with NCM have inferior clinical outcomes with a high incidence of CNS metastases (CNSm). Silevertinib (BDTX-1535) is a fourth-generation, covalent EGFR TKI with high CNS penetrance targeting both EGFR classical mutations and NCM. The antitumor activity and safety of silevertinib in pts with advanced NSCLC were evaluated in a Phase 2 trial (NCT05256290). Methods: Pts with advanced EGFR NCM NSCLC who received no prior systemic therapy were enrolled (Cohort 3) based on a local molecular test. Silevertinib 200 mg was administered orally once daily. The primary endpoint of objective response rate (ORR) was assessed using RECIST v1.1. CNS ORR was assessed using Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology for Brain Metastases (RANO-BM) in pts with no prior CNS therapy. Secondary endpoints include progression-free survival (PFS), duration of response (DOR), disease control rate (DCR), and safety. Results: From February 2024 to July 2025, 43 pts with 35 unique NCMs (including 25 pts with PACC mutations) were enrolled in Cohort 3: median age 70.0 years, 72% female, 74% white, and 42% never smoked cigarettes. As of November 3, 2025, median follow-up was 7.2 months. ORR by RECIST v1.1 is shown in the table. Sixteen pts (37%) had CNSm, including 7 pts (16%) with measurable CNS disease. RANO-BM CNS response was 86% (n=6/7). Complete clearance of EGFR VAF ctDNA was observed in 21/26 (81%) evaluable pts. Serious treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) were reported in 5 pts (12%), and 4 pts (9%) discontinued treatment due to TRAEs. The most common TRAEs included rash (19%, grade 3), diarrhea (19%, grade 3), stomatitis (9%, grade 3), and paronychia (5%, grade 3). While 77% of pts had a dose reduction, 19/22 (86%) patients with a radiographic response maintained or deepened their response after dose reduction, including all patients with CNS response. Conclusions: Silevertinib demonstrated robust antitumor activity in treatment-naïve pts with a broad spectrum of NCM EGFR driver mutations with high intracranial activity in pts with brain metastases. The safety profile was consistent with the known AEs of the EGFR TKI class. Clinical trial information: NCT05256290 . Data as of November 3, 2025 N ORR n (%) 95% CI DCR n (%) 95% CI ITT Population * 43 26 (60) (44.4, 75.0) 39 (91) (77.9, 97.4) PACC mutations 25 14 (56) (34.9, 75.6) 22 (88) (68.8, 97.5) Compound mutations † 16 11 (69) (41.3, 89.0) 15 (94) (69.8, 99.8) *No pts with classical (E746_A750del or L858R) mutations were enrolled. † Presence of ≥ 2 NCMs. As of December 27, 2025, the 6-month PFS rate was 86% overall and 80% in pts with CNSm; available PFS and DOR data will be presented.