Citations

Liver transplantation has emerged as a curative treatment option for selected patients with unresectable hepatic malignancies beyond hepatocellular carcinoma, marking a paradigm shift in transplant oncology. For colorectal cancer liver metastases (CRLM), prospective trials have demonstrated that highly selected patients achieve 5-year OS rates of 60–83%, with the Oslo score identifying optimal candidates for transplantation. Perihilar cholangiocarcinoma (pCCA) has been successfully treated using strict patient selection criteria combined with neoadjuvant therapy, achieving 5-year OS rates of 50–68%, though emerging data suggests chemotherapy-based approaches may be preferable to radiation in selected cases. Intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (iCCA), previously considered a contraindication to transplantation, can now achieve excellent long-term outcomes (79.5% 5-year OS) in patients demonstrating sustained response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy and radioembolization, with metabolic tumor volume < 70 cm3 serving as an objective prognostic marker. Across these three emerging indications, successful outcomes depend on strict patient selection based on tumor biology, intensive multimodal neoadjuvant therapy, multidisciplinary evaluation in high-volume centers, and careful observation during treatment to exclude patients with aggressive disease. This evolution in transplant practice offers curative intent therapy to patients that previously only had palliative therapeutic options, fundamentally transforming hepatobiliary and oncologic surgery.

830 Background: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are standard therapy for MSI-H GI cancers. Lynch syndrome, caused by germline mutations in mismatch repair (MMR) genes, leads to MSI-H tumors and robust ICI responses, but its effect on irAEs remains poorly defined. Clarifying this risk may inform treatment selection and toxicity monitoring. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed MSI-H or MMR-deficient (dMMR) GI cancer patients (pts) treated with ICIs across Mayo Clinic (AZ, MN, FL) from January 2017 to June 2025. Eligible pts were identified using Mayo Data Explorer. Demographics, treatment, and irAEs (graded per CTCAE v5.0) were collected. Lynch status was determined by germline testing when available. Logistic regression estimated odds ratios (ORs) for any grade and grade ≥3 irAEs, adjusting for age, cancer type, prior chemotherapy, and treatment regimen. Results: A total of 209 pts with dMMR/MSI-H GI cancer were included: 61 with Lynch syndrome and 148 without. Lynch pts were younger (median 58 vs 76 years, p < 0.001) and more likely to have received prior chemotherapy (62% vs 43%, p = 0.009). Colorectal cancer was the predominant cancer type (74%), but Lynch pts had proportionally more non-colorectal GI cancers (15% vs 2.7%, p = 0.007). Overall, 29% of pts experienced an irAE, with rates significantly higher in Lynch vs non-Lynch pts (43% vs 24%, p = 0.005). The most frequent irAEs were gastrointestinal, endocrine, and dermatologic, followed by hepatic and pulmonary events. Grade ≥3 irAEs occurred in 16% overall, with no significant difference between groups (p = 0.124). In adjusted models, Lynch syndrome was independently associated with a higher risk of any grade irAE (OR 2.14, 95% CI 1.09 - 4.19, p = 0.026), while risk of severe irAEs was not increased (OR 1.55, 95% CI 0.64 - 3.59, p = 0.316). Lynch syndrome pts were more likely to have combination therapy (17% vs 6.8%, p = 0.029). However, there were no differences observed in any grade irAE between monotherapy and combination immunotherapy (OR 1.36, 95% CI 0.49 - 3.54, p = 0.535). Conclusions: Lynch syndrome is associated with a higher prevalence of any-grade irAEs among dMMR/MSI-H GI cancer pts treated with ICIs, though severe events were not increased. Incorporating Lynch status into immunotherapy planning may improve risk stratification and guide regimen selection.

817 Background: Universal germline sequencing is increasingly utilized in practice, but existing evidence and guidelines are based on studies in predominantly white populations. This study aims to compare the prevalence of genetic alterations in white vs underrepresented minority (URM) populations and assess incremental findings discovered with universal testing beyond current guidelines. Methods: This prospective, multicenter study analyzed genetic alterations in white and URM cohorts with primary GI malignancies receiving care at Mayo Clinic cancer centers between April 2018 and April 2025. Patients underwent germline sequencing using a next-generation sequencing (NGS) platform targeting over 80 genes. We compared the distribution of results between white and URM populations. Concordance with NCCN testing guidelines and incremental findings were assessed. Results: A total of 1128 patients were studied, of which 758 were white and 370 were URM, (47.6% Hispanic, 22.7% Black, 13.8% Asian, 10.5% American Indian, 0.8% Pacific Islander, and 6.8% other). Pathogenic variants (PGV) were more common in the white population (16.1% vs 9.2% P < 0.001). Variants of uncertain significance (VUS) were more common in the URM population (53.2 vs 43.5%, P<0.001). A total of 156 patients were found to have a PGV. PGVs outside primary cancer genes were more common in white patients (57.4% vs. 32.4%; p=0.0241). Incremental findings from universal testing were higher in white patients (66.4% vs 35.3%; p=0.0011). Conclusions: This study reveals a significant difference in the prevalence of PGV and VUS between white and URM patients with primary GI malignancies. The higher rate of PGVs in white patients and VUS in URM patients highlights potential inequities in both detection and interpretation of genetic results. These findings emphasize the need for broader representation in genetic databases to ensure equitable access to precision oncology. Screening guidelines met by patients with PGV. White (N=122) URM (N=34) Total (N=156) p value Did they meet NCCN testing guidelines for their primary cancer? 0.0991 Yes 87 (71.3%) 29 (85.3%) 116 (74.4%) No 35 (28.7%) 5 (14.7%) 40 (25.6%) Was the PGV outside of the primary genes recommended for their primary cancer? 0.0241 Yes 70 (57.4%) 11 (32.4%) 81 (51.9%) No 47 (38.5%) 22 (64.7%) 69 (44.2%) Incremental Finding 0.0011 Yes 81 (66.4%) 12 (35.3%) 93 (59.6%) No 41 (33.6%) 22 (64.7%) 63 (40.4%)

679 Background: DNA-damaging agents improve outcomes in metastatic pancreatic cancer (mPC) with homologous recombination repair (HRR) deficiency, albeit use is limited to 6-9% of patients (pts) with BRCA1/2 or PALB2 mutations. We hypothesized that BRCA/PALB2 wildtype mPC may exhibit platinum sensitivity driven by altered HRR gene expression. We correlated HRR gene RNA profiles with real-world overall survival (rwOS) following first-line (1L) platinum therapy (PT). Methods: Tempus Lens, a platform used to query multimodal data from millions of de-identified patient records in the Tempus Database was used to identify mPC pts with wildtype somatic BRCA1/2 and PALB2 who had Tempus xT DNA and xR RNA testing. RNA-seq data were normalized to correct for assay/batch effects, quantified as transcripts per million (TPM) and reported as log2(TPM+1) for 17 HRR genes and GATA6 . Pts were classified as high and low expressors based on the top and bottom quartile gene expression. Pts were grouped as PT-treated (received 1L PT) or PT-naïve (never received PT). Real world overall survival (rwOS) was calculated from 1L start to death or loss to follow up. Risk set adjustment was applied to mitigate immortal time bias. Median rwOS was estimated using Kaplan-Meier and univariate Cox models. A multivariate Cox Proportional (CoxPh) model included PT use, RAS status, and expression of genes (as continuous variables). Results: Among 1,068 pts, the median age was 66 years and 609 (57%) received 1L PT. In low RAD51 expressors, PT-treated pts (n=136) had significantly longer rwOS than PT-naïve (n=112): 11.4 months (95% CI, 7.8–13.8) vs 8 months (95% CI, 5.5–9.0); p=0.028. In contrast, in high RAD51 expressors, rwOS was similar between PT-treated (n=150) and PT-naïve (n=97): 7.9 vs 6.9 months (p=0.236). High GATA6 expression was also associated with improved rwOS in PT-treated pts vs PT-naïve: 13.5 vs. 9.3 months; p=0.011. In multivariate analysis, increased GATA6 expression remained a positive predictor of rwOS (HR 0.82; 95% CI, 0.76–0.88; p<0.001), and high RAD51 expression was associated with shorter rwOS with PT (HR 1.18; 95% CI, 1.01–1.39; p=0.043). Conclusions: In BRCA/PALB2 wt mPC, transcriptomic profiling identified low RAD51 and high GATA6 expression as predictors for improved rwOS when treated with PT. Integrating these biomarkers may improve development of DNA-damaging therapies beyond canonically defined HRD. Hazard ratios of mPC mortality by selected HRR genes estimated by multivariate CoxPh models. HR 95% CI p value 1L PT (vs PT-naïve) 0.87 0.75, 1.00 0.054 BRCA1 1.15 0.98, 1.35 0.079 BRCA2 0.89 0.77, 1.04 0.14 GATA6 0.82 0.76, 0.88 <0.001 NBN 0.97 0.81, 1.15 0.7 RAD51 1.18 1.01, 1.39 0.043 RECQL4 0.94 0.84, 1.04 0.2 Any RAS mutation 1.43 1.14, 1.81 0.002

103 Background: Clinicians spend significant time extracting and synthesizing information to risk-stratify and make adjuvant chemotherapy (AC) recommendations for CRC. By automating parts of this process, LLMs could help reduce documentation burden and variability in decision-making. Methods: We selected 144 stage III, pMMR CRC patients treated at Mayo Clinic (2017–2021). HIPAA-compliant Gemini-2.0-Flash-001 and GPT-4o extracted clinical variables (age, neuropathy grade, pathological stage) from EHRs and generated AC recommendations. Two approaches were compared: (1) a rule-based algorithm with nested if/else statements translating variables into NCCN-based recommendations, and (2) a dynamic LLM agent generating recommendations using a structured prompt informed by NCCN guidelines. Concordance with treating physicians was assessed, with disagreements reviewed by a blinded GI oncologist. Results: The dataset included 144 patients with median age 67 (IQR 66–68), 48.6% female. The LLM pipeline extracted neuropathy grade with 100% accuracy and pathological T/N stages with 99.3% accuracy. Concordance with physician recommendations was 93.1% for the rule-based algorithm and 62.5% for the LLM agent. In discordant cases, blinded adjudication by a GI oncologist favored the algorithm and LLM agent over physicians in most cases (Table 1). Conclusions: This exploratory work shows LLM agents can reliably extract variables and generate evidence-based treatment recommendations for stage III CRC. The high rate of expert preference for LLM recommendations in discordant cases is intriguing but limited by small sample size and possible adjudicator bias. Discordant physician recommendations reflect the complexity of decision-making, including patient preferences, performance status, comorbidities, and subtle findings not fully captured in EHRs. Rather than replacing judgment, we envision LLMs as decision support tools—analogous to an advanced trainee reviewing charts and presenting evidence-based recommendations to the attending physician with ultimate authority. Larger multi-institutional studies with multiple adjudicators are needed to validate these findings and clarify AI’s role in oncology. Patient characteristics, LLM extraction accuracy, and concordance with physician recommendations. Metric Result Total patients 144 Median age (IQR) 67 (66-68) Female (%) 48.6% LLM extraction accuracy – Neuropathy grade 100% LLM extraction accuracy – Pathological T and N stages 99.3% Primary Concordance – Rule-based algorithm vs. physician 93.1% Adjudicator preference of rule-based algorithm over treating physician for discordant cases 100% Concordance – LLM agent vs. physician 62.5% Adjudicator preference of LLM agent over treating physician for discordant cases 82.0%

Abstract Background The increasing reliance on accelerated approvals and surrogate endpoints for Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approvals of gastrointestinal (GI) cancer therapies raises concerns about their clinical benefit and long-term patient outcomes. The shift toward single-arm trials in regulatory decisions further complicates treatment evaluation. Material and Methods This retrospective observational study evaluated all FDA approvals for GI cancer therapies from January 2006 through January 2025. Data were extracted from FDA archives, ClinicalTrials.gov, and PubMed. Approvals were categorized by regulatory pathway (accelerated vs regular), trial design (single-arm vs randomized), and primary endpoint (surrogate vs overall survival [OS]). Clinical benefit was assessed based on OS improvement and the European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS). The primary outcome was the proportion of approvals based on surrogate versus OS endpoints. Secondary outcomes included use of single-arm designs, frequency of accelerated approvals, OS gain, and the proportion meeting ESMO-MCBS substantial benefit (score ≥ 4). Results The FDA granted 60 GI cancer drug approvals from 67 trials. Approvals rose from 15 (25%) in 2006-2014 to 45 (75%) in 2015-2025. Single-arm trials increased to 24%, and surrogate endpoints were used in 41.8% (ORR 20.9%, PFS 19.4%). Median OS improvement was 2.1 months (IQR: 1.6-2.65). Only 24.3% of trials met ESMO-MCBS substantial benefit. Of 15 accelerated approvals, 66.7% remained pending, 13.3% received full approval, and 20% were withdrawn. Conclusion Expedited approvals have improved drug access in GI oncology, but modest benefits highlight the need to balance speed with outcomes that truly matter to patients.

Despite European colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) transplant trials having been performed entirely using deceased donor liver transplant (DDLT), there has been speculation about whether similar results can be achieved in the United States, given the lack of MELD score prioritization. A formal transplant protocol for unresectable CRLM was implemented in our center at the start of 2022 with the plan to utilize DDLT. Between 2022 and 2025, 86 patients with CRLM were referred to our program, and 19 patients underwent a formal transplant evaluation. Median time from listing until transplant was 31 days (range 3–115 d). Median allocation MELD was 8 (range 6–15). The donor livers were from DCDs, older donors, or National Share livers, which had been declined by all other centers. All but 2 of the cases underwent advanced perfusion. There were no cases of primary nonfunction, postreperfusion syndrome, acute kidney injury, hepatic artery thrombosis, or ischemic cholangiopathy. The length of stay for the median posttransplant was 5 days. Graft and patient survival were 100% at the time of maximal follow-up. Recurrence developed in 3 recipients (25.0%), 1 of whom was treated and has no evidence of disease. These findings support the viability of DDLT for CRLM using advanced perfusion, contingent on strict protocol adherence. Center-specific waitlist dynamics must inform the choice between DDLT and living donor liver transplant (LDLT).

Importance The prognosis of advanced pancreaticobiliary tumors is poor. Next-generation sequencing (NGS) of tissue samples is utilized to identify actionable alterations, but there are occasional limitations due to inadequate tissue acquisition. Circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) is an alternative method, but its correlation with tissue-based NGS remains unexplored. Objectives To assess the mutation concordance (mCR) rates between ctDNA and tissue testing for patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) and cholangiocarcinoma (CC) and to evaluate how ctDNA performs as a treatment response biomarker. Design, Setting, and Participants This retrospective cohort study was conducted among patients with PDAC and CC treated at academic institutions from January 2014 to January 2025. Patients underwent ctDNA testing using 1 platform and tissue NGS testing using 2 platforms. Main Outcomes and Measures mCR, which measures the shared gene alterations observed by both ctDNA and tissue-based NGS testing, was calculated using the Spearman correlation for PDAC and CC. The performance of ctDNA as a treatment response biomarker was assessed by comparing serial ctDNA data with restaging scans and cancer antigen 19-9 levels in patients with PDAC. Results Our cohort included 790 patients: 570 with advanced PDAC (265 [46.5%] female; median [IQR] age, 64 [33-84] years) and 220 with advanced CC (95 [43.2%] female; median [IQR] age, 66 [42-88] years). Overall, 461 patients with PDAC (80.9%) and 192 patients with CC (87.2%) underwent ctDNA testing, while 239 patients with PDAC (41.9%) and 70 patients with CC (31.8%) had tissue NGS testing. Among patients with PDAC, 85 of 130 patients (65.4%) showed shared specific gene alterations between ctDNA and tissue testing; there was a significant mCR, with a Spearman correlation of 0.47 (95% CI, 0.28-0.62; P &amp;lt; .001). For patients with CC, 32 of 48 (66.7%) had shared alterations between ctDNA and tissue testing; there was a significant mCR, with a Spearman correlation of 0.56 (95% CI, 0.35-0.70; P &amp;lt; .001). A subgroup analysis of patients with PDAC who underwent serial ctDNA testing suggested that new TP53 subclones and increased ctDNA variant allele frequency levels of TP53 and KRAS were associated with higher odds of progressive disease (eg, increased TP53 frequency: odds ratio, 7.28; 95% CI, 2.15-24.66; P = .001). Conclusions and Relevance In this cohort study of patients with pancreaticobiliary tumors, there was a significant mCR between ctDNA and tissue NGS testing. Additionally, results suggest that ctDNA might detect resistant clones and enable assessment of treatment response.

LBA1551 Background: Traditional cancer therapy is primarily delivered in clinical settings, imposing logistical, emotional, and financial burdens, particularly on rural and underserved patients. While international studies have demonstrated the safety of home-based chemotherapy, no randomized U.S. trials have evaluated this approach. Mayo Clinic’s CCBW program aims to expand access to high-quality cancer care by providing in-home cancer treatment, lab testing, telemedicine, remote patient monitoring, command center and paramedic support. This pragmatic randomized controlled trial evaluates feasibility and impact of home-based versus in-clinic cancer directed therapy on patient preference, acceptability, safety, and patient-reported outcomes. Methods: Adult patients (ECOG 0-2) receiving chemotherapy or hormonal therapy at Mayo Clinic Florida were randomized 1:1 after confirmation of treatment tolerance in clinic to receive (1) home-based care for 24 weeks or (2) in-clinic care for 8 weeks followed by home-based care for 16 weeks. Target accrual is 200 patients. A planned interim analysis after 50 enrollments assessed accrual, data completeness, technical challenges, safety, and study outcomes. The primary endpoint is patient ratings of their overall cancer care experience (0–10 scale, CAHPS Cancer Care Survey) at 8 weeks. 200 patients provide 80% power to detect a 0.45 standard deviation difference in mean ratings between arms with a 2-sided 2-sample t-test (α=0.05) and 20% missing data rate. Secondary endpoints are patient preference, comfort with home infusions, treatment worthwhileness, functional/symptom assessments (EORTC QLQ-F17, PRO-CTCAE, GP5), grade ≥3 AEs, hospitalizations, and overall survival. Cost is a tertiary endpoint. The trial is IRB-approved (#23001719) and registered (NCT05969860). Results: Enrollment began 8/23/23. As of 2/21/25, 52 patients (26 per arm) were enrolled and 36 started protocol treatment. Common cancers were breast (38%), colorectal (21%), prostate (19%), and multiple myeloma (14%). 64% (28/44) of patients were female; 84% identified as White, 14% as Black, and 2% as multiple races. Median distance to clinic was 20 miles (range 2-66). After 8 weeks, patients in both arms rated their overall cancer care experience highly (mean [SD]=9.69 [0.85] versus 9.54 [0.66] for home-based vs. in-clinic care, n=26). After 24 weeks, 73% preferred home-based care, 18% had no preference, and 9% preferred in-clinic care; 100% felt comfortable with home infusions. No grade ≥3 AEs related to location of care have occurred. Conclusions: Early findings support the feasibility, safety, and high patient acceptability of home-based cancer therapy. No safety concerns related to care location were observed and most patients preferred home-based treatment. Ongoing accrual and analysis will assess clinical outcomes and cost implications. Clinical trial information: NCT05969860 .