Citations

e21521 Background: Outcomes following tumor-infiltrating lymphocyte (TIL) therapy vary in real-world practice, and accessible predictors are needed to inform patient selection and timing of referral. We evaluated whether baseline disease burden, metastatic distribution, and treatment delivery factors are associated with outcomes following TIL therapy. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed patients with metastatic melanoma treated with TIL therapy across Mayo Clinic sites (N = 27 infused). Baseline disease burden was characterized using AJCC metastatic stage and organ-specific involvement. A composite high visceral burden variable was defined as the presence of M1d disease and/or liver metastases. Bridging therapy use prior to infusion was recorded. Post-infusion IL-2 exposure was categorized as low (0-2 doses) vs. high (3-6 doses). Best overall response (BOR) was summarized using RECIST-based standard criteria. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were measured from TIL infusion and estimated using Kaplan–Meier methods with univariable Cox regression. Results: Median age at infusion was 62.0 years; 59.3% were male. Melanoma subtypes included cutaneous (81.5%) and mucosal (18.5%). Bridging therapy was used in 48.1%. Baseline metastatic stage was M1a/M1b in 18.5%, M1c in 63.0%, and M1d in 18.5%. Median follow up was 8.3 months. BOR included complete response (18.5%), partial response (37.0%), stable disease (22.2%), and progressive disease (22.2%), yielding an objective response rate of 55.6% and disease control rate of 77.8%. Patients with high visceral disease burden experienced inferior OS vs. those without high visceral burden (median 5.2 vs 13.4 months; HR 4.77, 95% CI 1.22–18.63; p = 0.014). Bridging therapy was not associated with OS or PFS. Higher post-infusion IL-2 exposure (seen in 77.8% of patients) was associated with improved OS (median 9.0 vs 3.7 months; HR 0.16, 95% CI 0.04–0.67, p = 0.005), likely reflecting early post-infusion clinical tolerance rather than a causal treatment effect. Median PFS for the cohort was 3.6 months and did not differ by IL-2 exposure ( p = 0.3), metastatic stage ( p = 0.8), bridging therapy ( p = 0.7), liver metastases ( p = 0.2), or LDH above upper limit of normal ( p = 0.1). Conclusions: The above findings are hypothesis generating and will support evaluation in larger cohort. In this real-world cohort of patients treated with TIL therapy, baseline visceral disease burden was strongly associated with survival outcomes, while bridging therapy did not compromise post-infusion efficacy among patients proceeding to infusion. Post-infusion IL-2 exposure correlated with OS and likely reflects early treatment tolerance. These readily available clinical features may inform patient counseling, referral timing, and sequencing decisions as TIL therapy enters broader clinical use.

e20761 Background: The prognostic role of serial circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) dynamics during osimertinib treatment has been described mainly in Asian and European populations; however, it remains poorly defined in Hispanic patients with advanced EGFR-mutant non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Our aim was to determine whether serial plasma EGFR testing identifies patients at high risk of early mortality. Methods: This multicenter, retrospective study included 64 Hispanic patients with stage IIIB–IV EGFR-mutant NSCLC treated with first-line osimertinib between 2018 and 2023. Tumor tissue genotyping was performed using hybrid-capture next-generation sequencing. Plasma EGFR mutations were assessed at baseline, week 8, and week 24. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were analyzed using Cox models adjusted for p53 status, RAF-pathway alterations, and metastatic burden. Results: The cohort had a median age of 61 years, with 65.6% of patients being female and 56.2% being never-smokers. Sensitizing EGFR mutations consisted mainly of exon 19 deletion (59.4%) and L858R (39.1%). Relevant co-mutations were identified in TP53 (29.7%) and RAF-pathway genes (6.2%). Plasma ctDNA remained positive in 42.2% of patients at week 8 and 22.0% at week 24. Week-8 ctDNA persistence was strongly associated with an inferior OS (HR 9.36, 95% CI 3.80–23.03, p < 0.001) after multivariable adjustment. Week-24 positivity also predicted worse OS (HR 3.34, 95% CI 1.13–9.89, p = 0.02). ctDNA status at week 8 or 24 was not significantly associated with PFS. Patients with TP53 or RAF pathway mutations demonstrated higher rates of molecular persistence. Conclusions: In Hispanic patients receiving Osimertinib, ctDNA positivity at 8-24 weeks is able to identify patients with poor survival outcomes. ctDNA monitoring may provide an early, non-invasive biomarker to guide treatment intensification and trial enrollment in EGFR-mutant NSCLC.

e20731 Background: Selective RET (REarranged during Transfection) inhibitors (RETi) have become standard treatment for RET fusion-positive non-small cell lung cancer ( RET + NSCLC), which represent 1–2% of NSCLC cases. Clinical factors that drive front-line versus later-line RETi use and outcomes are not well understood. This retrospective chart review evaluates physician decision drivers alongside real-world effectiveness and safety for pralsetinib (PRAL) in RET + NSCLC. Methods: A retrospective chart review was conducted via a standardized web-based form among US oncologists treating advanced RET + NSCLC. Eligible patients initiated PRAL for RET + NSCLC between October 2020 and December 2024. Data gathered included physician treatment considerations, patient baseline characteristics, and efficacy outcomes. Results: Eighty-two charts from patients who received PRAL as their first (index) RETi were collected from 43 physicians across both academic (41.9%) and community (58.1%) sites. Of the 82 patients, 51.2% received PRAL front line (1L) and 31.7% in the second line (2L). From a predefined list, physicians most often cited comorbidities (36.6%) and ECOG performance status (31.7%) as clinical factors when considering index PRAL therapy and efficacy profile (56.1%), followed by intracranial activity (24.4%) and hypersensitivity to immuno-oncology agents (24.4%) as therapy-related considerations. Although not a primary therapy selection driver, in 13 patients with safety as a consideration, 6 (46.2%) had myelosuppression noted as a concern for index PRAL treatment. RET + NSCLC patients treated in the 1L setting with PRAL had an overall response rate (ORR) of 73.8% (14 CR; 17 PR). For 2L line PRAL, the ORR was 61.5% (1 CR; 15 PR). Anemia (17.1%), diarrhea (13.4%), and constipation (13.4%) were the most frequently reported adverse events (AE). Discontinuation was mainly due to loss of/no response (80.6%), insurance (16.1%), and AEs (3.2%). The single PRAL patient that discontinued due to an AE had edema. There were an additional 7 patients that switched to PRAL due to an AE on a different RETi. The post-switch ORR was 57.1% (4/7); of these patients, 3 maintained their previous response and 1 improved their response. Conclusions: In this retrospective chart review, pralsetinib was used across treatment lines with high real-world response rates, consistent with results from the ARROW trial. Treatment selection was influenced by specific clinical factors including patient comorbidities, ECOG performance status, and safety concerns, with AE-driven switching uncommon yet associated with continued responses.

e20700 Background: Leptomeningeal metastases (LM) are a particularly challenging complication of EGFR-mutant non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and are often associated with rapid neurologic decline. Intrathecal (IT) chemotherapy is frequently used in this setting, but its efficacy and safety have not been well defined. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess neurologic response and treatment-related toxicity associated with IT chemotherapy in EGFR-mutant NSCLC with LM. Methods: We performed a PRISMA-guided search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL, and targeted grey literature to identify prospective and retrospective studies reporting outcomes of IT chemotherapy in EGFR-mutant NSCLC with LM. Quantitative analyses were restricted to studies with extractable endpoints. Neurologic response and grade ≥3 toxicity were pooled using random-effects generalized linear mixed models with logit transformation. Heterogeneity was assessed using I² and τ². Prespecified sensitivity analyses examined neurologic response by route of administration (lumbar puncture vs Ommaya reservoir), concomitant EGFR-TKI use, and study design or era. Results: Four studies comprising 76 patients reported extractable neurologic response data. The pooled neurologic response rate was 81.9% (95% CI, 64.0%–92.0%), with moderate heterogeneity (I² = 63.4%, p = 0.04). Grade ≥3 toxicity was reported in three studies (n = 59), with a pooled incidence of 11.8% (95% CI, 3.2%–34.9%) and substantial heterogeneity (I² = 71.3%, p = 0.03). Myelosuppression was the most frequently reported severe adverse event, and no consistent signal of severe neurologic toxicity was identified. Exploratory sensitivity analysis suggested higher neurologic response in LP-treated cohorts compared with mixed LP/Ommaya cohorts; however, this finding was driven by a single small study and is likely influenced by limited sample size and selection bias and should be considered hypothesis-generating only. Neurologic response was otherwise consistent across study designs and eras. Stratification by concomitant EGFR-TKI use was limited by incomplete reporting. Median overall survival was variably reported and ranged from approximately 7 to 12 months. Conclusions: In EGFR-mutant NSCLC with leptomeningeal metastases, IT chemotherapy is associated with a high pooled neurologic response and relatively uncommon severe toxicity, although heterogeneity across studies remains substantial. The observed neurologic benefit appears consistent across study designs and is more likely related to underlying EGFR-sensitive disease biology than to a definitive effect of route of administration. These findings support further prospective evaluation of IT chemotherapy as part of multimodal treatment strategies in this high-risk population.

e20648 Background: Immune checkpoint inhibitors have become a mainstay of treatment for lung cancer. However, their effectiveness varies, and is strongly influenced by patient characteristics. Smoking is the most important etiologic factor for lung cancer, and is expected to be associated with a high tumor mutational burden, which may in turn influence immunotherapy response. However, the extent to which smoking status modifies the benefit of immunotherapy in real-world populations is not well established. Methods: We identified 43,437 cases of invasive lung cancer with documentation of smoking status from the California Cancer Registry 2010-2021. Immunotherapy was documented as given or not given. Smoking status was defined as never, current or former. Cox regression was used to assess the unadjusted risk of mortality associated with immunotherapy and after adjusting for age, sex, race/ethnicity, stage, socio-economic status (SES), Charlson Comorbidity Index and insurance status. Analyses were conducted separately for current and former and never smokers. Results: Smoking status was documented for 43,347 cases (never = 15.887, current = 27,056, and former = 404). There were 4,014 cases treated with immunotherapy. The unadjusted risk of mortality for patients treated with immunotherapy was increased in non-smokers whereas immunotherapy reduced the risk of mortality in current and former smokers. After adjustment, all patients had a reduced risk of mortality, but current and former smokers had a higher risk reduction than non-smokers. Conclusions: Smoking modifies the effect of immunotherapy in patients with lung cancer, and our data suggests patients who currently or formerly smoked may derive a greater benefit from immunotherapy. This will need careful patient messaging as we continue public efforts towards smoking cessation. Unadjusted and adjusted* hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals for immunotherapy. Unadjusted Adjusted* HR (95%CI) HR (95%CI) Never smokers 1.35 (1.26, 1.45) 0.76 (0.70, 0.82) Current or former smoker 0.86 (0.82, 0.91) 0.52 (0.49, 0.55) *Adjusting for age, sex, race/ethnicity, stage, SES, Charlson Comorbidity Index and insurance status.

e20629 Background: Concomitant inhibition of the vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) pathway together with PD-1 or PD-L1 immune checkpoint blockade has demonstrated synergistic activity in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, comparative evidence across individual immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) and anti-VEGF combinations remains limited. This network meta-analysis (NMA) aimed to evaluate and compare the efficacy of available ICI plus anti-VEGF combination strategies in NSCLC. Methods: A systematic search of three electronic databases and two clinical trial registries was conducted to identify randomized controlled trials evaluating combinations of ICIs with anti-VEGF agents. A frequentist NMA framework was applied using the netmeta package in R. Hazard ratios (HRs) were used for overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS), while odds ratios (ORs) were used for objective response rate (ORR). Treatment ranking was performed using P scores. Results: A total of 24 randomized controlled trials were included in the network. For survival outcomes, the combination of nivolumab plus bevacizumab demonstrated significantly improved OS (HR = 0.66, 95% CI 0.50–0.88) and PFS (HR = 0.46, 95% CI 0.27–0.81) compared with standard chemotherapy. In addition, atezolizumab plus bevacizumab was associated with a significant OS benefit over chemotherapy (HR = 0.79, 95% CI 0.65–0.95). Indirect comparisons showed that nivolumab plus bevacizumab significantly improved PFS compared with pembrolizumab monotherapy, as well as pembrolizumab combined with lenvatinib or chemotherapy. Furthermore, nivolumab combined with sitravatinib demonstrated significantly superior OS and PFS compared with ramucirumab and chemotherapy. For ORR assessed using RECIST 1.1, nivolumab-based combinations could not be incorporated into the network due to insufficient data, and no other combination demonstrated a statistically significant advantage over chemotherapy. However, indirect comparisons showed that pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib was superior to lenvatinib monotherapy (OR = 4.76, 95% CI 1.04–25.0). P-score rankings identified nivolumab plus bevacizumab as the top-ranked regimen for survival outcomes, followed by atezolizumab plus bevacizumab. For ORR, pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib ranked highest, followed by atezolizumab plus bevacizumab. Conclusions: Nivolumab-based ICI and anti-VEGF combinations, particularly with bevacizumab and sitravatinib, demonstrate the most favorable survival outcomes in NSCLC. Evidence for ORR remains limited, and further randomized comparisons are required to better define the relative efficacy of these combinations.

e20595 Background: Circadian regulation of immune function has been proposed as a modifier of immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) efficacy, with retrospective studies suggesting improved outcomes with earlier infusion timing. Whether these findings translate to routine oncology practice, where ICIs are administered across multiple lines, frequently combined with chemotherapy, and subject to treatment interruptions, remains uncertain. We evaluated the association between ICI infusion timing and overall survival (OS) in a real-world cohort of patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Methods: A retrospective cohort study included adults with NSCLC who received at least one line of ICI therapy at a community oncology center between January 2018 and December 2024. Infusion timing was defined at the patient level as morning-only ( < 1300 hours), evening-only (≥1300 hours), or mixed timing, reflecting receipt of infusions exclusively in different time-of-day categories across treatment lines. OS was measured from diagnosis to death or last follow-up. Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional hazards models were used. Multivariable analyses adjusted for stage, ECOG performance status, body mass index, and premature ICI discontinuation. Line of therapy was excluded due to collinearity with mixed-timing classification and risk of immortal time bias. Results: A total of 127 patients were included (morning-only n = 77; mixed timing n = 36; evening-only n = 14). Staging data were available for 99.2%, and 94 deaths occurred. Median OS was 495 days for morning-only, 850 days for mixed timing, and 388 days for evening-only patients. Kaplan-Meier analysis showed no statistically significant OS differences across groups. In sensitivity analysis excluding patients with mixed infusion timing, morning-only and evening-only groups demonstrated overlapping survival curves, with no evidence of a time-of-day–specific survival advantage. In univariate analysis, mixed timing was associated with a borderline reduction in mortality compared with morning-only infusions (HR 0.63, 95% CI 0.39-1.00), while evening-only timing was not (HR 1.63, 95% CI 0.85-3.16). In multivariate analysis restricted to stage III-IV disease, infusion timing was not independently associated with OS. ECOG performance status, premature ICI discontinuation and advanced staging were the strongest predictors of mortality. Conclusions: In this real-world NSCLC cohort, ICI infusion timing was not independently associated with overall survival after adjustment for patient fitness and treatment continuity. These findings suggest that in pragmatic settings, clinical factors may outweigh subtle chronotherapy effects reported in more selected populations.

e20511 Background: Trop-2 ADCs have emerged as a novel therapeutic approach in NSCLC that is refractory to chemotherapy and immune checkpoint inhibitors. Comparative interpretation of the efficacy of multiple Trop-2 ADCs, including Sacituzumab tirumotecan (Sac-TMT), Datopotamab deruxtecan (Dato-DXd), and Sacituzumab govitecan (SG), is limited. We therefore conducted a systematic review, IPD survival analysis, and meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and PROs of Trop-2 ADCs compared with chemotherapy in NSCLC. Methods: A systematic search was conducted from inception to October 31, 2025, across PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane, and CT.gov. Clinical trials evaluating Overall Survival (OS) and Progression-free survival (PFS) in patients treated with Trop-2 ADC alone or compared with Chemotherapy were included. IPD were extracted from the Kaplan-Meier curves of clinical trials for reconstruction using the KMfromIPD website by MD Anderson, which stratified the data by treatment group. Outcomes included OS, PFS, and time to deterioration (TTD). The cumulative data were analyzed using R 4.5.1 and RStudio. RevMan version 5.4.1 was used for the meta-analysis of subgroups. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I 2 statistic. Results: Of 513 articles, 7 phase 1/2 single-arm and 4 randomized control trials were included, comprising 2,619 patients.Trop-2 ADCs were associated with improved OS (Median 15.6 vs 12.5 months; HR 0.78, 95% CI 0.69-0.88; p < 0.0001) and PFS (Median 5.5 vs 4.1 months; HR 0.66, 95% CI 0.59-0.74; p < 0.0001). Sac-TMT demonstrated the greatest OS benefit (OS 23.3 months; HR 0.40). Further drug classes are depicted in Table 1. PROs assessment showed TROP-2 ADCs were associated with longer time to deterioration in global quality of life and dyspnea-free survival compared to chemotherapy (HR 0.8 and 0.69), (p = 0.04 and p < 0.0001, respectively). Exploratory subgroup analysis showed improved OS among patients with actionable gene alteration (AGA) treated with Trop-2 ADCs (HR 0.58, p < 0.00001). However, no significant difference was observed in either treatment arm among patients without AGA (HR 0.89, p = 0.15). Conclusions: Trop-2 ADCs were associated with improved survival and PROs compared with chemotherapy in NSCLC, with variability across agents. Sac-TMT has shown higher OS and PFS. Dato Dxd had a favorable PFS; however, the OS was not superior to chemo. Furthermore, SG showed no favorable clinical outcomes compared with the chemo group. These findings support the continued development of Trop-2-directed therapies and highlight the need for prospective comparative trials and biomarker-driven patient selection. Drug N mOS (months) HR p- value mPFS (months) HR p- value Sac-TMT 386 23.32 0.4 <0.000001 7.5 0.5 <0.000001 Dato-DXd 486 13.2 0.95 0.55 5.02 0.71 <0.000001 SG 347 12.61 1.02 0.82 4.18 0.87 0.05

e20139 Background: Extensive-stage small cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC) frequently presents with brain metastases, affecting approximately 20% of the patients at diagnosis. The prognostic impact of baseline brain metastases on survival outcomes in patients treated with contemporary chemo-immunotherapy remains unclear, creating uncertainty in first-line treatment selection for this high-risk population. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the impact of baseline brain metastases on treatment outcomes in ES-SCLC. Methods: This PRISMA-compliant systematic review and meta-analysis was prospectively registered in PROSPERO. PubMed, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, and ClinicalTrials.gov were systematically searched from database inception through January 2026 to identify randomized controlled trials evaluating PD-1/PD-L1-based chemo-immunotherapy versus platinum-etoposide chemotherapy in adults with ES-SCLC. Two reviewers independently screened studies and extracted data, with discrepancies resolved by consensus. Hazard ratios (HRs) for overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were pooled separately for patients with baseline brain metastases (BM+) and without brain metastases (BM−) using random-effects models with Hartung–Knapp adjustment. Analyses were performed using R. Prespecified subgroup analyses were conducted based on follow-up duration and immunotherapy regimen. Results: Twelve randomized controlled trials were included. Among patients with baseline brain metastases (BM+), pooled OS from seven studies did not show a significant survival benefit (HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.66–1.08, I² = 0.0%, P = 0.145), nor did pooled PFS from five studies (HR 1.03, 95% CI 0.60–1.79, I² = 0.0%). Subgroup analyses revealed no significant heterogeneity. In contrast, among patients without baseline brain metastases (BM−), pooled OS from nine studies demonstrated a significant survival benefit (HR 0.72, 95% CI 0.69–0.76, I² = 0.0%, P < 0.001), with corresponding improvement in PFS (HR 0.70, 95% CI 0.60–0.82, I² = 0.0%). These findings indicate a differential treatment effect according to baseline brain metastasis status. Conclusions: First-line chemo-immunotherapy does not apprear to confer a significant survival benefit in ES-SCLC patients with baseline brain metastases, reflecting a differential treatment effect by brain metastasis status. These findings suggest that baseline brain metastases should be considered in treatment selection and future clinical trial design and highlight the need for optimized systemic strategies for this high-risk population.

e20030 Background: Recent studies suggested associations between higher serum Magnesium (Mg) level and better survival outcome in patients receiving immunotherapy, especially in small cell lung cancer (SCLC). However, the prognostic significance of Mg in extensive-stage (ES) SCLC treated with first-line chemoimmunotherapy remains unclear. We evaluated the association between baseline serum Mg and survival outcomes in ES-SCLC receiving platinum–etoposide plus PD-(L)1 blockade. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of adults with ES-SCLC treated with first-line platinum–etoposide plus atezolizumab or durvalumab at Mayo Clinic via Mayo Clinic Platform in 2018–2025. Baseline average serum Mg level was defined as the mean of all Mg labs from day −30 to day 0 relative to chemoimmunotherapy initiation and categorized as low ( < 1.7 mg/dL), normal (1.7-2.0 mg/dL), or high ( > 2.0 mg/dL) using clinical cutoff. Low and normal groups were combined a priori due to small low-Mg counts. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS), estimated by KM and compared by log-rank test. OS was measured from chemoimmunotherapy initiation to death and censored at last follow-up. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards models adjusted for age, gender, ECOG, liver/brain metastases status, and smoking status. Results: The cohort included 214 patients, 124 (58%) were female; median age was 68 years; 49% had liver metastases and 30% had brain metastases. Median OS was 10.4 months (95% CI 7.6-15.9) among 99 patients with high serum Mg level, compared with 7.5 months (95% CI 6.7-10.7) in 115 patients with low or normal serum Mg level (Log-rank p = 0.126). High Mg was associated with a trend toward longer OS in unadjusted analyses (Hazard ratio [HR] 0.80, 95% CI 0.59-1.07, p = 0.129); however, the association was not statistically significant after multivariable adjustment (aHR 0.81, 95% CI 0.60-1.10, p = 0.180). Conclusions: Among patients with ES-SCLC treated with first-line platinum–etoposide plus PD-(L)1 blockade, higher baseline serum Mg was associated with numerically longer OS but was not independently associated with survival after multivariable adjustment. These findings suggest baseline serum Mg level may be associated with prognosis and warrant validation in larger cohorts. Baseline characteristics by baseline serum magnesium category in ES-SCLC treated with first-line chemoimmunotherapy. Variable Overall (N=214) High Mg >2.0 (n=99) Low/Normal Mg ≤2.0 (n=115) p value* Age, median (IQR) 68 (62, 74) 68 (61, 74) 69 (62, 75) 0.201 Female, n (%) 124 (58%) 57 (58%) 67 (58%) >0.999 ECOG ≥2, n (%) 58 (27.1%) 28 (28%) 30 (26%) 0.719 Liver metastases, n (%) 105 (49%) 49 (49%) 56 (49%) 0.648 Brain metastases, n (%) 65 (30%) 33 (33%) 32 (28%) 0.469 Ever smoker, n (%) 197 (92.1%) 90 (90.9%) 107 (93.0%) 0.974 *p values: Wilcoxon (age); χ²/Fisher (categorical).