Citations

3553 Background: Vilastobart (XTX101) is tumor-activated, high affinity, Fc-enhanced aCTLA-4 designed to focus activity toward the tumor and minimize systemic adverse events. Fc-enhancement augments FcγR co-engagement on antigen presenting cells and has been linked with efficacy of aCTLA-4 combinations in patients (pts) with microsatellite stable (MSS) colorectal cancer (CRC) and other tumors [Fakih ASCO GI 2025]. Vilastobart was generally well-tolerated and demonstrated evidence of anti-tumor activity in pts with immunologically “cold” advanced solid tumors, both as a monotherapy and in combination with atezolizumab [Davar SITC 2024]. Methods: Phase 2 of the NCT04896697 study evaluated the initial recommended Phase 2 dose of vilastobart 100 mg Q6W in combination with atezolizumab 1200 mg Q3W in pts with MSS CRC who had at least 1 prior chemotherapy regimen in the metastatic setting, excluding pts with prior immune checkpoint inhibitors. Pts with (LM) and without liver metastasis (NLM) were eligible. Tumor biopsies were obtained before and during treatment for translational analyses. Results: As of January 13, 2025, 40 pts were dosed in Phase 2. Median age was 55 (25-82) and 70% of pts had 3 or more prior lines of therapy. Of the 24 enrolled NLM pts, 11 were response-evaluable with an available on-treatment scan as of the data cut. In these 11 pts, two confirmed and one unconfirmed partial response (PR) were reported, all accompanied by significant decreases in ctDNA and serum tumor marker CEA and with each pt ongoing on therapy, for a preliminary ORR of 27%. One additional pt (with peritoneal metastasis) had a 24% reduction in target lesions (first scan) and was ongoing on therapy. Of the 16 enrolled LM pts, 7 were response evaluable, with one stable disease and another pt reporting a mixed response with significant serum tumor marker reductions, both ongoing on therapy. Of note, one LM pt in Phase 1C dose escalation treated with vilastobart (150 mg Q6W) combination had a confirmed PR with LM resolution. Six pts (15%) reported G3+ treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs), with two G4 laboratory TRAEs and no G5 TRAEs. Only three pts discontinued therapy for TRAEs. TRAEs occurring in ≥10% (all grade) or ≥5% (G3) of pts are summarized in the Table. Conclusions: The combination of vilastobart, a novel tumor-activated, Fc-enhanced a-CTLA-4, and atezolizumab demonstrated initial evidence of anti-tumor activity in late line, metastatic MSS CRC where immune checkpoint blockade has historically been relatively ineffective. Vilastobart was observed to have a differentiated safety profile distinct from systemically active a-CTLA-4, consistent with tumor-selective activation. Clinical trial information: NCT04896697 . AE term All Graden (%) Grade 3n (%) Fatigue 12 (30%) 0 Diarrhea 8 (20%) 0 Infusion related reactions 5 (13%) 0 Pyrexia 4 (10%) 0 ALT increased 4 (10%) 0 AST increased 4 (10%) 1 (3%) Colitis 2 (5%) 2 (5%)

TPS1657 Background: Cancer treatments are traditionally administered in clinical settings, which can isolate patients from their familiar environments and exacerbate physical, psychosocial, and financial burdens. Travel requirements further amplify these challenges, particularly for underserved populations. Studies indicate that patients prefer receiving care at home, and international models have demonstrated the safety of home-delivered chemotherapy since the 1990s; however, no U.S. clinical trial data exists. In response, Mayo Clinic has developed the Cancer CARE (Connected Access and Remote Expertise) Beyond Walls (CCBW) program, a distributed cancer care delivery model that expands access to quality cancer care by bringing it to the home environment, providing in-home cancer treatment, lab testing, telemedicine, and community paramedic support. This trial evaluates the safety, acceptability, and impact of home-based subcutaneous (SC) nivolumab (Nivo) administration compared to in-clinic treatment within the CCBW initiative. Methods: This open-label, single-arm trial evaluates the impact of SC Nivo administration location—home versus infusion center—on patient reported cancer care experience, patient-preferred treatment location, acceptability, safety, and patient-reported outcomes. Eligible adult patients (ECOG 0-1) receiving IV Nivo for an FDA-approved indication and residing within 75 miles of Mayo Clinic Florida will transition to SC Nivo, receiving two initial in-clinic cycles. If tolerated without injection reactions, four cycles will be administered at home before resuming in-clinic treatment. Exclusion criteria include concurrent investigational/standard treatments or contraindications to immunotherapy. Fifty patients will be enrolled, with an estimated 75% (n=38) providing cancer care ratings after 8 weeks in-clinic and 8 weeks at-home, offering 85% power to detect a mean difference in ratings of 0.50 standard deviations. The primary endpoint is within-patient change in cancer care rating (0–10 scale, CAHPS Cancer Care Survey) comparing 8 weeks of in-clinic vs. at-home care. Secondary endpoints include patient-preferred treatment location, comfort with home injections, safety (grade 3+ adverse events), function (EORTC QLQ-F17), symptoms (PRO-CTCAE), side effect impact (GP5), and healthcare utilization (ER visits, hospitalizations). Cost will be assessed as a tertiary endpoint. The trial has FDA approval (IND #170079), Mayo Clinic IRB approval (#23009663), and ClinicalTrials.gov registration (NCT06265285). Enrollment began in April 2024, with an expected accrual period of 24 months. To date, 10 patients have been enrolled, and final analysis is expected 2.5 years after trial activation. Clinical trial information: NCT06265285 .

e16330 Background: Sarcomatoid hepatocellular carcinoma (SHC) is a rare and aggressive variant of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), accounting for less than 2% of all primary liver cancers. Characterized by the presence of both epithelial and mesenchymal components, SHC demonstrates a high degree of cellular plasticity, often associated with epithelial-mesenchymal transition. This phenotypic heterogeneity contributes to its aggressive clinical behavior, including rapid tumor progression, early metastasis, and poor response to conventional therapies. As a result, patients diagnosed with SHC typically have a median survival of less than 12 months, significantly lower than that observed in patients with conventional HCC. Methods: We conducted a retrospective study at the Mayo Clinic Comprehensive Cancer Center, focusing on patients diagnosed with SHC between April 2017 and December 2023. The data collected included demographics, performance status, underlying risk factors, alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) levels, next generation sequencing (NGS) testing, and the treatment received. Results: A total of ten patients with confirmed diagnoses of SHC were included, with median age at the time of diagnosis 63.5 years (37-77), predimonantly male (9 out of 10), and identifying white (8 out of 10). Alcoholic cirrhosis was identified as an underlying risk factor in three patients, NASH cirrhosis in two, and HCV in two patients. The majority (6 out of 10) of the patients had localized disease, with 4 patients having denovo metastatic disease with abdominal lymph node involvement. Five patients had NGS testing (Tempus, Guardant 360, and ProvsSeq523), with resultant pathogenic variants including TP53 in 3 patients, NTRK3 fusion, IDH2, EGFR, TERT, MLH1, ARIS1A, and PALB2. Four patients were treated with combined Yitrrium-90 and systemic therapy. Three patient started systemic therapy, and two patients underwent surgical resection. Systemic Therapy used included combined Atezolizumab/ Bevacizuamab, Pembrolizumab/ Lenvatinib, Gemcitabine/ Docetaxel, Gemcitabine/ Cisplatin, Cabozantinib, and pembrolizumab monotherapy. The median overall survival for this group was 11.5 months; 95% confidence interval (CI): 4.66-40.1 months. Seventy percent experienced progression, with a median progression-free survival after first line of treatment of 2.5 months; 95% CI: 1-15.3 months. Conclusions: Sarcomatoid HCC remains aggressive and difficult to treat cancer with limited overall survival. Immunotherapy based regimens have limited efficacy for this HCC variant.

e16265 Background: The pivotal TOPAZ-1 trial established durvalumab plus gemcitabine and cisplatin (GC) as a new first-line standard of care for advanced biliary tract cancer (ABTC). However, weekly administration of GC can lead to significant toxicity limiting its tolerability in clinical practice. Based on previous studies, we implemented biweekly regimen of GC on days 1 and 15 together with durvalumab on day 1 of each 28-day cycle to optimize the treatment delivery and improve tolerability. Here, we report the Mayo Clinic experience with biweekly GC with monthly durvalumab in patients with ABTC. Methods: At our three-site institution, we retrospectively identified patients with ABTC between January 2021 and August 2024, who received biweekly GC with monthly durvalumab. Patient demographics, tumor characteristics, treatment details - treatment related adverse events (trAEs) graded according to the NCTCAE V5.0 were collected. Outcomes included median progression-free survival (mPFS), median overall survival (mOS) and clinically assessed overall response rate (ORR) and disease control rate (DCR). Results: 57 patients were included in our analysis, median age was 68 years (range 35-90), and 57.9% were females. 91.2% of patients had ECOG performance status of 0-1. 71.9% had intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma, 19.3% extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma and 8.7% gallbladder carcinoma. 70.2% had metastatic disease, 21 % locally advanced unresectable disease and 8.7% recurrent metastatic disease. Patients were followed for a median of 9.1 months (2.3-28.5). 91.2% of the patients received biweekly GC plus monthly durvalumab while 8.8% switched from weekly to biweekly GC plus monthly durvalumab due to treatment toxicities. Median number of treatment cycles was 5. Maintenance regimens included durvalumab (19.3%), gemcitabine/durvalumab (8.8%) and GC/durvalumab (8.8%). Median duration of follow up was 9.1 months (range 2.3 – 28.5). ORR was 36.9% and DCR was 72% (complete response 5.3%, partial response 31.6% and stable disease 35.1%). mPFS was 7.2 months, while mOS was 16 months. Grade(G) 3 or 4 trAEs included abnormal liver function tests (15.7%), infections (11.5%), anemia (8.7%), thrombocytopenia (5.2%), peripheral neuropathy (1.7%), acute kidney injury (1.7%). Immune-related AEs were noted in 6 patients (10.5%) including colitis, gastritis, hepatitis, myocarditis and hypothyroidism. There was no patient with severe neutropenia or febrile neutropenia. Only 5 patients (8.8%) stopped treatment due to trAEs. Conclusions: Biweekly GC on days 1 and 15 plus durvalumab on day 1 of each 28-day cycle is associated with a more favorable toxicity profile while maintaining efficacy similar to that observed in the TOPAZ-1 trial indicating that a de-escalation strategy is feasible with improvement in patient centered outcomes.

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.

Abstract Background: Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDA) is a disease with guarded prognosis with a 5-year overall survival (OS) of 3.1% in patients with metastatic disease. The need for innovative treatments for this lethal disease is paramount. TTFields is a novel treatment modality that employs low intensity, alternating, and intermediate frequency electrical fields that abrogates cancer cell proliferation through different mechanisms. These include inhibition of mitosis, disruption of cancer cell membranes, metabolomic dysregulation of cancer cells, and immunogenic activation of the tumor microenvironment (TME). TTFields are approved in glioblastoma multiforme, non-small cell lung cancer and malignant mesothelioma. The PANOVA trial demonstrated promising efficacy for TTFields plus chemotherapy in patients with PDA. A trial of GCN in patients with PDA demonstrated exceptional efficacy in patients with metastatic disease. Here in, we present our ongoing clinical trial investigating the safety and efficacy of TTFields plus GCN in patients with PDA (NCT04605913). Methods: This a phase I/II trial with an initial safety run-in phase followed by the phase II portion. The primary objective of the trial is to determine the safety (CTCAE v 5.0) of GCN plus TTFields. Secondary objectives include determining the 6-month progression free survival (PFS) rate, overall response rate (ORR, RECIST v1.1), 12-month survival rate, OS, and QOL (EORTC QLQ-C30, version 3.0.2.3). Inclusion criteria include PDA with liver metastasis (patients can have additional sites of metastasis), ECOG 0-1, measurable disease, and ability to operate the Novo TTF-100L (P)/Novo TTF-200T system. Treatment consisted of TTFields (150 kHz 18 hours/day) and GCN (G: 1000 mg/m2, C 30 mg/m2, and N: 150 mg/m2 every 2 weeks, 28 days cycle), followed by a maintenance phase after 6 months (G: 1000 mg/m2 every 2 weeks) plus TTFields until progression. Six patients were to be enrolled in the phase I portion and if ≤1/6 patients experienced a dose limiting toxicity (DLT, treatment emergent adverse event, or skin toxicity of Gr4), the plan would be to move to a phase II trial enrolling 34 more patients. If 2/6 patients experienced a DLT, 6 patients would be enrolled in dose level -1 (GCN plus TTFields for 9 hours/day followed by the maintenance treatment) and if tolerated the phase II portion would start with dose level -1 regimen. The phase I portion was completed without any DLTs and the trial is currently enrolling to the phase II portion. The total number of patients (40) was powered to the 6-months PFS rate and ORR (estimated using the lower bound of exact one-sided 90% confidence intervals). The goal is to "reject" a 6-month PFS rate of 66% and an ORR of 71% (based on previous GCN trial). Time-to-event endpoints will be assessed using the Kaplan-Meier method. Citation Format: Hani M. Babiker, Jason Starr, Jeremy Jones, Conor O’Donnell, Robert Jones, Jacqueline Boni, Lashundra Stewart, Josh Cameron, Oudom Kour, Kabir Mody, Robert R. McWilliams, Daniel H. Ahn, Tanios Bekaii-Saab, Mitesh J. Borad, Umair Majeed. A phase I/II pilot trial, single arm, open label, of gemcitabine, cisplatin, protein-bound paclitaxel (GCN) combined with Tumor Treatment Fields (TTFields) in patient with metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2025; Part 2 (Late-Breaking, Clinical Trial, and Invited Abstracts); 2025 Apr 25-30; Chicago, IL. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2025;85(8_Suppl_2):Abstract nr CT190.

727 Background: PARP inhibition (PARPi) is a standard maintenance therapy for patients (pts) with germline BRCA1/2 mutations in pancreatic cancer. Combination of PARPi therapy and immunotherapy has potential to increase efficacy and may offer benefit beyond germline BRCA1/2 . Methods: We performed a multisite single-arm phase 2 study using the highly potent PARPi niraparib with anti-PD1 drug dostarlimab in pts with germline or somatic HRD mutations in BRCA1/2, PALB2, RAD51C/D, or BARD1 . Pts were required to have metastasis, progressed on ≥1 regimen, and prior platinum-exposure unless refused/intolerant. Pts were treated with niraparib 200 mg orally once daily continuously. Dostarlimab 500 mg was administered IV every 3 weeks for 4 cycles, then 1000 mg IV every 6 weeks. The primary endpoint was disease control rate (DCR) at 12 weeks (DCR12) using iRECIST criteria. At least 8 pts with DCR12 in the first 19 eligible pts (41%) would be considered promising for further trials. Results: 22 pts were enrolled from Dec 2020 to Oct 2023. Two pts withdrew prior to receiving therapy, and 2 were later found to be ineligible, leaving 18 eligible pts for final analyses. Median age was 63.0 yrs, 39% male, 94% non-Hispanic white, 1 black (6%). 17 pts were platinum exposed, 7 were platinum-refractory, and 5 had previously progressed on PARPi maintenance. Mutation distribution was: BRCA2 13/18 (72%), BRCA1 4/18 (22%), BARD1 2/18 (11%). One pt had both BRCA1 (somatic) and BRCA2 (germline) mutations. Germline mutations were identified in 14/18 (78%). DCR12 was achieved in 5/18 (27.8%), so the primary endpoint (>41%) was not met. Pts received a median 2 cycles (range 1-8) of niraparib + dostarlimab. No clinical factors were significantly associated with improved DCR12 (all p > 0.05) in subgroup analyses, but we did observe the following statistically nonsignificant associations. Pts who were platinum-refractory had a lower DCR12 compared to those not (14.3% vs. 36.4%). Counterintuitively, PARPi exposed/refractory pts had a higher DCR12 than non-exposed/non-refractory (50 vs 17% exposed/nonexposed and 40% vs 23% refractory/nonrefractory). Pts with germline mutations had a higher DCR12 compared to those without (38.5% vs. 0%). Non- BRCA2 mutations had a higher DCR12 than those with BRCA2 mutations (50% vs.17%), with highest DCR12 rates among BRCA1 patients (67%). Tolerability was in line with similar combinations, with 60% non-hematologic Gr3 or higher, including fatigue (15%), AST increase (10%), nausea/vomiting (10%), sepsis (10%). Two grade 5 events were not attributed to treatment. Conclusions: PARPi plus anti-PD1 checkpoint inhibition was not sufficiently active as later line therapy in metastatic pancreatic cancer for the majority of patients with HRD mutations. Additional molecular analyses to elucidate predictive markers of sensitivity/resistance are ongoing. Clinical trial information: NCT04493060 .

10 Background: Cell-free circulating tumor tissue modified viral DNA (ctDNA) has been used as a biomarker to detect recurrence for anal squamous cell carcinoma (ASCC). However, its value in informing treatment modification during definitive chemoradiation (CRT) has yet to be explored. We evaluated ctDNA response during and at completion of definitive CRT to establish patterns of disease response and inform future studies to personalize treatment. Methods: From 11/2022 to 6/2024, 13 consecutive patients with biopsy proven, non-metastatic ASCC received definitive CRT and had ctDNA testing using a commercially available droplet digital quantitative PCR assay. ctDNA testing was done at baseline (pre-CRT), week 4 of CRT, and/or end of CRT, 1-3 months post-CRT, and every 6 months thereafter. CRT included concurrent 5FU/MMC (or capecitabine/MMC) and radiotherapy according to RTOG 0529. Treatment response assessment included: physical exam, anoscopy, and imaging with PET/CT, CT C/A/P +/- MRI abdomen and pelvis. Results: 13 patients had ctDNA testing and 11 patients had HPV-positive ASCC and tested positive for ctDNA. The 11 patients with detectable baseline ctDNA were included in this analysis. The median age at diagnosis was 63 years old. Staging included: 1- Stage IIA, 7- Stage IIB, 1- Stage IIIA, 2- Stage IIIC. 1 patient was cN0, while 11 were cN1. With a median follow-up from completion of CRT of 13 months, 4 patients have persistent or recurrent disease: 2 with distant metastases, 1 with persistent local disease (1 month post-CRT), and 1 with local and distant recurrence. Baseline value of ctDNA did not correlate to stage at diagnosis, rate of clearance during CRT, or likelihood of recurrence. 5 of 11 patients cleared ctDNA by week 4 of CRT. Of 5 patients who cleared ctDNA by week 4 of CRT, 4 remain NED and 1 developed distant metastases. Of 6 patients with persistent ctDNA at week 4 of CRT, 3 have persistent or recurrent disease- 1 local persistence 1 month post-CRT, 1 local and distant recurrence 6 months post-CRT, and 1 with distant recurrence 12 months post- CRT. Among 6 patients who cleared ctDNA by the final week of CRT, 1 patient developed recurrent disease. Among the 4 patients in the series with residual/recurrent disease, 3 of them had not cleared ctDNA by the end of CRT. Of 10 patients with ctDNA testing at 1 month post-CRT, 8 had no detectable ctDNA. 2 patients with persistent (1) or recurrent (1) ctDNA at 1 month post-CRT developed disease recurrence- 1 with distant recurrence and 1 with local and distant recurrence. Conclusions: ctDNA assessment during CRT may provide insight into disease response that can predict patterns of failure and facilitate personalized therapy- treatment intensification, deintensification, or additional testing to detect early metastatic disease. Larger studies and clinical validation are needed.

163 Background: CRC with PM has a poor prognosis and limited treatment options. Immunotherapy has shown promise in improving outcomes for patients with microsatellite instability-high (MSI-H), mismatch repair-deficient (dMMR), and high tumor mutational burden (TMB-H) tumors. However the peritoneal niche has a unique microenvironment, which can influence the effectiveness of immune check point inhibitors (ICIs). We assessed the impact of ICI on progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in CRC patients (pts) and PM, considering key clinical and molecular characteristics. Methods: A retrospective review aiming to identify CRC pts with MSI-H/dMMR and PM treated with immunotherapy between 2015 and 2023 was performed. Data collected included pt demographics, tumor characteristics, and treatment details. Responses were evaluated using RECIST v1.1 criteria. Results: 37 pts were included, 9 (24%) had Lynch syndrome. The median age of diagnosis was 61 years and most pts were females (65%). Most pts had MSI-H/dMMR tumors, while one pt was treated based on ultra-hypermutated phenotype (TMB 202) and POLE mutation. Among those with available TMB data, the median TMB was 52 mutations/Mb (0-202). Common mutations were PMS2 (51%), MLH1 (38%), MSH6 (16.2%), and MSH2 (16.2%). Right-sided tumors were in 54%, mucinous histology in 62%, and ascites in 54%. Pts received a median of 11 cycles of ICI (2-52). Pembrolizumab was the most frequently used ICI (78%), while Nivolumab was used either alone (11%) or in combination with Ipilimumab (11%). Median PFS in our cohort was 7.8 months and median OS was 29.9 months. The disease control rate (DCR) was 81%, with an objective response rate (ORR) of 51.3% (9 complete responses, 12 partial responses). At the time of data collection, 30% of pts were off systemic therapy and 5-FU-based chemotherapy combined with a biologic agent was the most common subsequent treatment in 32% who had PD. Univariate analysis showed no significant differences in PFS or OS based on tumor sidedness, isolated PM, liver metastases, mucinous vs. non mucinous histology or BRAF / RAS status (WT vs mutant). Malignant ascites was associated with worse OS(HR 0.3; p= 0.03). Conclusions: Treatment with ICIs in pts with MSI-H/dMMR and/or TMB-H CRC and PM improved disease control in CRC pts with PM, however, as compared to historical controls for patients with MSI-H/d-MMR disease treated with ICI, this group showed less favorable outcomes. Malignant ascites was associated with poorer overall survival. Further research of the immune response and tumor microenvironment in the peritoneal cavity is warranted.