Citations

TPS10057 Background: Ewing sarcoma (EWS) is an aggressive tumor of the bone and soft tissue primarily affecting adolescents and young adults. For patients with recurrent disease, outcomes remain poor with 5-year survival rates of 10%–15%, highlighting the need for novel approaches. STEAP1 is highly expressed in EWS cell lines, xenograft models, and patient tumor samples 1 and is transcriptionally regulated by EWSR1::FLI1 , the main oncogenic driver in EWS. Xaluritamig, a humanized bispecific XmAb 2+1 T-cell engager targeting STEAP1 and CD3, has demonstrated potent, antigen-dependent T-cell–mediated lysis of STEAP1-expressing EWS cell lines 1 and induced robust in vivo antitumor activity in EWS xenograft models with concomitant CD8+ T-cell activation. In metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, another STEAP1-expressing solid malignancy, xaluritamig has shown meaningful antitumor activity and a manageable safety profile 2 supporting its clinical evaluation in R/R EWS. Methods: This ongoing, phase 1b, single-arm, open-label, two-part, multicenter study (NCT07297979) is evaluating xaluritamig in pediatric, adolescent, and adult patients with a histologic diagnosis of EWS and an EWSR1 :: ETS fusion gene locally confirmed by next-generation sequencing. Patients must have R/R EWS following ≥1 line of systemic therapy and Karnofsky or Lansky performance status ≥70. Part 1 (dose confirmation) consists of cohort 1 (age ≥12 years) and cohort 2 (age ≥2 to <12 years), and part 2 (dose expansion) includes patients aged ≥2 years with no upper age limit at enrollment. This study includes a 21-day screening period, a treatment period, a safety follow-up period, and a long-term follow-up period. Patients receive xaluritamig every 2 weeks once reaching the target dose until radiographic disease progression per RECIST v1.1, clinical disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, initiation of other anticancer therapy not permitted per protocol, withdrawal of consent, death, or end of study as determined by the sponsor, whichever is earlier. Primary endpoints are safety, tolerability, and determination of recommended dose(s) for expansion. Secondary endpoints are pharmacokinetics, preliminary antitumor activity, and immunogenicity. Biomarker evaluation as an exploratory endpoint includes assessment of serum cytokines, other pro-inflammatory markers, immune-cell subsets, circulating tumor DNA, STEAP1 protein expression, and tumor genomic profile and their association with safety and efficacy. CRS mitigation plan includes step-up dosing, steroid premedication, and administration of interleukin-6 inhibitors as needed. Site activation commenced in January 2026 and enrollment is ongoing. 1. Nolan-Stevaux O. Cancer Res. 2020;80(16_Suppl):DDT02–03. 2. Kelly WK, Danila DC, Lin CC, et al. Cancer Discov . 2024;14(1):76-89. Clinical trial information: NCT07297979 .

e16435 Background: Peritoneal metastasis in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is historically associated with a dismal prognosis and limited response to systemic therapy alone. The role of locoregional therapy remains controversial. This study evaluated the survival impact and safety of HIPEC, with or without cytoreductive surgery (CRS), compared to standard-of-care systemic therapy in patients with peritoneal metastatic PDAC. Methods: We conducted a comparative analysis of 130 patients with peritoneal metastatic PDAC, comprising a study cohort treated with HIPEC (n = 33) and a control group treated with systemic chemotherapy alone (Non-HIPEC, n = 97). HIPEC patients received induction chemotherapy (predominantly FOLFIRINOX) followed by HIPEC ± CRS. Co-primary endpoints included 12 months survival, and 6 months progression free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints evaluated Overall Survival (OS ), safety of CRS, and impact of germline mutation status on survival. Study was approved under IRB protocol 25-008762. Results: The 12-month OS rate was significantly higher in the HIPEC group compared to the chemotherapy-only control group (100% vs. 52.6%, P < 0.001). The 6-month PFS rate in the HIPEC group was 63.0% vs. 47.94 in-only control group (P < 0.001). For secondary endpoints, the HIPEC group demonstrated a significantly longer median OS of 33.0 months vs. 17.0 months for controls (P < 0.001). Within the HIPEC cohort, the addition of CRS (n = 25) significantly improved outcomes compared to HIPEC alone (n = 8): median OS improved from 21.5 to 36.0 months (P = 0.03). Germline testing was performed in 61% of HIPEC patients and 48% of controls, identifying pathogenic mutations in 25% and 17%, respectively. Identified pathogenic mutations in both groups included ATM (n = 4), MUTYH (n = 2), BRCA2 (n = 1), CHEK2 (n = 1), PALB2 (n = 1), and KIT (n = 1). In the control group, specific mutations drove divergent outcomes; ATM median OS: 23.5 months vs. MUTYH : 8.0 months (P = 0.04). Conversely, in the HIPEC+CRS cohort, survival was excellent regardless of genetic profile: mutation carriers achieved a median OS of 33.0 months compared to 31.0 months in wild-type patients (P = 0.85). Despite a 34.8% postoperative complication rate in the HIPEC group, there was no perioperative mortality. Conclusions: In selected patients with peritoneal metastatic PDAC, HIPEC provides a substantial survival advantage over systemic therapy alone, achieving a 100% 12-month survival rate and more than doubling the median overall survival. Importantly, germline mutation status did not preclude survival benefit, with mutation carriers deriving equal efficacy from the multimodal approach. These findings support HIPEC+CRS as a highly effective strategy that may overcome adverse biologic drivers.

e16018 Background: Intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (iCCA) exhibits marked heterogeneity in outcomes that is incompletely explained by stage or treatment timing. Although treatment delay is frequently cited as a modifiable risk factor, its prognostic significance in real-world practice remains unclear. We applied machine learning (ML) to model iCCA as a dynamic disease process and to evaluate whether longitudinal disease trajectories better explain outcomes than treatment timing alone. Methods: We conducted a population-based retrospective analysis of adults diagnosed with iCCA using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database (2000–2022). Time from diagnosis to first cancer-directed therapy was categorized as ≤30 days, 31–60 days, or > 60 days. Associations between treatment delay, disease characteristics, and overall survival (OS) were assessed using multivariable logistic and Cox regression models. To capture real-world disease evolution, each patient’s clinical course was encoded as an ordered longitudinal sequence of diagnosis, treatment states (surgery, chemotherapy, radiation), and outcome. Unsupervised ML was used to identify latent disease-course trajectories. A supervised ML model using variables available at diagnosis was developed to predict membership in high-risk trajectories. Results: The cohort included 18,312 patients with iCCA. Treatment initiation beyond 30 days occurred in more than half of patients and was more common in localized than advanced disease. In adjusted survival analyses, shorter time to treatment was paradoxically associated with worse OS, consistent with confounding by disease severity rather than a protective effect of delay. Unsupervised ML identified four distinct and reproducible disease trajectories with markedly different outcomes. Median OS ranged from approximately 2 months in early-failure trajectories to approximately 15 months in favorable multimodality trajectories. Trajectory membership was not fully explained by stage or treatment timing. A supervised ML model predicted high-risk trajectory membership with good discrimination (AUC 0.82). Key predictors included tumor grade, age, tumor burden, and incomplete staging, whereas treatment timing had minimal influence. Conclusions: In iCCA, treatment delay reflects underlying disease biology and care prioritization rather than independently determining survival. ML-based trajectory modeling reveals clinically meaningful disease courses that better explain outcome heterogeneity than treatment timing or stage alone and enables early identification of patients at highest risk for unfavorable real-world outcomes.

e15501 Background: CP is the backbone of first-line therapy for recurrent or metastatic ASCC. In practice, Q3-week CP has been explored as a potential alternative to the standard (d1,8,15 Q28-day cycle) dosing, though its efficacy is not known. This study evaluated CP scheduling and clinical survival associations in metastatic ASCC. Methods: This multicenter retrospective cohort study included patients with metastatic ASCC treated with first-line CP, identified using the Mayo Data Explorer database. Electronic health records were reviewed to collect baseline clinical characteristics, treatment regimens, responses, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). Descriptive statistics were used to summarize patient demographics. Survival was estimated using Kaplan–Meier methods. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards models were used to compare survival by dosing schedule, adjusting for age, ECOG performance status, HPV (p16) status, liver metastasis, and prior chemoradiation. Results: 54 patients treated between 2020-2025 with first-line CP for metastatic ASCC were included. Baseline patient demographics were balanced between dosing groups (Table 1). Median follow-up time was 26.2 months. For Q3-week CP (n = 21), median PFS and OS were 9.8 (95% CI 8.1, NR) and 27.0 (95% CI 15.7, NR) months, respectively, while median PFS was 6.5 (95% CI 4.5,15.3) months with standard CP (n = 33) and median OS was not reached (95% CI 11.2, NR). Response rate was 76% with Q3-week and 60.6% with standard CP (p = 0.23) dosing. Survival outcomes were similar when comparing Q3-week CP relative to standard CP dosing using multivariable analysis (PFS HR 0.68, 95% CI 0.33–1.41; OS HR 1.67, 95% CI 0.67–4.14). Higher ECOG and liver metastasis were independently associated with inferior outcomes, while HPV was associated with improved survival. Subsequent therapy patterns were similar between CP schedule groups. Ten patients (16.9%) received local therapy, and 24 of 28 patients with progression received further systemic therapy, including 21 (87.5%) treated with immunotherapy. Conclusions: Survival outcomes were similar across dosing schedules, suggesting Q3-week CP may be a reasonable alternative to standard CP, with potential to reduce treatment-related burden in metastatic ASCC. Future analysis will compare toxicity profiles between CP dosing schedules, including in combination with PD1 inhibitors given the results of the POD1UM-303 trial. Patient demographics (n=54). Variable Q3-week CP (n=21) Standard CP (n=33) p-value Sex Female 16 (76.2%) 24 (72.7%) 0.77 Male 5 (23.8%) 9 (27.3%) Age Median (Q1, Q3) 62 (50.5, 69) 64 (55.5, 70) 0.57 BMI Median (Q1, Q3) 27.1 (21.9, 34.4) 27.4 (22.5, 31.7) 0.72 ECOG 0 9 (42.9%) 11 (34.4%) 0.53 ≥ 1 12 (57.1%) 21 (65.6%) Confirmed HPV (p16) Positive 16 (76.2%) 24 (72.7%) 0.77 Prior chemoradiation Yes 17 (81.0%) 21 (63.6%) 0.17

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.

566 Background: Endocrine therapy (ET) resistance (ETR) remains a primary challenge in ER+ breast cancer. Analyzing pretreatment tumor transcriptomes across trials with early response endpoints can reveal shared and specific ETR signatures. This study utilizes baseline RNA data from the Phase III ALTERNATE trial (Alliance A011106, NCT01953588; Anastrozole [A], Fulvestrant [F], or AF) and the ACOSOG Z1031B trial (NCT00824941) to identify predictors of early Ki67 response in postmenopausal ER+/HER2– patients. Methods: ETR was defined as week-4 on-treatment Ki67 >10%. Baseline gene expression from ALTERNATE was analyzed to identify differentially expressed (DE) genes (Wilcoxon test, P<0.05) and Hallmark pathways associated with ETR, both across and within individual treatment arms. Feature selection was performed using mixOmics. A Pan-Endocrine Therapy Signature (PETS) was developed by uniting DE genes identified across all three ALTERNATE arms and Z1031B. All statistical analyses were conducted in R (P<0.05). Results: Overall ETR rate in the ALTERNATE RNA-seq cohort (n=733) was 26%. ETR was associated with high Risk of Recurrence (ROR), Oncotype RS, and Mammaprint scores (calculated from RNA-seq data in research setting). In luminal tumors (n=649), ETR was linked to chr 3q13.33, 8q24.13, and 20q13.12 cytoband upregulation and 17q21, 18q23, 3p21.1, and 10q24.32 cytoband downregulation. ETR tumors showed T-cell, E2F target, and interferon-γ enrichment; sensitive tumors favored early estrogen response and muscle differentiation. At individual gene level, high MYBL2 , PIF1 , TROAP and with low HJURP predicted ETR across all samples (AUC>0.70). A deep learning model using all protein-coding genes achieved AUC 0.82 (training) and 0.79 (test) in predicting ETR. Cross-trial integration identified ETR-associated PETS, enriched for genomic instability. PETS performed comparably to established signatures and strongly correlated with MYBL2 signature (r=0.93). Top ETR predictors were MYBL2 , AURKB , and EME1 for Arm A and IL4I1 , TNFAIP6 , and ANLN for Arm AF. AF-resistant tumors were enriched for systemic lupus and RIG-I–like receptor signaling; sensitive tumors favored PI3K–AKT, EGFR TKI resistance, AMPK, and insulin signaling. Conclusions: Baseline transcriptomics identify shared and therapy-specific ETR markers. The 15-gene PETS defines a convergent resistance signature, performing similar to established signatures in predicting ETR and correlating with MYBL2. Enrichment of cell-cycle and immune pathways in resistant tumors may suggest patient stratification approach for alternative or combinatorial strategies to overcome early ETR in ER+ breast cancer. Acknowledgement: https://acknowledgments.alliancefound.org. Support: U10CA180821, U10CA180882, U24CA1. Clinical trial information: NCT01953588 .

Abstract Background Three-dimensional visualization and quantitative analysis of cerebral arteries on 3DRA are central to endovascular treatment planning, device selection, and cerebrovascular research. Manual segmentation is time-consuming and operator-dependent, yet no open-source deep learning model has been prospectively validated for this task on 3DRA. Methods A nnUNet v2 model was trained for binary cerebral artery segmentation on 400 consecutive 3DRA acquisitions from three angiographic systems, comparing four configurations across architectures and loss functions. The best-performing configurations were prospectively validated on 40 patients using a dual approach: quantitative metrics (DSC, clDice, HD95, ASD, Precision, Recall), and blinded expert qualitative evaluation by two interventional neuroradiologists assessing 12 arterial segments, a global quality score, and clinical usability across 40 test cases. Results The ensemble model achieved median DSC 0.917, clDice 0.932, and HD95 1.494 mm. Global quality scores were significantly lower for nnUNet v2 than for expert segmentations (median 4 vs 5, p<0.001), but nnUNet v2 segmentations were rated clinically usable in 88–90% of cases versus 95–98% for expert segmentations, without significant difference on the binary usability criterion. A consistent proximal-to-distal quality gradient was identified, with comparable scores at proximal arteries and the largest differences at distal arterial segments. Conclusion nnUNet v2 with topology-aware training provides clinically usable cerebral artery segmentations on 3DRA, prospectively validated through both quantitative metrics and structured expert qualitative assessment, and represents a reproducible open-source foundation for endovascular and research applications.

ABSTRACT Considerable advances have been made in our understanding of Bardet–Biedl syndrome (BBS), particularly in its core clinical features and molecular genetics, warranting an update to the existing diagnostic criteria framework. Using a rigorous, evidence‐based, and consensus‐driven process, a multidisciplinary group of international experts and patient‐led organizations developed an updated diagnostic algorithm. This algorithm provides practical, updated guidance for clinicians, including a pathway for accurately incorporating genetic findings into the diagnostic process. We recommend that a clinical diagnosis requires either 4 major criteria or 3 major and 2 minor criteria. Revised major criteria are retinal dystrophy, obesity (or overweight in individuals < 2 years old), congenital anomalies of the kidney and urinary tract or chronic kidney disease, hypogonadism/genital anomalies, neurodevelopmental/neurocognitive manifestations, and postaxial polydactyly. The diagnosis can also be established with a positive genetic testing result in patients exhibiting ≥ 1 major criterion, provided that genetic findings should be interpreted in the context of the patient's clinical presentation, age, family history, and overlap with related ciliopathies. These consensus criteria offer a simple algorithm incorporating updated definitions for major and minor criteria and genetic testing to support a timely and accurate diagnosis of patients with BBS, inform genetic counseling, and potentially facilitate earlier access to treatment. Trial Registration: CRIBBS Registry; ClinicalTrials.gov : NCT02329210

The creation of an arteriovenous fistula in a uremic pig induces cardiac remodeling, which resembles contemporary clinical findings in patients with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) and includes increased end-diastolic volumes and cardiomyocyte hypertrophy, potentially driven by fibrosis and senescence. This novel large animal model may now enable mechanistic and therapeutic studies aiming to ease the unacceptably high burden of cardiovascular disease on patients with ESKD.

Abstract Introduction Sedation is routinely administered to facilitate comfort and tolerance of life support for critically ill adults dependent on invasive mechanical ventilation. Isoflurane, a widely used anesthetic during surgery, has properties that may also benefit ICU patients requiring continuous sedation. However, efficacy as a sedative and safety in this population is not well established. Methods We conducted two identically designed multicenter randomized trials, INSPIRE ICU1 and INSPIRE ICU2, at hospitals across the US. Ventilator-dependent adults were randomly assigned in a 1.5:1 ratio to receive either inhaled isoflurane or intravenous propofol as the first-line sedative for up to 48 ± 6 hours, targeting a sedation depth between Richmond agitation-sedation scale (RASS) -1 (drowsy) to -4 (responsive only to physical stimuli). Isoflurane was administered via an anesthetic conserving device (Sedaconda ACD-S). In both arms, opioids were permitted at the lowest dose required to achieve freedom from pain. The primary outcome was the percentage of time at target sedation level, assessed as a noninferiority outcome with pre-specified margin of 15%. Secondary outcomes included opioid exposure, wake-up time after end of treatment, time to extubation, and proportion of time with spontaneous breathing effort. Results A total of 470 combined participants were included in the two trials. In each trial, 142 patients were randomly assigned to isoflurane and 93 to propofol. In INSPIRE ICU1, percentage of time within target sedation depth was 77.1 [53.2, 89.9] % with isoflurane and 80.9 [58.2, 96.4] % with propofol (difference -1.5 [-8.9, &gt;99] %; p &lt; 0.01 for noninferiority). In INSPIRE ICU2, percentage of time within target sedation depth was 72.6 [66.4, 78.9] % with isoflurane and 74.5 [67.5, 81.5] % with propofol (difference -1.9 [-9.4, &gt;99] %; p &lt; 0.01 for noninferiority). In both trials, patients assigned to isoflurane received significantly less opioid, measured as fentanyl equivalents, during the treatment period. In INSPIRE ICU2, participants receiving isoflurane were significantly likelier to exhibit spontaneous breathing efforts, but this finding was not replicated in INSPIRE ICU1. There were no significant differences in time to wake-up or time to extubation between groups in either trial. No episodes of malignant hyperthermia or propofol infusion syndrome were reported. Adverse events were comparable in type and frequency between groups. Conclusions In two US multicenter trials, isoflurane was noninferior to propofol for maintaining target sedation depth in adults undergoing invasive ventilation, and was associated with significantly lower opioid exposure. (NCT05327296, NCT05312385) This abstract is funded by: Sedana Medical