Citations

e23419 Background: Current risk assessment for cancer-associated thrombosis remain suboptimal in NSCLC, likely due to unaccounted tumor-specific biology. Although ALK and ROS1-positive NSCLC share closely related structure and elevated thrombotic risk, real-world data on thromboembolic outcomes remain limited. Methods: This multicenter retrospective study was conducted using TriNetX, a global federated health research network;14 of 113 healthcare organizations contributed to analysis. Adults (≥18 years) with NSCLC ROS1 or ALK from 2012-2025 were included. Index event was defined as the first documented NSCLC diagnosis. Outcomes included cumulative incidence, Kaplan–Meier survival analysis (KMS), and event recurrence for arterial thromboembolism (ATE), deep vein thrombosis (DVT), and pulmonary embolism (PE). Analyses were conducted pre and post-propensity score matching (PSM) adjusted for age and sex. Subgroup analyses evaluated outcomes at 1, 3, 6, and ≥12 months. Results: 3,310 NSCLC patients were identified (ALK n=3,155; ROS1 n=155). Mean age was 73 years, with 52.8% female and 46.2% male; 72.5% White, 12.7% Black, 9.5% Asian; South (49%), Northeast (29%). ALK NSCLC were older than those with ROS1 (mean 68.9 vs 64.6 years, p<0.0001), with similar sex distribution. ROS1 had higher proportion of White (85% vs 72%), while ALK included more Asian and Black. Median follow-up prior to matching was 482 days for ROS1 (post-PSM:482) and 546 days for ALK (post-PSM:601) Incidence proportions in ROS1 NSCLC were 12.3% for ATE, 9.7% for DVT, and 12.9% for PE (vs. ALK: 22.6% for ATE, 12.5% for DVT, 11.8% for PE) For ATE, prior to PSM, ROS1 NSCLC demonstrated a significantly lower risk compared with ALK (16.6% vs 25.0%), with an absolute risk difference of −8.4% (95% CI −14.7 to −2.2; p=0.02) and relative risk of 0.66 (95% CI 0.46–0.96). KMS showed longer ATE-free survival in ROS1 compared to ALK (48.2% vs 44.5%, p=0.01; HR 0.60, 95% CI 0.40–0.91, p=0.04). After PSM, overall ATE risk difference did not reach statistical significance, although ROS1 continued to demonstrate lower risk (16.6% vs 25.8%; risk difference −9.2%, p=0.06). Notably, in the subgroup analyses, this significant risk difference emerged ≥12 months, with improved late ATE-free survival in ROS1(91.1% vs 80.3%, p=0.01). For VTE and PE, no significant differences in risk, survival analyses or recurrence, were observed between ROS1 and ALK before or after PSM (DVT risk: 9.2% vs 9.7% pre-PSM; 9.2% vs 10.1% post-PSM; PE: 11.2% vs 9.9% pre-PSM; 11.2% vs 8.6% post-PSM; all p>0.05). Conclusions: Arterial thromboembolism differed by oncogenic subtype, with higher ATE risk in ALK compared with ROS1-positive NSCLC, particularly ≥12-months. In contrast, no significant difference in venous thromboembolism and pulmonary embolism were observed; further validation in prospective studies is warranted.

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

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.

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

8057 Background: The NCI Adjuvant Lung Cancer Enrichment Marker Identification and Sequencing Trials (ALCHEMIST) study tested resected stage II-IIIB(N2) NSCLC for targetable EGFR and ALK alterations and PD-L1 expression to screen patients for biomarker-driven adjuvant therapy trials (NCT02194738). Local lab results were requested when available for comparison to central lab results. Methods: We identified patients with both central and local PD-L1 results in the ALCHEMIST adjuvant immunotherapy study screening population. Discrepancies in tumor proportion score (TPS) between central and local PD-L1 were defined using prespecified cut-points (granular: <1%, 1-<5%, 5-<10%, 10-<20%, 20-<30%, 30-<40%, 40-<50%, 50-60%, 60-<70%, 70-<80%, 80-<90%, 90-<100%; clinical: <1%, 1-<50%, 50-100%). Large discrepancies were defined as ≥ 50 percentage point differences; for these cases, local PD-L1 and hematoxylin & eosin-stained slides were requested. These and all central slides were digitally scanned at 40X. Three expert pathologists reviewed the scanned slides in a blinded fashion. Differences between patient or tumor characteristics were assessed by Chi-square and Wilcoxon rank sum tests. Percent agreement was computed within and between the reviewers. Results: Central and local PD-L1 results were available for 497 patients. 177 cases (36%) had discrepancies that placed patients in different clinical TPS categories (<1%, 1-<50%, 50-100%). Among these, 43 cases had large TPS discrepancies; 14 had available local testing slides. 46 of the 320 cases without discrepancy were randomly selected as controls. No patient or tumor characteristics were associated with discrepancy, including tumor location, histology, grade or cancer stage (p > 0.05). Pairwise comparisons of TPS according to three pathologists re-reading the same scanned PD-L1 slides showed similar levels of disagreement in clinical TPS category whether there was initial discrepancy between central and local results (24%, 34%, and 23%; mean 27%) or not (33%, 30%, and 20%; mean 28%). Among the 14 cases with large initial discrepancies and local slides available, there was agreement in clinical TPS category when the anonymized central and local scanned slides were re-read by the pathologists in 54%, 38%, and 43% of cases, despite 100% non-agreement in initial reads. There were higher rates of agreement when the tested slides both originated from the same (100%) versus different (35%) blocks, when the same (48%) versus different (40%) PD-L1 antibodies were used, and when the cases were of non-squamous (52%) versus squamous (14%) cell carcinoma. Conclusions: There are substantial differences in PD-L1 TPS read by pathologists that can result in placement of patients in different categories commonly used for clinical management. These differences have clear implications in clinical trials and routine patient care.

8001 Background: The ALCHEMIST clinical trial platform, launched by the National Clinical Trials Network (NCTN) in 2014, screened patients with resected non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) for molecular markers and tailored post-operative adjuvant therapy trials. A081105 evaluated whether adjuvant erlotinib improved overall survival (OS) following complete resection in patients with early stage EGFR mutated lung adenocarcinoma. Methods: A081105 was a randomized phase III trial enrolling patients with completely resected stage IB (≥4 cm), II, or IIIA non-squamous NSCLC (per the 7 th TNM staging classification) harboring EGFR exon 19 deletion or L858R mutations. Patients were randomized 1:1 to erlotinib 150 mg daily for up to 2 years or placebo/observation, stratified by stage, prior chemotherapy, EGFR mutation subtype, and ECOG performance status. The primary endpoint was OS in the per-protocol (PP) population with centrally confirmed EGFR mutations, designed to detect a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.67 in favor of erlotinib with a power of 86% and one sided type I error rate of 5%. Secondary endpoints included OS and disease free survival (DFS) in a modified intent-to-treat (mITT) population with local or centrally confirmed EGFR mutations, and safety. A prespecified backstop analysis was conducted after a minimum of 5 years of follow-up on all patients. Results: Trial enrollment was discontinued when 390 of the intended 450 patients had been enrolled due to the proven benefit of adjuvant osimertinib. Among 390 enrolled patients, the arms were balanced for age (median: 67.0 years), sex (70% female), race (70% white), stage (II: 51%, IIIA: 37%), prior chemotherapy (82%), ECOG PS 0 (60%), and exon 19 deletion (57%). Adjuvant erlotinib did not significantly improve OS compared with placebo/observation in the overall PP population (364 patients, 108 events, HR 0.89; 95% CI, 0.59–1.34; 1-sided P = 0.29) or within exon 19 deletion (HR: 0.94) or L858R mutation (HR: 0.82) subgroups. Five-year OS rates were 78.6% versus 77.9%, respectively. Results were consistent in the mITT analysis (379 patients, 113 events, HR 0.86; 95% CI, 0.58–1.28). Erlotinib improved DFS (mITT: 181 events, median: 68 vs 50 months, HR 0.74; 95% CI, 0.55–1.01). Across both arms, 11% of patients started non-protocol treatment (Osimertinib: 9%) prior to disease progression, and 9% withdrew consent for all follow-up prior to recurrence. In the erlotinib arm, 3 deaths on study were reported; grade 3 or higher adverse events were reported on 39% of patients. Median duration of treatment on Erlotinib arm was 16 months; only 37% of patients completed the planned treatment. Conclusions: In resected EGFR -mutant NSCLC, adjuvant erlotinib did not improve overall survival but improved DFS. Additional studies are exploring efficacy in selected subsets of patients using genomics and proteomic analyses. Clinical trial information: NCT02193282 .

7543 Background: Delayed neurotoxicity (DNT) after ciltacabtagene autoleucel (cilta-cel) is associated with severe morbidity and mortality occurring in 10-15% of patients. A high post-infusion peak absolute lymphocyte count (ALCpeak ≥3x10 9 /L; ALC hi ) is correlated with an increased risk of DNT (25-30%). We previously examined prophylactic dexamethasone (PPX DEX) administered for 3 days when ALC hi was reached and found no reduction in ALC expansion, DNT incidence or severity. Here, we report the use of prophylactic cyclophosphamide (PPX CTX) on ALC kinetics and DNT. Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis of patients (pts) treated with cilta-cel at Mayo Clinic (09-12/2025; n =60). Pts with ALC hi received CTX 500 mg IV/PO once (n = 22). Outcomes and ALC kinetics including ALCpeak, ALC D28 (ALC D28 ), and area under the curve D1-D28 (ALC AUC ) were compared with PPX DEX cohort (12/2024-08/2025; n =50) and a historical cohort without PPX (04/2022-11/2024; n =116). Results: Pre-lymphodepletion (LD) demographics were similar across historical ALC hi , PPX DEX, and PPX CTX groups. Pre-LD CRP was higher in the historical ALC hi cohort; however, baseline ferritin, CRS, and ICANS, and disease burden did not differ significantly between groups. There were no statistically significant differences in time to ALCpeak or ALC kinetics among the 3 cohorts. Among pts with ALC < 3×10⁹/L treated during the PPX CTX study period, 2 developed cranial nerve palsy (IEC-CNP; 2/38, 5%). Both presented with unilateral facial nerve palsy and were treated with corticosteroids. One pt resolved symptoms by one month, while the second had persistent symptoms at 2 weeks and remains on follow-up. Among ALC hi patients in the PPX CTX cohort, DNT occurred in 4/22 pts (18%), including 1 case of IEC-CNP (5%) and 3 with parkinsonism (IEC-PKS, 14%). Within the PPX CTX cohort, baseline characteristics and post-infusion CRS or laboratory parameters did not differ between patients with and without DNT. Among patients who developed DNT, ALC kinetics were similar across PPX CTX, PPX DEX, and historical cohorts. PPX CTX was well tolerated, with 2 cases of grade 1 nausea reported. The incidence of DNT did not differ significantly between the PPX DEX (14/61, 23%) and PPX CTX (4/22, 18%) cohorts. However, DNT presentations in the PPX CTX cohort appeared milder and were responsive to treatment. Two of three patients (67%) presented with mild symptoms (one with dynamic dysphasia; second with flat affect) that responded to DEX. A third patient presented with typical parkinsonian features (hypomimia, bradykinesia, rigidity) and demonstrated clinical improvement following high-dose CTX. Conclusions: PPX CTX was well tolerated. While it did not significantly impact ALC expansion kinetics or DNT rates, first few cases of IEC-PKS suggest that the presentation may be milder and amenable to less toxic treatment. Larger cohorts are needed to refine optimal prophylactic strategies.

5069 Background: Inhibition of androgen receptor (AR)-signaling results in increases in double-strand DNA breaks and genomic instability. PARP inhibitors (PARPi) are a standard treatment option for patients (pts) with homologous recombination repair mutations (HRRm). Combinations of PARPi and AR pathway inhibitors (ARPI) are associated with synthetic lethality in multiple pre-clinical studies. Clinical trials have suggested potential benefits with co-targeting PARPi and ARPI in pts with and without HRRm. Methods: Alliance A031902 compared radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) and overall survival (OS) as co-primary endpoints with enzalutamide and rucaparib (Enz/Ruca) versus enzalutamide plus placebo (Enz/Plac) for pts with metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) regardless of BRCA/HRRm status. This trial was conducted by the Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology in 36 centers in the US. Target sample size was 1,002 patients. Eligibility required mCRPC with or without measurable metastatic disease and was agnostic regarding HRRm status. The trial was discontinued in 10/2023 due to changes in the treatment landscape for this pt population. Results: Between 10/21 and 4/23, 61 pts were randomized to Enz/Ruca (n=30) or Enz/Plac (n=31). Known BRCA1/2 or PALB2 mutations were present in 1 pt (3.3%) in the Enz/Ruca arm and 1 pt (3.2%) in the Enz/Plac arm; wildtype in 14 (46.7%) vs 15 (48.4%), and unknown in 15 (50%) vs 15 (48.4%), respectively. Three patients (11.5%) in the Enz/Ruca arm discontinued due to an adverse event (AE) vs 0 in the Enz/Plac arm. Among response-evaluable pts, 7/26 (27%) in the Enz/Ruca arm discontinued due to disease progression vs 10/31 (33%) in the Enz/Plac arm. Most common grade 3+ AEs were anemia (33% vs 3%) and hypertension (17% vs 10%) in the Enz/Ruca arm and Enz/Plac arm, respectively. All 61 pts were evaluable for response assessment. PSA declines ≥50% and ≥90% were observed in 79% vs 45% and 60% vs 43% of pts receiving Enz/Ruca versus Enz/Plac, respectively. Median PFS in the Enz/Ruca vs Enz/Plac arms was 17.1 vs 14.2 mos, respectively (HR 1.13 [95% CI: 0.42-3.01], p=0.81), median rPFS (inclusive of unequivocal clinical progression) was 17.1 vs 11.7 mos ( HR 0.72; 95% CI: 0.31-1.67, p = 0.44), and median OS was not reached vs 27.0 mos (HR 0.65; 95% CI: 0.29-1.45, p=0.29). Conclusions: In this prematurely terminated phase III study, Enz/Ruca was generally well tolerated, with the safety profile consistent with prior PARPi/ARPI combinations. Efficacy outcomes for rPFS and OS are inconclusive due to limited sample size. Definitive conclusions regarding the clinical benefit of this combination cannot be determined from this study. Clinical trial information: NCT04455750 .

4500 Background: BM occur in ~30% of RCC pts and are associated with poor survival and symptomatic skeletal events (SSEs). Radium-223, an alpha-emitting bone-seeking radioisotope, prolongs survival in advanced prostate cancer. A pilot study of radium-223 with VEGF tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI) in RCC with BM showed safety and early efficacy (McKay, CCR, 2018). Cabozantinib is a TKI that showed efficacy in BM. RADICAL (NCT04071223) was designed to investigate cabozantinib ± radium-223 in RCC with BM. Methods: This open label multicenter study enrolled RCC pts with ≥1 symptomatic BM not previously irradiated and Karnofsky performance status ≥60%. Prior therapies were allowed; non-clear cell population was limited to 20%. Randomization was 1:1 to cabozantinib with (Arm A) or without (Arm B) radium-223, stratified by osteoclast-targeted therapy (OTT), prior therapy, baseline opioid use, and IMDC risk. In Arm A, cabozantinib was 40 mg daily cycle 1, 60 mg thereafter if tolerated; radium-223 was 1.49 microcurie/kg IV every 28 days for 6 doses. In Arm B, cabozantinib was 60 mg daily. The primary endpoint was SSE-free survival (SSE-FS). Secondary endpoints were safety, objective response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). The study was designed with 85% power to detect improvement in 6-month SSE-FS from 65% to 78% (one-sided α=0.05), with planned interim futility analysis at 50% of expected events. Results: From 12/2019 to 9/2025, 90 pts were enrolled and evaluable for the interim analysis. Median age was 63 years; 74.4% male, 90.0% White, 83.3% clear cell histology. 11.1% were treatment naïve, 80.0% received OTT, 51.1% had baseline opioid use. IMDC risk was 16.7% favorable, 68.9% intermediate, 14.4% poor. Median cabozantinib dose was 31.4 mg (Arm A) and 40.0 mg (Arm B); median radium-223 cycles was 6. Median follow-up was 13.1 (range 0.1-49.4) months with 50 events, 17 SSEs (Arm A: 10; Arm B: 7) and 33 deaths (Arm A: 13; Arm B: 20). Outcomes are in Table. 71 pts were evaluable for response. ORR was 22.2% (Arm A), 22.9% (Arm B). Any grade treatment-related adverse events were 97.7% (Arm A), 93.2% (Arm B); grade ≥3 were 65.9% (Arm A), 56.8% (Arm B). The trial closed after interim analysis as SSE-FS did not meet the prespecified futility boundary (HR≤1). Conclusions: Radium-223 did not improve the primary endpoint of SSE-FS when added to cabozantinib but a numerical prolongation in OS was observed. Combination treatment was safe. Alternative radiotherapeutics warrant investigation in RCC. Clinical trial information: NCT04071223 . Interim efficacy analysis. Arm Median(95% CI) HR (95% CI) Stratified SSE-FS A 17.9 (15.0-NE) 1.24 (0.62-2.48) B 17.6 (10.9-NE) Unstratified SSE-FS A 17.9 (15.0-NE) 0.90 (0.51-1.59) B 17.6 (10.9-NE) OS A 32.2 (17.9-NE) 0.77 (0.42-1.41) B 21.3 (12.3-NE) Stratified PFS A 11.0 (5.8-17.4) 1.39 (0.72-2.66) B 11.2 (9.0-18.5)

4183 Background: High grade neuroendocrine neoplasms (HG-NENs) are treated with platinum doublets mirroring guidelines for small cell lung cancer (SCLC) but recurrences are common and salvage options are limited in efficacy. Cabozantinib (CABO), an inhibitor of VEGFR, MET, and TAM kinases (TYRO3, AXL, and MER) was approved by the FDA for treatment of well differentiated (WD) NENs of both pancreatic and extrapancreatic origins based on the CABINET study (Chan, NEJM 2025). However, its efficacy in the whole spectrum of HG-NEN patients including poorly differentiated disease (PDD) has not been prospectively explored. Methods: This was a single institution, Phase II study of CABO in patients with HG-NENs who had progressed on at least one prior treatment. Key inclusion/exclusion criteria were NENs of any origin except SCLC, high grade by Ki-67 of > 20% or histology consensus, ECOG of < = 1, appropriate hematological parameters and no history of bleeding or active cardiac disease. CABO was given orally starting at 60 mg po daily in 3-week cycles. The primary endpoint of this study was overall response rate (ORR). Secondary endpoints included progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). A Simon optimal 2-stage design tested the null hypothesis that the true ORR is < = 1% at the type I error rate of 5%, resulting in projected enrollment of up to 32 total patients. Toxicities were graded according to CTCAE v5.0 and response was evaluated according to RECIST v1. Results: All patients have been accrued, with 4/32 patients still on treatment. Median age at diagnosis was 62 years and male to female ratio was 1.46. Origin of tumor was GI in 68.8% of the cases, the rest being thoracic (6.3%), prostate (6.3%) cervical (6.3%) head/neck (3.1%) and unknown (9.4%). Median Ki-67 was 55%, 11 patients had Ki-67 > 70%. Histology was WD-HG in 40% of patients and PDD in 60%. Two patients had mixed PDD/other components (MiNEN). Median PFS in evaluable patients was 4.01 months [95% CI 1.61 to 9.30] and mOS was 9.89 mo [95% CI 6.73 to 18.96]. Three patients so far (9.3%) have had partial response as best response (PDD-colon, WD-pancreas and PDD-cervical) while 19/32 (59.4%) patients have had stable disease as best response so far (disease control rate 68.8%). Five (15.6%) patients have received more than 10 treatment cycles. The three longest treated patients had WD-pancreas (23 and 17 cycles) and PDD-unknown (12 cycles). One patient had eventual resection of a metastatic site and is currently without evidence of disease. Three patients withdrew from the trial because of toxicities (shortness of breath, GI bleeding, thromboembolism). Twenty-six patients have expired. Conclusions: CABO monotherapy showed efficacy in some HG-NEN patients with not just WD but also the very aggressive PDD histology. No new side effects to the ones previously described for this agent were noted. Supported by Exelixis and a Siteman investment program grant. Clinical trial information: NCT04412629 .