Citations

Abstract Rural and low-socioeconomic status women face social determinants of health barriers leading to disproportionately low rates of breast cancer screening and markedly reduced participation in clinical trials. To address this gap, we developed the WeCARE (Women’s Engagement for Cancer Awareness, Resources, and Education) intervention using a community-engaged approach. This paper describes how Community Advisory Board feedback informed the development of Mayo Clinic Health System’s WeCARE intervention components. Their input was systematically analyzed using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR 2.0) to identify determinants of acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility and to guide actionable refinements to intervention content and delivery.

TPS3184 Background: Replication stress (RS) creates cancer cell vulnerability to which the critical DNA damage response kinase, ATR (Ataxia-Telangiectasia and Rad3-related) responds. ATR senses the stress, halts the cell cycle, and promotes DNA repair to allow proliferation. Alnodesertib is an ATR inhibitor developed to prevent cancer cells from successfully repairing RS and proliferating further. In earlier stages of alnodesertib development, preclinical and translational research demonstrated that tumor cells experience three combined biological insults: irinotecan-induced RS, endogenous RS via ataxia-telangiectasia mutated (ATM) loss, and RS rescue prevention by ATR inhibition. Data from the dose escalation and initial dose expansion cohorts of this trial in a tumor agnostic population showed encouraging results in ATM-negative cancers (confirmed Overall Response Rate of 50% in 20 patients with ATM negative cancers and responses across 8 cancer types including complete responses, Ulahannan et al, AACR 2025). Tumor-specific dose expansion cohorts are now enrolling, including colorectal cancer (CRC) and pancreas ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). Methods: Two tumor-specific cohorts are now open, each enrolling approximately 50 patients (pts): ATM-negative CRC and ATM-negative PDAC. Pts will receive the recommended dose of alnodesertib 200mg orally on days 1-3 and 8-10 combined with low-dose irinotecan 60mg/m 2 IV on days 1 and 8, of each 21-day cycle. Tumor tissue is prescreened by immunohistochemistry for ATM protein loss (H score 0) for enrollment eligibility. Pts with CRC must have received a maximum of 2 prior chemotherapies excluding prior trifluridine/tipiracil, fruquintinib, or regorafenib, and pts with PDAC must have received a maximum of 1 prior chemotherapy for advanced disease. Prior targeted agents are allowed and do not count as prior lines of therapy. Key objectives include safety, tolerability, and preliminary efficacy. Clinical trial information: NCT04657068 .

Abstract Background The ability of large language models (LLMs) to work collaboratively and screen studies in a systematic review (SR) is under-explored. Hence, we aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of LLMs in automating the process of screening in systematic reviews. Methods This is an observational study which included labeled data (title and abstracts) for five SRs. Originally, two reviewers screened the citations independently for eligibility. A third reviewer cross-checked each citation for quality assurance. GPT-4, Claude-3-Sonnet, and Gemini-Pro-1.0 were used using zero-shot chain-of-thought prompting. Collaborative approaches included (i): conflict resolution using benefit of the doubt, (ii) majority voting using an independent third LLM and (iii) conflict resolution using an informed third LLM. Performance was assessed using accuracy, precision for exclusion, and recall for inclusion. Work saved over samples (WSS) was computed to estimate the reduction in manual human effort. Results A total of 11300 articles were included in this study. The individual models, GPT-4, Claude-3-Sonnet, and Gemini-Pro-1.0 exhibited a high precision for exclusion, achieving 99.7%, 99.7%, and 99.2% and high recall for inclusion achieving 95.5%, 96.6% and 85.7%, respectively. However, the collaborative approach utilizing the two best-performing models (GPT-4 and Claude-3S) achieved an average precision of 99.9% and a recall of 98.5% (across all collaborative approaches). Furthermore, the proposed collaborative approach resulted in an average WSS of 63.5%, compared to the average WSS of 45.2% for individual models. Conversational LLM interactions showed a consistent pattern of results. Limitations This study was limited due to reliance on proprietary models, and evaluation on oncology datasets. Conclusion Evidence shows that collaborative LLMs enable efficient, high-performing screening in systematic reviews, supporting continuous evidence updates. Primary funding source NIH (U24CA265879-01-1) and Carolyn-Ann-Kennedy-Bacon Fund.

Abstract Objectives/Background This study was undertaken to review the published literature and provide a position statement from the American Headache Society regarding the safety, efficacy, and impact on access to care of telemedicine for the clinical management of patients with headache disorders. Access to specialized care in headache medicine is severely limited in the United States and worldwide. Telemedicine has been used as an approach to care delivery in headache medicine for more than a decade, with accelerated adoption during the COVID‐19 pandemic. There is now uncertainty regarding the extent to which telemedicine will be accepted by health systems and reimbursed by payers moving forward. The purpose of this position statement is to summarize evidence and clinical experience supporting the utility of telemedicine in headache medicine. Methods Evidence regarding the safety and efficacy of telemedicine, and patient and clinician satisfaction with the use of telemedicine for headache specialty care, was gathered from a variety of sources, including PubMed, Google Scholar, and ClinicalTrials.gov . The results and conclusions based upon these results were reviewed and discussed by the authors and the Board of Directors of the American Headache Society to confirm consistency with clinical experience and to achieve consensus. Results Several randomized clinical trials and observational studies have been performed to compare telemedicine with in‐person visits in the management of patients with headache disorders. These studies showed consistently that telemedicine is noninferior to in‐person care based upon multiple outcome measures, including disability measures, patient satisfaction, and clinician satisfaction. In addition, these studies found that telemedicine rarely leads to a missed diagnosis of secondary headache or mismanagement of primary headache. Telemedicine has substantial advantages for patients, including improved access to care and reduced costs associated with obtaining care. Studies evaluating health care utilization indicate no significant differences between patients evaluated and treated virtually versus in person. Obvious limitations of telemedicine include the inability to perform an in‐person physical exam or to perform injections. For a substantial number of patients, however, these limitations are outweighed by its advantages. The experience with telemedicine reported in the literature is consistent with the experience of the Board of Directors of the American Headache Society, who endorse its use for patients when feasible and appropriate. Conclusion Telemedicine has significantly advanced the care of patients with headache disorders. Its further development and deployment should be supported and reimbursed.

131 Background: KRAS G12C mutations occur in 3%–4% of CRC cases and are associated with poor prognosis. In the phase 1/2 KRYSTAL-1 study (NCT03785249), at a median follow-up of 11.9 months (mo), Ada (irreversible inhibitor of KRAS G12C ) in combination with Cetux (anti-EGFR antibody) demonstrated promising clinical activity (objective response rate [ORR] of 34% per blinded independent central review [BICR] and 43% per investigator [INV]) and was well tolerated in patients (pts) with previously treated KRAS G12C -mutated mCRC. Based on these findings, Ada + Cetux was granted accelerated approval in the United States for these pts. Here, we present longer-term follow-up analyses from this study. Methods: Adults with previously treated KRAS G12C -mutated mCRC and ECOG performance status of 0 or 1 were treated with Ada (600 mg BID) in combination with Cetux (400 mg/m 2 followed by 250 mg/m 2 QW or 500 mg/m 2 Q2W) until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, withdrawal of consent, or death, in separate phase 1 and phase 2 cohorts. Primary endpoints were safety (phase 1) and ORR per BICR (phase 2). Secondary endpoints were duration of response (DOR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and safety (phase 2). Results: A total of 94 pts received Ada + Cetux. The median number of prior lines of systemic therapy was 3 (range, 1–9); 23 pts (24%) had received ≥ 4 prior lines of systemic therapy. The most frequent sites of metastases at baseline were the lung (71%) and liver (64%). At a median follow-up of 20.4 mo, ORR per INV was 43% (95% CI 32–53) and all were partial responses; median DOR was 5.9 (95% CI 5.5–7.6) mo. Disease control rate per INV was 86% (95% CI 78–92). Median PFS per INV was 6.9 (95% CI 5.9–7.4) mo; 6- and 12-mo PFS rates were 61% and 19%, respectively. Median OS was 16.0 (95% CI 13.3–18.8) mo; 6- and 12-mo OS rates were 88% and 66%, respectively. Any-grade treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) were reported in 100% of pts, 28% of which were grade 3/4. TRAEs led to discontinuation in 10% of pts. Efficacy analyses by BICR, subgroup analyses, and additional safety results will be presented. Conclusions: In heavily pretreated pts with KRAS G12C -mutated mCRC, Ada + Cetux continued to demonstrate clinically meaningful activity and tolerable safety with longer follow-up. These updated results are consistent with those from the primary analysis and constitute the longest duration of follow-up for dual KRAS G12C /EGFR blockade in this setting. Efficacy of second-line Ada + Cetux vs chemotherapy in KRAS G12C -mutated mCRC is being investigated in the phase 3 KRYSTAL-10 study (NCT04793958). Clinical trial information: NCT03785249 .

Abstract Objective To identify and disseminate research priorities for the headache field that should be areas of research focus during the next 10 years. Background Establishing research priorities helps focus and synergize the work of headache investigators, allowing them to reach the most important research goals more efficiently and completely. Methods The Headache Research Priorities organizing and executive committees and working group chairs led a multistakeholder and international group of experts to develop headache research priorities. The research priorities were developed and reviewed by clinicians, scientists, people with headache, representatives from headache organizations, health‐care industry representatives, and the public. Priorities were revised and finalized after receiving feedback from members of the research priorities working groups and after a public comment period. Results Twenty‐five research priorities across eight categories were identified: human models, animal models, pathophysiology, diagnosis and management, treatment, inequities and disparities, research workforce development, and quality of life. The priorities address research models and methods, development and optimization of outcome measures and endpoints, pain and non‐pain symptoms of primary and secondary headaches, investigations into mechanisms underlying headache attacks and chronification of headache disorders, treatment optimization, research workforce recruitment, development, expansion, and support, and inequities and disparities in the headache field. The priorities are focused enough that they help to guide headache research and broad enough that they are widely applicable to multiple headache types and various research methods. Conclusions These research priorities serve as guidance for headache investigators when planning their research studies and as benchmarks by which the headache field can measure its progress over time. These priorities will need updating as research goals are met and new priorities arise.

4136 Background: NAPOLI 3 (NCT04083235, N = 770), a global, randomized, open-label phase 3 study, demonstrated that NALIRIFOX significantly improved overall survival (OS, primary endpoint) and progression-free survival compared with nab-paclitaxel and gemcitabine in patients with untreated mPDAC. Here, we report an updated analysis of OS. Methods: Eligible patients with histopathologically/cytologically confirmed untreated mPDAC were randomized (1:1) to receive liposomal irinotecan 50 mg/m2 + oxaliplatin 60 mg/m2 + leucovorin 400 mg/m2 + 5-fluorouracil 2400 mg/m2 (NALIRIFOX, n = 383) on days 1 and 15 of a 28-day cycle or nab-paclitaxel 125 mg/m2 and gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2 (Gem+NabP, n = 387) on days 1, 8 and 15 of a 28-day cycle. Randomization was stratified by ECOG performance status, geographic region and presence/absence of liver metastases. An updated OS analysis (data cutoff: 3 October 2023) was conducted. Kaplan–Meier methods were used to estimate median (95% confidence interval [CI]) OS and hazard ratios (HRs [95% CI]) were estimated using stratified Cox proportional hazard models. The difference between groups was tested using a stratified log-rank test. Results: The median follow-up for OS was 28.7 months in the NALIRIFOX arm and 29.7 months in the Gem+NabP arm. At data cutoff, 11 patients were still receiving study treatment, all of whom were in the NALIRIFOX arm. With a total of 673 OS events (NALIRIFOX, n = 328; Gem+NabP, n = 345), median OS was 11.1 months (95% CI 10.0–12.1) in the NALIRIFOX arm compared with 9.2 months (8.3–10.6) in the Gem+NabP arm (HR 0.84 [95% CI 0.72–0.98]; nominal p = 0.026). At 12 months and 18 months, survival rates were 45.6% (95% CI 40.5–50.5) and 26.6% (22.2–31.1), respectively, in the NALIRIFOX arm and 39.6% (34.7–44.5) and 20.0% (16.1–24.1), respectively, in the Gem+NabP arm. Conclusions: In this 29-month follow-up of NAPOLI 3, NALIRIFOX continued to demonstrate improved OS compared with Gem+NabP, with 11 patients still receiving the NALIRIFOX regimen. These data confirm NALIRIFOX as a new possible standard of care and reference regimen for the first-line treatment of patients with mPDAC. Clinical trial information: NCT04083235 .

3509 Background: HER2 overexpression/amplification (HER2+) occurs in ~3%-5% of pts with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) and up to ~10% of pts with RAS/BRAF wild-type (WT) mCRC. The primary results of the MOUNTAINEER study (NCT03043313) demonstrated that the combination of tucatinib (TUC), a highly selective HER2-directed TKI, and trastuzumab (Tras) was well tolerated with clinically meaningful activity in pts with chemo-refractory HER2+ mCRC. Confirmed ORR was 38.1%, median DOR was 12.4 months, and median OS was 24.1 months. Here, we present results from the final analysis of MOUNTAINEER. Methods: MOUNTAINEER is a multi-center, open-label, randomized, phase 2 trial. Eligible pts had HER2+ and RAS WT mCRC with progression on or intolerance to last systemic therapy. Previous HER2-directed therapies were not permitted. The trial consisted of Cohort A, comprising pts treated with TUC (300 mg PO BID) + Tras (8 mg/kg IV then 6 mg/kg IV Q3W), as well as pts randomized 4:3 to receive TUC+Tras (Cohort B) or TUC monotherapy (Cohort C). Pts randomized to Cohort C were allowed to crossover and receive TUC+Tras on radiographic progression or if they did not achieve a complete or partial response by Week 12. Study endpoints evaluated at final analysis include DOR per BICR, PFS per BICR, OS, and safety. Results: The median duration of follow-up was 32.4 months (IQR, 25.1-46.7), with an additional 16.1 months of follow-up since the primary analysis (data cutoff, 02-Nov-2023). A total of 116 pts received at least 1 dose of study treatment (Cohorts A+B, N = 86; Cohort C, N = 30). In Cohorts A+B, median DOR per BICR was 15.2 months (95% CI, 8.9-20.5), median PFS per BICR was 8.1 months (95% CI, 4.2-10.2), and median OS was 23.9 months (95% CI, 18.7-28.3). In Cohort C post-crossover (N = 28), median DOR was not reached (95% CI, 2.8 months-NE). Median OS in Cohort C was 21.1 months (95% CI, 17.0-NE). The most common TEAEs in Cohorts A+B were diarrhea (66.3%), fatigue (44.2%), and nausea (34.9%). The majority of TEAEs were low grade, and rates were stable with longer follow-up. The most common grade ≥3 TEAE was hypertension (7.0%). TEAEs leading to TUC discontinuation in Cohorts A+B occurred in 5.8% of pts, which was unchanged from the primary analysis. In Cohort C, the most common TEAEs post-crossover were diarrhea (39.3%), back pain (21.4%), and pyrexia (21.4%); the most common grade ≥3 TEAE was AST increase (10.7%). No deaths resulted from TEAEs in any cohort and no new safety signals were identified. Conclusions: TUC+Tras continued to be well tolerated with sustained efficacy in pts with chemo-refractory RAS WT HER2+ mCRC, demonstrating clinically meaningful activity of the combination on longer follow-up. TUC+Tras is an important chemotherapy-free treatment option in HER2+ mCRC. TUC+Tras is being further evaluated in the first-line setting in combination with chemotherapy in the ongoing phase 3 MOUNTAINEER-03 trial (NCT05253651) for pts with HER2+ mCRC. Clinical trial information: NCT03043313 .