Citations

The recent approval of encorafenib, cetuximab, and FOLFOX based on the phase III BREAKWATER trial has introduced a new standard of care for the first-line treatment of BRAF V600E–mutated metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). However, its safety and efficacy in patients with significant liver dysfunction remains unclear and, as such, patients are often excluded from pivotal clinical trials. This report presents a case of BRAF V600E–mutated mCRC presenting with extensive hepatic involvement and liver dysfunction. Despite the absence of guidelines, the patient was initiated on full-dose encorafenib, cetuximab, and FOLFOX. He experienced a rapid clinical and biochemical response, with near-normalization of liver enzymes after cycle 1, and complete functional recovery by cycle 3. Treatment was well tolerated, with no significant adverse events throughout 9 cycles. He subsequently transitioned to maintenance 5-FU, cetuximab, and encorafenib. Posttreatment blood-based next-generation sequencing revealed no residual actionable mutations. The patient then successfully underwent complete surgical resection of his primary tumor and metastatic disease with negative margins. This case highlights the importance of considering encorafenib-based therapy in select patients with BRAF V600E–mutated mCRC in the setting of compromised liver function.

TPS1679 Background: Cancer care in the United States remains highly centralized, imposing substantial time, caregiver, and financial burdens on patients, particularly those residing in rural and medically underserved regions. While international experience supports the feasibility of home-based cancer therapy delivery, prospective U.S. clinical trial data are limited. The Cancer CARE Beyond Walls (CCBW) program was developed to address these gaps through a decentralized cancer care model integrating virtual oversight, remote monitoring, mobile clinical services, and community-based nursing partners. The study evaluates the feasibility, safety, and patient-centered impact of delivering cancer-directed therapy in patients’ homes or near-home mobile units in the Florida Panhandle, a region characterized by long travel distances to tertiary centers and limited oncology infrastructure. Methods: This is a phase 2, single-arm clinical trial evaluating the delivery of standard-of-care cancer-directed therapy outside of traditional infusion centers. Eligible adult patients (ECOG 0–3) with histologically confirmed malignancies receiving guideline-supported or FDA-approved systemic cancer therapy must demonstrate tolerability of at least one prior in-clinic treatment cycle. Following registration, patients transition to home-based or near-home mobile unit administration for a minimum of 12 weeks, with an option to continue up to 24 weeks. Care delivery is coordinated through a virtual command center providing real-time virtual oversight, remote monitoring, and escalation pathways. Treatment administration is performed by trained local home health nurses, medication shipping, and digital interaction with the electronic health record. A fully equipped mobile unit extends access to rural areas not covered by home health agencies. The primary endpoint is patient preference for treatment location at week 12. Secondary endpoints include safety, avoidable acute care utilization, patient-reported function and global health/quality of life, patient-reported symptoms, and satisfaction with care. Exploratory endpoints assess travel burden, patient perceptions of caregiver experience, and patient perceptions of home versus mobile unit care. Enrollment of 27 patients will provide 80% power to reject a 50% null rate (2-sided exact test, α=0.10), assuming 75% prefer decentralized care or express no preference. This investigator-initiated trial is open to accrual and is supported by a grant from the Florida Cancer Innovation Fund. Clinical trial information: NCT07285044 .

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.

Background/Objectives: Locoregional anal squamous cell carcinoma (ASCC) is usually cured with chemoradiotherapy; however, some patients relapse, require salvage abdominoperineal resection or develop metastatic disease. Approximately 90% of cases are driven by high-risk human papillomavirus, most commonly HPV16. Conventional surveillance using clinical examination and imaging may have limited sensitivity and specificity and is not individualized by recurrence risk. Circulating biomarkers (CBs), particularly circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA), have emerged as promising methods for real-time disease monitoring. We systematically reviewed available evidence evaluating CBs across treatment timepoints in localized ASCC. Methods: A PROSPERO-registered review (ID: 1133987) was conducted according to PRISMA guidelines. PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL, Web of Science, and major conference proceedings (ASCO, ESMO, ASTRO) were searched on 30 November 2025. We included prospective or retrospective studies (≥10 patients) with stage I–III disease treated with curative-intent chemoradiotherapy that reported CBs, assay characteristics, and at least one clinical outcome. Studies with predominantly localized cohorts were included even if small proportions of metastatic patients were present, provided results relevant to curative-intent populations could be interpreted. Data were synthesized narratively by timepoint (baseline, mid-treatment, end of treatment, post-treatment/surveillance) and assay type given methodological heterogeneity. Results: Fifteen studies were included. CB assays comprised four categories: viral HPV ctDNA assays, tumor-informed ctDNA assays, non-specific total cell-free DNA (cfDNA) quantification, and circulating tumor cell (CTC)-based assays. Baseline detection rates varied by assay type. Viral HPV ctDNA assays demonstrated detection rates of 59–100%, while tumor-informed ctDNA assays showed rates of 79–89%. Across studies, higher CB detection rates and levels were generally associated with greater tumor burden, including more advanced T and N stage disease. Mid-treatment ctDNA clearance identified patients with excellent locoregional control and progression-free survival, whereas persistent ctDNA was associated with treatment failure. End-of-treatment and surveillance ctDNA positivity predicted recurrence within individual cohorts, with reported sensitivities of 80–90%, specificities of 95–99%, and molecular lead times preceding clinical or radiographic detection. In contrast, non-tumor-specific cfDNA dynamics showed more variable prognostic associations and were less consistently linked to tumor burden. Conclusions: Across heterogeneous assays, CB dynamics provide clinically meaningful prognostic information in localized ASCC, particularly when measured during treatment and early surveillance. Viral HPV and tumor-informed ctDNA may have the potential to guide follow-up intensity and inform future escalation or de-escalation strategies; however, prospective, standardized trials are needed to define actionable thresholds and test ctDNA-guided management.

PURPOSE Artificial intelligence (AI) has been rapidly evolving in medicine. While there are existing data about the perceptions and concerns of health care workers regarding AI, those of the hematology and oncology (HemOnc) workforce remain unknown. We assessed opinions of physicians (faculty and fellows), advanced practice providers (APPs), and nurses in HemOnc on integrating AI in medical education (MedEd) and clinical practice (CP). METHODS Group-specific electronic surveys were developed. The HemOnc workforce from the three Mayo Clinic sites was invited to participate. Participation was anonymous, with data collection between November 7, 2024, and January 20, 2025. Results were reported as proportions, with 95% binomial CI when appropriate. RESULTS A total of 344 participants responded, 118 physicians (77 faculty, 41 fellows), 49 APPs, and 177 nurses. Most had used AI although less than half felt very or moderately knowledgeable about it. A total of 95% of fellows, 97% of faculty physicians, 96% of APP, and 92% of nurses believe that AI will be integrated in MedEd. A total of 94% of physicians and 88% of nonphysicians believe that this integration would be beneficial. In CP, 98% of fellows, 96% of faculty physicians, 100% of APPs, and 92% of nurses believe in AI's integration. However, 51% of physicians and 68% of nonphysicians had some concerns, including technology time, medical costs, and burnout. Nonetheless, 85% of fellows, 94% of faculty physicians, 98% of APPs, and 86% of nurses would embrace AI. CONCLUSION The majority of this single health system HemOnc's workforce endorsed AI integration into MedEd and CP but highlighted relevant concerns. Proper education, effective partnership among all stakeholders, and well-organized integration are essential for optimizing AI's incorporation into HemOnc's MedEd and CP and ensuring that it fully supports the mission of providing high-quality patient care.

PURPOSE Gastroesophageal carcinoma (GEC) is increasingly managed using biomarker-guided therapies. Although both tissue DNA (tDNA) and circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) testing are used clinically, the concordance of genomic alterations between primary tumors, metastatic sites, and liquid biopsy remains incompletely understood. METHODS We retrospectively analyzed 345 patients with GEC who underwent ctDNA testing at Mayo Clinic. tDNA next-generation sequencing and immunohistochemistry (IHC) for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)/erb-b2 receptor tyrosine kinase 2 ( ERBB2 ) and mismatch repair (MMR) were collected. Concordance was evaluated between ctDNA and tDNA, ctDNA and IHC, and across all three modalities, using 60-day and 30-day intervals. RESULTS Among 345 patients with ctDNA testing, 186 had tDNA testing, and 310 underwent IHC. ctDNA testing showed a shorter turnaround time than tDNA (median 6 v 13 days). The most frequent alteration in ctDNA, primary tDNA, and metastatic tDNA was TP53. Concordance between ctDNA and primary tDNA was ≥78.8% for key genes; between ctDNA and metastatic tDNA, it was ≥84.8%. IHC-ctDNA concordance was higher in metastatic tumors, with 91.1% for HER2/ ERBB2 and 97.7% for mismatch repair (MMR)/microsatellite instability (MSI) compared with 81.1% and 95.8%, respectively, in primary tumors. Triplet concordance for MSI/MMR was 97.6% in primary tumors and 100% in metastatic tumors, while ERBB2 /HER2 showed 84.4% and 93.9% concordance, respectively. ctDNA temporal heterogeneity analysis revealed 14 patients with fluctuating ERBB2 status and 3 with fluctuating MSI-H status. CONCLUSION ctDNA testing demonstrates high concordance with tDNA and IHC and offers faster turnaround. Given its minimally invasive nature and strong concordance with tissue-based testing, ctDNA is a reliable tool for genomic profiling and longitudinal monitoring in GEC.