Citations

Abstract Tumors of neuroendocrine origin are a heterogenous group of related neoplasms which can arise from anywhere in the body. Neuroendocrine neoplasms (NENs) are categorized by site of origin, differentiation status and grade (Ki‐67 expression and/or mitotic rate), with significant prognostic variability accordingly. Historically, the prevalence of bone metastasis is reported to be 6%–12% based on “first generation” (i.e., 111 Indium pentetreotide [Octreoscan®]) somatostatin receptor imaging (SSRI). We conducted a retrospective cohort study including patients with well‐differentiated NENs to determine the clinical and imaging characteristics of osseous metastases when evaluated with higher‐sensitivity 68 Gallium‐DOTATATE positron emission tomography (PET) scans, as well as determining fracture prevalence in selected sub‐cohorts. We also developed a risk score analysis to assess risk of fracture in this cohort. Four hundred twenty‐four patients were identified for inclusion. The median age was 61 years. Most patients were asymptomatic (64%), had sclerotic lesions (77%), Krenning 4 (71%), and had >3 sites (69%) of osseous disease. A high proportion of patients had osseous metastases at sites with high risk for fracture, including vertebra (82%), pelvis (63%), and peri‐trochanteric femur (34%). Fifty‐seven patients (13%) in the entire cohort suffered a fracture. Fracture prevalence was significantly lower in small bowel neuroendocrine tumors (NETs, 7%) and Grades 1 and 2 disease (8% and 9%, respectively), with higher prevalence in pancreatic NETs, paragangliomas/pheochromocytomas, lung carcinoid, and Grade 3 disease (≥20% for each; p ‐values <.05). Our study showed that the rate of osseous metastatic disease approximates 20% in well‐differentiated NENs. Most bone metastases are asymptomatic and the risk of fracture is variable based on the primary site of disease and tumor grade. Our novel risk score analysis for fracture was designed to assist clinician decision making as to management of bone metastasis in this patient population.

Abstract Everolimus 10 mg daily is the standard dose for advanced neuroendocrine tumors (NETs), but adverse events frequently necessitate dose reduction. As a result, oncologists often adopt a dose‐escalation strategy starting at 5 mg and increasing the dose as tolerated. In this multicenter study, we evaluated the effect of reduced dose (RD) and standard dose (SD) everolimus on survival, progression, and toxicity in patients with advanced NETs. We conducted a multicenter retrospective cohort study of patients with advanced NETs treated with everolimus at Mayo Clinic and University Hospitals (Cleveland, OH). Patients were grouped by starting dose (5 mg vs. 10 mg). Primary endpoints were overall survival (OS), real‐world progression‐free survival (rwPFS), and adverse events. Multivariable Cox models, inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW), and time‐varying dose sensitivity analysis were used to account for confounding and dose crossover. Among 170 patients (48 started on 5 mg; 122 on 10 mg), the 5 mg cohort was older, had worse ECOG PS, and was more heavily pretreated. Median OS was 43.7 months (5 mg) versus 81.5 months (10 mg; log‐rank p = .02). However, after multivariable adjustment ( N = 124 G1–G2 patients; 51 events), the association was no longer statistically significant (adjusted HR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.31–1.12; p = .11). Median rwPFS was 7.0 versus 12.4 months (log‐rank p = .05); the adjusted rwPFS difference was not statistically significant (HR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.56–1.61; p = .84). Nearly half (46.7%) of 10 mg starters required dose reduction. Any‐grade toxicity was more common with 10 mg (89% vs. 75%; p = .05). The apparent survival advantage of standard‐dose everolimus was substantially attenuated after adjustment. These findings do not establish dose equivalence and should be interpreted in the context of limited statistical power. Given its more favorable observed tolerability profile, RD everolimus warrants prospective evaluation as a starting strategy for patients at increased risk of treatment‐related toxicity who may not tolerate SD.

Background: Colorectal neuroendocrine carcinomas (NECs), including small cell (SCNEC) and large cell (LCNEC) subtypes, are rare but aggressive malignancies with limited population-level data. Moreover, prior studies have limited stratification by histologic subtype and anatomic location, despite evidence of disease heterogeneity in colorectal malignancies. This study aimed to characterize the clinical characteristics, treatment patterns, and outcomes of colorectal NEC by histologic subtype and tumor location, and to compare them with neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) and adenocarcinomas (ACs). Methods: A retrospective cohort review was conducted utilizing the SEER database from 2000 to 2022 to identify patients with colorectal SCNEC, LCNEC, NET, and AC. Demographic, clinical, therapeutic and survival data were analyzed and compared using Kaplan–Meier methods, log-rank tests, and Cox proportional hazards regression. Results: A total of 790 SCNEC, 498 LCNEC, 31,200 NET, and 638,898 AC cases were identified. SCNEC and LCNEC were associated with advanced stage at diagnosis (66% and 55% stage IV, respectively) and inferior survival outcomes compared to NET and AC (median OS (mOS) of 7 and 8 months for SCNEC and LCNEC, respectively, p = 0.0002). Stratified by location, colonic SCNEC had the poorest survival (mOS 5 months), worse than rectal SCNEC (mOS 9 months); this pattern was not observed in LCNEC. Surgical resection was associated with improved OS in both NEC subtypes (HR range 0.25–0.56, all p < 0.012). Radiation therapy was associated with improved survival in NEC overall (SCNEC HR 0.58; LCNEC HR 0.71, both p < 0.05), with the observed benefit appearing greatest in rectal NEC. Demographic factors were associated with survival in NET and AC but had no significant impact in NEC. Conclusions: Colorectal SCNEC and LCNEC are highly aggressive malignancies with poor outcomes, with SCNEC demonstrating modestly inferior outcomes compared to LCNEC. This study demonstrates that both histologic subtype and anatomic site of disease are important determinants of prognosis and treatment response. This supports the concept that colorectal NEC represents a biologically heterogeneous disease, with colonic SCNEC showing the worst outcomes and rectal NEC associated with a potential enhanced response to radiation. These findings support the need for further prospective and molecular studies to better define treatment approaches and targeted therapies for these rare malignancies.

TPS6126 Background: Oral cavity cancers (OCC) are a rare subtype of head and neck cancer (HNC) with poor outcomes and limited second-line treatment options in the recurrent or metastatic (R/M) setting. Treatment-related morbidity and repeated local recurrences in OCC result in significant impairment of function and quality of life. Rural OCC patients comprise a sizable portion (50%) of our practice and are usually of lower socioeconomic status with lack of access to specialist care. They also have multiple barriers to treatment access and ancillary services, translating to poorer clinical outcomes. There is a critical need for effective and accessible therapies for R/M OCC in rural patients. Triple oral metronomic chemotherapy (TOMC) with Methotrexate, Erlotinib and Celecoxib (MEC) suppresses angiogenesis and activates antitumor microenvironment in HNC. Studies using TOMC in R/M OCC outside the US show reasonable efficacy (6-month OS 52.9%), better safety and lower cost compared to standard second line options. We hypothesize that a decentralized clinical trial with TOMC in R/M OCC is feasible, safe and effective in addition to being economical and accessible for rural patients. Methods: MC240701 is a single institution, open label, decentralized, single arm pilot study of MEC in patients with R/M OCC. Eligible pts must be ≥18 years old, have pathologically confirmed R/M OCC not amenable to curative-intent therapy, ECOG 0-2 and adequate organ function. At least 1 measurable lesion by RECIST 1.1 OR non-measurable disease (evident mucosal lesions, CNS/bone disease, lesions not meeting RECIST criteria) is permitted. Patients must have received standard first line immunotherapy with or without chemotherapy OR should be unable/unwilling to receive first line treatment. Key exclusion criteria include patients unable to take pills by mouth, serious medical co-morbidity or autoimmune disease, immunocompromised patients and other active malignancy. Primary endpoint is to demonstrate feasibility of decentralized clinical trials, secondary outcomes include overall response rate, progression free and overall survival and toxicity. Additional goals are to evaluate patient impact of decentralized treatment through surveys and interviews After initial screening and evaluation, patients are remotely consented and will receive study drugs by mail. All patients will receive the same treatment of Methotrexate 9mg/m 2 PO weekly, Erlotinib 150 mg PO daily, and Celecoxib 200 mg PO BID, each cycle will be 28 days. Treatment will continue until disease progression or treatment tolerance, study duration is for 2 years. All subsequent clinical and laboratory monitoring and response assessments (every 3 cycles) will be remotely performed or have an option for local testing. Enrollment began July 2025 and 4 out of planned 25 patients have been accrued. FDA IND:174540. Clinical trial information: NCT06997068 .

e18026 Background: Immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy is part of standard of care first-line therapy for recurrent or metastatic (R/M) HNSCC. However, less than 20% of patients (CPS ≥1) have an objective response to ICI monotherapy, and most tumors progress within ~3 months. We sought to improve the proportion of patients who benefit from a chemotherapy-free regimen by combining intratumoral (IT) VV1 oncolytic virus (VSV-IFNβ-NIS) injections with the anti-PD-1 antibody, cemiplimab. We report a pre-planned analysis of Simon's stage 1 results. Methods: We activated a phase 2 study testing the efficacy of first line IT VV1 plus cemiplimab in 1 st line patients with R/M HNSCC. A Simon's two-stage design was employed whereby 10 patients would be accrued in stage 1, and if 3 or more responses were observed, 12 additional patients would be accrued for stage 2. The primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR) per investigator (RECIST 1.1). Eligible patients had untreated R/M HNSCC from primary oropharynx, oral cavity, hypopharynx, or larynx sites with CPS ≥1. Patients had to have at least one measurable lesion amenable to IT injection. Treatment comprised of IT injections to 1-5 lesions of oncolytic VV-1 virus and IV cemiplimab 350 mg on day 1, repeated every 21 days. Each lesion could be injected 3 times; a 4th injection was allowed if a partial response (PR) was achieved after 3 injections. Cemiplimab could be continued for up to 2 years until progression or unacceptable toxicity. Results: Patient and tumor characteristics, as well as efficacy and toxicity are summarized in the table below. Ten patients were treated at the time of Stage 1 analysis, with 3 showing a confirmed PR for ORR of 30%. Responder CPS scores were 45, 12 and 20%. Two of the responders subsequently showed progression after 6.2 and 9.9 months, the third has maintained PR at 7.7 months to date. Eight of 10 patients showed decrease in the sum of target lesion size (mean decrease of 16%; range -57 to 77%). One grade 2 event of ICI nephritis resolved with corticosteroid treatment. Conclusions: Three patients showed confirmed PR by RECIST 1.1 in Simon's stage 1, meeting criteria to proceed to Simon's stage 2. A total of 22 patients in the HNSCC will be enrolled. VV1 plus cemiplimab shows promise in first line R/M HNSCC based on these initial results. Clinical trial information: NCT04291105 . Patient demographics. N (treated) 10 Sex 20% female Median age (y) 60 (54 – 76) Oropharynx 7 HPV+ 7 Oral cavity 3 PD-L1 CPS median (range) 7.5 (1-45%) Locoregional injection 3 Distant injection 6 Local and distant injection 1 Best response (RECIST 1.1) PR 3 SD 5 PD 2 Adverse Events #pts any VV1/cemiplimab-related G3 AE 4 Lymphopenia 3 Elevated ALK 1

e16323 Background: Advanced EP-NEC are typically treated with the combination of platinum plus etoposide. Despite therapy, outcomes remain poor, with reported median overall survival (OS) of 12-13 months. Early initiation of systemic therapy is commonly practiced given the aggressiveness; however, recent data from small cell lung carcinoma (SCLC) suggest that shorter TTI does not necessarily improve OS. The impact of TTI on outcomes in EP-NEC has not been well studied. Methods: We conducted a multicenter retrospective cohort study across three Mayo Clinic sites including adults with biopsy-confirmed stage IV EP-NEC diagnosed between 2005 and 2025. TTI was defined as days from pathologic diagnosis to initiation of first-line systemic therapy. A binary cutoff (≤14 vs > 14 days) was determined using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis, and TTI was also analyzed as a continuous variable. OS and progression-free survival (PFS) were estimated using the Kaplan–Meier method and evaluated using Cox proportional hazards models. Multivariable analyses adjusted for age, sex, ECOG performance status, presence of liver metastases, and first-line treatment strategy (chemotherapy alone vs chemotherapy plus immunotherapy). Results: Among 248 pts, median age was 61 years. Median OS for the cohort was 13.9 months (95% CI, 11.7–16.7), and median PFS was 5.7 months (95% CI, 5.3–6.3). Pts with TTI > 14 days had longer median OS compared with those treated within ≤14 days (16.4 vs 10.1 months), with improved OS on unadjusted analysis (HR 0.69, 95% CI 0.50–0.96; p = 0.028), though this association was not statistically significant after multivariable adjustment (HR 0.74, 95% CI 0.53–1.05; p = 0.097). Pts with TTI > 14 days also had longer median PFS compared with ≤14 days (6.5 vs 4.8 months), with improved PFS on unadjusted analysis (HR 0.67, 95% CI 0.51–0.88; p = 0.0038). On multivariable analysis, TTI > 14 days remained independently associated with improved PFS (HR 0.75, 95% CI 0.56–1.00; p = 0.047). However, when analyzed as a continuous variable, TTI was not independently associated with OS (HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.98–1.00; p = 0.173) or PFS (HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.98–1.00; p = 0.089). Conclusions: In this multicenter cohort of pts with metastatic EP-NEC, earlier initiation of systemic therapy (≤14 days) was not associated with improved overall survival, and longer time-to-treatment was independently associated with improved PFS. However, when TTI was analyzed as a continuous variable, no statistically significant associations were observed, suggesting that the observed benefit with delayed treatment may reflect pt selection or clinical context rather than a direct biological effect. These findings may provide reassurance in scenarios where short delays are necessary—for biomarker testing or clinical trial enrollment—and highlight the need for further investigation in the era of precision oncology.

6123 Background: Pemetrexed (PTX) is safe and tolerable with responses reported in pts with R/M SGC. Given enhanced responses with PTX and pembrolizumab (PMB) for lung cancer, we hypothesized that PTX and PMB will have activity for SGC. Herein we present the efficacy results in pts with adenoid cystic carcinoma (ACC). Methods: MC200708 is a single arm phase II study of PTX and PMB in pts with R/M SGC (NCT04895735) with 2 cohorts: ACC (cohort A) and non-ACC (cohort B). Key eligibility criteria: ≥18 years, ECOG 0-1, measurable disease. Prior ICI and/or PTX was allowed. Key exclusion criteria: serious comorbidities, autoimmune disease and brain metastases. Simon’s 2-stage design was used for each cohort. Primary endpoint was overall response rate (ORR) for Cohort A but was amended to clinical benefit rate (CBR=SD+PR+CR) due to prolonged SD in several pts. Secondary endpoints: progression free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and toxicity. Exploratory analyses in Cohort A1 (post-amendment pts) included PSMA PET imaging and circulating PSMA extravesicles (EVs) as a biomarker. All pts received PTX 500 mg/m2 IV + PMB 200 mg IV q3 weeks until progression or treatment intolerance. Imaging was q3 cycles. Results: 20 pts (11 Cohort A + 9 Cohort A1) were enrolled from August 2021-Feb 2025. All 20 patients were eligible and received ≥ 1 cycle of treatment. Median age was 60.5 yrs, 50% male, performance status 0 (80%) or 1 (20%). 11 pts had no prior therapies (55.0%). The remaining pts had 1 (35%) or 2 (10%) prior lines of therapy. 75% of pts had no prior ICI. In Cohort A, the ORR was 0% (0 of 11). Cohort A1 met criteria for success based on CBR with 1 PR (12.5%) and 5 SD (62.5%) in the first 8 pts. For the whole cohort of 20 patients, the ORR was 5% (95% CI: 0.1-24.9) and the CBR rate was 75% (95% CI: 51-91) with 1 PR and 14 pts with SD. The duration of response for the 1 PR patient was 12.4 months. The median duration of response for the 15 pts with SD was 7.5 (2.0-29.7) months. 3 pts (15%) had PD and 2 pts (10%) went off prior to response assessment. Median cycles of treatment was 4 (2-30). In the 17 pts who discontinued, treatment was stopped in 9 (53%) for PD, 4 (23.5%) due to adverse events (AE), and 4 (23.5%) due to physician/patient preference. With a median follow-up of 14.5 months (1.5-39.2), the 1-year PFS rate is 52.1% (32.6 – 83.2%) and the OS rate is 82.1% (95% CI: 65.6 – 100%). The overall grade 3+ AE rate regardless of attribution was 80% (16/20). The most common grade 3 AEs were lymphocyte count decrease (40%), hypertension (20%), fatigue (10%), and pneumonitis (10%). 2 pts had a grade 4 AE (lymphocyte count decrease and thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura). There were no treatment-related deaths. Analysis of correlative studies for Cohort A1 with PSMA imaging and EV biomarker ongoing. Conclusions: PTX and PMB has modest activity in pts with R/M ACC with CBR of 75% and prolonged benefit for some patients. Clinical trial information: NCT04895735 .

Management of locoregionally advanced human papillomavirus-positive oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (HPV(+) OPSCC) can include induction chemotherapy followed by definitive chemoradiation. The standard induction regimen of cisplatin, docetaxel, and 5-fluorouracil (TPF) is associated with high toxicity. Given the chemosensitivity of HPV(+) OPSCC, platinum doublets are frequently used as induction therapy with potentially less toxicity. This retrospective study aimed to compare outcomes between treatment-naive HPV(+) OPSCC patients receiving induction TPF and those receiving an induction platinum doublet. Data collected included tumor characteristics, response after chemoradiation, hospitalization rates, and overall survival (OS). Fifty-five patients (18 TPF and 37 platinum doublet) were included. There was no significant difference in response after completion of definitive chemoradiation (TPF: CR 83.3%, PR 5.6%, progression or metastasis 11.1% vs. platinum doublet: CR 75.7%, PR 16.2%, progression or metastasis 8.1%; p = 0.5241). There were also no differences in hospitalizations for adverse events (38.9% in TPF vs. 40.5% in platinum doublet, p = 0.907) or recurrence (11.1% in TPF vs. 2.7% in platinum doublet, p = 0.198). The 5-year OS was 84.6% in the TPF group and 81.5% in the platinum doublet group (p = 0.581). Induction platinum doublet regimens offer comparable OS, response, and hospitalization rates to TPF in locally advanced HPV(+) OPSCC. Induction with a platinum doublet may be a viable de-escalation strategy for patients who are not candidates for TPF.

IMPORTANCE Neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy has high rates of pathologic response and improved prognosis among solid tumors. Its role in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) remains understudied. OBJECTIVE To summarize the efficacy associated with neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy regimens in HNSCC and to compare the efficacy associated with neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy vs immunotherapy alone in locoregionally advanced resectable HNSCC prior to definitive surgery. DATA SOURCES A librarian-led systematic review was conducted using multiple electronic databases, including Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Scopus, following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta- Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Databases were queried from inception to October 2024. STUDY SELECTION Inclusion criteria included prospective interventional trials that have completed accrual, with results published in English. Only trials of resectable, treatment-naive HNSCC were included. Exclusion criteria included lack of reporting on pathologic response or Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors (RECIST) version 1.1 response. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS Two investigators independently conducted title, abstract, and full-text reviews per PRISMA guidelines. Primary outcomes extracted were major pathologic response (MPR) and complete pathologic response (CPR) at surgery and complete response (CR) on imaging by RECIST 1.1. Secondary outcomes included 1-year overall survival (OS) and toxic effects. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES A meta-analysis was performed using a binary random-effects model to determine the pooled proportion of primary outcomes in the immunotherapy and chemoimmunotherapy groups. Heterogeneity was reported as I 2 . RESULTS A total of 751 patients (502 [77%] male; age range, 27-87 years) across 23 studies were included in the meta-analysis, including 357 patients (47%) who underwent chemoimmunotherapy, 102 patients (14%) who underwent dual-agent immunotherapy, and 292 patients (39%) who underwent single-agent immunotherapy. Pooled rates of MPR plus CPR were 66% (95% CI, 58%-73%; I 2 = 0.59) for chemoimmunotherapy, 18% (95% CI, 6%-29%; I 2 = 0.65) for dual-agent immunotherapy, and 6% (95% CI, 3%-9%; I 2 &amp;lt; 0.01) for single-agent immunotherapy. Across all groups, 1-year OS rates ranged from 88% to 96% for single-agent immunotherapy, 88% to 96% for dual-agent immunotherapy, and 88% to 100% for chemoimmunotherapy. Grade 3 to 5 adverse events were reported in 61 of 210 patients (29%), 2 of 67 patients (3.0%), and 36 of 210 patients (17%) among the reporting studies in the single-agent immunotherapy, dual-agent immunotherapy, and chemoimmunotherapy groups, respectively. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE These findings suggest that neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy regimens were associated with higher pathologic and radiographic response rates compared with immunotherapy alone in locoregionally advanced HNSCC. These results call for phase 3 trials comparing these neoadjuvant regimens head to head.

622 Background: Colorectal small and large cell neuroendocrine carcinoma (SCNEC and LCNEC) comprise <1% of colorectal cancers and have poor prognosis. Detailed survival information is limited due to rarity. We analyzed survival outcomes using Survival, Epidemiology, and End Result (SEER) database (2000-2022) and compared with NETs and adenocarcinoma (AC). Methods: All patients with SCNEC, LCNEC, NETs or AC with colorectal primaries were extracted. AJCC stage was calculated with 8 th ed. TNM classification. Kaplan-Meier estimator, log-rank test, and Cox regression (including AJCC stage, surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy variables) were used to analyze survival outcomes. Results: Comparing colon and rectal primaries, the only significant mOS difference was in stage IV SCNEC (2 vs 7 months, p<0.0001). Comparing LCNEC and SCNEC, the only significant mOS difference was in stage IV colon SCNEC and LCNEC (2 vs 5 months, p<0.0001). Stage III and IV colorectal SCNEC and LCNEC had significantly shorter mOS than stage III and IV AC and NETs. In multivariate Cox regressions, surgery and chemotherapy were associated with significantly improved survival for both SCNEC and LCNEC at both primaries (p<0.001), while radiation was never significant. Conclusions: Most colorectal SCNEC and LCNEC patients present with stage IV disease. Stage IV colon SCNEC had significantly shorter mOS than both stage IV colon LCNEC and stage IV rectal SCNEC. Further research should explore early diagnosis and effective therapies for this rare, aggressive malignancy. Median overall survival (months) Colon SCNEC (n/mOS) Colon LCNEC (n/mOS) Colon NETs (n/mOS) Colon AC (n/mOS) SCNEC vs NETs in colon: P-value LCNEC vs NETs in colon: P-value SCNEC vs AC in colon: P-value LCNEC vs AC in colon: P-value SCNEC vs LCNEC in colon: P-value Rectal SCNEC (n/mOS) Rectal LCNEC (n/mOS) Rectal NETs (n/mOS) Rectal AC (n/mOS) SCNEC vs NETs in rectum: P-value LCNEC vs NETs in rectum: P-value SCNEC vs AC in rectum P-value LCNEC vs AC in rectum SCNEC vs LCNEC in rectum: P-value Colon SCNEC vs rectal SCNEC P-value Colon LCNEC vs rectal LCNEC: P-value Stage I 19/32 17/122 4496/NA 114,213/144 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 0.34 0.25 27/23 10/28 5185/NA 54,702/160 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 0.00047 0.88 0.99 0.24 Stage II 17/38 30/49 259/NA 121,757/106 0.0015 <0.0001 0.4 0.0068 0.65 17/16 3/NA 33/NA 38,417/106 <0.0001 0.57 <0.0001 0.87 0.3 0.065 0.55 Stage III 40/14 107/13 582/184 104,793/82 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 0.48 50/19 37/17 103/102 46,687/107 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 0.45 0.48 0.47 Stage IV 245/2 217/5 393/49 83,542/13 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 260/7 57/6 158/36 36,652/17 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 0.25 <0.0001 0.95