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.

Purpose: Neuroendocrine neoplasms (NENs) are increasingly recognized to have a hereditary predilection, yet the prevalence and clinical relevance of pathogenic germline variants (PGVs) in unselected patients with NEN remain poorly defined. This prospective, multicenter study aimed to evaluate the prevalence and clinical utility of PGVs through universal multigene panel testing in a diverse cohort of patients with NENs. Patients and Methods: Between 2018 and 2024, we enrolled unselected patients with NENs from 3 Mayo Clinic Cancer Centers. Germline genetic testing was performed using a next-generation sequencing panel of up to 84 cancer predisposition genes. Patients were not selected based on age, disease stage, ethnicity, or family history. Variants were classified as PGVs, variants of uncertain significance (VUS), or negative. Clinical and demographic data were analyzed descriptively. Results: Among 88 patients, PGVs were identified in 15.9% (n=14), most frequently in high- or moderate-penetrance genes including MEN1 , CHEK2 , MITF , and MUTYH . PGVs were most commonly found in pancreatic NENs [n=12/55 (21.8%)], followed by small bowel NENs [n=2/20 (10%)], with no PGVs detected in lung NENs. Mismatch repair (MMR) gene alterations were identified in 5.7% of patients, including 1 MLH1 PGV and 4 MSH2/MSH6 VUS, 2 of which demonstrated MMR deficiency by protein testing. VUS were reported in 34.1% of patients. Notably, 35.7% of PGV-positive patients did not meet current NCCN or ACMG testing criteria, and 53.9% had PGVs in genes outside of cancer-specific guideline recommendations. Conclusions: Universal germline testing in unselected patients with NEN identified clinically relevant PGVs in over 15% of cases. These findings support broader genetic testing approaches to guide treatment, enhance familial risk assessment, and inform cascade testing—regardless of traditional clinical selection criteria.

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.

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.

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

4173 Background: [ 212 Pb]VMT-α-NET is an alpha-particle radiation-delivering agent targeted to somatostatin receptor type 2 (SSTR2)-expressing tumors. Here, we present safety and efficacy results from the dose-finding phase 1/2a clinical trial (NCT05636618). Methods: This phase 1/2a dose-escalation study uses a Bayesian algorithm to identify an optimal dose of [ 212 Pb]VMT-α-NET for participants with advanced, well-differentiated NETs expressing SSTR2. Eligible participants must have unresectable or metastatic disease, documented radiologic progression following at least one prior systemic treatment, and evidence of SSTR2 expression (Krenning Score ³2) in ≥1 lesion confirmed on an FDA-approved somatostatin receptor PET scan. Patients previously treated with systemic peptide receptor radionuclide therapy (PRRT) are excluded from enrollment. During the dose-finding phase, participants may receive up to four administrations of [ 212 Pb]VMT-α-NET at their assigned dose level, and they are monitored for dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) for 42 days and safety throughout the study. Efficacy is evaluated by investigators according to RECIST criteria v1.1. Dosimetry is included as a supportive analysis. Results: As of the 10-Dec-2025 data cut-off (DCO), 56 participants had been enrolled across Cohorts 1, 2, and 3 and received at least one dose of [ 212 Pb]VMT-α-NET: 2 participants in Cohort 1 (2.5 mCi), 46 in Cohort 2 (5 mCi), and 8 in Cohort 3 (6 mCi). No dose-limiting toxicities, grade 5 adverse events, treatment-related discontinuations, serious renal events, dysphagia, or clinically meaningful treatment-related myelosuppression were observed. The median follow-up for all treated participants was 40 weeks (range 6–97). Efficacy has been summarized in this abstract for 25 participants (2 in Cohort 1 and 23 in Cohort 2). Nineteen of these 25 participants remained progression-free at the time of the DCO, with a median efficacy follow-up of 49 weeks (range 6–97). In Cohort 2, investigators observed RECIST v1.1 objective responses in 9 of 23 participants (39%), including 8 confirmed responses. Both participants in Cohort 1 continued to exhibit stable disease after two years of follow-up. Updated safety for all participants and updated efficacy for participants with sufficient maturity beyond the 25 summarized here will be presented at the congress. Conclusions: Treatment with [ 212 Pb]VMT-α-NET continues to demonstrate a favorable safety profile across all treated participants (n = 56) and shows signs of sustained efficacy at the 2.5 mCi and 5 mCi dose levels. The therapy has been well-tolerated with no observed dose-limiting toxicities or serious treatment-related adverse outcomes. Based on these encouraging safety and efficacy findings, the study is ongoing, and enrollment into Cohort 3 (6 mCi) remains active. Clinical trial information: NCT05636618 .

Abstract Background: [212Pb]VMT-a-NET is a novel, next generation alpha therapy agent for advanced somatostatin receptor 2 positive (SSTR2+) neuroendocrine tumors (NETs). Here, we present safety and efficacy update from the dose-finding phase 1/2a clinical trial (NCT05636618). Methods: Adults with well-differentiated unresectable or metastatic NETs, who were peptide receptor radionuclide therapy-naïve, showed progressive disease after at least one prior line of systemic therapy and demonstrated SSTR2-expression on PET images were treated with up to four cycles of study therapy at the assigned dose level. Participants were followed for dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) observation up to 42 days after the first dose. Efficacy was evaluated by investigators according to RECIST criteria v1.1. Results: As of 10-Dec-2025 (data cut-off [DCO]) a total of 56 participants were enrolled into Cohorts 1, 2 and 3, and received at least 1 dose of [212Pb]VMT-a-NET (n=2 in Cohort 1, n=46 in Cohort 2, and n=8 in Cohort 3 at a dose level of 2.5 mCi, 5 mCi, and 6 mCi, respectively). For data analysis purposes, participants were categorized into two different groups: a safety group and an efficacy group. The safety group included all participants treated by the DCO (n=56), while the efficacy group included only the Cohort 1 participants (n=2) and the first half of participants treated in Cohort 2 (n=23). Among all participants treated with at least 1 dose of [212Pb]VMT-a-NET (n=56), no DLTs, no grade 5 adverse events (AEs), no treatment-related discontinuations, no serious renal complications, no dysphagia and no clinically significant treatment-related myelosuppression were observed. Median follow-up time for all patients treated was 40 weeks (range: 6-97). Among the 25 participants followed for efficacy (n=2 in Cohort 1 and n=23 in Cohort 2), 19 out of 25 were with no progression as of the DCO. Median follow-up time for participants included in the efficacy group was 49 weeks (range: 6-97). Investigator-assessed RECIST v1.1 objective responses were observed in 9 out of 23 participants (39%) enrolled in the first half of Cohort 2 (8 confirmed). The 2 patients enrolled in Cohort 1 at 2.5 mCi still have stable disease after 2 years of follow up. Updated safety outcomes for all participants along with updated efficacy findings for participants in Cohorts 1 and 2 with sufficient maturity will be presented during the congress. Conclusions: Treatment with [212Pb]VMT-α-NET continues to be well-tolerated among all patients treated (n=56), and to show promising efficacy at the dose levels of 2.5 mCi and 5 mCi. The study is ongoing with Cohort 3 (6 mCi) currently open for enrollment. Citation Format: Thorvardur R. Halfdanarson, Richard L. Wahl, Vineeth Sukrithan, Brandon R. Mancini, Seyed A. Mosallaie, Savitha Balaraman, Gregory S. Sibley, Jason Starr, Lowell B. Anthony, Chih Y. Liao, Samuel H. Mehr, Jared Weiss, Robert A. Ramirez, Lucia Baratto, Wenjing Yang, Alaa Hanna, Stephen M. Keefe, Markus Puhlmann, Vikas Prasad. [212Pb]VMT-a-NET in advanced SSTR2+ neuroendocrine tumors: safety and preliminary efficacy results from dose-finding cohorts 1,2 and 3 [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2026; Part 2 (Late-Breaking, Clinical Trial, and Invited Abstracts); 2026 Apr 17-22; San Diego, CA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2026;86(8_Suppl):Abstract nr CT088.

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.