Molecular characterization of resected non-metastatic pancreatic cancer (PC) based on <i>KRAS</i> status.

A Angelo Pirozzi (Division of Hematology and Oncology, Mayo Clinic Arizona, Phoenix, AZ) E Ellen B. Jaeger (Tempus AI Inc., Chicago, IL) C Cody Eslinger (Department of Hematology and Oncology, Mayo Clinic Arizona, Phoenix, AZ) M Matina Fragkogianni (Tempus AI, Inc., Chicago, IL) U Unnati Jariwala (2Tempus AI, Inc., Chicago, United States) A Arya Ashok (Tempus AI Inc., Chicago, IL) N Naohiro Okano C Celine Hoyek (Division of Internal Medicine, Mayo Clinic Arizona, Phoenix, AZ) T Taro Shibuki B Binbin Zheng-Lin (Earle A. Chiles Research Institute, Portland, OR) O Oluseyi Abidoye (Division of Hematology and Oncology, Mayo Clinic Arizona, Phoenix, AZ) D Daniel H. Ahn (Division of Hematology and Oncology, Mayo Clinic Arizona, Phoenix, AZ) C Christina Wu (Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, AZ) M Mohamad Bassam Sonbol J John H. Strickler T Takayuki Yoshino (National Cancer Center Hospital East, Kashiwa, Japan) M Masafumi Ikeda L Lorenza Rimassa M Mitesh J. Borad (Department of Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, AZ) T Tanios S. Bekaii-Saab

Abstract

776 Background: Surgery is the only potentially curative option for PC. However, only a minority of patients (pts) undergo resection with current perioperative (periop)-chemotherapy (CT). In the absence of phase III trials, selection between mFOLFIRINOX and gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel (gem-nab) is based on limited evidence. We assessed whether NGS–based tumor profiling can guide tailoring of CT. Methods: pts with resected PC (resectable, borderline resectable, and downstaged locally advanced) that underwent Tempus xT, xF (DNA), and/or xR (RNA) testing were selected (89% tissue, 11% blood). Most samples (73%) were collected post-CT. Samples were stratified by KRAS status into KRAS -mutated ( KRAS mut) and KRAS wild-type ( KRAS wt). PD-L1 IHC was reported as tumor proportion score (TPS). Primary endpoint was median overall survival (mOS) defined from CT initiation to death with censoring of pts alive at the last follow-up or at a study cutoff of 5 years. Secondary endpoint was molecular profiling by KRAS status. Pearson chi-square and Wilcoxon rank-sum tests were used for descriptive comparisons; univariate Cox regression and log-rank tests (p&lt;0.05) for survival. Results: We included 1,325 pts (median age 66 years [IQR 59–72]) with resected PC [stage II (15%), stage III (12%) and stage I (10%), unknown (62%)]. 95% had adenocarcinoma. Pts received neoadjuvant (50%), neoadjuvant plus adjuvant (26%), neoadjuvant with indeterminate adjuvant allocation (13%) or adjuvant CT (11%). First-line periop-CT was mFOLFIRINOX in 73% and gem-nab in 27% (median duration 4.3 months (mo) [range, 2.6–6.7]). KRAS mutations were present in 75% (G12X 91%: G12D 44%, G12V 34%, G12R 21%, G12C &lt;1%). mOS was 26.7 mo (95%CI, 22.4-35.7) in the total cohort; KRAS mut pts showed a clinically meaningful worse mOS compared to KRAS wt [24.1 vs 35.7 mo; HR 1.61 (95%CI, 0.98 - 2.63); p=0.06]. In the KRAS G12D pts, mFOLFIRINOX showed a trend towards longer mOS compared to gem-nab [17.79 vs 14.53 mo; HR 0.75, (95% CI, 0.56 - 1); p=0.050]; no significant differences were observed in other KRAS subgroups. Compared to KRAS wt, KRAS mut pts were enriched for TP53 (76% vs 22%; p&lt;0.001), SMAD4 (28% vs 5.8%; p&lt;0.001), CDKN2A (33% vs 8.5%; p&lt;0.001), MTAP deletions (7.7% vs 1.2%; p&lt;0.001), and chromatin-regulator alterations ( ARID1A 7.8% vs 1.2%; p&lt;0.001; KMT2C 2.5% vs 0.6%; p=0.034). KRAS wt pts were enriched for BRAF V600E (1.5% vs 0%; p&lt;0.001). PD-L1 TPS ≥1% was more frequent in KRAS mut compared to KRAS wt (11.0% vs 8.1%; p=0.033). Conclusions: KRAS status does not predict benefit from mFOLFIRINOX vs gem-nab in resected PC. Interestingly, resected PC showed a higher prevalence of KRAS wt compared to the metastatic setting. KRAS status is associated with distinct profiles of potentially targetable co-alterations. These findings may suggest the integration of genomic profiling in clinical trials to develop biomarker-driven tailored strategies in the early stage.

Article Details

Volume / Issue Vol. 44, Issue 2_suppl
Published January 10, 2026
Pages 776-776
ISSN 0732-183X
Publisher Lippincott Williams & Wilkins

Journal Info

Journal of Clinical Oncology

Lippincott Williams & Wilkins

ISSN: 0732-183X Health Sciences

Authors (20)

A

Angelo Pirozzi

Division of Hematology and Oncology, Mayo Clinic Arizona, Phoenix, AZ

E

Ellen B. Jaeger

Tempus AI Inc., Chicago, IL

C

Cody Eslinger

Department of Hematology and Oncology, Mayo Clinic Arizona, Phoenix, AZ

M

Matina Fragkogianni

Tempus AI, Inc., Chicago, IL

U

Unnati Jariwala

2Tempus AI, Inc., Chicago, United States

A

Arya Ashok

Tempus AI Inc., Chicago, IL

N

Naohiro Okano

C

Celine Hoyek

Division of Internal Medicine, Mayo Clinic Arizona, Phoenix, AZ

T

Taro Shibuki

B

Binbin Zheng-Lin

Earle A. Chiles Research Institute, Portland, OR

O

Oluseyi Abidoye

Division of Hematology and Oncology, Mayo Clinic Arizona, Phoenix, AZ

D

Daniel H. Ahn

Division of Hematology and Oncology, Mayo Clinic Arizona, Phoenix, AZ

C

Christina Wu

Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, AZ

M

Mohamad Bassam Sonbol

J

John H. Strickler

T

Takayuki Yoshino

National Cancer Center Hospital East, Kashiwa, Japan

M

Masafumi Ikeda

L

Lorenza Rimassa

M

Mitesh J. Borad

Department of Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, AZ

T

Tanios S. Bekaii-Saab