Changes in Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy: General (FACT-G) to predict treatment response and survival outcomes in patients with metastatic gastrointestinal (GI) cancer

6570

Background: The FACT-G contains 27 questions within 4 subscale domains [Physical Well-Being, Social/Family Well-Being, Emotional Well-Being, Functional Well-Being] related to health-related quality of life (QOL) in the past 7 days, with higher scoring indicating better QOL. In this prospective cohort study, we assessed longitudinal FACT-G data with treatment response and survival outcomes among patients with metastatic GI cancer. Methods: From 5/2019-11/2021, we enrolled patients at Massachusetts General Hospital with metastatic GI cancer to study before their treatment start. We collected the FACT-G survey at baseline (start of treatment) and 1-month later. We then used regression models to assess associations of 1-month changes in FACT-G with treatment response and survival outcomes (progression-free survival [PFS] and overall survival [OS]). For treatment response, clinical benefit was defined as decreased or stable tumor burden versus progressive disease at the time of first scan. All models were adjusted for baseline values of each respective variable. Results: We enrolled 203 of 262 patients approached (77.5% enrollment); 160 had 1-month follow-up data (median age = 63.0 years [range: 28.0-84.0 years], 66.3% male, 45.6% pancreaticobiliary cancer). For treatment response, 66.3% experienced a clinical benefit and 33.8% had progressive disease at the time of first scan (mean time to first scan = 2.7 months). Increases in FACT-G Total were predictors for treatment response (OR = 1.05, p = 0.0028), and improved PFS (HR = 0.98, p = 0.026) and OS (HR = 0.98, p = 0.038). Increases in FACT-G Emotional were associated with clinical benefit at the time of first scan (OR = 1.18, p = 0.0024), improved PFS (HR = 0.94, p = 0.023), and improved OS (HR = 0.93, p = 0.012). Improvement in FACT-G Physical were predictors for clinical benefit at time of first scan (OR = 1.08, p = 0.038) and better PFS (HR = 0.96, p = 0.038), while increases in FACT-G Functional were associated with improved PFS (HR = 0.96, p = 0.034) and OS (HR = 0.96, p = 0.019). Finally, changes in FACT-G Social were only associated with treatment response (OR = 1.16, p = 0.011). Conclusions: We found that 1-month increases in FACT-G can predict for treatment response and improved survival outcomes in patients with metastatic GI cancers. Notably, the FACT-G Total and FACT-G Emotional subscore predicted for all three outcomes of interest, while the FACT-G Social only predicted for clinical benefit at first scan. These data support previous findings indicating the possible use of early changes in patient-reported outcomes as a biomarker for early treatment response while emphasizing the growing need to integrate more patient-centric interventions into clinical care for cancer patients. Clinical trial information: NCT04776837.

Evaluation of weight gain and overall survival of patients with advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treated with first-line platinum-based chemotherapy

9088

Background: Cachexia is a multifactorial syndrome frequently associated with cancer characterized by anorexia and unintentional weight loss, including skeletal muscle loss, fatigue, functional impairment, poor quality of life, and worse survival. The objective of this post-hoc analysis was to examine the relationship between weight gain and overall survival (OS) in patients with NSCLC treated with first-line platinum-based regimens. Methods: Data were pooled from three phase 3 clinical trials (NCT00254891, NCT00254904, and NCT00596830) conducted between Nov 2005 and Mar 2011 in patients with advanced NSCLC (stage IIIB or stage IV) treated with first-line standard-of-care (SOC) chemotherapy (control arm). Weight was recorded at baseline, prior to dosing on day 1 of each 3-week treatment cycle (up to 6 cycles), and post-treatment according to each study’s schedule. Weight gain was categorized as > 0%, > 2.5%, and > 5% increase from baseline up to 4.5 months. Cox Proportional Hazards modeling of OS including time to weight gain and time to confirmed objective response (RECIST v1.0) and baseline covariates were used to estimate hazard ratios (HR) for each category. Results: The total 1,030 patients from the SOC control arms were predominantly male (70.5%) with Stage IV NSCLC (88.5%) and a mean age (SD) of 60.9 (9.4) years and BMI 24.6 (4.4) kg/m2. Overall, 486 (47.2%), 299 (29.0%), and 164 (15.9%) patients experienced weight gain from baseline of > 0%, > 2.5%, and > 5%, respectively. Median time to > 0%, > 2.5%, and > 5% weight gain was 24, 43, and 64 days, respectively. After adjusting for statistically significant time-dependent confirmed objective response, the risk of death was significantly less for patients with weight gain. For patients with > 0% vs. ≤0% weight gain, HR was 0.70 (95%CI 0.61, 0.82) with median OS of 13.6 vs. 8.3 months. For patients with > 2.5% vs. ≤2.5% weight gain, HR was 0.70 (95%CI 0.59, 0.83) with median OS of 15.3 vs. 9.1 months. For patients with > 5% vs. ≤5% weight gain, HR was 0.76 (95%CI 0.61, 0.94) with a median OS of 14.4 vs. 9.8 months. Conclusions: In this pooled analysis, weight gain during treatment with first-line platinum-based chemotherapy was associated with a significantly reduced risk of death in patients with advanced NSCLC, independent of tumor response defined by RECIST criteria. The survival benefit was comparable for > 2.5% vs. > 5% weight gain. Weight gain of 2.5% may be an earlier predictor of survival outcomes and may have implications for the design of cancer cachexia trials. Clinical trial information: NCT00254891, NCT00254904, and NCT00596830.

Netupitant-Palonosetron (NEPA) in Preventing Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting: From Clinical Trials to Daily Practice

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is a common adverse event associated with many anticancer therapies and can negatively impact patients' quality of life and potentially limit the effectiveness of chemotherapy. Currently, CINV can be prevented in most patients with guideline-recommended antiemetic regimens. However, clinicians do not always follow guidelines, and patients often face difficulties adhering to their prescribed treatments. Therefore, approaches to increase guideline adherence need to be implemented. NEPA is the first and only fixed combination antiemetic, composed of netupitant (oral)/fosnetupitant (intravenous) and palonosetron, which, together with dexamethasone, constitute a triple antiemetic combination recommended for the prevention of CINV for patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy and for certain patients receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. Thus, NEPA offers a convenient and straightforward antiemetic treatment that could improve adherence to guidelines. This review provides an overview of CINV, evaluates the accumulated evidence of NEPA's antiemetic activity and safety from clinical trials and real-world practice, and examines the preliminary evidence of antiemetic control with NEPA in daily clinical settings beyond those described in pivotal trials. Moreover, we review the utility of NEPA in controlling nausea and preserving patients' quality of life during chemotherapy, two major concerns in managing patients with cancer.

A phase II study of niraparib and dostarlimab with radiation in patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer

564

Background: PARP inhibitors have activity as monotherapy in BRCA1/2 mutated metastatic pancreatic cancer; however, several other genes and associated proteins exist in the homologous recombination repair (HRR) pathway promoting resistance to chemotherapy and radiation-induced damage. Tumors with HRR deficiency have an impaired ability to repair themselves and are susceptible to PARP inhibition, but ionizing radiation can also induce DNA breaks. Ongoing research suggests that PARP inhibitors may cause radio-sensitization and may also enhance sensitivity to immunotherapy. We conducted a phase 2 study of niraparib and dostarlimab with radiation in a biomarker unselected PDAC population given PARP inhibitors' immunomodulatory and radiosensitizing effects. Methods: In this open-label, single-arm, phase-2 study, eligible patients had histologically confirmed MSS PDAC, ECOG PS 0-1, and progressed on at least one line of jm. Treatment consisted of niraparib 200 mg daily on a 21-day cycle, dostarlimab 500 mg every 3 weeks every 4 weeks for the first four doses, then 1000 mg every 6 weeks, and 3 fractions of 8 Gy at Cycle 2. Treatment continued until progressive disease, discontinuation, or withdrawal. The primary endpoint was DCR by RECIST 1.1 with radiological evaluations every 3 months. Secondary endpoints included DCR by irRECIST, PFS, OS, and safety. Responses were defined as disease control outside the radiation field. We obtained serial tumor biopsies, including pre-treatment. A two-stage design was used, requiring disease control in at least one of the first 15 patients before proceeding to the full accrual of 25 patients. Intention to treat analysis included all patients receiving at least one dose of any study agent. Results: We enrolled and treated 15 pts (median age 60 years [range 37-77], 53% male) from 08/2020 to 05/2021. Overall, DCR was 0/15 (95% CI: 0-22%), median PFS was 1.6 months (95% CI: 1.1-2.7), and median OS 3.1 months (95% CI: 1.5-7.7). Among 27 treatment-related serious adverse events, 15 (56%) were grade 3, including decreased CD4 lymphocytes, thrombocytopenia, anemia, and fatigue being the most common. Conclusions: The combination of niraparib and dostarlimab with radiation did not meet the pre-specified criteria for expansion to full accrual. Further analyses of dose intensity in this heavily pretreated and evaluation of in-field responses are underway. Further investigation of the combination with biomarker selection is warranted. Clinical trial information: NCT04409002.

Associations of sarcopenia with hematologic toxicity, treatment intensity, and healthcare utilization in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer

84

Background: We evaluated the impact of baseline sarcopenia on hematologic toxicity, treatment intensity, and healthcare utilization in patients with mCRC receiving FOLFOX or FOLFIRI. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed patients with mCRC who received care at our institution from 1/2011-11/2018 and were part of a biobanking protocol. Included adults received either first-line palliative FOLFOX- or FOLFIRI-based regimens and were followed for 6 months. We categorized sarcopenia based on skeletal muscle index measured at diagnosis of metastatic disease and pre-defined sex-specific cutoff values (F < 39 cm2/m2, M < 55cm2/m2). Our primary aim was to evaluate the association of sarcopenia and hematologic toxicity, defined as the incidence of grade ≥3 (G≥3) neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, or anemia (NCI CTCAE v5.0). Secondary endpoints included treatment intensity (dose reductions, treatment delays, relative-dose intensity [RDI]), and healthcare utilization (ED visits and/or hospitalizations). Bivariate analyses were used to evaluate associations between baseline sarcopenia and outcomes. Results: 126 of 177 screened patients met inclusion criteria (70 (56%) males, median age 61 yrs (range, 29-85)). 59 (46.8%) patients were sarcopenic. More patients received FOLFOX than FOLFIRI (92 [73.0%] vs. 34 [27.0%]). At baseline, patients had a median weight 76.9kg (IQR, 70.0-90.4 kg), BMI 26.6 kg/m2 (IQR, 24.1-30.5 kg/m2), and BSA 1.90 m2 (IQR, 1.72-2.01 m2). The incidence of G≥3 hematologic toxicity was 39.0% vs. 23.9% in sarcopenic and non-sarcopenic patients, respectively (p = 0.06). Patients with sarcopenia experienced higher incidence of G≥3 neutropenia (30.5% vs. 14.9%, p = 0.03), while G≥3 thrombocytopenia was similar (3.4% vs. 1.5%). The incidence of dose reductions and treatment delays did not differ significantly (86.4% vs. 89.5%, 72.9% vs. 71.6%, respectively). RDI was decreased for the 5FU bolus (52.5% vs. 65.0%, p = 0.02). Rates of ED visits (32.2% vs. 19.4%, p = 0.10) and hospitalizations (32.2% vs. 26.9%, p = 0.51) did not differ compared between patients with and without sarcopenia. Conclusions: Patients with mCRC and baseline sarcopenia receiving FOLFOX- or FOLFIRI experienced a higher incidence of G≥3 neutropenia and lower 5FU bolus treatment intensity. Studies are needed to understand how best to adjust treatment according to patients’ muscle mass.

Supportive oncology care at home intervention for patients with pancreatic cancer

155

Background: Patients with pancreatic cancer receiving chemotherapy often experience substantial symptoms and high healthcare utilization. We sought to determine the feasibility of delivering a Supportive Oncology Care at Home intervention designed to address the needs of patients receiving treatment for pancreatic cancer. Methods: We prospectively enrolled patients with pancreatic cancer who were participating in a parent trial of neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX and residing in-state, within 50 miles of our hospital. Patients received the Supportive Oncology Care at Home intervention during neoadjuvant treatment (i.e., up to 4 months). The intervention entailed: 1) remote monitoring of daily patient-reported symptoms, daily vital signs, and weekly body weight; 2) a hospital in the home care model for symptom assessment and management; and 3) structured communication with the oncology team. We defined the intervention as feasible if ≥60% of patients enrolled in the study and ≥60% completed the daily assessments within the first two weeks of enrollment. We tracked numbers of phone calls, emails, and home visits generated by the intervention. We conducted exit interviews with patients, caregivers, and oncology clinicians to assess the acceptability of the intervention. We also compared rates of treatment delays, urgent clinic visits, emergency room (ER) visits, and hospitalizations among those who did (n = 20) and did not (n = 24) receive Supportive Oncology Care at Home from the parent trial. Results: From 1/2019-9/2020, we enrolled 80.8% (21/26) of potentially eligible patients. One patient became ineligible following consent due to moving out-of-state, resulting in 20 participants (median age = 67 years [range 55-77]; 60.0% female). In the first two weeks of enrollment, 65.0% of participants completed all daily assessments. Overall, patients reported 96.1% of daily symptoms, 96.1% of daily vital signs, and 92.5% of weekly body weights. Each participant generated an average of 2.22 phone calls (range 0.62-3.77), 2.96 emails (range 1.50-5.88), and 0.15 home visits (range 0-0.69) per week. During exit interviews, > 80% of patients, caregivers, and clinicians found the intervention to be helpful and convenient, and they reported high satisfaction with the communication among patients, clinicians, and the hospital in the home team. Patients receiving the intervention had lower rates of treatment delays (55.0% v 75.0%), urgent clinic visits (10.0% v 25.0%), ER visits or hospitalizations (45.0% v 62.5%), as well as a lower proportion of days spent in urgent clinic, ER, or hospital (2.7% v 7.8%), compared with those not receiving the intervention who were in the same parent trial. Conclusions: These findings demonstrate the feasibility and acceptability of a Supportive Oncology Care at Home intervention. Future work will investigate the efficacy of this intervention for decreasing healthcare use and improving patient outcomes. Clinical trial information: NCT03798769.

Changes in patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and tumor markers (TMs) to predict treatment response and survival in patients with metastatic gastrointestinal (GI) cancer

154

Background: PROs assessing quality of life (QOL) and symptoms at a single timepoint frequently correlate with clinical outcomes in patients with cancer, yet efforts to understand how longitudinal changes in PROs can predict for treatment outcomes are lacking. In practice, oncologists often use changes in serum TMs (CEA and CA19-9) to monitor patients with GI cancer, and thus we sought to examine associations of 1-month changes in PROs and TMs with treatment response and survival outcomes among patients with advanced GI cancer. Methods: We prospectively enrolled patients with metastatic GI cancer prior to initiating chemotherapy at Massachusetts General Hospital from 5/2019-12/2020. At baseline (start of treatment) and 1-month later, we collected PROs (QOL [Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy General {FACT-G}], physical symptoms [Edmonton Symptom Assessment System {ESAS}], and psychological symptoms [Patient Health Questionnaire-4 {PHQ-4}]) and TMs. We used regression models to examine associations of 1-month changes in PROs and TMs with treatment response (clinical benefit [defined as decreased or stable tumor burden] or progressive disease at the time of first scan) and survival outcomes (progression-free survival [PFS] and overall survival [OS]), adjusted for baseline values of each respective variable. Results: We enrolled 159 of 191 patients approached (83.2% enrollment); 134 had 1-month follow-up data (median age = 64 years [range: 28 to 84 years], 64.2% male, 46.3% pancreaticobiliary cancer). For treatment response, 63.4% had clinical benefit and 36.6% had progressive disease at the time of first scan (mean time to first scan = 2.01 months). Changes in PROs (ESAS-Total: OR = 0.97, p = 0.022; ESAS-Physical: OR = 0.96, p = 0.027; PHQ-4 depression: OR = 0.67, p = 0.014; FACT-G: OR = 1.07, p = 0.001), but not TMs (CEA: OR = 1.00, p = 0.836 and CA19-9: OR = 1.00, p = 0.796), were associated with clinical benefit at the time of first scan. Changes in ESAS-Total (HR = 1.03, p = 0.004), ESAS-Physical (HR = 1.03, p = 0.021), PHQ-4 depression (HR = 1.22, p = 0.042), FACT-G (HR = 0.97, p = 0.003), and CEA (HR = 1.00, p = 0.001) were predictors of PFS. Changes in ESAS-Total (HR = 1.03, p = 0.006) and ESAS-Physical (HR = 1.04, p = 0.015) were predictors of OS, but 1-month changes in TMs (CEA: HR = 1.00, p = 0.377 and CA19-9: HR = 1.00, p = 0.367) did not significantly predict for OS. Conclusions: We found that 1-month changes in PROs can predict for treatment response and survival outcomes in patients with advanced GI cancers. Notably, 1-month changes in CEA only correlated with PFS, while changes in CA19-9 did not significantly predict treatment response or survival outcomes. These findings highlight the potential for early changes in PROs to predict treatment outcomes while underscoring the need to monitor and address PROs in patients with advanced cancer. Clinical trial information: NCT04776837.

Neoadjuvant versus Postoperative Chemoradiotherapy is Associated with Improved Survival for Patients with Resectable Gastric and Gastroesophageal Cancer

BACKGROUND

The optimal timing of chemoradiotherapy (CRT) for patients with localized gastric cancer remains unclear. This study aimed to compare the survival outcomes between neoadjuvant and postoperative CRT for patients with gastric and gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) cancer.

METHODS

This retrospective study analyzed 152 patients with gastric (42%) or GEJ (58%) adenocarcinoma who underwent definitive surgical resection and received either neoadjuvant or postoperative CRT between 2005 and 2017 at the authors' institution. The primary end point of the study was overall survival (OS).

RESULTS

The median follow-up period was 37.5 months. Neoadjuvant CRT was performed for 102 patients (67%) and postoperative CRT for 50 patients (33%). The patients who received neoadjuvant CRT were more likely to be male and to have a GEJ tumor, positive lymph nodes, and a higher clinical stage. The median radiotherapy (RT) dose was 50.4 Gy for neoadjuvant RT and 45.0 Gy for postoperative RT (p < 0.001). The neoadjuvant CRT group had a pathologic complete response (pCR) rate of 26% and a greater rate of R0 resection than the postoperative CRT group (95% vs. 76%; p = 0.002). Neoadjuvant versus postoperative CRT was associated with a lower rate of any grade 3+ toxicity (10% vs. 54%; p < 0.001). The multivariable analysis of OS showed lower hazards of death to be independently associated neoadjuvant versus postoperative CRT (hazard ratio [HR] 0.57; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.36-0.91; p = 0.020) and R0 resection (HR 0.50; 95% CI 0.27-0.90; p = 0.021).

CONCLUSIONS

Neoadjuvant CRT was associated with a longer OS, a higher rate of R0 resection, and a lower treatment-related toxicity than postoperative CRT. The findings suggest that neoadjuvant CRT is superior to postoperative CRT in the treatment of gastric and GEJ cancer.

Results and molecular correlates from a pilot study of neoadjuvant induction FOLFIRINOX followed by chemoradiation and surgery for gastroesophageal adenocarcinomas

PURPOSE

We performed a NCI-sponsored, prospective study of neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX followed by chemoradiation (CRT) with carboplatin/paclitaxel followed by surgery in patients with locally advanced gastric or gastroesophageal (GEA) cancer.

EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN

The primary objective was to determine completion rate of neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX x 8 followed by CRT. Secondary endpoints were toxicity and pathologic complete response (pCR) rate. Exploratory analysis was performed of ctDNA to treatment response.

RESULTS

From Oct 2017 to June 2018, 25 patients were enrolled. All patients started FOLFIRINOX, 92% completed all 8 planned cycles, and 88% completed CRT. Twenty (80%) patients underwent surgical resection, and 7 had a pCR (35% in resected cohort, 28% ITT ). Tumor-specific mutations were identified in 21 (84%) patients, of whom 4 and 17 patients had undetectable and detectable ctDNA at baseline, respectively. Presence of detectable post-CRT ctDNA (p=0.004) and/or postoperative ctDNA (p=0.045) were associated with disease recurrence.

CONCLUSIONS

Here we show neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX followed by CRT for locally advanced GEA is feasible and yields a high rate of pCR. ctDNA appears to be a promising predictor of postoperative recurrence.

Assessing duration of breakthrough chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV): A pooled study analysis of NEPA versus aprepitant

12091

Background: The historical standard clinical trial endpoint for preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) has been assessment of complete response (CR: no emesis and no rescue medication use) over five days. Recent evaluations focused on the duration of breakthrough CINV suggest that long duration of CINV results in more lost work time and impaired activity and is also a strong predictor for CINV in subsequent cycles. A recent pooled analysis of three similarly designed registration trials of NEPA, a fixed oral combination NK1 receptor antagonist (RA) (netupitant)/5-HT3RA (palonosetron), showed significantly higher CR rates during the delayed phase (≥24-120h) for NEPA compared to an aprepitant (APR) regimen. In this post-hoc analysis, we evaluated the extent and duration of breakthrough CINV in these pooled studies. Methods: Chemotherapy-naïve patients who received cisplatin-based chemotherapy and antiemetic prophylaxis of either a single dose of NEPA plus dexamethasone (DEX) or a 3-day APR/5-HT3 RA/DEX regimen from three randomized, double-blind pivotal trials were included. Patients without a CR were defined as treatment failures. Extent of CINV was evaluated using proportions of patients with treatment failure, emesis, and significant nausea (defined as >25 mm on a 100 mm visual analog scale). Over the 5-day overall phase, duration was categorized as 1-2, and ≥3 days. Pearson’s chi-square test was employed to compare risks between treatments for each duration category in each of the previously mentioned endpoints. Results: Among all 621 NEPA and 576 APR patients, a significantly greater proportion of APR patients experienced treatment failure, emesis, and significant nausea for ≥3 days. Specifically, among patients with treatment failure, 31% (41/134) who received NEPA and 43% (61/143) who received APR experienced breakthrough CINV for ≥3 days. Conclusions: Expanding on data suggesting single-day NEPA is more effective than 3-day APR in preventing delayed CINV, NEPA is also more effective in minimizing the extent and duration of CINV in patients with breakthrough emesis and nausea.[Table: see text]

Changes in patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and tumor markers (TMs) to predict treatment response and survival outcomes in patients with metastatic gastrointestinal (GI) cancer

6560

Background: PROs assessing quality of life (QOL) and symptoms at a single timepoint frequently correlate with clinical outcomes in patients with cancer, yet efforts to understand how longitudinal changes in PROs can predict for treatment outcomes are lacking. In practice, oncologists often use changes in serum TMs (CEA and CA19-9) to monitor patients with GI cancer, and thus we sought to examine associations of 1-month changes in PROs and TMs with treatment response and survival outcomes among patients with advanced GI cancer. Methods: We prospectively enrolled patients with metastatic GI cancer prior to initiating chemotherapy at Massachusetts General Hospital from 5/2019-12/2020. At baseline (start of treatment) and 1-month later, we collected PROs (QOL [Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy General {FACT-G}], physical symptoms [Edmonton Symptom Assessment System {ESAS}], and psychological symptoms [Patient Health Questionnaire-4 {PHQ-4}]) and TMs. We used regression models to examine associations of 1-month changes in PROs and TMs with treatment response (clinical benefit [defined as decreased or stable tumor burden] or progressive disease at the time of first scan) and survival outcomes (progression-free survival [PFS] and overall survival [OS]), adjusted for baseline values of each respective variable. Results: We enrolled 159 of 191 patients approached (83.2% enrollment); 134 had 1-month follow-up data (median age = 64 years [range: 28 to 84 years], 64.2% male, 46.3% pancreaticobiliary cancer). For treatment response, 63.4% had clinical benefit and 36.6% had progressive disease at the time of first scan (mean time to first scan = 2.01 months). Changes in PROs (ESAS-Total: OR = 0.97, p = 0.022; ESAS-Physical: OR = 0.96, p = 0.027; PHQ-4 depression: OR = 0.67, p = 0.014; FACT-G: OR = 1.07, p = 0.001), but not TMs (CEA: OR = 1.00, p = 0.836 and CA19-9: OR = 1.00, p = 0.796), were associated with clinical benefit at the time of first scan. Changes in ESAS-Total (HR = 1.03, p = 0.004), ESAS-Physical (HR = 1.03, p = 0.021), PHQ-4 depression (HR = 1.22, p = 0.042), FACT-G (HR = 0.97, p = 0.003), and CEA (HR = 1.00, p = 0.001) were predictors of PFS. Changes in ESAS-Total (HR = 1.03, p = 0.006) and ESAS-Physical (HR = 1.04, p = 0.015) were predictors of OS, but 1-month changes in TMs (CEA: HR = 1.00, p = 0.377 and CA19-9: HR = 1.00, p = 0.367) did not significantly predict for OS. Conclusions: We found that 1-month changes in PROs can predict for treatment response and survival outcomes in patients with advanced GI cancers. Notably, 1-month changes in CEA only correlated with PFS, while changes in CA19-9 did not significantly predict treatment response or survival outcomes. These findings highlight the potential for early changes in PROs to predict treatment outcomes while underscoring the need to monitor and address PROs in patients with advanced cancer.

Clinical and mutational profile of ARID1A-mutated gastrointestinal cancers: Duration of response to platinum-based chemotherapy

e15611

Background: ARID1A is mutated in several cancer types, with studies reporting mutations in up to 10% of colorectal cancers (CRC) and as high as 35% of gastric and pancreatic cancers. The ARID1A gene encodes a member of the SWI/SNF (SWItch/Sucrose Non-Fermentable) chromatin remodeling complex and functions as a tumor suppressor. ARID1A has also been implicated in double-stranded DNA repair via both homologous recombination and non-homologous end-joining, potentially conferring platinum sensitivity. We sought to characterize this subset of gastrointestinal (GI) malignancies. Methods: We identified patients with locally advanced or metastatic ARID1A-mutated GI malignancies treated at Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) by next-generation sequencing. Patients were selected who gave consent to molecular testing and who were enrolled on to a study. We evaluated clinical characteristics and outcomes for patients undergoing treatment at MGH between 2009 and May 2020. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to calculate progression free survival (PFS) to first-line platinum-based chemotherapy. Results: We captured 38 patients with ARID1A-mutated tumors. Median age at diagnosis was 66 (range 31-87) and 63.2% of patients were male (n = 24). Tumor types varied, including CRC (n = 13, 34.2%), esophagogastric (n = 13, 34.2%), pancreatic (n = 6, 15.7%), cholangiocarcinoma (n = 2, 5.3%), small bowel (n = 1, 2.6%), anal (n = 1, 2.6%), and unknown GI primary (n = 2, 5.3%). Most were metastatic at diagnosis (n = 23, 60.5%). The identified ARID1A mutations were each distinct, occurring along the length of the gene and were comprised of missense (n = 10, 26.3%), nonsense (n = 12, 31.6%), frameshift (n = 13, 34.2%), and splice-site (n = 3, 7.9%) mutations. We observed on average 4-5 co-mutations per tumor, with TP53 (n = 25, 65.8%), KRAS (n = 14, 36.8%), APC (n = 11, 28.9%), BRCA2 (n = 7, 18.4%) and BRAF (n = 7, 18.4%) occurring most frequently. Tumors were both microsatellite stable (n = 23, 60%) and microsatellite unstable (n = 7, 18.4%). Most patients (n = 37, 97.4%) received a platinum-based chemotherapy as first-line therapy including FOLFOX (n = 23, 60.5%), FOLFIRINOX (n = 10, 26.3%), gemcitabine/cisplatin (n = 2, 5.3%), carboplatin/5-FU (n = 1, 2.6%), and carboplatin/etoposide (n = 1, 2.6%). Median PFS for first-line platinum based chemotherapy was 14.0 months (CI 8.2-34.7) overall. For patients with CRC, PFS to platinum-based therapy was 14.0 months (CI 4.8-not reached) compared with 9.6 months for non-CRC (CI 7.4-not reached). Conclusions: To our knowledge, this is the first assessment of clinical characteristics and outcomes for ARID1A-mutated GI malignancies. Mutations in ARID1A are highly diverse, without a clear association with tumor type. Future studies assessing response to platinum-based chemotherapy are warranted.

The impact of cancer-related diarrhea on changes in cancer therapy patterns

12111

Background: We studied the impact that cancer related diarrhea (CRD) has on cancer therapy and treatment patterns, including persistence, discontinuation, adherence, and switching of chemotherapy and targeted therapies in patients with and without CRD. Methods: We performed a longitudinal observational study among adult ( > 18 yrs) patients with CRD identified by diagnosis codes or pharmacy claims compared to matched (1:1) non-CRD patients using claims data derived from the IQVIA PharMetrics Plus database. Index date was defined as the date of the first cancer claim, and we re-indexed patients based on CRD claims. Each patient had a 6-month pre-index period and a minimum 3-month follow-up post-index period. To adjust for selection bias and baseline differences, we directly matched the CRD patients to non-CRD patients. Treatment patterns were evaluated and stratified for the first cancer therapy with or without CRD (chemotherapy vs targeted therapy vs both targeted and chemotherapy). Discontinuation was defined as a 30-day gap for chemotherapy and a 14-day gap for targeted therapies from index therapy; switching was a new chemotherapy or targeted therapy prescription within 30 days following discontinuation of index therapy. We computed adherence as the proportion of days covered over the 12-month post-index period and persistence as mean number of days on index therapy. A Cox proportional hazards model was used to estimate the difference in risk of discontinuation of index therapy between CRD and non-CRD cohorts. Results: We evaluated a total of 104,135 matched pairs of CRD and non-CRD adult patients with solid or hematologic cancer; each group further grouped by those receiving either chemotherapy (n = 47,220), targeted therapy (n = 2,427), or both treatments (n = 5,313). Patients with CRD discontinued the index therapy more frequently than non-CRD patients for chemotherapy (81.5% vs 62.3%), targeted therapy (69.2% vs 64.3%) or both (96.0% vs 85.5%) (p < 0.0001). Also, the overall percentage of discontinuation (82.4% vs. 64.6%) was significantly higher among patients with CRD. The mean time to discontinuation (59.6±54.1 vs. 68.3±76.6 days) was significantly lower (p < 0.0001) in patients with CRD. The mean time to switch (72.0±48.6 vs. 96.9±84.0 days), mean persistence (95.1±98.1 vs. 154.3±142.7 days), and mean adherence (25.5%±37.2 vs. 47.9±41%) were significantly lower (all p < 0.0001) among patients with CRD compared to non-CRD. The percentage of patients requiring a dose titration for their index cancer therapy was significantly higher (21.8%) for the CRD cohort versus 8.5% for non-CRD patients (p < 0.0001). Conclusions: Patients with CRD were 40% (adjusted) more likely to discontinue the index therapy than patients without CRD. The persistence of index cancer therapy and time to switch were also lower for patients with CRD. Strategies to control CRD and continue cancer therapy are urgently needed.

Characterizing unplanned resource utilization associated with cancer-related diarrhea

e18625

Background: In clinical oncology practice, diarrhea is a very common and severe side effect of cancer treatments including from radiotherapy, chemotherapy, and targeted therapies. Cancer-related diarrhea (CRD) leads to increased healthcare resource consumption due to unscheduled outpatient visits, and , increased hospital stays requiring intensive supportive care measures. We evaluated CRD patients receiving chemotherapy, targeted therapy, or both, requiring emergency department (ED), physician office visits, hospitalizations, and length of stay (LOS) compared to a matched cohort of non-CRD patients. Methods: We performed a longitudinal study among adult patients ( > 18 yrs) with CRD identified by diagnosis codes or pharmacy claims compared to matched non-CRD patients using claims data derived from the IQVIA PharMetrics Plus database. Index date was the first cancer claim date and patients were re-indexed based on their CRD claim. Each patient had a 6-month pre-index period, a minimum 3-month post-index period and had ≥12 months of continuous enrollment following the CRD index date. To adjust for selection bias and baseline differences, we matched CRD patients to non-CRD patients (1:1) by age, gender, geography and payer type. Patients were stratified by cancer therapy type (chemotherapy, targeted therapy or both treatments). We reported proportion of patients with hospitalizations, average length of stay (LOS), and ED visits. A generalized estimating equation model with log link and binomial distribution adjusted for type of cancer, therapy, and Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) was built to estimate the difference in occurrence of hospitalization between CRD and non-CRD cohorts. Results: We evaluated a total of 104,135 matched pairs of CRD and non-CRD adult patients with solid or hematologic cancer with 12-month continuous enrollment. The proportion of patients with ED visits (36.2% vs 18.9%, p < 0.0001) and hospitalizations (29.6% vs 12.8%, p < 0.0001) were significantly higher among CRD versus non-CRD cohort. When compared to non-CRD patients, CRD patients were more likely to be hospitalized (adjusted OR 2.28. 95% CI of 2.23-2.33). Mean CRD-specific office/hospital visits were significantly higher in the CRD cohort compared to the non-CRD cohort over the 12-month post-index period and patients had more CRD-specific visits to ED (7.5% vs 1.8%); physician’s offices (14.7% vs 3.8%); laboratory testing (11.6% vs 3.2%) and outpatient ancillary services (10.9% vs 2.6%) (all p < 0.0001). Mean hospital LOS among patients with CRD was higher than non-CRD patients (6.6±8.9 vs 5.8±10.5 days, p < 0.0001). Conclusions: Patients with CRD used significantly more resources, including outpatient services, ED visits, and hospitalizations. Effective prevention of CRD remains an unmet strategy to reduce the overall cost of cancer care.

Healthcare utilization and costs associated with cancer-related diarrhea

e18623

Background: Diarrhea is a common toxicity of cancer treatments, including radiotherapy, chemotherapy, and/or targeted therapies. Cancer-related diarrhea (CRD) leads to increased healthcare utilization and cost. This study evaluated the all-cause and CRD-specific healthcare utilization and cost of patients with CRD compared to a matched non-CRD cohort. Methods: We conducted a longitudinal observational study among adult patients ( > 18 years) with CRD using diagnosis codes or pharmacy claims compared to matched non-CRD patients using claims data from the IQVIA PharMetrics Plus database (October 2015 to March 2020). The index date was the date of the first cancer claim, and we re-indexed patients based on their CRD claim. Each patient had a 6-month pre-index period and a minimum 3-month post-index period. Patients were also required to have ≥12 months of continuous enrollment following the CRD index date. We directly matched patients 1:1 from the CRD cohort to the non-CRD cohort to adjust for selection bias and baseline differences. Our aim was to compare all-cause healthcare costs over a fixed 12-month post-index period, converting all costs to 2020 USD using the Consumer Price Index's medical component. We analyzed healthcare utilization for CRD-treated, CRD-inadequately treated, and CRD-untreated sub-cohorts (per Buono et al., J Econ 2017). Secondary endpoints included healthcare cost (proportion of patients, per-patient mean and median) and healthcare utilization (prescription fills and visits to the emergency department [ED], physician office, lab/pathology and outpatient ancillary services). We built one generalized estimating equation model with log link and gamma distribution adjusted for type of cancer, therapy and Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) to estimate the difference in total healthcare cost between CRD and non-CRD cohorts. Results: We evaluated a total of 104,135 matched pairs of CRD and non-CRD adult patients with solid or hematologic cancer receiving either targeted or chemotherapy, with 12-month continuous enrollment. Patients with CRD incurred significantly higher mean ($104,880 vs $39,664, p < 0.0001) and median ($59,969 vs $8,914, p < 0.0001) all-cause healthcare cost compared to patients without CRD over the 12-month post-index period. Inadequately treated CRD patients had the mean highest cost ($129,531) vs adequately CRD-treated ($107,050) or untreated CRD patients ($56,350) (all p < 0.0001). Mean pharmacy cost for CRD and non-CRD patients were ($35,190 vs $15,883); visits to the ED ($1,107 vs $431), physician office ($3,457 vs $2,058), lab/pathology ($4,074 vs $1,404), and outpatient ancillary services ($15,805 vs $4,940) (all p-values < 0.0001). Conclusions: Our findings show that patients with CRD had nearly 2.9 times higher all-cause total cost than patients without CRD after adjusting for covariates. Prevention of CRD may result in a significant reduction in cancer-treatment cost.

Supportive oncology care at home intervention for patients with pancreatic cancer

6558

Background: Patients with pancreatic cancer receiving chemotherapy often experience substantial symptoms and high healthcare utilization. We sought to determine the feasibility of delivering a Supportive Oncology Care at Home intervention designed to address the needs of patients receiving treatment for pancreatic cancer. Methods: We prospectively enrolled patients with pancreatic cancer who were participating in a parent trial of neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX and residing in-state, within 50 miles of our hospital. Patients received the Supportive Oncology Care at Home intervention during neoadjuvant treatment (i.e., up to 4 months). The intervention entailed: 1) remote monitoring of daily patient-reported symptoms, daily vital signs, and weekly body weight; 2) a hospital in the home care model for symptom assessment and management; and 3) structured communication with the oncology team. We defined the intervention as feasible if ≥60% of patients enrolled in the study and ≥60% completed the daily assessments within the first two weeks of enrollment. We tracked numbers of phone calls, emails, and home visits generated by the intervention. We conducted exit interviews with patients, caregivers, and oncology clinicians to assess the acceptability of the intervention. In addition, we compared rates of treatment delays, urgent clinic visits, emergency room (ER) visits, and hospitalizations among those who did (n = 20) and did not (n = 24) receive Supportive Oncology Care at Home from the parent trial. Results: From 1/2019-9/2020, we enrolled 80.8% (21/26) of potentially eligible patients. One patient became ineligible following consent due to moving out-of-state, resulting in 20 participants (median age = 67 years [range 55-77]; 60.0% female). Within the first two weeks of enrollment, 65.0% completed all the daily assessments, with participants reporting 96.1% of daily symptoms, 96.1% of daily vital signs, and 92.5% of weekly body weights. Each participant generated an average of 2.22 phone calls (range 0.62-3.77), 2.96 emails (range 1.50-5.88), and 0.15 home visits (range 0-0.69) per week. During exit interviews, > 80% of patients, caregivers, and clinicians found the intervention to be helpful and convenient, and they reported high satisfaction with the communication among patients, clinicians, and the hospital in the home team. Patients receiving the intervention had lower rates of treatment delays (55.0% v 75.0%), urgent clinic visits (10.0% v 25.0%), ER visits or hospitalizations (45.0% v 62.5%), as well as a lower proportion of days spent in urgent clinic, ER, or hospital (2.7% v 7.8%), compared with those not receiving the intervention who were in the same parent trial. Conclusions: These findings demonstrate the feasibility and acceptability of a Supportive Oncology Care at Home intervention. Future work will investigate the efficacy of this intervention for decreasing healthcare use and improving patient outcomes. Clinical trial information: NCT03798769.

Caregiver Reported Quality of End-of-Life Care of Adolescent and Young Adult Decedents With Cancer

BACKGROUND

The quality of palliative and end-of-life (EOL) care for adolescents and young adults (AYAs) with cancer remains largely unknown.

OBJECTIVE

To describe caregivers of AYA cancer decedents perspectives' on EOL care quality related to EOL care communication.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional observational study.

SETTING/SUBJECTS

Caregivers (n = 35) of AYAs who died from a cancer diagnosis from 2013-2016 were recruited from 3 U.S. academic medical centers.

MEASUREMENTS

Caregiver participants completed structured surveys (FAMCARE scale and the Toolkit After-Death Bereaved Family Member Interview) by telephone to gather perceptions of quality of EOL care of their AYA cancer decedents.

RESULTS

Caregivers reported unmet needs regarding preparation for the time of death (50%), the dying process (45%) and unmet spiritual/ religious needs (38%). Lowest quality of EOL care scores related to communication and emotional support.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings call for special focus on providing information about what to expect during the dying process and adequately addressing spiritual and religious preferences during EOL care for AYAs.

Abstract PS13-09: Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) risk after prior breakthrough CINV: Unmasking the false average

Background: Although many studies have demonstrated consistent levels of effectiveness of CINV prophylaxis for the entire study population across multiple chemotherapy cycles, rarely have studies reported how each patient’s risk of subsequent CINV differs based on prior cycle breakthrough CINV with the same prophylaxis. We lack data on whether prophylaxis continues to fail in the same group of patients each cycle, or whether failure is random with each subsequent cycle. We sought to evaluate individual patients’ risk of repeat CINV in each subsequent chemotherapy cycle. Methods: In a prospective, 4-cycle CINV prophylaxis trial of oral or intravenous combination netupitant/palonosetron (NEPA) + dexamethasone (day 1) for patients with breast cancer receiving anthracycline + cyclophosphamide (AC), we defined CINV as vomiting or use of rescue medication during days 1-5 after chemotherapy. Patients without CINV were classified as complete response (CR); the rest as treatment failure (TF). We analyzed patients’ sequences of CR and TF, and compared CR or TF for cycles 2-4 based on cycle 1 outcomes, using chi-square statistics. To provide context, we performed a post-hoc similar analysis of results reported by Herrstedt et al [2005] from a clinical trial of ondansetron + aprepitant (APR) for patients with breast cancer receiving 4 cycles of AC. Results: The 402 female patients in the NEPA trial received a total of 1,299 cycles. In cycle 1, 99 (24.6%) patients experienced TF (TF1); over all 4 cycles, TF occurred 253 times (19.5%). Patients with CR in cycle 1 (CR1) had a ≥92% rate of CR in cycle 2; their rates of repeat CR were similar in each subsequent cycle. Patients with TF1 had nearly equal risk of CR or TF in cycle 2 (45:55); thereafter 85% of this TF1 subgroup repeated their cycle 2 outcome (CR or TF) in cycles 3 and 4. Over all cycles of NEPA, patients with CR1 subsequently had CR in &gt;90% of cycles 2-4; those with TF1 subsequently had TF in 49.8% of cycles 2-4 (p&lt;0.0001) (see Table). We separately examined Herrstedt’s evaluation of 433 patients across 1537 cycles with APR. In cycle 1, TF was seen 213 times (49.2%), with TF reported in 46.7% of cycles 1-4. We found that patients with CR1 had an 80.5% rate of CR in cycle 2 and repeat CR rates were higher in subsequent cycles. Patients with TF1 had TF in cycle 2 (TF2) at a rate of 78.4%, with 76.6% TF3 and 72.7% TF4. For APR, CR1 resulted in subsequent CR in 78.6% of cycles 2-4 while patients with TF1 again had TF in 74.8% of cycles 2-4 (p&lt;0.0001). Patients with TF1 were more likely to later drop from the study (see Table). Notably, among those with CR1 after APR, the few patients who later had TF in any cycle, had a subsequent repeat failure rate similar to those with TF1. Conclusions: When patients receiving guideline-recommended triple antiemetic prophylaxis successfully avoided CINV in their first cycle of HEC, they had 80-95% likelihood of repeating that success in later cycles. After NEPA, those whose prophylaxis failed in cycle 1 did not face a similar high risk of repeat failure in cycle 2. The pattern of repeat failure after aprepitant was different, with a high repeat failure risk starting in cycle 2. These findings strongly suggest that consistent population average CR rates reported across cycles may mask a higher repeat failure rate for individual patients that experience cycle 1 CINV, particularly for aprepitant. Further study of this phenomenon is needed for other HEC regimens, and to confirm the lack of high repeat failure seen in cycle 2 for NEPA.

Repeat CINV in Later Cycles, Based on Cycle 1 ResultsNEPAAprepitant + OndansetronInitial Cycle Result (n/total initial cycles)CR1 (303/402)TF1 (99/402)CR1 vs TF1 (P value)CR1 (220/433)TF1 (213/433)CR1 vs TF1 (P value)Subsequent CR cycles (n, % of total subseq. cycles)636 (93.0%)107 (50.2%)&lt;0.0001464 (78.6%)124 (25.2%)&lt;0.0001Subsequent TF cycles (n, % of total subseq. cycles)48 (7.0%)106 (49.8%)126 (21.4%)370 (74.8%)Total subsequent cycles (n, % of total subseq. cycles)684 (100%)213 (100%)590 (100%)494 (100%)Dropped vs ITT* (n, % ITT cycles)225 (24.8%)84 (28.3%)0.226370 (10.6%)145 (22.7%)&lt;0.0001* The NEPA trial was closed when the last patient completed the first cycle, resulting in an artificially high proportion of patients that did not complete 4 cycles.

Citation Format: Rudolph M Navari, Gary Binder, Alexander Molassiotis, Eric Roeland, Kathryn J. Ruddy, Thomas W. LeBlanc, Dwight D. Kloth, Silvia Sebastiani, Lina Y. Dimberg, Luke M. Schmerold, Xing Liu, Lee Schwartzberg. Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) risk after prior breakthrough CINV: Unmasking the false average [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2020 San Antonio Breast Cancer Virtual Symposium; 2020 Dec 8-11; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2021;81(4 Suppl):Abstract nr PS13-09.

Barriers to Optimal End-of-Life Care for Adolescents and Young Adults With Cancer: Bereaved Caregiver Perspectives

BACKGROUND

Adolescents and young adults (AYAs; aged 15-39 years) with cancer frequently receive intensive measures at the end of life (EoL), but the perspectives of AYAs and their family members on barriers to optimal EoL care are not well understood.

METHODS

We conducted qualitative interviews with 28 bereaved caregivers of AYAs with cancer who died in 2013 through 2016 after receiving treatment at 1 of 3 sites (University of Alabama at Birmingham, University of Iowa, or University of California San Diego). Interviews focused on ways that EoL care could have better met the needs of the AYAs. Content analysis was performed to identify relevant themes.

RESULTS

Most participating caregivers were White and female, and nearly half had graduated from college. A total of 46% of AYAs were insured by Medicaid or other public insurance; 61% used hospice, 46% used palliative care, and 43% died at home. Caregivers noted 3 main barriers to optimal EoL care: (1) delayed or absent communication about prognosis, which in turn delayed care focused on comfort and quality of life; (2) inadequate emotional support of AYAs and caregivers, many of whom experienced distress and difficulty accepting the poor prognosis; and (3) a lack of home care models that would allow concurrent life-prolonging and palliative therapies, and consequently suboptimal supported goals of AYAs to live as long and as well as possible. Delayed or absent prognosis communication created lingering regret among some family caregivers, who lost the opportunity to support, comfort, and hold meaningful conversations with their loved ones.

CONCLUSIONS

Bereaved family caregivers of AYAs with cancer noted a need for timely prognostic communication, emotional support to enhance acceptance of a poor prognosis, and care delivery models that would support both life-prolonging and palliative goals of care. Work to address these challenges offers the potential to improve the quality of EoL care for young people with cancer.

Prognostic impact of chemoradiation-related lymphopenia in patients with gastric and gastroesophageal cancer

249

Background: Limited data exists on how chemoradiation (CRT)-induced lymphopenia affects survival outcomes in patients with gastric and gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) cancer. We evaluated the association between severe lymphopenia and its association with survival in gastric and GEJ cancer patients treated with CRT. We hypothesized that severe lymphopenia would be a poor prognostic factor. Methods: We performed a retrospective analysis of 154 patients with stage 1-3 gastric or GEJ cancer who underwent CRT at our institution. Patients underwent photon-based radiation therapy (RT) with a median dose of 50.4 Gy (IQR 45.0-50.4 Gy) over 28 fractions and concurrent chemotherapy (CTX) with carboplatin/paclitaxel, 5-fluorouracil based regimen, or capecitabine. 49% received CTX prior to RT. 84% underwent surgical resection, 57% pre-CRT and 26% post-CRT. Absolute lymphocyte count (ALC) at baseline and at 2 months since initiating RT were analyzed. Severe lymphopenia, defined as Grade 3 or worse lymphopenia (ALC < 0.5 k/μl), was analyzed for any association with overall survival (OS). Results: Median time of follow up was 48 months. Median age was 65. 77% were male and 86% were Caucasian. ECOG PS was 0 or 1 in 90% and 2 in 10%. Tumor location was stomach in 38% and GEJ in 62%. Timing of CRT was preoperative among 68% and postoperative among 32%. The median ALC at baseline for the entire cohort was 1.6 k/ul (range 0.3-7.0 k/ul). At 2 months post-CRT, 49 (32%) patients had severe lymphopenia. Patients with severe lymphopenia post-CRT had a slightly lower baseline TLC compared to patients without severe lymphopenia (median TLC 1.4 k/ul vs. 1.6 k/ul; p = 0.005). There were no differences in disease and treatment characteristics between the two groups. On the multivariable Cox model, severe lymphopenia post-CRT was significantly associated with increased risk of death (HR = 3.99 [95% CI 1.55-10.28], p = 0.004). ECOG PS 2 (HR = 34.97 [95% CI 2.08-587.73], p = 0.014) and postoperative CRT (HR = 5.55 [95% CI 1.29-23.86], p = 0.021) also predicted worse OS. The 4-year OS among patients with severe lymphopenia was 41% vs. 61% among patients with vs. without severe lymphopenia (log-rank test p = 0.041). Conclusions: Severe lymphopenia significantly correlated with poorer OS in patients with gastric or GEJ cancer treated with CRT. CRT-induced lymphopenia may be an important prognostic factor for survival in this patient population. Closer observation in high-risk patients and treatment modifications may be potential approaches to mitigating CRT-induced lymphopenia.

Evaluating the incidence of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients with B-cell lymphoma receiving dose-adjusted EPOCH and rituximab

BACKGROUND

Studies evaluating antiemetic prophylaxis have primarily focused on the solid tumor setting and single-day regimens. This study evaluates antiemetic prophylaxis and chemotherapy induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in patients with lymphoma receiving a multiday doxorubicin-cyclophosphamide containing regimen.

METHODS

This was a retrospective, single center, cohort study evaluating patients with aggressive non-Hodgkin B-cell lymphoma receiving dose-adjusted R-EPOCH in the hospital. Data was collected from the electronic medical record from April 2016 to September 2019. Complete response over 120 hours was the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes included complete response during the acute and delayed phases as well as complete control.

RESULTS

A total of 73 patients who received dose adjusted R-EPOCH were identified. Most patients (n = 39, 53%) were male with a the median age was 63 years (range: 21-81). Most patients received ondansetron 16 mg once daily (n = 48, 66%) on days 1-5 as antiemetic prophylaxis with a minority receiving either dexamethasone (n = 8) or an NK1 antagonist (n = 13) in addition to ondansetron. Complete response rate was 32% and the complete response in the acute and delayed phase was also 32%.

CONCLUSION

Control of CINV in patients with lymphoma hospitalized to receive dose-adjusted R-EPOCH was suboptimal, with only 32% of patients achieving complete response. Nearly three-quarters of patients received only a 5HT3 receptor antagonist as scheduled antiemetic therapy without an NK1 receptor antagonist. This data supports the importance of improving awareness of regarding multiday CINV guidelines and ensuring timely update and implementation of these evidence-based guidelines.

Efficacy of intravenous NEPA, a fixed NK1/5-HT3 receptor antagonist combination, for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) during cisplatin- and anthracycline cyclophosphamide (AC)-based chemotherapy: A review of phase 3 studies

This paper presents an overview of the efficacy of intravenous (IV) NEPA (fixed combination of the NK₁RA, fosnetupitant, and 5-HT₃RA, palonosetron) relative to oral NEPA and also to historical data for other NK₁RA regimens. Data is compiled from 5 pivotal NEPA studies in adult chemotherapy-naïve patients with solid tumors undergoing either cisplatin- or anthracycline cyclophosphamide (AC)-based chemotherapy. Additionally, data was reviewed from 10 pivotal Phase 3 studies utilizing other NK₁RA regimens approved for clinical use. The overall (0-120 h) complete response (no emesis, no rescue use), no emesis, and no significant nausea rates for IV NEPA were similar to that of oral NEPA and were consistently numerically higher than historical NK₁RA regimens. As a single-dose prophylactic antiemetic combination given with dexamethasone, IV NEPA is a highly effective and convenient guideline-compliant antiemetic agent which may offer a safety benefit over other IV NK₁RA regimens due to its lack of associated hypersensitivity and injection-site reactions.