The Faces of Financial Toxicity: A Qualitative Interview Study of Financial Toxicity in Advanced Cancer Patients in Phase I Oncology Trials

Objective

To characterize the financial toxicity experienced by advanced cancer patients enrolled in phase I oncology trials.

Patients and Methods

We conducted structured interviews with cancer patients participating in phase I clinical trials. Using a thematic analysis approach, we identified recurring themes in patients' experiences of financial toxicity resulting from trial participation.

Results

Seven major themes emerged from the interviews: (1) the burden of travel, (2) a willingness to pursue treatment despite financial risk, (3) fear of destitution, (4) financial toxicity equaling physical toxicity, (5) changes in food spending, (6) reluctance to confide in the study investigator about financial toxicity, and (7) difficulty navigating financial aid. These themes highlight the multifaceted financial challenges faced by patients in early phase clinical trials and the need for targeted support services.

Conclusion

Our findings underscore the relevance of financial toxicity in the context of phase I clinical trials and provide insights into the diverse challenges faced by advanced cancer patients. These challenges likely augment the disparities seen in trial enrollment for historically marginalized populations. Addressing financial toxicity in this population is crucial for improving patient outcomes and quality of life. Future research should focus on developing effective interventions and support services tailored to the needs of patients in early phase clinical trials.

Real-World Outcomes With Lurbinectedin in Second-Line Setting and Beyond for Extensive Stage Small Cell Lung Cancer

BACKGROUND

Lurbinectedin has emerged as a potential treatment option for relapsed small cell lung cancer (SCLC). While clinical trials have demonstrated its efficacy and safety, real-world data are limited. This study aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of lurbinectedin in a real-world setting, focusing on its use as a second-line agent and beyond in SCLC patients.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was conducted on 90 patients who received lurbinectedin between June 2020 and June 2022 within the Mayo Clinic Health System. Of these, 50 patients received lurbinectedin as a second-line agent, and 14 patients received it as a third-line or later agent. The primary outcomes assessed were overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and treatment-related adverse events.

RESULTS

Lurbinectedin was generally well tolerated in this real-world cohort, with a median OS of 5.1 months in the second-line cohort and 5.6 months in the third-line or later cohort. Median PFS was 2.1 months in the second-line cohort and 3.4 months in the third-line or later cohort. Adverse events were manageable, with the most common being neutropenia, anemia, fatigue, and febrile neutropenia. No treatment-related deaths or grade 5 toxicities were reported.

CONCLUSION

This real-world study provides valuable insights into the safety and efficacy of lurbinectedin in relapsed SCLC. Lurbinectedin demonstrated modest efficacy and a comparable safety profile to that observed in clinical trials. However, outcomes for relapsed SCLC remain suboptimal, particularly for patients with a shorter chemotherapy-free interval and central nervous system metastases.

Chemoimmunotherapy in patients with extensive-stage small cell lung cancer and a poor performance status

BACKGROUND

Immune checkpoint inhibitor combined with platinum-etoposide is the standard first-line therapy for patients with extensive-stage small cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC). The phase 3 clinical trials that led to the approval of chemoimmunotherapy in ES-SCLC excluded patients who had an Eastern Cooperative Group (ECOG) performance status (PS) of 2-3. Therefore, data on the efficacy of chemoimmunotherapy in patients with an ECOG PS of 2-3 are limited.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was performed on patients diagnosed with ES-SCLC who received chemoimmunotherapy (atezolizumab or durvalumab) within the Mayo Clinic Health System between January 2016 and January 2021. The objective of this study was to compare the overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and best clinical response to therapy in patients with an ECOG PS of 0-1 vs. patients with an ECOG PS of 2-3 who received chemoimmunotherapy for newly diagnosed ES-SCLC.

RESULTS

In total, 82 patients were included in the study. The mean ± standard deviation age was 68.1 ± 8.3 years. Of these, 56 patients were identified with an ECOG PS of 0-1, and 26 patients were identified with an ECOG PS of 2-3. The median PFS was similar regardless of ECOG PS (5.8 months [95% CI, 4.3-6.0 months] in the ECOG PS 0-1 group vs. 4.1 months [95% CI, 3.8-6.9 months] in the ECOG PS 2-3; p = .2994). The median OS was also similar regardless of ECOG PS (10.6 months [95% CI, 8.4-13.4 months] in the ECOG PS 0-1 group vs. 9.3 months [95% CI, 4.9-12.8 months]; p = .2718) in the ECOG PS 2-3 group.

CONCLUSIONS

The study results demonstrated no significant difference in PFS or OS among the ECOG PS 2-3 and ECOG PS 0-1 groups. Therefore, chemoimmunotherapy should be considered for patients who have ES-SCLC with an ECOG PS of 2-3.

MRTX1719 Is an MTA-Cooperative PRMT5 Inhibitor That Exhibits Synthetic Lethality in Preclinical Models and Patients with MTAP-Deleted Cancer

Previous studies implicated protein arginine methyltransferase 5 (PRMT5) as a synthetic lethal target for MTAP-deleted (MTAP del) cancers; however, the pharmacologic characterization of small-molecule inhibitors that recapitulate the synthetic lethal phenotype has not been described. MRTX1719 selectively inhibited PRMT5 in the presence of MTA, which is elevated in MTAP del cancers, and inhibited PRMT5-dependent activity and cell viability with >70-fold selecti-vity in HCT116 MTAP del compared with HCT116 MTAP wild-type (WT) cells. MRTX1719 demonstrated dose-dependent antitumor activity and inhibition of PRMT5-dependent SDMA modification in MTAP del tumors. In contrast, MRTX1719 demonstrated minimal effects on SDMA and viability in MTAP WT tumor xenografts or hematopoietic cells. MRTX1719 demonstrated marked antitumor activity across a panel of xenograft models at well-tolerated doses. Early signs of clinical activity were observed including objective responses in patients with MTAP del melanoma, gallbladder adenocarcinoma, mesothelioma, non-small cell lung cancer, and malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumors from the phase I/II study.

SIGNIFICANCE

PRMT5 was identified as a synthetic lethal target for MTAP del cancers; however, previous PRMT5 inhibitors do not selectively target this genotype. The differentiated binding mode of MRTX1719 leverages the elevated MTA in MTAP del cancers and represents a promising therapy for the ∼10% of patients with cancer with this biomarker. See related commentary by Mulvaney, p. 2310. This article is featured in Selected Articles from This Issue, p. 2293.

Chemoimmunotherapy as the First-Line Treatment for Patients With Extensive-Stage Small-Cell Lung Cancer and an ECOG Performance Status 2 or 3

BACKGROUND

Studies demonstrated that chemoimmunotherapy prolongs progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in patients with extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC) and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) 0 or 1. However, there is little data regarding chemoimmunotherapy in patients with ES-SCLC and an ECOG PS 2 or 3. This study aims to evaluate the benefits of chemoimmunotherapy compared to chemotherapy in the first-line treatment of patients with ES-SCLC and ECOG PS 2 or 3.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This retrospective study analyzed 46 adults treated at Mayo Clinic between 2017 and 2020 with de novo ES-SCLC and an ECOG PS 2 or 3. Twenty patients received platinum-etoposide and 26 patients received platinum-etoposide and atezolizumab. Progression-free survival (PFS) and Overall survival (OS) were calculated using Kaplan-Meier methods.

RESULTS

PFS was longer in the chemoimmunotherapy group compared to the chemotherapy group, 4.1 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 3.8-6.9) vs. 3.2 months (95% CI: 0.6-4.8), respectively; P = 0.0491. However, there was no statistically significant difference in the OS between the chemoimmunotherapy and chemotherapy group, 9.3 months (95% CI: : 4.9-12.8) vs. 7.6 months (95% CI: 0.6-11.9), respectively; P = .21.

CONCLUSION

Chemoimmunotherapy prolongs PFS compared to chemotherapy in patients with newly diagnosed ES-SCLC and an ECOG PS 2 or 3.  No OS difference was observed among the chemoimmunotherapy and chemotherapy groups; nevertheless, this may be attributed due to the small sample size of the study.

Proton craniospinal irradiation with bevacizumab and pembrolizumab for leptomeningeal disease: a case report

Leptomeningeal disease (LMD) remains a challenging condition with a dismal prognosis. In this case study, we report partial response of LMD in a patient with metastatic large cell neuroendocrine carcinoma following treatment with proton craniospinal irradiation (CSI), bevacizumab, and pembrolizumab. Two years after the initial diagnosis, he presented with LMD. He underwent proton CSI with bevacizumab followed by combination therapy with pembrolizumab and bevacizumab. He had a partial disease response with progression-free survival after LMD diagnosis of 4.6 months. He unfortunately developed pembrolizumab induced hypophysitis, after which he experienced rapid neurologic clinical progression. Overall, this novel combination led to a durable partial response which warrants prospective evaluation.

Subtype of SCLC Is an Intrinsic and Persistent Feature Through Systemic Treatment

Introduction

SCLC is an aggressive malignancy with poor outcome. Most patients have disease recurrence despite treatments with multiple modalities. Subtyping of SCLC has been proposed recently, and novel agents targeting specific subtypes are actively being investigated. In this study, we evaluated the plasticity of subtypes in paired pre- and post-treatment samples. The aim was to understand possible subtype evolution after chemotherapy resistance that could lead to alternate targeted therapy strategies.

Methods

A total of 68 samples from 32 patients with sufficient paired specimens were identified from 1998 to 2022. ASCL1, NEUROD1, and POU2F3 immunohistochemistry studies were performed on all cases, and subtyping by predominant expression was determined. Subtype comparison in each patient was performed, and expression analysis was performed on the basis of subtypes.

Results

Of 32 cases, 28 (88%) had the same subtype in pre- and first post-treatment specimens. Protein expression level of subtype-specific transcription factor remained stable after chemotherapy. Two of five (40%) NEUROD1-predominant SCLC switched to ASCL1-predominant phenotype after treatment. One case had a pitfall of scoring ASCL1 on specimen with marked crushing artifacts. One case revealed the challenge of proper subtyping for samples with borderline POU2F3 expression.

Conclusions

Subtype of SCLC generally remains the same after acquiring chemotherapy resistance. Plasticity was observed with rare cases switching from NEUROD1-predominant to ASC1-predominant SCLC. Resubtyping is unnecessary for the consideration of novel subtype-specific targeted agents, except cases with NEUROD1-predominant subtype.

Early Changes in Circulating Cell-Free KRAS G12C Predict Response to Adagrasib in KRAS Mutant Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Patients

PURPOSE

Non-invasive monitoring of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) has the potential to be a readily available measure for early prediction of clinical response. Here, we report on early ctDNA changes of KRAS G12C in a Phase 2 trial of adagrasib in patients with advanced, KRAS G12C-mutant lung cancer.

EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN

We performed serial droplet digital PCR (ddPCR) and plasma NGS on 60 KRAS G12C-mutant patients with lung cancer that participated in cohort A of the KRYSTAL-1 clinical trial. We analyzed the change in ctDNA at 2 specific intervals: Between cycles 1 and 2 and at cycle 4. Changes in ctDNA were compared with clinical and radiographic response.

RESULTS

We found that, in general, a maximal response in KRAS G12C ctDNA levels could be observed during the initial approximately 3-week treatment period, well before the first scan at approximately 6 weeks. 35 patients (89.7%) exhibited a decrease in KRAS G12C cfDNA >90% and 33 patients (84.6%) achieved complete clearance by cycle 2. Patients with complete ctDNA clearance at cycle 2 showed an improved objective response rate (ORR) compared with patients with incomplete ctDNA clearance (60.6% vs. 33.3%). Furthermore, complete ctDNA clearance at cycle 4 was associated with an improved overall survival (14.7 vs. 5.4 months) and progression-free survival (HR, 0.3).

CONCLUSIONS

These results support using early plasma response of KRAS G12C assessed at approximately 3 weeks to anticipate the likelihood of a favorable objective clinical response.

Time from immune checkpoint inhibitor to sotorasib use correlates with risk of hepatotoxicity in non-small cell lung cancer: A brief report

INTRODUCTION

We evaluated the risk factors and outcomes for patients who experienced hepatotoxicity after use of sotorasib in KRAS G12C mutated NSCLC.

METHODS

Retrospective review of medical records of patients with KRAS G12C mutated NSCLC who received sotorasib between May 28th, 2021, and December 31st, 2021 across all Mayo Clinic sites, with follow up until December 31st, 2022.

RESULTS

Thirty-one patients received sotorasib as standard of care treatment. Grade 3 or higher hepatoxicity was seen in 32% (10/31) patients presenting at a median of 51 days (range, 27-123) of sotorasib initiation. Baseline demographics were comparable between patients with and without ≥grade 3 hepatotoxicity, except for presence of CNS metastases and time from prior immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) treatment. Improvement in liver tests was observed in all patients after stopping sotorasib, and it was restarted at a lower dose in 8 patients. Despite dose reduction, hepatotoxicity requiring sotorasib discontinuation occurred in 2 patients. Twenty-eight of 31 patients had received prior ICI. Median time from prior ICI therapy was 69 days (range, 4-542). Rates of ≥grade 3 hepatoxicity were 75% (3/4), 64% (7/11) and 0% (0/13) for patients who received ICI within 30 days, 31-90 days and >90 days. None of the 3 patients without prior ICI exposure developed hepatoxicity. The median PFS and OS were 3.9 months and 9.9 months respectively.

CONCLUSION

One-third of patients developed grade 3 or higher sotorasib induced hepatotoxicity. Risk of hepatotoxicity was higher in patients who received sotorasib within 90 days of ICI treatment.

Shared Decision Making in the Care of Patients With Cancer

Shared decision making (SDM) is a method of care that is suitable for the care of patients with cancer. It involves a collaborative conversation seeking to respond sensibly to the problematic situation of the patient, cocreating a plan of care that makes sense intellectually, practically, and emotionally. Genetic testing to identify whether a patient has a hereditary cancer syndrome represents a prime example of the importance for SDM in oncology. SDM is important for genetic testing because not only results affect current cancer treatment, cancer surveillance, and care of relatives but also these tests generate both complex results and psychological concerns. SDM conversations should take place without interruptions, disruptions, or hurry and be supported, where available, by tools that assist in conveying the relevant evidence and in supporting plan development. Examples of these tools include treatment SDM encounter aids and the Genetics Adviser. Patients are expected to play a key role in making decisions and implementing plans of care, but several evolving challenges related to the unfettered access to information and expertise of varying trustworthiness and complexity in between interactions with clinicians can both support and complicate this role. SDM should result in a plan of care that is maximally responsive to the biology and biography of each patient, maximally supportive of each patient's goals and priorities, and minimally disruptive of their lives and loves.

Efficacy of first-line checkpoint inhibitors in combination with chemotherapy in high-grade extrapulmonary metastatic neuroendocrine carcinomas

Poorly differentiated extrapulmonary neuroendocrine carcinomas (EP NECs) are aggressive cancers characterized by a high Ki-67 index, rapid tumor growth and poor survival, and are subdivided into small and large cell carcinoma. For small cell carcinoma of the lung, a pulmonary NEC, the combination of cytotoxic chemotherapy (CTX) and a checkpoint inhibitor (CPI) is considered standard therapy and superior to CTX alone. EP NECs are typically treated with platinum-based regimens, some clinicians have adopted the addition of a CPI to CTX based on data from trials in patients with small cell carcinoma of the lung. In this retrospective study of EP NECs, we report 38 patients treated with standard first-line CTX and 19 patients treated with CTX plus CPI. We did not observe any additional benefit of adding CPI to CTX in this cohort.

Phase 1/2 trial of vesicular stomatitis virus expressing human interferon-β and NIS (VSV-IFNβ-NIS), with pembrolizumab, in patients with neuroendocrine carcinoma

TPS657

Background: Poorly differentiated neuroendocrine carcinoma (NEC) is an aggressive malignancy comprising both pulmonary and extrapulmonary primary sites. NEC includes both small cell lung cancer (SCLC) and large cell neuroendocrine carcinoma (LCNEC), as well as other neuroendocrine carcinomas arising from any primary organ. A substantial portion (~40%) of NEC arises from gastrointestinal primary sites. The optimal systemic therapy beyond first line platinum and etoposide is not established. There is a critical need to improve upon the median survival in the second line, as most patients do not survive more than 6 months. The efficacy of single agent immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in NEC has been disappointing. One possible explanation for this is that the tumor microenvironment in NEC is non-inflamed. VSV-IFNβ-NIS is a vesicular stomatitis virus (VSV)-based oncolytic virus being tested in multiple early phase clinical trials. Preliminary studies of immune responses in patients receiving VSV-IFNβ-NIS therapy suggest some patients develop T cell responses to viral antigens and known tumor antigens. We hypothesize that VSV-IFNβ-NIS therapy may convert a non-inflamed or immune-excluded phenotype in NEC to a highly inflamed phenotype that sensitizes the tumor to ICIs. Methods: This is a phase 1-2 safety run-in study designed to determine the safety of VSV-IFNβ-NIS in combination with a single agent ICI, pembrolizumab, followed by dose expansion in patients with refractory non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) or NEC. The safety run-in portion of this study has been completed, and we are presently testing the recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) of VSV-IFNβ-NIS in an expansion cohort of patients with SCLC or NEC of any primary site. Patients must have previously progressed on at least one line of systemic therapy. Prior treatment with checkpoint inhibitors is permitted. Patients are treated one time with the RP2D of 1.0x10^11 TCID50 VSV-IFNβ-NIS on day 1, followed by pembrolizumab on day 8 and then pembrolizumab every 21 days until progression, up to 2 years. The primary objective is to estimate the response rate by RECIST 1.1. Secondary objectives include estimation of disease-control rate, duration or response, progression-free survival, overall survival, and safety signals. The NEC expansion cohort will seek to enroll 10 patients. If at least one objective response is observed, and safety is confirmed, the regimen will be considered for future study. Clinical trial information: NCT03647163 .

Post-protocol therapies in first-line immunotherapy trials in non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC)

125

Background: The advent of immunotherapy (IO) has led to significant improvement in outcomes for patients (pts) with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (adv NSCLC). The rate of crossovers and receipt of post-protocol IO in pivotal trials leading to FDA approvals of IO in NSCLC has not been systematically evaluated. Here, we evaluate crossover rates and post protocol therapies for pts with adv NSCLC across multiple first-line (1L) IO monotherapy and chemotherapy/IO (chemo/IO) combination trials. Methods: We utilized the publicly available data from pivotal clinical trials leading to approvals of IO or chemo/IO regimens in 1L treatment of adv NSCLC. We extracted data on outcomes, rate of crossover from control arm to IO, proportion of pts in control arm receiving IO and the start dates of these clinical trials. The primary outcomes were the rates of crossover and the proportion of patients in control arms who received post-control IO. Results: The study included 4 trials with IO monotherapy and 12 trials with chemo/IO combinations in 1L adv NSCLC. The primary endpoints for these trials were PFS (25%), OS (19%), and both PFS and OS (56%). The crossover rate from control arm to experimental arm (with IO) ranged from 0-74% in IO monotherapy trials and 0-49% in chemo/IO trials. Two IO monotherapy trials and five chemo/IO trials did not allow crossover; among them, 3 trials had a PFS/OS co-primary endpoint, while others had OS as primary endpoint. Ten of 16 trials provided explicit information on use of subsequent post-protocol therapies in their publications. Among the two IO monotherapy trials which did not allow crossover, post-protocol IO was administered in only 20-30% of patients. Among the six chemo/IO trials with information on post-protocol therapies, 30%-59% patients on the control arm subsequently received some form of IO on progression. Nine of 12 trials started accrual after 10/2015, when nivolumab was approved in the United States as second-line (2L) therapy for adv NSCLC regardless of tumor PD-L1 expression. Conclusions: Despite the highly significant OS benefit from 2L IO, which was the standard of care (SOC) in the United States, the rates of crossover and post-protocol IO administration was distressingly low in 1L IO monotherapy and chemo/IO trials for 1L adv NSCLC. This low rate of 2L treatment with IO may have been due to limited global availability prior to widespread regulatory approval during the conduct of these trials. There is an increased need for consistency in reporting of crossover treatment and post-protocol treatments to allow adequate assessment of the true 1L benefit with IO. Control arms in pivotal trials require scrutiny to ensure confirmation with SOC to provide access to optimal treatments for patients and prevent magnification of observed benefits in experimental arms. The difficulty lies in the global conduct of large randomized clinical trials with differing regulatory approvals.

Efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitors in non-small cell lung cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have demonstrated remarkable efficacy in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, only a minority of NSCLC patients benefit from ICIs, and whether the magnitude of benefit is specific factor-dependent remains unclear. We performed a systematic review to improve our understanding of clinicopathologic and biomolecular features associated with improved survival upon treatment with ICIs for NSCLC.

Methods

We searched PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Scopus from database inception to August 31, 2021, for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing overall survival (OS) in NSCLC treated with ICIs vs control therapies. We calculated the pooled OS hazard ratio (HR) and 95% CI in subgroups using a random-effects model, and assessed the heterogeneity between the paired estimates using an interaction test.

Results

A total of 23 RCTs involving 15,829 patients were included. We found that wild-type EGFR, high PD-L1 expression, and high bTMB were associated with a significant OS benefit from ICIs, but not mutant EGFR, low PD-L1 expression, and low bTMB. The differences of OS benefit between wild-type and mutant EGFR (HR=1.53, 95%CI 1.13-2.08), high and low PD-L1 (HR=1.35; 95%CI 1.14-1.61), high and low bTMB (HR=1.71; 95%CI 1.17-2.52) were statistically significant. OS benefit was found in all subgroups regardless of sex, age, ECOG PS, histology, smoking history, baseline brain metastasis, race, and region, and the interaction test demonstrated no significant difference of the OS benefit between these opposed subgroups (e.g. male vs female).

Conclusions

Wild-type EGFR, high PD-L1 expression, and high bTMB are associated with a greater magnitude of efficacy from ICIs vs control therapies in NSCLC. However, the administration of ICIs should not be restricted to other clinicopathological factors (sex, smoking history, race, etc.).

Adagrasib in Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer Harboring a KRASG12C Mutation

BACKGROUND

Adagrasib, a KRAS^G12C inhibitor, irreversibly and selectively binds KRAS^G12C, locking it in its inactive state. Adagrasib showed clinical activity and had an acceptable adverse-event profile in the phase 1-1b part of the KRYSTAL-1 phase 1-2 study.

METHODS

In a registrational phase 2 cohort, we evaluated adagrasib (600 mg orally twice daily) in patients with KRAS^G12C -mutated non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) previously treated with platinum-based chemotherapy and anti-programmed death 1 or programmed death ligand 1 therapy. The primary end point was objective response assessed by blinded independent central review. Secondary end points included the duration of response, progression-free survival, overall survival, and safety.

RESULTS

As of October 15, 2021, a total of 116 patients with KRAS^G12C -mutated NSCLC had been treated (median follow-up, 12.9 months); 98.3% had previously received both chemotherapy and immunotherapy. Of 112 patients with measurable disease at baseline, 48 (42.9%) had a confirmed objective response. The median duration of response was 8.5 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 6.2 to 13.8), and the median progression-free survival was 6.5 months (95% CI, 4.7 to 8.4). As of January 15, 2022 (median follow-up, 15.6 months), the median overall survival was 12.6 months (95% CI, 9.2 to 19.2). Among 33 patients with previously treated, stable central nervous system metastases, the intracranial confirmed objective response rate was 33.3% (95% CI, 18.0 to 51.8). Treatment-related adverse events occurred in 97.4% of the patients - grade 1 or 2 in 52.6% and grade 3 or higher in 44.8% (including two grade 5 events) - and resulted in drug discontinuation in 6.9% of patients.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with previously treated KRAS^G12C -mutated NSCLC, adagrasib showed clinical efficacy without new safety signals. (Funded by Mirati Therapeutics; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03785249.).

Feasibility of virtual stress management and resiliency training (SMART) for oncology fellows during the COVID-19 pandemic

11016

Background: Stress Management and Resiliency Training (SMART) is a validated resilience training program designed to reduce stress, improve emotional resilience, and decrease burnout. The prevalence of burnout among practicing oncologists is as high as 40%, but unknown among oncology trainees. We implemented a virtual format of the SMART program to the Hematology/Oncology fellowship at Mayo Clinic to assess the feasibility of such a delivery, measure baseline rates of burnout in this group, and to investigate if a virtual method of delivery is as effective as in-person delivery as described in the literature. Methods: The SMART project was a mixed-methods, prospective, single arm clinical trial. Hematology/Oncology Fellows at Mayo Clinic were invited to participate. Four one-hour training sessions were conducted virtually. Fellows were given access to SMART online video modules and a book which supported the content covered during virtual training, a companion resilience mobile app, and a paperback mindfulness journal. Stress, burnout, and emotional resilience were measured at baseline and three months post-intervention using the Perceived Stress Scale (PSS), Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI), and Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC2). Changes in mean scores on the PSS, MBI, and CD-RISC2 were assessed using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Program feedback and feasibility data were obtained during a virtual focus group. Audio transcripts from the focus group were codified for thematic analysis and verified by intercoder triangulation. A 6-month assessment will be due in March 2022. Results: 26 of 50 fellows invited participated in our study. At baseline, 24% of participants had measurable burnout and 92% had moderate to high stress. At 3-months, the number of participants with moderate to high stress decreased to 71%, while rates of burnout remained unchanged. The PSS demonstrated a decrease in mean stress (-10.9%, p = 0.005), while the MBI demonstrated decreased emotional exhaustion (MBI-EE -6.01%, p = 0.04), an improved sense of personal achievement (MBI-PA 28.1%, p < 0.001), but slightly worse feelings of depersonalization (MBI-DP 16.46%, p = 0.05). The CD-RISC2 suggested no change in global emotional resilience (-0.71%, p = 0.82). Thematic analysis of the focus group data revealed that participants overwhelmingly found the program beneficial (83% of all responses), 20% indicated improved stress, and 15% indicated improved work performance. Conclusions: Oncology fellows in this study had lower rates of burnout compared to practicing oncologists. Virtual implementation of the SMART program is feasible and resulted in improvements in stress and prevented worsened burnout. Outcomes were comparable to previously published studies conducted in-person. Focus group participants found the training beneficial, reported lower stress, and improved work performance.

KRYSTAL-1: Activity and safety of adagrasib (MRTX849) in patients with advanced/metastatic non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) harboring a KRASG12C mutation

9002

Background: KRAS is a key mediator of the RAS/MAPK signaling cascade that promotes cellular growth and proliferation. KRASG12C mutation occurs in ̃14% of NSCLC. Adagrasib, an investigational agent, is a KRASG12C inhibitor that irreversibly and selectively binds KRASG12C, locking it in its inactive state. Adagrasib is optimized for favorable pharmacokinetic (PK) properties, including long half-life (̃24 h), dose-dependent PK, and central nervous system penetration; it has demonstrated objective response and favorable tolerability in the Phase 1/1b setting. Methods: KRYSTAL-1 (NCT03785249) is a multicohort Phase 1/2 study evaluating adagrasib as monotherapy or in combination regimens in patients with advanced solid tumors harboring a KRASG12C mutation. Here we report the first disclosure from all patients enrolled in Cohort A, a Phase 2 cohort with registrational intent, evaluating adagrasib given 600 mg orally BID in patients with NSCLC previously treated with platinum-based chemotherapy and anti-PD-1/L1 therapy. Study objectives include evaluating efficacy (objective response rate [ORR], duration of response [DOR], progression-free survival [PFS], overall survival [OS]), safety, PK, and exploratory correlative analyses. Objective tumor response was assessed per RECIST v1.1 by blinded independent central review (BICR). Results: As of the 15 October 2021 data cutoff, 116 patients with NSCLC harboring a KRASG12C mutation were enrolled and treated, with a median follow-up of 12.5 months. Baseline characteristics include median age 64 years, 65% female, and 15.5%/83.6% with ECOG PS 0/1; 98.3% of patients received adagrasib following prior treatment with immunotherapy and chemotherapy, with a median of 2 prior systemic therapies. The ORR (by BICR) was 42.9% (48/112) and the disease control rate was 79.5% (89/112); 31 patients remain on treatment. Median DOR was 8.5 months (95% CI 6.2–13.8), median PFS was 6.5 months (95% CI 4.7–8.4), median OS was 12.6 months (95% CI 9.2–NE). Treatment-related AEs (TRAEs) of any grade occurred in 97.4% of patients, grade ≥3 TRAEs in 45.7%, 2 grade 5 TRAEs, and 8 (6.9%) TRAEs led to discontinuation. The most commonly reported (≥25%) TRAEs (any grade) were diarrhea (62.9%), nausea (62.1%), vomiting (47.4%), fatigue (40.5%), ALT/AST increased (27.6%/25%), blood creatinine increased (25.9%); the most commonly reported (≥5%) TRAEs (grade 3/4) were lipase increased (6%) and anemia (5.2%). Additional subgroup analyses will be presented, including selected demographics, molecular markers and sites of metastases. Conclusions: Adagrasib is well tolerated and demonstrates promising efficacy in pretreated patients with NSCLC harboring a KRASG12C mutation. A Phase 3 trial evaluating adagrasib monotherapy versus docetaxel in previously treated patients with KRASG12C-mutant NSCLC is ongoing (NCT04685135). Clinical trial information: NCT03785249.

MC1923 phase II clinical trial of durvalumab (MEDI4736) and topotecan or lurbinectedin in patients with relapsed extensive-stage small cell lung cancer previously treated with chemotherapy and immunotherapy

TPS8604

Background: Chemoimmunotherapy followed by durvalumab maintenance yields a median overall survival of 12.9 months in patients with extensive stage Small Cell Lung Cancer (ES SCLC), which is an improvement over chemotherapy alone. However, 90% of these patients will have progressive disease. While topotecan and lurbinectedin have established modest activity in the second line, it is unknown whether continuing immunotherapy in this setting confers additional benefit. In preclinical studies lurbinectedin, a DNA minor groove binder, used with immune checkpoint inhibitors has synergistic effects. Methods: This phase 2 trial is enrolling patients with ES SCLC who have progressed on platinum based chemoimmunotherapy, to three treatment groups. Group 1 includes patients with platinum sensitive SCLC who will receive durvalumab (1500 mg given as an intravenous [IV] infusion once every 3 weeks) and topotecan (1.25 mg/m2/day IV for 5 consecutive days every 3 weeks). In Groups 2A and 2B, patients with platinum sensitive and platinum resistant disease respectively, receive durvalumab and lurbinectedin (3.2 mg/m2 IV on Day 1 of every 21-day cycle). Patients with platinum sensitive disease are assigned to Groups 1 or 2A based on the preferences of the treating physician and the patient. Patients with treated/stable CNS metastases are eligible. The primary endpoint is the proportion of patients who are alive at 6 months (6OS) for Group 1 and the proportion of patients who are alive and progression-free at 6 months (6PFS) in Groups 2A and 2B. Secondary endpoints include safety, adverse event profile, response rate, PFS, and OS. The sample size is based on a 2-stage Simon Optimal Design. For Treatment Group 1, with 22 eligible patients there is 80% power to detect a true 6-month OS rate (6OS) of 75%, with 10% alpha under the null hypothesis that the true 6OS is at most 50%. For Treatment Group 2A, with 20 eligible patients this design has 80% power to detect a true 6-month PFS rate (6PFS) of 65%, with 10% alpha under the null hypothesis that the true 6PFS is at most 40%. For Treatment Group 2B, with 22 eligible patients this design has 80% power to detect a true 6-month PFS rate (6PFS) of 40%, with 10% alpha under the null hypothesis that the true 6PFS is at most 19%. To account for possible drop-outs, accrual targets will be 24, 22, and 24 patients to Groups 1, 2A, and 2B respectively. For the safety analyses, 6 patients will be enrolled at the starting dose level for each treatment group (1, 2) and then briefly closed to accrual to assess adverse events. If we observe 2+ DLTs in these 6 treated patients during Cycle 1 within a treatment group (1 vs. 2), we will declare the combination treatment too toxic and lower the starting dose of chemotherapy for the next 6 patients. The study was open for all 3 groups as of January 2022 and has accrued 2 patients. Clinical trial information: NCT04607954.

Phase I study of HFB200301, a first-in-class TNFR2 agonist monoclonal antibody in patients with solid tumors selected via Drug Intelligent Science (DIS)

TPS2670

Background: Tumor necrosis factor receptor-2 (TNFR2) is expressed on effector CD8+ T cells, CD4+ T cells, T regulatory cells, natural killer cells, and myeloid cells. Targeting TNFR2 is anticipated to yield effective anti-tumor immunity by stimulating T-cell and NK-cell activation and proliferation in the tumor microenvironment. HFB200301 is a first-in-class anti-TNFR2 agonistic monoclonal antibody that triggers both innate and adaptive immune stimulation by binding to a specific epitope on TNFR2. HFB200301 has demonstrated dose-dependent anti-tumor activity in human TNFR2 knock-in mice bearing MC38 and Hepa1-6 syngeneic tumors. Methods: HFB200301 is being evaluated in a first-in-human, open-label, multi-center, dose escalation and expansion study in adult patients with advanced solid tumors. A single-cell immune profiling platform, DIS, was deployed to identify unique tumor-infiltrating T cell signatures that could help optimize patient selection for HFB200301 treatment. It is hypothesized that the presence of an effector T cell subpopulation that express both TNFR2 and CD8A in solid tumors may represent a tumor microenvironment favorable to TNFR2 agonism. The following cancer indications have been identified based on the prevalence of a TNFR2 high/CD8 high signature: Epstein-Barr Virus positive (EBV+) gastric cancer, clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC), cutaneous melanoma, testicular germ cell tumor (TGCT), soft tissue sarcoma (STS), and PD-L1+ cancers: cervical cancer, pleural mesothelioma, lung adenocarcinoma, and head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC). The escalation portion of the study explores increasing doses in cohorts of up to six patients, utilizing mTPI-2 design to determine recommended dose(s) for expansion (RDE(s)). Based on pharmacokinetic modeling to maximize HFB200301 activity, 60-minute intravenous infusions of HFB200301 are administered every 4 weeks. Once RDE(s) is determined, expansion into three indication-specific cohorts is planned to determine the recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D). Key eligibility criteria include histologically documented advanced or metastatic solid tumors in the above listed indications. Patient enrollment opened in February 2022 in the USA, with plans for additional clinical sites in Spain and China. The primary objective is to identify the RDE, characterize safety and tolerability of HFB200301, and determine RP2D. Secondary objectives include pharmacokinetic parameters, preliminary evidence of anti-tumor efficacy (e.g., ORR, DCR, DOR) and pharmacodynamic evaluation (e.g., T cell subsets) in the blood and in the tumor. Furthermore, a potential predictive biomarker signature derived based on the DIS single-cell immune profiling approach will be investigated retrospectively. Clinical trial information: NCT05238883.

Genomic predictors of benefit from checkpoint inhibition in neuroendocrine carcinoma

512

Background: The role of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in the treatment of extrapulmonary neuroendocrine carcinoma (EP-NEC) has yet to be established. While objective responses have been observed, it is still unknown which patients are likely to derive benefit. We investigated the genomic profiles of patients who did and did not benefit from ICIs. Methods: Previously we reported the objective responses to ICI in a retrospective series of patients with EP-NEC. RECIST 1.1 criteria were used to categorize patients as achieving disease control (DC = CR, PR, or SD) vs progressive disease (PD). The EMR was reviewed to identify patients who had genomic panels performed, and results were extracted for analysis. Results: Of 31 patients eligible for RECIST assessment, 19 had genomic panels available (9 with DC: 4 SD, 5 PR vs 10 with PD). Of those with NEC histology specified, 9 were small cell, 1 combined large and small cell, 3 were large cell. All tumors were microsatellite-stable. All but one (with TMB = 25) of 16 tumors with TMB status available were < 10 m/MB. Of those with disease control, 67% had both TP53 and RB1 alterations, compared with only 10% in those with progressive disease; this was statistically significant ( p = 0.0198, Fisher exact). Of 7 tumors with TP53 + RB1 alterations, 4 were specified as small cell carcinoma. Half of those with PD showed alterations in β-catenin pathway genes CTNNB1 or APC, compared to only one of the DC group, but this did not reach significance ( p = 0.1409, Fisher exact). In an analysis of all Mayo patients (not just those treated with ICI) with NGS data available (Tempus and FoundationOne), concurrent TP53 + RB1 alteration was significantly more common in SCLC than in EP-NEC (Table). Conclusions: In this small series of patients with EP-NEC treated with ICIs, the SCLC-like genomic signature of concurrent TP53 + RB1 alterations was significantly more common in those with disease control than in those with progressive disease. An analysis of all patients with NGS data (not just on ICI) showed that the dual alteration was more common in SCLC, and SCLC also had more TMB-high tumors. This may explain why ICIs are more effective in SCLC than in EP-NEC. Further study is warranted to determine whether TP53 + RB1 mutations predict response to ICI in NEC.[Table: see text]

Trends in Prices of Drugs Used to Treat Metastatic Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer in the US From 2015 to 2020

IMPORTANCE

Oncology drug prices are a determinant of health disparities in the US and worldwide. Several new therapeutic agents for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) have become available on the US market over the past decade. Although increased competition typically produces lower prices, competition among brand-name oncology drugs has not resulted in lower prices.

OBJECTIVE

To assess price changes in class-specific brand-name medications used to treat metastatic NSCLC in the US from 2015 to 2020.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This cross-sectional study, conducted from August 13, 2015, to August 13, 2020, used data from the Micromedex Red Book and Medi-Span Price Rx databases. The study sample was limited to 17 brand-name medications used to treat metastatic NSCLC that were available for purchase before January 1, 2019.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The main outcomes were trends over time in average wholesale prices and wholesale acquisition cost unit prices and the correlation in price among the multiple brand-name medications within each therapeutic class (immune checkpoint inhibitors, epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitors, anaplastic lymphoma kinase inhibitors, ROS1 inhibitors, BRAF inhibitors, and MEK inhibitors), measured using the Pearson correlation coefficient. The compounded annual growth rates of different medication costs were compared with the annual inflation rate and the consumer price index for prescription drugs.

RESULTS

For all drug classes, the Pearson correlation coefficient approached 1.0, indicating an increase in drug list prices despite within-class drug competition. The median Pearson correlation coefficient values were 0.964 (range, 0.951-0.994) for immune checkpoint inhibitors, 0.898 (range, 0.665-0.950) for epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitors, 0.999 (range, 0.982-0.999) for anaplastic lymphoma kinase inhibitors, and 0.999 for BRAF and MEK inhibitors. The median compounded annual growth rates for most drug costs were higher than the annual inflation rate and consumer price index for prescription drugs: 1.81% (range, 1.29%-2.13%) for immune checkpoint inhibitors, 2.56% (range, 2.38%-5.26%) for epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitors, 2.46% (range, 1.75%-4.66%) for anaplastic lymphoma kinase and ROS1 inhibitors, and 3.06% (range, 0%-3.06%) for BRAF and MEK inhibitors.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this cross-sectional study, prices of brand-name medications for treatment of NSCLC increased in the US from 2015 to 2020 without evidence of price competition, raising concern about the affordability of promising oncology drugs. These findings suggest that drug pricing reform is needed.

Outcomes of COVID-19 in Patients With Cancer: A Closer Look at Pre-Emptive Routine Screening Strategies

PURPOSE

The benefit of routine pre-emptive screening for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infections in patients with cancer before cancer-directed therapies is unclear. Herein, we characterize the outcomes of a cohort of patients with cancer who were diagnosed with COVID-19 by routine screening (RS) in comparison with those diagnosed on the basis of clinical suspicion or exposure history (nonroutine screening [NRS]).

METHODS

A multisite prospective observational study was conducted at three major and five satellite campuses of the Mayo Clinic Cancer Center between March 18 and July 31, 2020. The primary outcome was COVID-19-related hospital admission. Secondary outcomes included intensive care unit admissions and all-cause mortality.

RESULTS

Five thousand four hundred fifty-two patients underwent RS in the outpatient setting only, and 44 (0.81%) were diagnosed with COVID-19. RS detected 19 additional patients from the scheduled inpatient admissions for surgical or interventional procedures or inpatient chemotherapy. One hundred sixty-one patients were diagnosed with COVID-19 on the basis of NRS. COVID-19-related hospitalization rate (17.5% v 26.7%; P = .14), intensive care unit admission (1.6% v 5.6%; P = .19), and mortality (4.8% v 3.7%; P = .72) were not significantly different between the RS and NRS groups. In the multivariable analysis, age ≥ 60 years (odds ratio, 4.4; P = .023) and an absolute lymphocyte count ≤ 1.4 × 10⁹/L (odds ratio, 9.2; P = .002) were independent predictors of COVID-19-related hospital admission.

CONCLUSION

The COVID-19 positivity rate was low on the basis of RS. Comparing the hospital admission and mortality outcomes with the NRS cohort, there were no significant differences. The value of routine pre-emptive screening of asymptomatic patients with cancer for COVID-19 remains low.

Association of a Remote Patient Monitoring (RPM) Program With Reduced Hospitalizations in Cancer Patients With COVID-19

PURPOSE

The goal of this study was to assess the impact of an interdisciplinary remote patient monitoring (RPM) program on clinical outcomes and acute care utilization in cancer patients with COVID-19.

METHODS

This is a cross-sectional analysis following a prospective observational study performed at Mayo Clinic Cancer Center. Adult patients receiving cancer-directed therapy or in recent remission on active surveillance with polymerase chain reaction-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection between March 18 and July 31, 2020, were included. RPM was composed of in-home technology to assess symptoms and physiologic data with centralized nursing and physician oversight.

RESULTS

During the study timeframe, 224 patients with cancer were diagnosed with COVID-19. Of the 187 patients (83%) initially managed in the outpatient setting, those who did not receive RPM were significantly more likely to experience hospitalization than those receiving RPM. Following balancing of patient characteristics by inverse propensity score weighting, rates of hospitalization for RPM and non-RPM patients were 2.8% and 13%, respectively, implying that the use of RPM was associated with a 78% relative risk reduction in hospital admission rate (95% CI, 54 to 102; P = .002). Furthermore, when hospitalized, these patients experienced a shorter length of stay and fewer prolonged hospitalizations, intensive care unit admissions, and deaths, although these trends did not reach statistical significance.

CONCLUSION

The use of RPM and a centralized virtual care team was associated with a reduction in hospital admission rate and lower overall acute care resource utilization among cancer patients with COVID-19.

Single institution toxicity of definitive chemoradiation and maintenance durvalumab in locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer

e20554

Background: The paradigm for locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer has been markedly altered to include maintenance durvalumab (D) post completion of definitive chemoradiation (CRT) following the publication of the Pacific trial in 2018. The toxicity of this treatment has not been well evaluated in the real-world setting. Methods: We identified 42 patients (pts) with Stage IIB-IIIC NSCLC treated at Mayo Clinic Rochester between 6/1/2018 and 10/1/2020 who received definitive CRT followed by maintenance D. Data were abstracted by retrospective chart review under an IRB approved protocol. Results: Median age was 66 yrs (range 47-90) and 62% were women. Primary lung cancer histology included 19 adenocarcinoma, 20 squamous cell, and 3 adenosquamous. The distribution of stages was: IIB (4/42), IIIA (15/42), IIIB (19/42), IIIC (4/42). Approximately half of patients had PDL1 expression > 25% (20/42). With a median follow up of 12.2 months (calculated from first cycle of D; range 4.2-30.5 months), 14 had completed one year of maintenance D, 16 were receiving ongoing D, and 10 stopped D early with 6/12 discontinuing due to disease progression (4/6 local progression, 2/6 distant progression). Other reasons for discontinuation (5/10) included grade 3 colitis, grade 2 hepatitis, aspergillus lung infection, and flare of autoimmune disorders. One quarter of patients experienced grade 2 radiation pneumonitis (RP; 10/42) with median time to development of RP 78 days from end of CRT and 45 days from start of D. RP was determined by multidisciplinary review of imaging and treatment fields. 17/42 patients developed immune related adverse events (see Table for details). There was minimal overlap between the patients who experienced pneumonitis and immune related toxicity; 2/17 had both pneumonitis and immune related toxicity (hepatitis, thyroiditis). Conclusions: In our early experience with the Pacific regimen, 29% of patients did not complete D due to either toxicity or progression during D administration. Pneumonitis was common (10/42 patients) although there were no grade 3 events. Nearly half of the patients developed an immune-related adverse event. Further analysis is needed to evaluate the real-world toxicity of this treatment as well as oncologic outcomes.[Table: see text]

Association of use of remote patient monitoring (RPM) with reduced hospitalizations in cancer patients with COVID-19

1503

Background: Patients with cancer and COVID-19 are at risk for poor clinical outcomes. An established multi-site remote patient monitoring (RPM) service was rapidly adapted to support a novel, interdisciplinary COVID-19 program for outpatient management of patients at high-risk for severe illness. The goal of this study was to assess the impact of the RPM program on clinical outcomes and acute care utilization in cancer patients diagnosed with COVID-19. Methods: This is a cross-sectional analysis following a multi-site prospective observational study performed at Mayo Clinic Cancer Center (MCCC). All adult patients with active cancer – defined as currently receiving cancer-directed therapy or in recent remission on active surveillance – and PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection between March 18 and July 31, 2020 were included. RPM was comprised of in-home technology to assess symptoms and physiologic data with centralized nurse and physician oversight. Results: During the study timeframe 224 cancer patients were diagnosed with COVID-19 at MCCC. Initial management included urgent hospitalization (within 48 hours of diagnosis) in 34 patients (15%). Of the remaining 190 patients (85%) initially managed in the outpatient setting, those who did not receive RPM were significantly more likely to experience hospitalization than those receiving RPM (OR 3.6, 95% CI 1.036 to 12.01, P = 0.044). Following balancing of patient characteristics by inverse propensity weighting, rates of hospital admission for RPM and non-RPM patients were 3.1% and 11% respectively, implying that RPM was associated with an 8% reduction in hospital admission rate (-0.077; 95% CI: -0.315 to -0.019, P = 0.009). Use of RPM was also associated with lower rates of prolonged hospitalization, ICU admission, and mortality, though these trends did not reach statistical significance. Conclusions: In the midst of a global pandemic associated with inpatient bed, ventilator, and PPE shortages, the RPM program provided an effective strategy for outpatient clinical management and was associated with decreased rates of hospitalization, ICU admission, and mortality in cancer patients with COVID-19. This care model enabled simultaneous opportunity to mitigate the increased risks of exposure, transmission, and resource utilization associated with conventional care.

Abstract S06-03: Outcomes of COVID-19 in patients with cancer: Results of a prospective observational comparison of routine screening strategy versus testing based on clinical suspicion

Abstract Importance: The benefit of routine screening for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infections in patients with cancer before cancer-directed therapies is unclear. Herein, we characterize the outcomes of a cohort of cancer patients diagnosed with Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) by routine screening in comparison with those diagnosed based on clinical suspicion or exposure history (non-routine screening). Objective: To describe and compare the outcomes of cancer patients diagnosed with COVID-19 on routine screening vs. non-routine screening at a multi-site tertiary cancer center. To identify risk factors for COVID-19-related hospital admission. Design: A multi-site prospective observational study was conducted between March 18 and July 31, 2020. Setting: Three major and 5 satellite campuses of the Mayo Clinic Cancer Center. Participants: Adult patients diagnosed with active cancer within the past five years and confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection were included. Primary Outcomes and Measures: Clinical and laboratory data were assessed as independent variables. The primary outcome was COVID-19-related hospital admission. Secondary outcomes included intensive care unit (ICU) admissions and all-cause mortality. Results: Between March 18 and July 31, 2020, 5452 patients underwent routine screening in the outpatient setting, 44 (0.81%) were diagnosed with COVID-19. Routine screening detected additional 19 patients from inpatient and pre-procedural settings; 161 patients were diagnosed with COVID-19 based on non-routine screening. The median age of the entire cohort at diagnosis was 54 years, and 95 patients (42.2%) were female. COVID-19 related-hospitalization rate (17.5% vs. 26.7%, p=0.14), ICU admission (1.6% vs. 5.6%, p=0.19), and mortality (4.8% vs. 3.7%, p=0.72) were not significantly different between routine screening and non-routine screening groups. In the multivariable analysis, age ≥ 60 years (odds ratio: 4.4, p=0.023) and an absolute lymphocyte count ≤1.4 × 109/L (odds ratio: 9.2, p=0.002) were independent predictors of COVID-19-related hospital admission. Conclusions and Relevance: The COVID-19 positivity rate was low based on routine screening. Comparing the outcome with the non-routine screening cohort, there was no significant difference. These results led to an important practice change at our cancer center. We currently follow a testing strategy based on symptoms, exposure, risk factors, and clinical judgment.

Citation Format: Zhuoer Xie, Antoine N. Saliba, Jithma Abeykoon, Umair Majeed, Daniel Almquist, Julia Wiedmeier-Nutor, Evandro Bezerra, Xavier Andrade-Gonzalez, Ashley Hickman, Karl Sorenson, Sagar Rakshit, Christopher Wee, Sri Tella, Anuhya Kommalapati, Nadine Abdallah, Joshua Pritchett, Mariza De Andrade, Dipesh Uprety, Andrew Badley, Joleen Hubbard, Naseema Gangat, Carrie A. Thompson, Thomas Witzig, Robert R. McWilliams, Konstantinos Leventakos, Thorvardur R. Halfdanarson. Outcomes of COVID-19 in patients with cancer: Results of a prospective observational comparison of routine screening strategy versus testing based on clinical suspicion [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the AACR Virtual Meeting: COVID-19 and Cancer; 2021 Feb 3-5. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Clin Cancer Res 2021;27(6_Suppl):Abstract nr S06-03.

Radiation and immunotherapy: emerging mechanisms of synergy

Immunotherapy (IO) has become a standard treatment in patients with metastatic and locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), and is now being tested in patients with early stage disease. IO agents currently in use for lung cancer target PD-1, PD-L1, and CTLA-4. While survival and tumor control have improved with IO, many patients have limited or short responses to IO. Therefore, methods to improve the systemic response to IO are needed. Radiation therapy (RT) is an integral component of lung cancer treatment, and may improve systemic response to IO by increasing antigen presentation, increasing co-stimulatory signaling, increasing T-cells recruitment, upregulating PD-L1, increasing tumor stromal lymphocyte infiltration, and altering the microenvironment. IO after definitive chemoradiation is now standard treatment in unresectable stage III NSCLC following publication of the PACIFIC clinical trial. For early stage NSCLC, IO is being investigated in conjunction with stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT). The benefit of adding RT to IO in patients with metastatic disease may be especially pronounced in patients with low baseline PD-L1 expression, potentially when delivered as a short course of SBRT, as supported by the PEMBRO-RT clinical trial. Current and ongoing clinical trials are evaluating the optimal radiation dose, timing, and sequencing of RT with IO.

Changing paradigm in advanced and metastatic non-small cell lung cancer

Lung cancer is the most common cancer worldwide. Approximately 18% of all deaths related to cancer are associated with lung cancer. Management of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) has been changing rapidly in last few years. For patients with unresectable non-metastatic disease, maintenance durvalumab is now given after offering chemo-radiation concurrently based on the result from the PACIFIC trial. Management of metastatic disease greatly depends on the status of sensitizing driver mutation and PD-L1 level of the tumor cells. In this review article, we will summarize the outcome of various clinical trials and will provide the most up-to-date information on the management of patients with advanced and metastatic NSCLC.

Pulmonary Neuroendocrine Tumors: Adjuvant and Systemic Treatments

OPINION STATEMENT

Bronchial carcinoids are uncommon tumors accounting for 20 to 30% of all neuroendocrine tumors and about 1-2% of all cancers of pulmonary origin. Bronchial carcinoids are well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumors and have a favorable survival outcome when compared with other subtypes of lung cancers. Treatment of bronchial carcinoids is not simple owing to intricacy of symptom presentation and heterogeneity of disease biology. Successful treatment of patients requires a multimodality approach. Resection is curative in the majority of patients with localized tumors and adjuvant treatment is not routinely recommended. Multiple options for systemic therapy exist for patients with advanced disease. To date, very few randomized clinical trials have been done, partly owing to the relative rarity of this malignancy. Somatostatin analogs (SSAs) are reasonable first-line choice for patients with tumors expressing somatostatin receptors. Everolimus is an appropriate first-line choice for somatostatin receptor negative tumors and for any patients with progressive disease. PRRT can also be considered for progressive tumors expressing somatostatin receptors. Based on retrospective series, cytotoxic chemotherapy can be selected in patients with progressive tumors, primarily when cytoreduction is needed. Herein, we will discuss evidence supporting the role of adjuvant and systemic treatment therapies for those with bronchial carcinoid tumors by focusing on various studies.

Abstract 01: Implementation of cognitive computing to match clinical trials in gynecologic cancers: A single-institution experience

Objectives: Cognitive computing has the potential to improve efficiency and accuracy of clinical trial enrollment using artificial intelligence. The cognitive computing clinical trial matching (CTM) system used for this study utilizes natural language processing to derive patient and tumor attributes from structured and unstructured electronic medical record (EMR) data. The attributes are matched to complex eligibility criteria in trial protocols. This CTM system has been implemented in our gynecologic oncology practice, for which there is lower representation of ethnic minorities, elderly, and uninsured in National Cancer Institute-sponsored trials.

Methods: A clinical research coordinator (CRC) used the CTM system to screen patients for potential clinical trials one day prior to their clinic visit. Trial matches were shared with gynecologic oncology clinicians to raise awareness for study opportunities and assist in treatment decisions. Clinicians were surveyed regarding their experience with the CTM system prepared matches. The identical patients were evaluated by a clinician using the traditional manual screening method.

Results: Seventeen patients with new diagnosis, recent resection, or restaging scans were screened for 41 potential gynecologic, phase I, and supportive care clinical trials. Trial screening by the CRC using the CTM system resulted in a total of 119 matched trials (mean: 7 trials/patient) compared to the clinician-generated list of 271 matched trials (mean: 16 trials/patient). The CRC using the CTM system spent an average of 18 minutes/patient (range: 7 to 40 minutes) compared to the clinician average of 22 minutes/patient (range: 7 to 37 minutes). A survey of 8 gynecologic oncology clinicians reported they were willing to spend an average of 8 minutes/patient (range: 1 to 15 minutes) to screen patients for trial eligibility. On independent review, discrepancies occurred when the clinician identified trials that the CRC excluded due to inclusion/exclusion criteria or were unknowingly closed to accrual. In addition, the CRC identified trials that were inadvertently missing from the clinician’s list of active protocols. Consistent with these observations, 100% of surveyed clinicians (8 of 8) agreed that “The CTM system has helped to include and exclude trials prior to discussion with patients.”

Conclusions: Use of the CTM system by a CRC was superior to a clinician alone for the accuracy and efficiency of screening clinical trial eligibility. This process improved the identification of trials that a clinician might otherwise miss and the exclusion of trials that were not available or appropriate for patients. The CTM system can reduce the burden of clinicians and research staff to screen patients. Additional research is needed to determine if the process can improve clinical trial enrollment in gynecologic cancers.

Citation Format: Thanh P. Ho, Jane M. Helgeson, Angela L. Andring, Jennifer C. Reed, Venessa L. Boyle, Nigar Sofiyeva, Konstantinos Leventakos, Tufia C. Haddad, Andrea E. Wahner Hendrickson, Saravut (John) Weroha. Implementation of cognitive computing to match clinical trials in gynecologic cancers: A single-institution experience [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the AACR Special Conference on Advancing Precision Medicine Drug Development: Incorporation of Real-World Data and Other Novel Strategies; Jan 9-12, 2020; San Diego, CA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Clin Cancer Res 2020;26(12_Suppl_1):Abstract nr 01.

Clinical significance of brain metastases in patients with bronchopulmonary neuroendocrine tumors: A population-based analysis

e21575

Background: The clinical significance of brain metastases in patients with bronchopulmonary neuroendocrine (NE) tumors is unknown; we therefore conducted a population based analysis to evaluate the implications of brain metastases in these patients. Methods: The NCDB database was queried to identify patients with stage IV bronchopulmonary NE tumors treated between the years of 2004-2012. Patients were split into two groups based on the presence of brain metastases at diagnosis and survival probabilities with multivariate models were performed. Results: A total of 7,725 patients with Stage IV bronchopulmonary NE tumors were identified. The histological subtypes studied in this cohort were NE carcinoma (65.4%), large cell NE carcinoma (30.5%), typical carcinoid (2.8%) and atypical carcinoid (1.3%) . The patients included in this study were mainly white (86.4%) men (56.8%) with a median age of 67 years who had liver (9.5%), bone (6.2%) and brain (5.9%) metastases at diagnosis. The median overall survival (OS) of the cohort was 5.59 (95% CI: 5.4-5.8) months, but when OS was stratified by histological subtype it was significantly better in patients with typical carcinoid (table). In the whole cohort, the median OS did not differ between patients with and without brain metastases (5.55 vs. 5.68; p = 0.24). However, a sensitivity analysis by histology showed that the presence of brain metastases worsen the median OS of patients with typical carcinoid only (15.1 vs 4.6, p = 0.04). An adjusted multivariate analysis restricted to patients with brain metastases showed that administration of systemic chemotherapy (HR:0.5; 95% CI:0.35-0.72, p < 0.001) and resection of distant metastases (HR:0.5; 95% CI:0.29-0.88, p = 0.017) were the two most powerful independent prognostic factors. Conclusions: The presence of brain metastases negatively impact survival of patients with typical carcinoids but not in those with the other histological subtypes included in this study. Staging MRI should be strongly considered at diagnosis in patients with bronchopulmonary NE tumors, due to the sizable proportion of these patients presenting with brain metastases and also due to its prognostic value in a subset of this population. [Table: see text]

Management of bronchopulmonary carcinoid: NCDB database analysis

e21007

Background: There is a lack of data to guide the management of resectable bronchopulmonary carcinoid tumors (BCTs). Methods: The NCDB database was retrospectively reviewed to analyze the roles of surgery, chemotherapy and radiation. Patients with a diagnosis of clinically staged T1-2/N0-1 typical carcinoid (TC) and atypical carcinoid (AC) between 2004-2012 were included. Kaplan-Meier methods and multivariable analysis were performed. Results: A total of 2148 patients (TC 1874 & AC 274; T1/1648 & T2/500) were identified. The median age was 59 (range 18-89). There was a female (69.7%) and right lung (56.9%) predominance. Fifty-three patients received pneumonectomy, 68 chemotherapy, and 84 radiation therapy. The impact of age, histology (TC vs. AC), medical comorbidities (Charlson/Deyo score 0 vs. ≥1) and type of surgery [sublobar resection (SR) vs. lobectomy vs. lobectomy with mediastinal lymph node dissection (L/MLND)] were subsequently examined. AC, older age, and comorbidities were associated with shorter overall survival (OS) by both univariate and multivariable analysis. Patients who underwent lobectomy had longer OS (119 months) than those with SR (109 months) or L/MLND (115 months). However, this association was not significant by multivariable analysis with age incorporated as either a categorical ( < 60 vs. ≥60) or a continuous variable (Table). In the subgroup analysis of patients with T1, T2, TC and AC respectively, type of surgical resection was not significantly associated with OS by multivariable analysis. Conclusions: Patients with resectable BCTs have excellent OS. Atypical histology, older age, and comorbidities predicted inferior OS. There were insufficient data to support the use of perioperative chemotherapy or radiation therapy. Lobectomy was associated with prolonged OS by univariate analysis but this was not significant in the multivariable model, suggesting that SR is a reasonable approach for patients who cannot tolerate lobectomy. MLND did not seem to provide additional survival benefits. [Table: see text]

Osimertinib in previously EGFR-TKI treated non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients without T790M mutation: Real-world evidence

e21631

Background: The efficacy of osimertinib in previously EGFR-TKI treated NSCLC patients without T790M mutation remains unclear in real-world practice. We investigated whether osimertinib can provide survival benefit in EGFR-mutant patients without T790M mutation after 1st/2nd generation TKI treatment. Methods: Between January 1, 2009, and March 31, 2019, 417 patients had stage III-IV NSCLC harboring EGFR mutation and 154 out of 417 patients receiving osimertinib as≥2nd-line EGFR-TKI treatment were identified at Mayo Clinic. The time to treatment failure of osimertinib was analyzed by the Kaplan-Meier (KM) estimates. The risk of death post diagnosis was analyzed by Cox proportional hazard models. Results: Among 417 EGFR-mutant patients, higher risk of death was found in patients with age above 65 years, non-adenocarcinoma, no surgery treatment, no radiation treatment, non-exon 19 deletion/exon 21 L858R mutation, higher ECOG PS (2-4), PD-L1 expression of 50% or more, bone metastasis, live metastasis, and adrenal metastasis (all p < 0.05). Moreover, osimertinib as ≥2nd-line TKI treatment in patients with or without T790M revealed lower risk of death compared to 1st/2nd generation TKI treatment without subsequent osimertinib (HR = 0.33; 0.46, and p = 0.0002; 0.0232, respectively). However, among patients receiving osimertinib as ≥2nd-line TKI treatment, patients with T790M did not have superior survival than those without (p = 0.2803). Among 154 patients receiving osimertinib, a higher risk of treatment failure for osimertinib was found in male (HR = 1.72; p = 0.0327), patients with 1st-line TKI duration ≤12 months (HR = 2.16; p = 0.0019), BMI drop > 10% (HR = 1.85; p = 0.0207), PD-L1 levels of 50% or more (HR = 4.28; p = 0.0008), and 1st-line TKI with afatinib (HR = 2.19; p = 0.0136). Nonetheless, osimertinib as ≥2nd-line TKI in patients without 790M mutation did not have higher risk of treatment failure than those with T790M (p = 0.1236). Conclusions: This is the first study to demonstrate that osimertinib can provide similar survival benefit in previously EGFR-TKI treated NSCLC patients without T790M mutation as those with T790M in real-world practice. Additionally, EGFR-mutant patients with PD-L1 expression ≥50% had a higher risk of treatment failure for osimertinib and worse overall survival than those with PD-L1 expression < 50% and may potentially gain benefit from optimizing treatment strategies including immunotherapy.

Patients' Perspectives and Advice on How to Discuss Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity, and Sexual Health in Oncology Clinics

OBJECTIVE

This study sought to understand the patients' perspective of what contributes to an absence of discussions of sexual orientation (SO), gender identity (GI), and sexual health in cancer care.

METHODS

Patients were recruited from oncology, gynecology, and a gender transition clinic to participate in semistructured interviews, which were analyzed with qualitative methods.

RESULTS

A total of 25 patients were interviewed, shedding light on 2 themes. The first was that these conversations are important but infrequent. One patient explained, "…. we know people who have had sex changes…[they] would have appreciated that question." In response to whether sexual health was ever brought up, one patient responded, "No doctor ever has." Patients described unaddressed issues: "There have been times, you know, we've wondered if it was okay to make love." The second theme consisted of 4 pragmatic, patient-provided points to facilitate discussions: (1) implementation of a scale of 1 to 10 (with 10 being comfortable) to first gauge patients' comfort in talking about SO, GI, and sexual health; (2) having the health-care provider explore the topic again over-time; (3) making sure the health-care provider is comfortable, as such comfort appears to enhance the patient's comfort ("I have a doctor here, a female doctor, who just matter of fact will ask if I get erections and so on because of the medication she's giving me);" and (4) eliminating euphemisms (one patient stated, "I don't know what you mean by 'sexual health'.").

CONCLUSION

Oncology health-care providers have a unique opportunity and responsibility to address SO, GI, and sexual health.

Acute Interstitial Nephritis and Checkpoint Inhibitor Therapy

Background

The objective of this case cohort study was to describe our experience in the care of patients with immune checkpoint inhibitor–related acute interstitial nephritis (ICI-AIN) including rechallenge.

Methods

A descriptive case series of patients that received an ICI and had an AKI (defined as a ≥1.5-fold increase in serum creatinine) as an immune-related adverse event (irAE), with biopsy-proven or clinically suspected ICI-AIN from January 1, 2014 to December 1, 2018 at Mayo Clinic, Rochester. We studied details regarding diagnosis, clinical course, management, and outcomes of rechallenge of immunotherapy. Complete response (CR) was defined as return of kidney function back to baseline or <0.3 mg/dl above baseline creatinine; partial response (PR) was defined as creatinine >0.3 mg/dl from baseline, but less than twofold above the baseline by the end of steroid course.

Results

A total of 14 cases of biopsy-proven (35%) or clinically suspected (65%) ICI-AIN was identified. All patients had their ICI withheld and 12 patients received steroids. Steroid regimens were highly variable. The starting equivalent dose of prednisone was higher in those that had a CR versus a PR (median 0.77 mg/kg versus 0.66 mg/kg). Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) were used in 11 patients and were stopped in eight (73%) patients at the time of the AKI event. A CR was seen in five (63%) of the eight patients who discontinued PPIs. Rechallenge was attempted in four of the 14 patients: three were successful with no recurrence of AKI, but one patient had recurrent AKI and fatal pneumonitis.

Conclusions

Careful review, withholding ICI and concomitant known AIN-inducing medications, along with prompt initial steroid management were the key in complete renal kidney recovery. A kidney biopsy should be strongly considered. Rechallenge of immunotherapy after a kidney irAE, although challenging, is possible and would need careful evaluation on an individual basis.

Podcast

This article contains a podcast at https://www.asn-online.org/media/podcast/K360/2020_01_30_KID0000152019.mp3

Querying Patients With Cancer About Sexual Health and Sexual and Gender Minority Status: A Qualitative Study of Health-Care Providers

BACKGROUND

Although national organizations advocate that health-care providers ask patients about sexual health and sexual and gender minority status-to learn, for example, about side effects of treatment and to understand patients' social support-these conversations often do not occur. This study explored health-care providers' reasons for having/not having these conversations.

METHODS

This single-institution study recruited health-care providers from medical oncology, hematology, radiation oncology, and gynecology. Face-to-face interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed qualitatively.

RESULTS

Three main themes emerged: (1) patient-centric reasons for discussing/not discussing sexual health and sexual and gender minority status ("So I think just the holistic viewpoint is important"); (2) health-care provider-centric reasons for discussing/not discussing these issues ("That's going to take more time to talk about and to deal with…" or "I was raised orthodox, so this is not something we talk about…"; and (3) reasons that appeared to straddle both of the above themes (eg, acknowledgment of the sometimes taboo nature of these topics).

CONCLUSION

Although many health-care providers favor talking with patients with cancer about sexual health and sexual and gender minority status, limited time, personal reluctance, and the taboo nature of these topics appear at times to hamper the initiation of these conversations.