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.

Use of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) to predict treatment outcomes in patients with advanced cancer

186

Background: PROs assessing quality of life (QOL) and physical symptoms often correlate with clinical outcomes in patients (pts) with cancer. Yet, data are lacking about the use of PROs to predict treatment response. We evaluated associations of baseline PROs with treatment response, healthcare use, and survival among pts with advanced gastrointestinal cancer. Methods: We prospectively enrolled pts with metastatic gastrointestinal cancer prior to initiating chemotherapy at Massachusetts General Hospital. At baseline (start of treatment), pts reported their QOL (Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy General [FACT-G], subscales assess QOL across 4 domains: functional, physical, emotional, social well-being) and symptom burden (Edmonton Symptom Assessment System [ESAS]). Higher scores on FACT-G indicate better QOL, while higher scores on ESAS represent a greater symptom burden. We used regression models to examine associations of baseline PRO scores with treatment response (clinical benefit [CB] or progressive disease [PD] at the time of first scan based on clinical documentation), healthcare use (unplanned hospital admissions), and survival. Results: From 5/2019-3/2020, we enrolled 112 of 131 (85.5% enrollment) consecutive pts (median age = 62.8, 61.6% male, 45.5% pancreatobiliary cancer). For treatment response, 64.3% had CB and 35.7% had PD. Higher ESAS-physical (B = 1.04, p = .027) and lower FACT-G functional (B = 0.92, p = .038) scores at baseline were significant predictors of PD. On the specific ESAS items, pts who experienced PD were more likely to report moderate/severe poor well-being (57.9% vs 29.7%; p = .001), pain (44.7% vs 25.0%; p < .050), drowsiness (42.1% vs 20.3%; p = .024), and diarrhea (23.7% vs 4.7%; p = .008) at baseline. Lower FACT-G total (HR = 0.96, p = .003), FACT-G physical (HR = 0.89, p < .001), FACT-G functional (HR = 0.87, p < .001), and higher ESAS-physical (HR = 1.03, p = .028) scores at baseline were significantly associated with greater risk of hospital admission. Lower FACT-G total (HR = 0.96, p = .009), FACT-G emotional (HR = 0.87, p = .014), as well as higher ESAS-total (HR = 1.03, p = .018) and ESAS-physical (HR = 1.03, p = .040) scores at baseline were significantly associated with greater risk of death. Conclusions: We found that baseline PROs predict treatment response in pts with advanced cancer, namely physical symptoms and functional QOL, in addition to healthcare use and survival outcomes. These findings further support the use of PROs to predict important clinical outcomes, including the novel finding of treatment response.

Leveraging patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in patients with pancreatic cancer: The Pancreatic Cancer Action Network (PanCAN) online patient registry experience

154

Background: By allowing patients (pts) to self-report key issues related to their quality of life and symptoms, PROs have important clinical and research implications. The PanCAN Registry, which began collecting data in July 2015, is a pancreatic cancer-specific global online registry enabling pts to report sociodemographics, disease/management characteristics, and PROs via online surveys. We sought to describe pt experiences with the PanCAN Registry. Methods: We assessed individual characteristics and interactions with the registry (visits, survey completions, and longitudinal use) from 7/2015-10/2019 for pts who provided permission to use their data. The registry allows pts to complete surveys about their experience (e.g. basics of pancreatic cancer, general information), symptoms (e.g. fatigue, pain), diagnostics (e.g. labs, scans), and drug therapy (e.g. type, frequency). We validated PROs using the PanCAN Know Your Tumor database. For a subset of pts (those with de novo metastatic disease), we compared PROs, treatment patterns, and side effects by age (+/- 65 years) and treatment site (community or academic). Results: Of 2,836 pts who visited the registry, 2,076 (73%) completed at least one survey (median age = 64 [range: 18-97], 48% women, 92% white, 32% metastatic disease). Pts most commonly completed the basics (73%), general information (39%), and drug therapy (37%) surveys. Overall, 10% answered surveys longitudinally. We observed 95% concordance between PROs and the PanCAN Know Your Tumor database. Among the 667 pts with de novo metastatic disease, 34% were older (age 65+) and 50% were treated at academic sites. Younger pts were more hopeful about the treatment plan (strongly agree: 24% v 12%, p < .01) and reported less constipation (moderate/severe: 33% v 48%, p < .01) compared with older pts. Pts treated at academic sites reported less frequent treatment breaks of > 2 weeks (28% v 58%, p = 0.01) and more frequent severe cytopenias (27% v 12%, p = 0.01) compared with those treated at community sites. Conclusions: With > 2,800 pts visiting the PanCAN registry and > 70% completing a survey, these findings demonstrate the feasibility, robustness, and research potential of an online PRO registry. We observed important differences by age and treatment site regarding pts’ outlook, symptoms, treatment patterns, and side effects. With increasing focus on PROs, registries like this can facilitate standardized PRO reporting and monitoring, while also providing a valuable research database.

Relationships among skeletal muscle, symptom burden, health care use, and survival in hospitalized patients with advanced cancer

7006

Background: Loss of skeletal muscle mass (quantity) is common in patients with advanced cancer, but little is known about muscle density (quality). Hospitalized patients with advanced cancer are a highly symptomatic population at risk for the adverse effects of muscle loss. Thus, we sought to describe associations between muscle mass and density, symptom burden, health care use, and survival in these patients. Methods: We prospectively enrolled hospitalized patients with advanced cancer from 9/2014-4/2017. Upon admission, patients reported their physical (Edmonton Symptom Assessment System [ESAS]) and psychological (Patient Health Questionnaire 4 [PHQ4]) symptoms. We used computed tomography (CT) scans performed per routine care ≤45 days prior to enrollment to evaluate muscle mass and density at the level of the third lumbar vertebral body. We categorized patients as sarcopenic using validated sex specific cutoffs. We used regression models to examine associations between muscle mass and density and patients’ symptom burden, health care use, and survival. Results: Of 1,121 patients enrolled, 677 had evaluable CT scan data (mean age = 62.86±12.95 years; 51.1% female). The most common cancer types were gastrointestinal (36.8%) and lung (16.7%) cancer. Most met criteria for sarcopenia (64.0%). Older age and female sex were associated with lower muscle mass (age: B = -0.16, p < .01; female: B = -6.89, p < .01) and density (age: B = -0.33, p < 0.01; female: B = -1.66, p = .01), while higher BMI was associated with higher muscle mass (B = 0.58, p < .01) and lower muscle density (B = -0.61, p < .01). Higher muscle mass was significantly associated with improved survival (HR = 0.97, p < .01), but not with symptom burden or health care use. Higher muscle density was significantly associated with lower ESAS physical (B = -0.17, p = .02), ESAS total (B = -0.29, p < .01), PHQ4 depression (B = -0.03, p < .01) and PHQ4 anxiety (B = -0.03, p < .01) symptoms. Higher muscle density was also associated with decreased hospital length of stay (B = -0.07, p < .01), risk of readmission or death in 90 days (OR = 0.97, p < .01), and improved survival (HR = 0.97, p < .01). Conclusions: Most hospitalized patients with advanced cancer have muscle loss consistent with sarcopenia. We found that muscle mass (quantity) correlated with survival, whereas muscle density (quality) was associated with patients’ symptoms, health care use, and survival. These findings underscore the added importance of assessing muscle quality when seeking to address the adverse effects of muscle loss in oncology.

Work loss and activity impairment due to duration of nausea and vomiting in patients with breast cancer receiving CINV prophylaxis

e24133

Background: The impact of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) on work loss and activity impairment is important to patients yet not well described in literature. We sought to evaluate CINV-related work loss and activity impairment and their associations with CINV duration. Methods: In a prospective CINV prophylaxis trial of oral or intravenous netupitant/palonestron (NEPA) + dexamethasone (DEX) (12mg day 1 only) for patients with breast cancer receiving anthracycline + cyclophosphamide (AC), we defined CINV as vomiting or use of rescue medication during days 1-5 after AC. Pre-specified endpoints included CINV duration (0-5 days), patient reported CINV-associated work loss (Work Productivity and Activity Impairment survey), and CINV-related impaired activity [0 (none) - (worst) Likert scale] for chemotherapy cycles 1 and 2. CINV-related work loss and activity impairment could involve nausea with or without vomiting or rescue medication use. We categorized CINV duration as 1-2 days (d) or ≥3 d, and compared results using the chi-squared test. We report here on the first 2 cycles. Results: Survey data was captured for 792 cycles in 402 female patients including 132 (32.8%) employed patients. Mean age was 55.4. CINV was observed in 173 (21.8%) of total cycles. CINV-related work loss was reported in 26 (3.3% of all cycles, 15.0% of cycles with CINV, 38.2% of employed patient cycles with CINV) while 142 had related activity impairment. When we categorized cycles by CINV duration, CINV-related work loss was seen in 25.9% of 81 cycles with ≥3 d CINV duration vs. 5.4% for 92 cycles of 1-2 d of CINV (p < 0.001); mean scores of CINV-related impaired activity were 5.0 for ≥3 d CINV vs 3.0 for 1-2 d CINV (p < 0.001). Conclusions: Despite guideline recommended prophylaxis, CINV occurred in > 20% of AC cycles. In cycles with CINV, CINV-related work loss occurred in 38.2% for employed patients while activity impairment occurred in 82.1% for all patient cycles. The majority of CINV lasted 1-2 d. Notably, ≥3 d of CINV was associated with considerably higher levels of work loss and activity impairment suggesting that duration may be a meaningful measure of CINV impact. Clinical trial information: NCT03403712 . [Table: see text]

Serial ctDNA Monitoring to Predict Response to Systemic Therapy in Metastatic Gastrointestinal Cancers

PURPOSE

ctDNA offers a promising, noninvasive approach to monitor therapeutic efficacy in real-time. We explored whether the quantitative percent change in ctDNA early after therapy initiation can predict treatment response and progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with metastatic gastrointestinal cancer.

EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN

A total of 138 patients with metastatic gastrointestinal cancers and tumor profiling by next-generation sequencing had serial blood draws pretreatment and at scheduled intervals during therapy. ctDNA was assessed using individualized droplet digital PCR measuring the mutant allele fraction in plasma of mutations identified in tumor biopsies. ctDNA changes were correlated with tumor markers and radiographic response.

RESULTS

A total of 138 patients enrolled. A total of 101 patients were evaluable for ctDNA and 68 for tumor markers at 4 weeks. Percent change of ctDNA by 4 weeks predicted partial response (PR, P < 0.0001) and clinical benefit [CB: PR and stable disease (SD), P < 0.0001]. ctDNA decreased by 98% (median) and >30% for all PR patients. ctDNA change at 8 weeks, but not 2 weeks, also predicted CB (P < 0.0001). Four-week change in tumor markers also predicted response (P = 0.0026) and CB (P = 0.022). However, at a clinically relevant specificity threshold of 90%, 4-week ctDNA change more effectively predicted CB versus tumor markers, with a sensitivity of 60% versus 24%, respectively (P = 0.0109). Patients whose 4-week ctDNA decreased beyond this threshold (≥30% decrease) had a median PFS of 175 days versus 59.5 days (HR, 3.29; 95% CI, 1.55-7.00; P < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Serial ctDNA monitoring may provide early indication of response to systemic therapy in patients with metastatic gastrointestinal cancer prior to radiographic assessments and may outperform standard tumor markers, warranting further evaluation.

Phase IIIb Safety and Efficacy of Intravenous NEPA for Prevention of Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting (CINV) in Patients with Breast Cancer Receiving Initial and Repeat Cycles of Anthracycline and Cyclophosphamide (AC) Chemotherapy

BACKGROUND

NEPA, a combination antiemetic of a neurokinin-1 (NK1 ) receptor antagonist (RA) (netupitant [oral]/fosnetupitant [intravenous; IV]) and 5-HT3 RA, palonosetron] offers 5-day CINV prevention with a single dose. Fosnetupitant solution contains no allergenic excipients, surfactant, emulsifier, or solubility enhancer. A phase III study of patients receiving cisplatin found no infusion-site or anaphylactic reactions related to IV NEPA. However, hypersensitivity reactions and anaphylaxis have been reported with other IV NK1 RAs, particularly fosaprepitant in patients receiving anthracycline-cyclophosphamide (AC)-based chemotherapy. This study evaluated the safety and efficacy of IV NEPA in the AC setting.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This phase IIIb, multinational, randomized, double-blind study enrolled females with breast cancer naive to highly or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. Patients were randomized to receive a single 30-minute infusion of IV NEPA or single oral NEPA capsule on day 1 prior to AC, in repeated (up to 4) cycles. Oral dexamethasone was given to all patients on day 1 only.

RESULTS

A total of 402 patients were included. The adverse event (AE) profiles were similar for IV and oral NEPA and consistent with those expected. Most AEs were mild or moderate with a similarly low incidence of treatment-related AEs in both groups. There were no treatment-related injection-site AEs and no reports of hypersensitivity or anaphylaxis. The efficacy of IV and oral NEPA were similar, with high complete response (no emesis/no rescue) rates observed in cycle 1 (overall [0-120 hours] 73.0% IV NEPA, 77.3% oral NEPA) and maintained over subsequent cycles.

CONCLUSION

IV NEPA was highly effective and safe with no associated hypersensitivity and injection-site reactions in patients receiving AC.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

As a combination of a neurokinin-1 (NK1 ) receptor antagonist (RA) and 5-HT3 RA, NEPA offers 5-day chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting prevention with a single dose and an opportunity to improve adherence to antiemetic guidelines. In this randomized multinational phase IIIb study, intravenous (IV) NEPA (fosnetupitant/palonosetron) was safe and highly effective in patients receiving multiple cycles of anthracycline-cyclophosphamide (AC)-based chemotherapy. Unlike other IV NK1 RAs, the IV NEPA combination solution does not require any surfactant, emulsifier, or solubility enhancer and contains no allergenic excipients. Hypersensitivity reactions and anaphylaxis have been reported with other IV NK1 RAs, most commonly with fosaprepitant in the AC setting. Importantly, there were no injection-site or hypersensitivity reactions associated with IV NEPA.

Preliminary analysis of total neoadjuvant therapy for patients with locally advanced gastric (G) and gastroesophageal (GE) adenocarcinoma

393

Background: Nearly half of patients with G/GE cancer do not receive or complete post-operative chemotherapy and/or chemoradiation (CRT). Total neoadjuvant therapy (TNT) is as an emerging alternate treatment strategy. We have previously reported a 28% pCR with FOLFIRINOX followed by CRT. However, TNT outcomes with FLOT or FOLFOX followed by CRT are lacking. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed patients after resection of locally advanced G/GE after receiving TNT. Patient received neoadjuvant FOLFOX or FLOT x 8 cycles, CRT (G 45 Gy, GE 50.4 Gy) with concurrent chemotherapy (5FU, carboplatin/paclitaxel). The primary aim was to explore TNT completion rates. Secondary aims included pCR and toxicity. We performed descriptive statistics, t-test, chi-squared, and Fisher’s exact tests as appropriate. Results: From 12/2015 to 8/2019, 57.1% (40/70) completed TNT and resection (15.7% active treatment, 15.7% progressive disease, 11% treated elsewhere). Median age was 66.0 (range:27-79) and 73% male. Tumor locations included 57.5% G, 30.0% GE, and 12.5% overlapping. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy included FLOT 22.5% (n = 9) or FOLFOX 77.5% (n = 31). Overall we found a 25% pCR without significant differences between type of neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Conclusions: TNT followed by resection is feasible with acceptable rates of treatment completion and toxicity. Notable limitations include the retrospective analysis, small sample size, and heterogenous treatment. The pCR rate is promising and warrants further prospective study to optimize TNT approaches. [Table: see text]

Noninvasive comprehensive genomic profiling from plasma ctDNA in pancreatic cancer patients

753

Background: The use of comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) is increasing in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) as knowledge improves regarding molecular drivers of tumorigenesis and effective targeted therapies emerge. However, adequate tissue sampling is often limited. Plasma-based CGP offers a non-invasive approach to assess biomarkers that may impact treatment decisions. Methods: We retrospectively evaluated genomic and clinical data from 97 PDAC patients with circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) testing from 9/2016-8/2019 (Guardant Health, Inc.). ctDNA analysis included single nucleotide variants (SNV), fusions, indels and copy number variations (CNV) of up to 74 genes. ctDNA results were assessed across clinical variables. We evaluated for actionable alterations. Results: A total of 114 samples were obtained from 97 patients for ctDNA testing. ctDNA alterations were detected in 82% (93/114) of all samples, including 90% (18/20) at diagnosis, 88% (59/67) at progression, and 56% (10/18) while on stable therapy. ctDNA alterations were found at each stage of PDAC: in 25% (1/4) of samples with resectable disease, 75% (3/4) with borderline resectable disease, 82% (9/11) with locally advanced disease, and 85% (81/95) with metastatic disease. One or more KRAS alterations were detected in 55% (51/93) of patients with alterations present. The median maximum mutant allele frequency was similar between the cohort of patients with KRAS detected (0.55%) versus not detected (0.70%). 8% (8/97) of patients had potentially actionable alterations (2 activating BRAF SNVs, 1 ERBB2 CNV, 1 ERBB2 activating SNV, 1 KRAS G12C, and 3 indels in Homologous Recombination Deficiency genes). Median turnaround time was 8 days. 51% (49/97) of patients had both plasma-based CGP and tissue-based CGP. Of these patients, tissue-based CGP showed ≥ 1 alterations detected in 82% (40/49), test failure in 14% (7/49), and no alterations detected in 4% (2/49). Conclusions: Plasma-based CGP detected ctDNA alterations in 90% of samples tested at diagnosis and 82% of all samples. Potentially actionable mutations were found in 8% of patients, with prompt processing time allowing for rapid decision making.

The role of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA), tumor markers (TMs), and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in predicting treatment response in patients with metastatic gastrointestinal (GI) cancer

833

Background: Changes in ctDNA and serum TMs (CEA and CA19-9) can serve as predictors of response to systemic therapy in GI cancer patients (pts). Similarly, PROs correlate with survival and treatment response. We present a preliminary analysis of ctDNA, TMs, and PROs in predicting treatment response. Methods: We are enrolling 200 pts in a prospective study with metastatic pancreatic (PDAC), colorectal (CRC), gastroesophageal (GE), and biliary cancers. We are collecting ctDNA, TMs (CEA for all tumor types; CA19-9 for PDAC, GE, biliary), and PROs (FACT-G for QOL [higher scores indicate better QOL]; ESAS-r and PRO-CTCAE for symptoms; and PHQ-4 [consists of GAD-2 and PHQ-2 for anxiety and depression]; higher ESAS-r, PRO-CTCAE, and PHQ-4 scores reflect greater symptom burden) at baseline and 4 weeks. ctDNA is benchmarked against somatic tissue alterations, and serially assessed by digital droplet PCR. We correlated median percent change from baseline to 4 weeks for ctDNA, TMs, and PROs with treatment response (clinical benefit [CB], progressive disease [PD]). Results: From April to August 2019, we have enrolled 38/45 (84.4%) eligible pts (median age = 64 years; 36.8% female). Among these 38 pts, tumor types are PDAC (36.8%), CRC (31.6%), GE (28.9%), and biliary (2.6%). 18/38 pts were evaluable for ctDNA. Change in ctDNA was -94.5% in pts with CB (n = 10) and -19.5% in pts with PD (n = 8; p = 0.025). No correlation was observed between CEA and treatment response (p = 0.367). Change in CA19-9 was -1.5% for pts with CB and +47% for pts with PD (p = 0.019). Changes in PRO-CTCAE (p = 0.345), GAD-2 (p = 0.697), and ESAS scores (p = 0.743) did not differ between pts with CB and PD. However, changes in PHQ-2 (CB 0% v. PD +22.5%; p < 0.001), PHQ-4 (CB -8.5% v. PD +5%; p = 0.015), and FACT-G (CB +30% v. PD +5%; p = 0.049) were significant. Conclusions: Preliminary analysis suggests that ctDNA and PROs demonstrate promising utility for early prediction of treatment response, with favorable performance relative to standard TMs. Further analyses of larger pt numbers in this ongoing study may clarify the use and integration of these measures to better predict pt outcomes.

Analysis of weight loss as a prognostic factor in patients (pts) with advanced gastric cancer from REGARD, RAINBOW and RAINFALL phase III studies

348

Background: Maintaining weight (wt) and adequate nutrition during systemic treatment in advanced gastric cancer (G/GEJ) therapy remains a challenge. We investigated the impact of early wt-loss on survival in three phase 3 studies of ramucirumab (R); REGARD (RG), RAINBOW (RB), and RAINFALL (RF) in G/GEJ. Methods: ITT pts were categorized into 2 groups based on their body wt change from start to end of cycle 1 (C1; C = 28 days in RG, RB; C = 21 days in RF): wt-loss < 3% vs ≥3%. Univariate Cox PH models were performed in each individual study to evaluate the effects of body wt change from the start to end of C1 on OS. A pooled meta-analysis stratified by study and a sensitivity analysis of the subgroup of responders was also performed. Results: A total of 311 (RG: 212 in R+BSC; 99 in Placebo (PB)+BSC), 591 (RB: 306 in the R+Paclitaxel (P); 285 PB+P), and 562 (RF: 279 in R+Cape/Cis (CC); 283 in PB+CC) pts with body wt data during C1 were evaluated. The number of pts with wt-loss of ≥3% and < 3% are shown in Table. Pts with wt-loss < 3% during C1 experienced longer OS compared to those with wt-loss ≥3%, irrespective of treatment arms across studies (Table). In pooled treatment arms within each study, the HR for wt-loss group ( < 3% vs ≥3%) was 0.359 (95% CI = 0.254, 0.507), 0.632 (0.497, 0.804), 0.752 (0.608, 0.930) in RG, RB, RF, respectively. In the meta-analysis that combined the 3-studies, univariate Cox PH model stratified by study showed consistent effect of early wt-loss on OS regardless of treatment arm, HR ( < 3% vs ≥3%) = 0.632 (0.546, 0.732). Conclusions: Analysis from three phase 3 studies demonstrates early wt-loss ≥3% during C1 is an important negative prognostic factor for survival in gastric/GEJ cancer. Prospective studies of the relationship of weight preserving nutritional interventions on OS are warranted. Clinical trial information: NCT00917384, NCT01170663, NCT02314117.

[Table: see text]

Author Correction: Liquid versus tissue biopsy for detecting acquired resistance and tumor heterogeneity in gastrointestinal cancers

An amendment to this paper has been published and can be accessed via a link at the top of the paper.

Acute care and hydration due to chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) among patients receiving NEPA prophylaxis for anthracycline + cyclophosphamide (AC)

112

Background: In the US, the CMS OP-35 oncology outcome measure deems 30-day post-chemotherapy acute care involving nausea and emesis (NV) or 8 other toxicities as avoidable, with studies showing 15% of > 2500 patients receiving anthracycline + cyclophosphamide (AC)-based chemotherapy had avoidable acute care, of which 32% involved NV. Our aim was to evaluate resource use (emergency department [ED] visits, inpatient admissions [IP], or hydration) in a prospective trial of women with breast cancer who received combination netupitant/palonosetron (NEPA) + dexamethasone (DEX) for CINV prophylaxis for AC-based chemotherapy. Methods: Women initiating AC received oral or IV NEPA + DEX. Pre-specified endpoints included safety, complete response, acute care (ED/IP), unplanned IV hydrations (as determined by investigator), days of CINV, and ≥3 days of CINV. We defined CINV as emesis or rescue drug use up to 5 days after AC, and defined concomitant ED/IP or hydrations in the same period as CINV-related. We limited our analysis to the first 2 cycles, the median duration in the NEPA study. Results: 402 patients received ≥1 cycle of AC and 391 completed 2 cycles. Nine patients had IP (none CINV-related), and 5 patients had a total of 6 ED visits (1 CINV-related). Three patients had a CINV-related unplanned hydration. Patients had ≥1 day of CINV in 172 of 793 cycles (21.7%); of these, the majority had symptom duration for 1-2 days, while 78 (9.8%) had ≥3 days of CINV in a cycle. Conclusions: In this prospective CINV prophylaxis study in women receiving AC chemotherapy, < 1% of women receiving NEPA + DEX required acute care for CINV and < 1% required unplanned hydrations for CINV. These rates are below previously reported CINV-related acute care rates for AC suggesting NEPA may help avoid CINV-related acute care. Clinical trial information: NCT03403712.

Abstract LB-257: Liquid biopsy versus tissue biopsy to assess acquired resistance and tumor heterogeneity in gastrointestinal cancers

The inevitable emergence of acquired resistance is a major limitation to the clinical benefit of precision medicine strategies. Single-lesion tumor biopsies have long been the mainstay of understanding acquired resistance, but recent data suggest tumor biopsies may under-represent the molecular heterogeneity of acquired resistance. Alternatively, studies have suggested that liquid biopsy approaches analyzing cell-free DNA (cfDNA) may offer significant advantages, but extensive prospective comparisons of matched liquid vs. tumor biopsies obtained at the time of acquired resistance are lacking. Here, we assess systematic liquid biopsy upon acquired resistance to targeted therapy in 44 patients across seven molecularly defined subtypes of gastrointestinal cancers. Liquid biopsy at disease progression identified at least one functionally validated molecular mechanism of resistance in 75% of patients, wherein 52% exhibited &gt;1 resistance alteration (range 2-9, median 3 per patient). In 23 patients in whom a matched post-progression tumor biopsy could be obtained, tumor biopsy was less effective than liquid biopsy in identifying resistance mechanisms, with resistance alterations detected in only 48% of patients, and multiple resistance mechanisms detected in only 9% of cases. In matched cases, liquid biopsy detected at least one resistance alteration not detected in tumor biopsy in 78% of cases. Targeted analysis and whole-exome sequencing of serial cfDNA, multiple post-progression biopsies, and rapid autopsy specimens from select cases revealed key insights into the geographic and complex characteristics of heterogeneity captured by liquid biopsy in the setting of acquired resistance. These data illustrate that acquired resistance is characterized by frequent and profound tumor heterogeneity, and suggests that liquid biopsy may more effectively identify heterogeneous clinically relevant resistance alterations compared to standard tumor biopsy.

Citation Format: Aparna R. Parikh, Ignaty Leshchiner, Liudmila Elagina, Lipika Goyal, Chaya Levovitz, Giulia Siravegna, Dimitri Livitz, Kahn Rhrissorrakrai, Liz Martin, Emily E. Van Seventer, Megan Hanna, Kara Slowik, Filippo Utro, Christopher J. Pinto, Alicia Wong, Brian P. Danysh, Ferran Fece de la Cruz, Isobel J. Fetter, Brandon Nadres, Heather A. Shahzade, Jill N. Allen, Lawrence S. Blaszkowsky, Jeffrey W. Clark, Bruce Giantonio, Janet E. Murphy, Ryan D. Nipp, Eric Roeland, David P. Ryan, Colin D. Weekes, Eunice L. Kwak, Jason E. Faris, Francois Aguet, Ipsita Guha, Mehlika Hazar-Rethinam, Dora Dias-Santagata, David T. Ting, Andrew X. Zhu, Theodore S. Hong, Todd R. Golub, A J. Iafrate, Viktor Adalsteinsson, Alberto Bardelli, Laxmi Parida, Dejan Juric, Gad Getz, Ryan B. Corcoran. Liquid biopsy versus tissue biopsy to assess acquired resistance and tumor heterogeneity in gastrointestinal cancers [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2019; 2019 Mar 29-Apr 3; Atlanta, GA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2019;79(13 Suppl):Abstract nr LB-257.

Physician concordance with update to ASCO guidelines for antiemetic use with carboplatin AUC ≥ 4

11595

Background: In 2017, NCCN (2/2017) and ASCO (8/2017) each amended antiemetic guidelines to classify carboplatin AUC ≥4 as highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC), recommending upfront triple prophylaxis with an NK1 receptor antagonist (RA) + 5HT3 RA + dexamethasone. Physician concordance with the new recommendations, and the consequences for avoidable post-chemotherapy acute care, merit study. Methods: In a large electronic health record database (IBM Explorys), we identified carboplatin courses of therapy (≥14-day cycles as a proxy for AUC ≥4) and courses with ≥7-day cycles of other HEC and non-HEC therapy from 4Q 2012 through August 2018. Guideline concordance, defined as triple prophylaxis at HEC initiation, was evaluated. We also assessed 30-day post-chemotherapy acute care (inpatient or emergency department) associated with nausea or vomiting (NV) or eight other toxicities deemed avoidable in the US Centers for Medicare & Medicaid’s new oncology outcome measure OP-35. Results: 11,554 carboplatin courses were identified. Before the guideline change, rates of upfront triple prophylaxis grew from 14% in 2013 to 16% in mid-2017. Rates then rose to 26% by 1Q 2018 before dropping to 21% by 3Q 2018; quarterly rates averaged 20% (range 15%-26%) following the guideline change. In 31% of carboplatin courses we noted 30-day acute care use, of which 75% involved ≥1 of the ten OP-35 toxicities. NV (with or without acute care use) was reported in 24% of courses, and 27% of total OP-35 acute care events involved NV. Rates for NV, and for OP-35-related and NV-related acute care after carboplatin, were similar to rates after other HEC chemotherapy, and higher than rates after other non-HEC IV chemotherapy or oral HEC/MEC agents. Conclusions: Use of upfront triple antiemetic prophylaxis has increased only marginally for carboplatin AUC ≥ 4 since its 2017 re-classification as HEC in national guidelines, perhaps due to low awareness of the change. Patients receiving carboplatin had similar rates of NV and related 30-day acute care events as seen for other HEC, confirming that the new HEC definition fits clinical experience. More triple prophylaxis use is needed to reduce NV and NV-related avoidable acute care seen with carboplatin AUC ≥ 4.

A pilot study of neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX followed by chemoradiation for gastric and gastroesophageal cancer: Preliminary results

4057

Background: We performed a single-arm pilot study of total neoadjuvant approach including FOLFIRINOX and chemoradiation (CRT) with concurrent carboplatin/taxol (C/T) followed by surgery in patients with locally advanced gastric or gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) cancer. Methods: Patients were enrolled on a NCI sponsored, prospective, single arm study (NCT03279237). Key eligibility criteria included: histologically confirmed T3/4 or lymph node (LN) positive gastric or GEJ cancer, ECOG PS ≤1, age 18+, life expectancy > 3 months. Exclusion criteria included: visceral metastases, prior chemotherapy or RT, or prior targeted therapy. Extensive LN disease beyond the surgical field (supraclavicular or para-aortic) was permitted if deemed feasible to be encompassed within a RT field. Laparoscopy was not required. Pts were treated with neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX x 8, restaging, CRT (45 Gy for gastric, 50.4 Gy for GEJ) with concurrent C/T, restaging, followed by surgical resection. Dose reductions were at discretion of the treating physician. The primary objective was to determine the rate of completion of FOLFIRINOX x 8 followed by CRT delivered in the preoperative setting. Secondary endpoints included: 1) acute toxicity and 2) pathologic complete response (pCR). Results: From Oct 2017 to June 2018, 25 pts were enrolled. Median age was 60 (range:30-76), 17 pts were male (68%). All pts started FOLFIRINOX; 23 (92%) pts completed all 8 planned cycles. Two pts did not complete the planned 8 cycles due to metastatic progression. Rates of grade 3+ overall, gastrointestinal, and hematologic toxicities were 28%, 12%, and 28% respectively. Of the entire cohort, 23 (92%) pts started chemoRT and 22 (88%) pts completed chemoRT (1 pt died during CRT due to pulseless electrical activity arrest). All 22 pts (88%) who completed CRT went for surgical exploration, of whom 2 pts were found with intraoperative metastases. Therefore, 20 (80%) pts underwent surgical resection. At time of abstract, 1 pt’s pathology is in process; 7 pts had a pCR (37% in resected cohort, 28% in ITT cohort), all with R0 resection. Conclusions: Total neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX followed by CRT is feasible with acceptable rates of treatment completion and grade 3+ toxicity. In our small series, the rate of pCR is promising and a follow-up study is currently planned. Clinical trial information: NCT03279237.

Ondansetron versus palonosetron as a marker of non-adherence to antiemetic prophylaxis guidelines in highly emetogenic chemotherapy

e23108

Background: ASCO antiemetic guidelines recommend upfront triple prophylaxis (NK1 receptor antagonist (RA) + 5HT3 RA + dexamethasone) for patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC). Physicians exhibit high variation in HEC guideline adherence, principally involving inclusion of NK1 RA. Whether adherence is associated with selection of the specific 5HT3 RA agent remains inadequately studied. Methods: In the IBM Explorys electronic health record database, we used procedure and diagnosis codes to identify HEC courses and related nausea/vomiting (NV) from 2012 to 2018. We defined HEC guideline adherence as triple prophylaxis at chemotherapy initiation. We assigned HEC courses for ≥ 7 day cycles of cisplatin or anthracycline + cyclophosphamide (AC), or carboplatin (≥ 14 day cycles as a proxy for AUC ≥ 4) to prescribing oncologists based on encounter frequency. We categorized 5HT3 RA use of each physician treating ≥ 5 HEC courses based on their most commonly used 5HT3 and performed descriptive statistics. Results: Of 12,262 HEC courses, 57% involved physicians having greater use of ondansetron (OND) (mean OND to palonosetron (PALO) ratio of 3.9:1). These courses had lower guideline adherence (due to NK1 RA omission) and higher rates of NV for combined HEC, AC, and carboplatin. NV rates for cisplatin did not vary by 5HT3 agent used. Courses involving physicians with greater PALO use (mean OND:PALO ratio of 0.2:1) had superior adherence and NV rates, despite involving a slightly higher risk population (younger and/or female). Conclusions: According to HEC antiemetic guidelines, NK1 RA use should occur independent of 5HT3 RA agent selection. However, we observed less NK1 RA use where OND was preferred, which may have caused the observed higher rates of NV with OND. Further evaluation should assess whether pharmacy cost minimization is a driver of both OND preference and NK1 omission in HEC. [Table: see text]

Aggressiveness of care and overall survival in young metastatic colorectal cancer patients

3563

Background: Colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence in patients younger than 50 years of age is steadily rising by 2% annually. Early-onset CRC usually presents with more aggressive features; however, data on prognosis are widely conflicting. Clinicians may hold an age-related bias in treating younger patients, but this proclivity and its effects have not been quantified. Methods: Patients with a history of metastatic CRC who consented to a departmental chart review protocol were collected between 2014 and 2018 at Massachusetts General Hospital. The cohort was divided into two groups based on age at initial diagnosis: < 50 and ≥50. Data were gathered on treatments and clinicopathological features. A log-rank test compared survival from the diagnosis of metastatic disease between age groups. The distributions of clinicopathological features were compared using Wilcoxon rank sum tests. Results: 464 metastatic CRC patients were identified. 155 patients (33%) were < 50 (median age 43, 49% female) and 309 patients (67%) were ≥50 (median age 61, 45% female). Sex did not significantly differ between the two groups (p = 0.45). Patients < 50 received more lines of therapy after metastatic diagnosis than patients ≥50 (mean 2.7 v. 2.2; p = 0.002). Younger patients also received more resections of distant metastases (mean 0.62 v. 0.48; p = 0.01). A higher rate of enrollment in clinical trials for patients < 50 approached significance (p = 0.06). Even so, patients < 50 did not see a significant survival benefit over older patients (2/5-year survival from metastatic diagnosis 77%/47% v. 73%/38%, p = 0.23). Patients < 50 had a lower proportion of right-sided tumors (p = 0.0002) and BRAF mutations (p = 0.0009). There was no difference in MSI status (p = 0.28), RAS mutational status (p = 0.40), mucinous features (p = 0.53), or signet ring features (p = 0.26). Conclusions: Overall survival in patients < 50 is similar to patients ≥50, despite patients < 50 receiving more aggressive therapy. Further study is warranted to better understand these differences. Potential areas of interest include performance status, age-related treatment bias, and biological factors.

The Cambia Sojourns Scholars Leadership Program: Projects and Reflections on Leadership in Palliative Care

Background: Effective leadership is necessary to meet the complex care needs of patients with serious, life-limiting illness. The Cambia Health Foundation Sojourns Scholars Program is advancing leadership in palliative care through supporting emerging leaders. The 2016 Cohort has implemented a range of projects to promote their leadership development. Objective: To describe the leadership themes emerging from individual project implementation of the 2016 Sojourns Leadership. Methods: We summarize the synthesized leadership themes derived from both remote and in-person meetings and written reflections of the 2016 Cambia Sojourn Leadership Cohort. Results: The 2016 Cambia Sojourn Leadership Scholar Cohort projects are described. We identified three leadership themes related to palliative care initiatives: openness and flexibility, partnership and team building, and leveraging expertise and risk. Discussion: Unprecedented challenges in a rapidly changing health environment demand palliative care leadership to influence care quality, delivery, policy, and clinical care. Flexibility and openness; partnership and team building; and expertise to implement change emerged as critical themes to advancing the care of patients with serious, life-limiting illness. These leadership themes are consistent with both previous Cambia Sojourns Scholar cohorts and the literature, are essential for the next generation of leaders to implement new models of quality palliative care, payment for palliative care, and education for patients, caregivers, and health care providers. Conclusion: In order to design and implement quality palliative care, leadership development is essential. Use of flexibility and openness; partnership and team building; and expertise to implement change are important themes for success. Whether through the Cambia Health Foundation Sojourns Leadership Program or opportunities within professional organizations, cultivation of the next generation of leaders is critical.

Potentially avoidable acute care use among patients receiving oxaliplatin

651

Background: Oxaliplatin (OX), used primarily in gastrointestinal cancers, is considered moderately emetogenic while multiple guidelines classify carboplatin and cisplatin as highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC). The new oncology outcome measure (OP-35) from the US Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) deems 30-day post-chemotherapy inpatient (IP) and emergency room (ED) events “potentially avoidable” if involving nausea or emesis (NV) or any of eight other toxicities. We lack data comparing avoidable IP/ED and NV events for OX relative to platinums classified as HEC. Methods: We assessed OX, cisplatin, and carboplatin courses of therapy from 4Q 2012 to 1Q 2018 using the IBM Watson Explorys database. We identified IP/ED and OP-35 toxicities (anemia, dehydration, diarrhea, fever, NV, neutropenia, pain, pneumonia, or sepsis) by diagnosis and procedure codes, and stratified results by sex and age < 70 (median age at diagnosis for colorectal cancer). An IP/ED event could involve ≥ 1 OP-35 toxicity. We also evaluated a FOLFIRINOX subgroup (receiving irinotecan ≤ 3 days after OX). Results: In sum, we identified 4,231 OX courses (382 FOLFIRINOX) (Table). OP-35 toxicities occurred in 75% of IP/ED events; of these, 34% OX and 42% FOLFIRINOX involved NV. Rates of IP/ED, IP/ED OP-35-defined toxicity, and NV after OX were consistent with cisplatin and carboplatin. Among patients receiving OX, women age < 70 (n = 1388) had higher NV rates vs. others (p < 0.001). Conclusions: Roughly one-third of patients receiving OX experienced IP/ED events ≤ 30 days post chemotherapy. Most involved ≥ 1 of 10 OP-35 toxicities, meeting CMS’ criteria as potentially avoidable acute care. OX IP/ED rates and NV rates were similar to other platinums and were worse among women age < 70, suggesting more aggressive antiemetic prophylaxis should be evaluated. [Table: see text]

Inpatient hospitalization costs associated with nausea and vomiting among patients with cancer

112

Background: Reducing hospitalizations for chemotherapy-related toxicities represents an opportunity to improve both the quality and cost of cancer treatment. Nausea and vomiting (NV) account for almost 10% of “avoidable” toxicity-related post-chemotherapy hospitalizations (2016 Medicare data). We sought to evaluate the event cost of NV-related hospitalizations among patients with cancer from a US payer perspective. Methods: From a large US claims database (Truven MarketScan), we identified hospitalizations with NV as the primary diagnosis and cancer as a secondary diagnosis (01/2011-06/2017). This method increases specificity for NV as the principal hospitalization factor, while underreporting the prevalence of NV as a contributory factor. To determine event costs, we evaluated hospital and other reimbursement during the hospitalization. To explore subgroup differences, we stratified results by tumor type, payer type, admission route, receipt of highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC; 2017 definition includes carboplatin AUC ≥4) and antiemetic prophylaxis. We adjusted all costs to 2017 US dollars. Results: Among 918,192 hospitalizations involving cancer, we identified 80,995 with both NV and a cancer diagnosis code. Of these, 5,293 had NV as the primary diagnosis and 62 lacked cost data. Patients (mean age = 57.7±16.2) were 67% female. Median hospital length of stay was 4 days and mean cost per hospitalization was $15,085. Non-Medicare admissions (82%) had a higher mean cost vs. Medicare ($15,737 vs. $12,111, p < 0.01). We found < $1,000 difference between the highest and lowest cost per hospitalization among the 6 most common tumor types. We found the 65% of patients with a chemotherapy claim ≤30 days prior to hospitalization had costs of $13,882 per event. Among the 45% of chemotherapies that were HEC, > 50% lacked an NK1 receptor antagonist as prophylaxis. Conclusions: The average cost of NV-related hospitalizations among patients with cancer exceeds $15,000 per event, highlighting the need to effectively address this symptom. Roughly half the hospitalizations involved HEC, with over half of those patients not receiving guideline-based antiemetic prophylaxis.