Update on adherence to guidelines for time to initiation of postoperative radiation for head and neck squamous cell carcinoma

BACKGROUND

A prior study reported that over half of patients with HNSCC initiated PORT after 6 weeks from surgery during 2006-2014. In 2022, the CoC released a quality metric for patients to initiate PORT within 6 weeks. This study provides an update on time to PORT in recent years.

METHODS

The NCDB and TriNetX Research Network were queried to identify patients with HNSCC who received PORT during 2015-2019 and 2015-2021, respectively. Treatment delay was defined as initiating PORT beyond 6 weeks after surgery.

RESULTS

In NCDB, PORT was delayed for 62% of patients. Predictors of delay included age >50, female sex, black race, nonprivate insurance/uninsured status, lower education, oral cavity site, negative surgical margins, increased postoperative length of stay, unplanned hospital readmissions, IMRT radiation modality, treatment at an academic hospital or in the Northeast, and surgery and radiation at different facilities. In TriNetX, 64% experienced treatment delay. Additional associations with prolonged time to treatment included never married/divorced/widowed marital status, major surgery (neck dissection/free flaps/laryngectomy), and gastrostomy/tracheostomy dependence.

CONCLUSIONS

There continue to be challenges to timely initiation of PORT.

Clinical outcomes of first line FOLFIRINOX vs. gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel in metastatic pancreatic cancer at the Yale Smilow Hospital System

BACKGROUND

FOLFIRINOX (FFX) and gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel (GN) are established first line therapies for metastatic pancreatic cancer (MPC). There are, however, no randomized controlled trials comparing FFX and GN in the first line setting and real-world data on their comparative effectiveness is limited. We aimed to evaluate the outcomes of patients with MPC who were treated with first line FFX and GN and to further characterize dose modifications, discontinuation rates due to treatment toxicity, and rates of hospitalizations while on treatment.

METHODS

We manually abstracted data from the electronic medical records (EMR) system at Yale Smilow Hospital and Smilow Cancer Hospital Care Centers for patients with MPC treated with at least one cycle of first line FFX or GN from January 2011 to April 2019. Patients who received prior neoadjuvant or adjuvant FFX or GN and adjuvant gemcitabine less than 6 months prior to metastatic recurrence were excluded. The median time to treatment discontinuation (TTD) and overall survival (OS) were determined using Kaplan-Meier method.

RESULTS

We identified 363 patients for analysis; 269 (74%) patients were treated with FFX and 94 (26%) with GN. Median TTD was 4.8 (IQR, 2.3-8.0) months in the FFX group compared to 3.4 (IQR, 1.3-5.7) months in the GN group (P=0.0037). Median OS was 11.3 (95% CI: 10.7-12.9) months in the FFX group and 7.0 (95% CI: 6.0-8.7) months in the GN group (P<0.001). Initial dose modifications occurred in 264 (98%) and 86 (91%) of FFX and GN treated patients, respectively (P=0.001). While on treatment, 56 (60%) of GN-treated patients had at least one hospitalization vs. 110 (41%) in the FFX-group (P=0.002). Treatment was discontinued due to chemotherapy toxicity in 26 (10%) and 14 (15%) among the FFX and GN cohorts, respectively (P=0.275).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients treated with first line FFX had increased survival and TTD compared to patients treated with GN despite increased dose modifications and similar rates of treatment discontinuation due to treatment-related toxicity. GN-treated patients were older and more likely to be hospitalized while on treatment. Further study evaluating comparative effectiveness between these two regimens is warranted.

Evaluation of risk-stratification using gene expression assays in patients with breast cancer receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy

576

Background: Among patients with hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative breast cancer, several prospective studies investigated various gene expression assays, such as 21-gene recurrence score (21 RS) and 70-gene signature (70 GS), to identify a subgroup of patients with pathologic complete response (pCR) from neoadjuvant chemotherapy. However, in the absence of large prospective trials to validate such findings, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guideline does not recommend the routine adoption of such assays in the setting of neoadjuvant therapies. To address this knowledge gap, we performed an observational cohort study to compare pCR and survival outcomes based on these assays. Methods: The National Cancer Database (NCDB) was queried for female patients diagnosed between 2010 and 2017 with stage I-III breast cancer who underwent neoadjuvant chemotherapy and either 70 GS or 21 RS. Logistic multivariable analysis (MVA) was performed to identify variables associated with pCR. Cox MVA was performed to evaluate overall survival (OS). Subgroup analyses were performed among patients with favorable hormone receptor status (hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative) and with RS ≥26 instead of RS ≥31. Results: A total of 3,009 patients met our inclusion criteria, with 2,075 (n = 1,287 for RS < 31, n = 788 for RS ≥31) and 934 (n = 175 for low risk, n = 759 for high risk) patients who underwent 21 RS and 70 GS, respectively. The median follow up was 48.0 months (interquartile range 32.2-66.7). On logistic MVA for all patients, those with a high risk from 70 GS or with RS ≥31 were more likely to have pCR. When compared to RS ≥31, a high risk from 70 GS was not associated with pCR. However, among those with favorable hormone receptor status, similar findings were noted, except that those with a high risk group from 70 GS were less likely to have pCR compared to those with RS ≥31. On Cox MVA for all patients, pCR was associated with improved OS. While RS ≥31 was associated with worse mortality, a high risk from 70 GS was not. No interaction was observed between pCR and risk groups for OS in both groups (interaction p = 0.23 for 70 GS, p = 0.66 for 21 RS). When analyses were repeated using a high risk group from 21 RS defined as RS ≥26, similar findings were noted, except that having favorable hormone receptor status and RS ≥26 was not associated with pCR when compared to the high risk from 70 GS. Conclusions: To our knowledge, this is the largest study using a nationwide oncology database suggesting that high recurrence risk groups in both assays were associated with pCR and that pCR was associated with improved survival. For those with favorable hormone receptor status, RS ≥31 may be a more selective prognostic marker. Further studies would be warranted to investigate the role of gene expression assays in the setting of neoadjuvant chemotherapy.

Racial differences and trends in pathologic complete response following neoadjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer

575

Background: Given improvements in systemic therapy, pathologic complete response (pCR) rates following neoadjuvant chemotherapy were over 60% in breast cancer patients in recent clinical trials, especially in human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive and triple negative cases. While racial minority groups were associated with worse survival outcomes despite receiving standard of care in prospective studies, they were under-represented in clinical trials. To address this knowledge gap, we performed an observational cohort study to evaluate pCR and survival outcomes stratified by racial and ethnic groups. Methods: The National Cancer Database (NCDB) was queried for female patients with stage I-III breast cancer diagnosed between 2010 and 2017 treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by surgery. Cochran-Armitage test was used to analyze the trend of pCR over time. Logistic multivariable analysis (MVA) was used to identify variables associated with pCR defined as ypT0/isN0. Cox MVA was used to analyze the overall survival (OS) benefit. Results: A total of 105,804 patients (n = 72,631 for non-Hispanic white [NHW], n = 7,632 for Hispanic white [HW], n = 19,505 for black, n = 4,393 for Asian or Pacific Islander [API], n = 1,643 for other race) were included for analysis. Median follow up was 49.2 months (interquartile range 32.7-71.3). Overall pCR rate increased from 15.1% in 2010 to 27.2% in 2017, largely driven by API women (15.7% to 31.6%) and hormone receptor (HR)-HER2+ tumors (28.6% to 53.1%; all trend p < 0.001). On logistic MVA, when compared to NHW women, HW women were more likely to have pCR for HR-HER2+ (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.18, p = 0.02) and HR+HER2+ tumors (aOR 1.29, p = 0.005), while black women were more likely to have pCR for HR+HER2- tumors (aOR 1.13, p = 0.01) and less likely for HR-HER2+ (aOR 0.80, p < 0.001) and triple negative tumors (aOR 0.82, p < 0.001). API women were more likely to have pCR for HR-HER2+ tumors compared to NHW women (aOR 1.17, p = 0.04). On Cox MVA, when compared to NHW women, HW (ypT+N0: adjusted hazards ratio [aHR] 0.75, p < 0.001; ypN+: aHR 0.79, p < 0.001) and API women (ypT0/isN0: aHR 0.52, p = 0.005; ypT+N0: aHR 0.63, p < 0.001; ypN+: aHR 0.86, p = 0.03) were associated with improved OS, while black women were associated with worse OS for ypN+ only (aHR 1.18, p < 0.001). Conclusions: To our knowledge, this is the largest study using a nationwide oncology database suggesting the improving trend of pCR rate over time for all racial cohorts. In our study, when compared to NHW, HW and API women were more likely to have pCR for select HER2+ tumors, while black women were less likely to have pCR for HR-HER2+ and triple negative tumors but not for HR+HER2- tumors. HW and API women were associated with improved survival in the setting of any residual disease compared to NHW women, while black women were associated with worse survival only for residual nodal disease.

Prostate cancer screening patterns among LGBT populations

e19077

Background: More than 10 million Americans identify themselves as lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT), and the majority of male-to-female (MTF) transgender individuals still have prostates even after surgical transitions. Guidelines on prostate specific antigen (PSA) screening for LGBT populations are limited, and informed and shared decision making are encouraged by various organizations. However, patterns of care for PSA screening in LGBT populations remains unclear. To address this knowledge gap, we conducted a cross sectional study to evaluate self-reported PSA screening and decision making among LGBT populations. Methods: The Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System database was queried for LGBT adults from 2014-2016 and 2018. Those with prior prostate cancer were excluded. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to evaluate the association of LGBT status with PSA screening, informed and shared decision making, after adjusting for demographic characteristics and survey weights. Results: A total of 164,370 participants were eligible for PSA screening (n = 156,548 for cisgender [CG]+straight, n = 156 for MTF+straight, n = 33 for MTF+gay, n = 52 for MTF+bisexual, n = 51 for MTF+other sexual orientation [SO], n = 3354 for CG+gay, n = 1641 for CG+bisexual, n = 2535 for CG+other SO), representing a weighted estimate of 1.2 million LGBT populations. When compared to CG+straight, CG+gay/bisexual cohorts were more likely to undergo PSA screening within the past 2 years (CG+gay: OR 1.08, p < 0.001; CG+bisexual: OR 1.06, p < 0.001), have ever received PSA screening (CG+gay: OR 1.30, p < 0.001; CG+bisexual: OR 1.12, p < 0.001), and be recommended for PSA screening by their physicians (CG+gay and bisexual: OR 1.16, p < 0.001). All other cohorts were less likely to do so (all OR < 1, p < 0.05). MTF+gay and CG+gay participants were more likely to make informed decision (MTF+gay: OR 3.13, p < 0.001; CG+gay: OR 1.09, p < 0.001), while all other cohorts were less likely to do so (all OR < 1, p < 0.05). CG+gay participants were also more likely to share decision (OR 2.51, p < 0.001), while there were no associations for all other cohorts (all p > 0.05). Conclusions: Select gay populations were more likely to undertake PSA screening recommended by their physicians and participate in informed and shared decision making. However, other LGBT populations were less likely to make informed decisions, and transgender participants were less likely to undergo PSA screening. Further research efforts are needed to improve informed and shared decision making for PSA screening in such underserved population.

Breast and cervical cancer screening disparities among transgender patients

7024

Background: Over a million Americans identify themselves as transgender and this population is growing. Transgender status was a pre-existing condition prior to the Affordable Care Act (ACA), and transgender individuals faced unique disparities in gender-specific cancer screening in part due to discrimination in health insurance coverage. Modern literature for transgender adults’ adherence to cancer screening is limited. To fill this knowledge gap, we conducted a cross sectional study to investigate transgender individuals’ self-reported adherence to cancer screening and access to primary care compared to cisgender individuals. Methods: The Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System database was queried for transgender (either male-to-female [MTF] or female-to-male [FTM]) and cisgender adults from 2014-2016 and 2018. Primary endpoints were adherence to breast and cervical cancer screening guidelines and access to primary health care. Those with prior hysterectomy, breast and cervical cancer were excluded. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to evaluate the association of transgender status with cancer screening and healthcare access, after adjusting for demographic characteristics and survey weights. Results: A total of 219,665 and 206,446 participants were eligible for breast and cervical cancer screening, respectively. Of those, 614 (0.28%) and 587 (0.29%) transgender participants were eligible for each cancer screening type, respectively, representing a weighted estimate of nearly 200,000 transgender participants total. When compared to cisgender counterparts, transgender participants were less likely to adhere to breast cancer screening (FTM: OR 0.47, p < 0.001; MTF: OR 0.04, p < 0.001) and to have received any breast cancer screening (FTM: OR 0.32, p < 0.001; MTF: OR 0.02, p < 0.001). Similarly, FTM participants were less likely to adhere to cervical cancer screening (OR 0.42, p < 0.001) and to have received any cervical cancer screening (OR 0.26, p < 0.001). In addition, transgender participants were more likely to have no primary care physician (FTM: OR 0.79, p < 0.001; MTF: OR 0.58, p < 0.001) and to be unable to see a physician when needed within the past year due to medical cost (FTM: OR 1.44, p < 0.001; MTF: OR 1.36, p < 0.001). Conclusions: Despite the implementation of the ACA, limited primary care access and poor adherence to breast and cervical cancer screening are evident for transgender populations. Further research efforts to improve the utilization of preventive cancer services are needed for this underserved population.

Association of cytoreductive nephrectomy and survival in the immune checkpoint inhibitor era

748

Background: Cytoreductive nephrectomy (CN) for patients (pts) with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) improved overall survival (OS) in the interferon (IFN) era, but the benefit of CN in the immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) era is unknown. Methods: We identified pts with mRCC receiving immunotherapy (IT) from 2004-2015 in the National Cancer Database (NCDB). Pts with partial nephrectomy or ablation were excluded. The ICI era was defined as 2013-2015 based on a high-profile publication in 2012 demonstrating efficacy of ICI in mRCC and the IFN era was defined as 2004-2005 due to FDA approval of sorafenib in 12/2005. Pts receiving CN with TKI were excluded, as prior NCDB study showed an OS benefit to CN in contrast to the results of the CARMENA trial. Univariable (UVA) and multivariable (MVA) associates with OS during each era were identified using Cox regression analysis including age, sex, race, income, insurance, treatment facility type, treatment location, clinical T stage (cT), clinical N stage (cN), histology, Fuhrman grade (FG), other metastectomy, and CN. Results: There was a 65% decline in mRCC pts receiving IT from 2005 to 2006 (end of the IFN era), which remained low (11% rise from 2006-2012) until a 93% rise from 2012 to 2013 (start of the ICI era). 128 of 422 (30.3%) pts in the IFN era received CN compared to 218 of 526 (41.4%) patients in the ICI era, p<0.001. Pts in each era were balanced with respect to median age, race, income, location, cT, and histology, but the ICI era had higher proportions of pts with private insurance, treatment at an academic center, N0 disease, FG 3-4, and other metastatectomy (p<0.05). Most pts with CN in the ICI era had IT after CN (89.9%); this was not coded in the IFN era. In the IFN era, CN compared to IT alone was associated with improved OS on UVA (HR 0.59, 95% CI 0.47-0.73, p<0.001) and MVA (HR 0.62, 95% CI 0.47-0.83, p=0.001). In the ICI era, CN compared to IT alone was associated with improved OS on UVA (HR 0.63, 95% CI 0.49-0.81, p<0.001) but not on MVA (0.82, 95% CI 0.58-1.14, p=0.234). Conclusions: Despite increased utilization of CN for US pts with mRCC treated with IT during the ICI era, the lack of OS benefit in recent years suggests a need for prospective reevaluation of the value CN and its timing with ICI.

When Surgery Is Not an Option in Renal Cell Carcinoma: The Evolving Role of Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy

Historically, radiation therapy has played a limited role in the management of renal cell carcinoma because early studies showed that it had no benefit in the neoadjuvant or adjuvant settings. Thus, radiation has typically been employed for only palliation of metastatic sites. As the ability to deliver conformal high-dose-per-fraction radiation became available, studies began to show excellent local control when treating oligometastatic sites of renal cell carcinoma with stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT). Recently, SBRT has been studied in the management of the primary tumor in nonsurgical patients with localized renal cell carcinoma. Excellent local control rates and low rates of treatment-related toxicity were reported with single-fraction (26 Gy) and multi-fraction (36 to 45 Gy in 3 fractions or 40 to 50 Gy in 5 fractions) regimens. While the evidence to date is limited by small cohort sizes and variability in treatment approaches, the reported outcomes are promising. Ongoing studies will continue to define how renal SBRT fits into the management of patients who are not eligible for surgery.

Outcomes for patients with borderline resectable (BR) and locally advanced (LA) pancreatic cancer (PC) treated with induction FOLFIRINOX (FFX) +/- radiation (RT) followed by surgery compared to induction FFX followed by consolidative RT

437

Background: Induction FFX for PC deemed either BR or LA at diagnosis provides an opportunity to downstage pts with the aim of an R0 surgery. The addition of RT after induction FFX may further downstage. However, there is a paucity of data regarding long-term survival for BR and LA patients successfully downstaged and resected. We performed a retrospective review of BR and LA PC treated with induction FFX +/- RT followed by surgery or consolidative RT at the Yale Cancer Center (YCC) to assess survival in these two cohorts. Methods: Clinical data was abstracted for pts with BR or LA PC who had surgery or received consolidative RT without surgery after induction FFX +/- RT at the YCC from 2010-2018. Surgical pts were re-reviewed by a radiologist to assess vascular involvement (BR vs. LA) using NCCN criteria. PFS and OS for surgery and consolidative RT were analyzed by the Kaplan-Meier method. Survival was compared via the log rank test. Results: 102 pts met inclusion criteria (BR=47, LA=55), 41 pts had surgery [BR=29/47 (62%) LA=12/55 (22%)] and 61 pts had consolidative RT [(BR= 18/47 (38%), LA= 43/55 (78%)] after induction FFX. 18 surgery pts received RT prior to resection and all surgery pts had R0 resection. Median follow up was 25 mo (range 5 – 97). Median PFS with surgery was 22 mo (95% CI 15 – 59) vs 14 mo (95% CI 10.9 – 20.1) with consolidative RT (p<0.001), while OS with surgery was 42 mo (95% CI 25-NR) vs 20 mo (95% CI 17-25) without surgery (p<0.001). For pts with ≥ 2 yr follow up, 12/22 (55%) surgery pts and 17/18 (94%) consolidative RT pts relapsed. For pts with ≥ 3 yr follow up, 6/12 (50%) surgery pts and 10/10 (100%) consolidative RT pts relapsed. 2 yr PFS and OS was 45% (95% CI 28-61) and 74% (95% CI 57 – 86) with surgery versus 15% (95% CI 7-27) and 40% (95% CI 26-53) with consolidative RT. Conclusions: Surgery was associated with a high R0 rate and prolonged PFS and OS compared to consolidative RT in pts with BR and LA PC after FFX +/- RT. However, survival benefit was not statistically significant when selecting only LA pts although numbers are limited.