Defining equitable genomic testing uptake in gastrointestinal oncology: Ensuring capture of demographic data

794

Background: Tumor genomic testing (GT) has increased diagnostic accuracy and treatment options for patients (pts) with cancer. Dana-Farber Cancer Institute (DFCI) has made GT accessible as an institute-supported research effort for >10 yrs. We estimate 50% standard therapies and 15-35% clinical trials in Gastrointestinal Cancer Clinic (GCC) require GT to determine eligibility. Pts in GCC with certain cancers are eligible for GT as a clinical test – these include metastatic/locally advanced colorectal, gastric, pancreatic, or biliary cancers. Clinical testing requires CLIA lab certification and insurance reimbursement; research does not. Herein we ID gaps in our GT database. Methods: We reviewed data on GT uptake in GCC between 4/2015 - 6/2022. 20,096 pts were captured by the GT tracking system. Data included: testing ordered and completed (proportion, type, time to receiving tissue for testing [TR], time to testing completion [TC]). Demographic data is not captured in the tracking system; matching unique patient identifiers with electronic health record is pending. Results: Most pts received GT (57.6%); 12% were not eligible; 30.4% declined consent. Most testing was completed (67.6%), but 21.3% of tests failed (45.5% of these from insufficient tissue). Research testing (71%) comprised most tests, but clinical tests were completed faster (median 34 days research vs 20 days clinical). Ampullary (91%), anal (90%), colon (90%) had highest completion rates; pancreatic (59%), hepatocellular carcinoma (56%) had lowest (from insufficient viable tumor in submitted specimens). Conclusions: GCC has a robust recruitment program that has yielded high GT uptake. Given the frequency that GT is used for treatment and trials, building a demographically representative dataset is crucial, especially for pts with largest burden of morbidity and mortality from cancer. We ID'd data gaps in the GT tracking system, which lacks demographics and reason for not testing. Demographic data is available in the electronic health record but does not speak with the GT tracking system so this analysis is not routinely done. Ability to visualize this data is important to ensure equitable GT uptake. Future efforts will focus on improving rates of consent in genomics databases and cancer clinical trials. Genomic testing at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute Gastrointestinal Cancer Center, 4/2015 – 6/2022.[Table: see text]

Resource needs screening and matching at an academic oncology center: RESOURCE preliminary results

178

Background: The social determinants of health contribute to patient (pt) health status throughout the cancer care continuum. Here we describe preliminary results of RESOURCE, a pragmatic intervention to ID and intervene on pt resource needs at an academic oncology center. RESOURCE is an EHR-integrated questionnaire (qst), given when establishing oncology care, that IDs the following needs: transportation; financial, food, & housing security; cost of care; education & employment; and caregiving burden. Pts from an HUP population or reporting resource needs on the cancer center’s intake qst are screened with RESOURCE. Those randomized to the intervention reporting a resource need receive an EHR-mediated referral to internal resource specialist and financial assistance teams. Methods: All adult cancer pts may complete the EHR-integrated intake qst. We compared historic rates of reported vulnerability from the intake qst with resource needs reported in RESOURCE. Intake qst data from 6/2015 – 4/2022 included 21,343 respondents with data on financial security, social isolation, health literacy, and health numeracy. RESOURCE data from 6/2021 – 6/2022 on the domains above included 75 respondents (125 will be accrued in total; no conditions will end accrual early). The intake qst is available for all adult cancer pts (response rate 24%; RESOURCE response rate of 87%). and The following were compared with χ2 tests: the demographic profile of each pt population; and the proportion of respondents with any one need ID'd by RESOURCE vs the intake qst. These preliminary results allow us to determine if we may prepare to scale RESOURCE upon the study’s completion. Results: The enriched pt population of RESOURCE means that there is a statistically significant difference in demographics between the general pt population responding to the intake qst and the RESOURCE pts responding to the RESOURCE by each category (p-values < 0.01). A higher proportion of pts identified a need on the intake qst (61%) than on RESOURCE (41%). RESOURCE pts most commonly reported the following needs: paying utility bills (24%), food security (20%), and cost of care (19%). Conclusions: While a larger proportion of pts reported a resource need on the intake qst, the RESOURCE qst had a far superior response rate; this discrepancy makes it difficult to determine which qst is better at determining resource needs. The RESOURCE qst allows us to see the type of need in greater detail. Collecting this data systematically allows us to quantify the resource needs of our pts so we can provide adequate support staff and resources.[Table: see text]

Evaluation of clinical use of intravenous iron: Utilization, efficacy, and safety in the management of cancer and chemotherapy-induced anemia in GI oncology

359

Background: National Comprehensive Cancer Network recommends intravenous (IV) iron therapy for management of cancer and chemotherapy induced anemia without mentioning agent preference. Currently at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute (DFCI), all IV iron formulations can be utilized in management of iron deficiency anemia. This study was performed to evaluate the utilization, efficacy, and safety of IV iron formulations in management of cancer and chemotherapy induced iron deficiency anemia in patients with gastrointestinal (GI) cancer. Methods: Retrospective chart review was performed on DFCI patients with GI cancer undergoing palliative or adjuvant chemotherapy who received ferric gluconate, ferumoxytol, or iron sucrose between January 2021 and January 2022. Patients were identified using electronic medical record reports. Data was collected on cancer diagnosis, chemotherapy regimen, total IV iron dose and frequency, infusion reactions, laboratory values including hemoglobin, mean corpuscular volume (MCV), and iron status parameters (serum iron, ferritin, transferrin, iron-binding capacity, transferrin saturation) at baseline and 4-6 weeks after the last dose. The primary outcome was to assess the utilization of different IV iron formulations. Secondary outcomes were efficacy defined as mean absolute change from baseline in Hemoglobin levels and safety defined as incidence of hypersensitivity reactions. Results: 102 patients were evaluated of which 61 received ferumoxytol, 36 ferric gluconate and 5 iron sucrose. All patients had baseline hemoglobin (≤11 g/dL) and MCV collected. 89 patients had baseline iron status parameters (serum iron, ferritin, transferrin, iron-binding capacity, transferrin saturation). Most patients (N = 70) had diagnosis of colorectal cancer and received chemotherapy every 2 weeks. All patients received recommend total dose of IV iron on days of chemotherapy which was outside the recommended schedule of the IV iron formulations. A gradual increase in Hemoglobin concentrations in patients treated with IV iron was observed. Conclusions: Ferumoxytol and Ferric Gluconate were the most utilized IV iron formulation at DFCI GI oncology patients. All patients received recommended IV iron dosing but did not follow the recommended schedule. All patients had hemoglobin and MCV checked before each IV iron therapy. IV iron therapy was well tolerated and effective in treatment of iron-deficiency anemia in patients with gastrointestinal cancer undergoing chemotherapy.[Table: see text]

Strategies for implementing an ePRO-based symptom management program (eSyM) across six cancer centers

12017

Background: Electronic patient-reported outcome (ePRO)-based symptom management can improve cancer care outcomes. However, implementation is challenging as it requires 1) tremendous technical resources to integrate ePROs into the electronic health record (EHR), 2) substantial buy-in from clinicians and patients, 3) between visit symptom management, and 4) institutional investment to support engagement. Methods: The SIMPRO Consortium developed and deployed eSyM, an EHR-integrated ePRO-based symptom management program for medical oncology and surgery patients, at 6 cancer centers between September 2019-March 2022. Site teams document new and changes to implementation strategies monthly using REDCap (data collection is ongoing). Strategies are itemized using the Expert Recommendations for Implementation Change (ERIC) list and mapped to the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) list of barriers. The SIMPRO Coordinating Center (Dana-Farber) reviews all ERIC-CFIR classifications for consistency. Results: To date, 162 distinct strategies have been documented. On average, sites have implemented 23 strategies, 5 preparing for go-live and 18 remaining active beyond go-live. Preparation of clinical staff, training, and routine program evaluation are consistent high impact strategies. Other adaptive strategies have varied across sites, including various approaches to patient and provider engagement. Foundational strategies have been deployed by the coordinating center to support the multi-center initiative. Conclusions: Methodical deployment using theory-based implementation strategies may foster adoption of novel health care delivery systems by patients, clinicians, and institutions. Attention to the specific high-value strategies identified by the SIMPRO Consortium could support similar ePRO deployment at other institutions. [Table: see text]

Implementing systematized patient-facing Lynch syndrome (LS) risk assessment in oncology using the electronic health record (EHR) system

10503

Background: Lynch syndrome (LS) is the most common inherited cause of colorectal (CRC) and endometrial cancers. Significant provider and institutional level barriers limit LS detection, even in oncology patients with LS-associated cancers. PREMM5 is a validated tool based on personal and family cancer history that is recommended by national professional societies for LS risk assessment. This project’s goal was to study the feasibility of patient-facing LS risk assessment using a PREMM5 screener embedded in an electronic health record (EHR) system, as a means of improving LS identification. Methods: The PREMM5 LS screener intake questions were adapted to be completed by patients rather than healthcare providers. Screener adaptation and implementation involved iterative review by multidisciplinary experts and multilevel stakeholder engagement. The patient-facing PREMM5 LS screener was embedded in the EHR (Epic) at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute (DFCI) to enable remote (via the EHR patient portal) and on-site completion (in clinic waiting rooms). All new gastrointestinal (GI) cancer patients seen at DFCI for initial oncology consultation from 6/2020-12/2021 were invited through the portal to complete the screener. PREMM5 scores ≥2.5% were considered “positive”, with genetics referral recommended. Beginning 2/2021, the EHR generated an automated provider-facing alert for positive screens. Results: 35% (1504/4262) of new GI cancer patients completed the screener. 367/1504 (24%) had a positive PREMM5 screen (mean age 53 years), of whom 66% were male, and 62%, 12% and 10% had CRC, neuroendocrine and pancreas cancer respectively. 97% (357/367) of screen positives completed the PREMM5 screener remotely through the portal. 102/367 (28%) received a genetics referral as a result of their positive PREMM5 screen (not including 75 genetics referrals outside this workflow), 13 of whom had a pathogenic variant (PV) on germline testing, including 4 with LS ( MSH2, MSH6, PMS2), and others with PVs in ATM, BRCA2, CHEK2, NTHL1, RAD50 and RECQL4. Conclusions: A practice-wide patient-facing EHR-integrated PREMM5 risk assessment workflow is feasible and identified nearly 1 in 4 general GI oncology patients as warranting genetic evaluation, resulting in the identification of numerous actionable germline PVs. This method of deployment could make genetic risk assessment more accessible to non-genetics providers. The suboptimal screener completion rate and 28% genetics referral rate among positive screens suggest the need for additional refinements, including patient and provider engagement and outreach to positive screens who do not follow up with appointments for genetic evaluation.

Feasibility of systematic screening for unmet social determinants of health (SDoH) needs and associated resource utilization in ambulatory oncology

6535

Background: Addressing unmet SDoH needs may reduce interruptions to cancer care caused by ED visits and hospitalizations (EDH). We aimed to determine feasibility of systematic screening for unmet patient-reported SDoH needs within a large tertiary academic comprehensive cancer center and association of unmet needs with EDH. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of SDoH needs among new oncology patient (pts) consults from 5/15-9/21 at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute (DCFI). Pts completed an intake questionnaire including demographics, disease, and SDoH needs of financial distress, health literacy/numeracy, social isolation on a dichotomous or 5-point Likert scale. We ran bivariate and multivariable models on the association between demographics, SDoH and EDH within 30 days of consult using robust generalized estimating equations controlling for clustering by consult provider. Results: 125,997 unique new consults were seen from 5/15 – 9/21 of which 20,913 completed the intake questionnaire and were alive at 30 days after consult. Respondents were age 40-64 (50%), female (60%), non-Hispanic (84%), White (90%) and English speaking (97%), and 7% had an EDH within 30 days of consult. The most reported SDoH need was limited health numeracy (26%). In bivariate analysis, factors associated with ED visits were: non-English language, lung or GU/GYN cancer, living > 25 mi from DFCI and limited health literacy and numeracy (all p < 0.05). Demographics associated with hospitalizations included: White race and English as a primary language (EPL) (both p < 0.05). Multivariable analysis showed female gender (OR 1.53, p < 0.01), lung (OR 3.22*) and GU/GYN (OR 2.21*) (p < 0.05 for both) cancer, and living > 25 mi from DFCI (OR 2.50, p < 0.0001) were associated with increased likelihood of ED visit while EPL (OR 1.80, p < 0.05) and GU/GYN (OR 1.65, p < 0.01*) cancer were associated with increased likelihood of hospitalization. Conclusions: It is feasible to systematically screen for unmet SDoH which are associated with increased frequency of ED visits. Differences in characteristics associated with ED vs. hospitalization could indicate possible bias or suggest SDoH needs as a reason for avoidance of costly medical care. Further study will expand SDoH screening and measure impact of resource matching to reduce disruptions to cancer care. [Table: see text]

A phase II feasibility study of electronic patient reported outcomes (ePROs) for oral cancer directed therapies (OCDT)

e13509

Background: Patients receiving oral cancer directed therapy (OCDT) may be at greater risk of toxicity and non-adherence than those on intravenous treatments. Electronic patient reported outcomes (ePROs) have the potential to mitigate those risks by alerting clinicians to patient status between visits, prompting earlier intervention. Best practices for ePROs implementation are not yet defined. We sought to demonstrate the feasibility of ePROs between visits for patients receiving OCDT both without and with asynchronous nursing triage calls for severe symptoms. Methods: In this Phase II feasibility study, patients were prospectively enrolled into two arms. In the first arm, “passive management” (Arm 1) patients were sent weekly ePROs with 15 symptoms, graded 0 (none) to 3 (severe), through the electronic patient portal (ePP). Responses were available for review by clinicians via the electronic medical record (EMR). In the second arm, “active management” (Arm 2) patients received the same weekly ePROs. If a patient responded with a severe symptom, a nurse would call within one business day to triage the concern. The primary outcome was 30-day feasibility, defined as a patient responding to 50% or more of ePROs sent during this period. Secondary outcomes included feasibility at 60- and 90-days, unplanned healthcare utilization (urgent care, ED visit or hospitalization), and nursing calls. At the time the Arm 2 was enrolling, a language-concordant interface for the EMR and ePP became available. The study was amended to include primarily Spanish speaking patients with a language concordant ePROs survey. Results: 100 patients were enrolled, 50 per arm. 10 patients who primarily spoke Spanish were included in Arm 2; the remaining 90 patients were fluent in English. 96 patients were eligible for evaluation of 30-day feasibility, 92 for 60-day, and 86 for 90-day. The 30-day feasibility by arm was 57% in Arm 1 and 45% in Arm 2 (p = 0.26). The 30-day feasibility in the Spanish language subgroup of the Arm 2 was 56%. Nursing calls in the first 30-days were 101 in Arm 1 and 109 in Arm 2. Multivariable regression for predictors of responding to 50% or more of ePROs in days 0-30 did not identify statistically significant correlates of feasibility. Conclusions: ePROs administered via an ePP were feasible the first 30 days on oral cancer directed treatment. Adding nurse triage calls between visits and a language concordant process for primarily Spanish speaking patients were feasible. Larger studies are needed to determine which factors truly impact use of the program and, most importantly, adherence and quality of life.[Table: see text]

Implementation of electronic patient-reported outcomes in head and neck oncology at a comprehensive cancer center

12115

Background: Monitoring electronic patient reported outcomes (ePROs) has demonstrated impact on quality of life and survival in oncology. Maintaining high response rates to ePRO measures is critical in routine care. We evaluate the routine care implementation of head and neck oncology (HNO)-focused ePROs and the impact of patient demographics and assignment method on response rate. Methods: Since October 2021, patients diagnosed with head and neck cancer (PHN) at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute (DFCI) have had the opportunity to respond to the EHR-integrated European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Head and Neck Module (EORTC QLQ- H&N43) at clinic visits, not to exceed every 30 days. PHN are also prompted at 7 and 14 days postoperative, regardless of clinic visit. HNO clinicians selected EORTC QLQ- H&N43 because of its actionable scores and limited overlap with cross-cutting ePRO tools at DFCI. Reviewed by Patient and Family Advisory Council members, PHN can respond to the questionnaire in English or Spanish via any internet-enabled device or tablet provided in clinic. Tablet assignment rates are sent via automated report to the HNO clinic manager. Results: Between October 2021 and January 2022, PHN responded to 64% of questionnaires for eligible clinic visits (1618/2535). Post-operatively, 65% of PHN responded to EORTC QLQ- H&N43 at least once within 28 days of surgery. Prompted at 7 and 14 days, PHN responded to 44% (133/300) of all post-operative questionnaires. Overall, PHN responded on their own device 50% of the time and on tablets in clinic 50% of the time. Response rates significantly associated with race, primary language, and age at clinic, but not post-operatively due to low sample size. PHN with a primary language other than English, older PHN, and PHN with races other than white responded less frequently, with the exception of Asian PHN in clinic who had the highest response rates. Clinician champions, EHR-integration, and a timely feedback loop to clinic managers facilitated response rates. Conclusions: Successful implementation of HNO ePROs is aided by clinical engagement and availability of real-time response rate data. ePRO response rate in HNO was found to be associated with race, primary language, age, and assignment method. Further work to focus on improving disparities within response rates and linking automatic interventions to scores is needed. [Table: see text]

Survival in Young-Onset Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: Findings From Cancer and Leukemia Group B (Alliance)/SWOG 80405

BACKGROUND

The incidence of young-onset colorectal cancer (yoCRC) is increasing. It is unknown if there are survival differences between young and older patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC).

METHODS

We studied the association of age with survival in 2326 mCRC patients enrolled in the Cancer and Leukemia Group B and SWOG 80405 trial, a multicenter, randomized trial of first-line chemotherapy plus biologics. The primary and secondary outcomes of this study were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS), respectively, which were assessed by Kaplan-Meier method and compared among younger vs older patients with the log-rank test. Hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated based on Cox proportional hazards modeling, adjusting for known prognostic variables. All statistical tests were 2-sided.

RESULTS

Of 2326 eligible subjects, 514 (22.1%) were younger than age 50 years at study entry (yoCRC cohort). The median age of yoCRC patients was 44.3 vs 62.5 years in patients aged 50 years and older. There was no statistically significant difference in OS between yoCRC vs older-onset patients (median = 27.07 vs 26.12 months; adjusted HR = 0.98, 95% CI = 0.88 to 1.10; P = .78). The median PFS was also similar in yoCRC vs older patients (10.87 vs 10.55 months) with an adjusted hazard ratio of 1.02 (95% CI = 0.92 to 1.13; P = .67). Patients younger than age 35 years had the shortest OS with median OS of 21.95 vs 26.12 months in older-onset patients with an adjusted hazard ratio of 1.08 (95% CI = 0.81 to 1.44; Ptrend = .93).

CONCLUSION

In this large study of mCRC patients, there were no statistically significant differences in survival between patients with yoCRC and CRC patients aged 50 years and older.

Frequency and distribution of gastrointestinal oncology patient-reported symptomatic adverse events (SAEs) at a comprehensive cancer center

463

Background: In clinical trials, the systematic collection of patient (pt) reported outcomes has been shown to improve quality of life & overall survival. To develop predictive care models for symptom management, we explored the frequency & distribution of SAEs reported by pts who reported electronic patient reported outcomes (ePRO) prior to outpatient visits to the Gastrointestinal Cancer Center (GCC) at Dana Farber Cancer Institute (DFCI). Methods: ePRO is a modified NCI Patient Reported Outcomes – Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events instrument distributed weekly to GCC pts with a medical/surgical/radiation oncology encounter. Responses are available to the care team in the electronic health record. ePRO consists of presence/frequency/severity/interference of 15 core SAEs (fatigue, insomnia, general pain, decreased appetite, nausea, vomiting, constipation, diarrhea, shortness of breath, numbness and tingling, rash, concentration, fever, anxiety, sadness). Responses are scored 0 to 3 (with 2 and 3 indicating moderate and severe SAEs, respectively). We examined the frequency & distribution of grade 2 and 3 SAEs in ePRO responders by age, gender, race/ethnicity. All pts had gastrointestinal cancer and an outpatient visit for treatment, symptom management, follow-up care. Results: From 9/1/2018 to 8/31/2020, 1912 unique pts responded (response rate 23%). Most respondents were age 50-69 years (58% compared to 15% age <50, 27% age ≥70; range 18-95), male (53%), white (75%). Grade 3 SAE frequencies were pain (12%), fatigue (11%), anxiety/constipation/insomnia/decreased appetite (5%), sadness/numbness and tingling/diarrhea (3%), concentration/shortness of breath (2%), nausea/rash (1%), fever/vomiting (0%). Across pts, fatigue, general pain, insomnia, anxiety were the most common grade 2 and 3 SAEs. Shortness of breath, vomiting, rash, fever were least common (Table). Conclusions: In GCC pts responding to ePRO, the most frequent SAEs were pain, fatigue, insomnia, anxiety. Shortness of breath, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea were less often severe. Pts <50 were more likely to report severe anxiety but there were no other major differences based on age, sex, race/ethnicity. Ongoing efforts will increase pt/provider engagement and develop predictive models & symptom management interventions from ePRO responses. [Table: see text]

Design of eSyM: An ePRO-based symptom management tool fully integrated in the electronic health record (Epic) to foster patient/clinician engagement, sustainability, and clinical impact

164

Background: Chemotherapy and surgery can cause distressing symptoms, which can be a burden for health systems to address. Programs that directly engage patients, including electronic tracking of patient-reported outcomes (ePROs), can improve symptom control and decrease the need for acute care. Previous ePRO programs have relied on third party vendors with limited EHR integration, constraining their clinical utility and scalability. An integrated solution could offer distinct advantages. Methods: As part of NCI’s Moonshot-funded IMPACT consortium, 6 health systems and Epic built an electronic symptom management program (eSyM) based on the PRO-CTCAE questionnaire that is fully integrated into the EHR. The agile, user-centered design process engaged patients, clinicians, and institutions. The core functional components include: 1) symptom surveys in the postoperative period or between chemotherapy visits, 2) self-management tip sheets, 3) clinician alerts, and 4) dashboards for population management. Critical points of integration with supporting EHR functions and workflow impacts were identified; and major challenges of integration and implementation were described. Results: eSyM, which was implemented at two health systems (Baptist Memorial in Tennessee and Mississippi and West Virginia University Health) in the fall of 2019, required multiple supporting EHR functions: 1) access a secure, HIPPA-compliant patient portal/messaging system (MyChart); 2) record diagnosis, procedure and chemotherapy treatment plan data; 3) identify target populations and track metrics/events; 4) define and execute autonomous logic-based workflow rules; 5) generate reports for clinicians/patients; and 6) documentation. Major challenges included: 1) working within pre-existing EHR system standards and capabilities, which limited the ability to customize interfaces and workflows specifically for the eSyM use case; and 2) adapting to different EHR configurations and polices across multiple health systems. Conclusions: The eSyM build leveraged many existing EHR capabilities and overcame regulatory hurdles; but it required design and workflow compromise. Integration of ePRO-based symptom management programs into the EHR could help overcome barriers, consolidate clinical workflows, and foster scalability/sustainability. Ongoing efforts include launching eSyM at four more sites and evaluating its adoption, usability, and impact on clinical outcomes.

Resource utilization rates among English versus limited English proficient patients (pts) by patient-report of low health literacy (LHL)

107

Background: About 30 million people in the US report Limited-English Proficiency (LEP). LEP cancer pts are less likely to understand their medical condition(s) and are at increased risk of LHL, emergency department (ED) visits or hospitalizations. We examined the relationship between LEP, LHL, and ED visits/hospitalization in oncology. Methods: Dana-Farber Cancer Institute’s New Pt Intake Questionnaire (NPIQ) documents clinical and social determinants of health, including LHL. Pts reported LHL if they responded “a little bit”, “somewhat” or “not at all” to 1 of 2 questions: 1) “How confident are you in filling out medical forms?” and 2) “How confident are you in understanding medical statistics?”. Pts reported LEP if they noted a primary language other than English at registration. ED visits/hospitalizations were determined from Partners Healthcare System records. Statistically significant relationships between LEP, LHL and ED visits/hospitalizations and pt demographics (age, sex, race/ethnicity, zip code) and clinical (disease center, treatment intent) characteristics were determined with χ2 tests. Results: From 5/30/15 – 4/30/20, 21570 of 98200 eligible pts responded to NPIQ (response rate 22.0%). LHL differed by age (p-value < 0.001), gender (p-value < 0.001) and race/ethnicity (p-value = 0.007). Among LEP pts reporting LHL, financial distress (p-value = 0.004), emotional distress (PROMIS score; p-value = 0.014), and prior cancer (p-value = 0.006) were more prevalent; however, there was no significant statistical increase in ED visits (p-value = 0.237) or hospitalizations (p-value = 0.965) compared to LEP not reporting LHL. Conclusions: The results indicate that sociodemographic and other pt characteristics contribute to ED and hospital utilization in LEP cancer pts. Future studies will employ prospective data to examine the covariates’ predictive ability for resource utilization with LHL among LEP pts. [Table: see text]

Design of eSyM: An ePRO-based symptom management tool fully integrated in the electronic health record (Epic) to foster patient/clinician engagement, sustainability, and clinical impact

e14120

Background: Chemotherapy and surgery can cause distressing symptoms, which can be a burden for health system to address. Programs that directly engage patients, including electronic tracking of patient-reported outcomes (ePROs), can improve symptom control and decrease the need for acute care. Previous ePRO programs have relied on third party vendors with limited EHR integration, constraining their clinical utility and scalability. An integrated solution could offer distinct advantages. Methods: As part of NCI’s Moonshot-funded IMPACT consortium, 6 health systems and Epic built an electronic symptom management program (eSyM) based on the PRO-CTCAE questionnaire that is fully integrated into the EHR. The agile, user-centered design process engaged patients, clinicians, and institutions. The core functional components include: 1) symptom surveys in the postoperative period or between chemotherapy visits, 2) self-management tip sheets, 3) clinician alerts, and 4) dashboards for population management. Critical points of integration with supporting EHR functions and workflow impacts were identified; and major challenges of integration and implementation were described. Results: eSyM, which was implemented at two health systems (Baptist Memorial in Tennessee and Mississippi and West Virginia University Health) in the fall of 2019, required multiple supporting EHR functions: 1) access a secure, HIPPA-compliant patient portal/messaging system (MyChart); 2) record diagnosis, procedure and chemotherapy treatment plan data; 3) identify target populations and track metrics/events; 4) define and execute autonomous logic-based workflow rules; 5) generate reports for clinicians/patients; and 6) documentation. Major challenges included: 1) working within pre-existing EHR system standards and capabilities, which limited the ability to customize interfaces and workflows specifically for the eSyM use case; and 2) adapting to different EHR configurations and polices across multiple health systems. Conclusions: The eSyM build leveraged many existing EHR capabilities and addressed regulatory hurdles; but it required design and workflow compromise. Integration of ePRO-based symptom management programs into the EHR could help overcome barriers, consolidate clinical workflows, and foster scalability/sustainability. Ongoing efforts include launching eSyM at four more sites and evaluating its adoption, usability, and impact on clinical outcomes.

Survival outcomes among older adults (OA) receiving second-line therapy for metastatic CRC (mCRC): 5,289 patients (pts) from the ARCAD Clinical Trials Program

7009

Background: Survival outcomes of 2nd line mCRC therapy for OA are poorly understood. We evaluated the rates and survival outcomes of 2nd line therapy among OA age 70+ compared to younger adults (YA) age < 70 following progression on 1st line clinical trials. Methods: Associations between clinical characteristics of pts with available treatment data after progression on 10 of 23 1st line ARCAD trials, time to initial progression (TTiP) and 2nd line therapy were evaluated. Time to progression (TTP) and overall survival (OS) were compared between OA and YA enrolled on 2nd line trials by Cox regression, adjusting for age, sex, ECOG PS, number of metastatic sites, presence of metastasis in lung/liver/peritoneum. Results: Sixteen percent of 1st line ARCAD trial participants were age 70+ (n = 870). Data for 2nd line therapy was available for 60.6% pts (3206/5289). Each additional decade of life was associated with 11% lower odds of receiving 2nd line therapy in multivariate analysis (p = 0.0117). OA participating in 2nd line trials (7.9% age 75+ of 7921) experience similar TTP and OS to YA (mTTP: 5.1 vs. 5.2mos; mOS 11.6 vs 12.4mos, respectively). Conclusions: We did not observe a statistical difference in survival outcomes by age following 2nd line mCRC therapy. Further study is needed to examine unmeasured comorbidity and use of geriatric assessment to select OA likely to benefit from 2nd line therapy. [Table: see text]

Patient-reported health literacy and numeracy among new patients seeking consultation at a comprehensive cancer center

7038

Background: Health literacy and numeracy are essential for patients to make informed cancer treatment decisions. Oncologists do not typically evaluate literacy and numeracy and vary in their ability to adapt health discussions to meet patients’ needs. Systematic ascertainment of literacy and numeracy may provide oncologists with useful information to help guide initial oncology consultations. Methods: We deploy an electronic new patient intake questionnaire (NPIQ) that includes health literacy and numeracy, basic demographics and cancer risk screening. Patients are considered to have limited health literacy and/or numeracy if they respond with either “somewhat”, “a little bit” or “not at all” to a single question: “How confident are you filling out medical forms?” or “How confident are you in understanding medical statistics?” respectively. Results: Between January 2018 and August 2019, 8418 (24.6%) of patients presenting for a new patient consultation responded to the NPIQ. Among respondents with non-missing data, limited health literacy was reported by 19.4% respondents with 13.9% reporting “not at all” and 33.1% reporting “not at all” or only “a little bit” of confidence completing medical forms. Limited health numeracy was reported by 33.2% respondents with 9.1% reporting “not at all”. Nearly 20% of respondents reported both limited health literacy and numeracy. Patients reporting lack of confidence completing medical forms or understanding medical statistics were older (20.3%, 30.7% ³ 70 years old), male (20.2%, 30.1%), and non-white (21.3%, 32.1%). Conclusions: A substantial proportion of cancer patients report lack of confidence in their ability to complete medical forms or understand medical statistics, potentially limiting the ability to actively engage in shared decision-making. Prospective identification of these social determinants of health prior to consultations may provide oncologists with information necessary to tailor health discussions and to provide materials that promote understanding and informed decision-making. [Table: see text]

Distribution and frequency of patient-reported symptomatic adverse events at a comprehensive cancer center

e19117

Background: Systematic review of electronic patient reported outcomes (ePRO) has been shown to improve quality of life and overall survival in clinical trial. We previously demonstrated feasibility of ePRO across Dana-Farber Cancer Institute (DFCI). We sought to examine the distribution and frequency of first symptomatic adverse events (SAEs) among ePRO responders in ambulatory oncology practice. Methods: The ePRO tool uses the validated NCI developed Patient Reported Outcomes – Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE) instrument to assess attributes of 15 core SAEs (fatigue, insomnia, general pain, decreased appetite, nausea, vomiting, constipation, diarrhea, shortness of breath, numbness and tingling, rash, concentration, fever, anxiety, sadness) selected by clinician stakeholders and deployed via any internet-enabled device once every 7 days. Responses are viewable in the EHR, scored 0 to 3 using an algorithm, with scores of 3 highlighted to indicate severe grade SAEs. Results: We examined the distribution and frequency of the first 5183 unique ePRO reports for unselected patients seen in the medical, radiation and surgical oncology outpatient clinics of four pilot multidisciplinary clinics (Breast, Genitourinary, Gastrointestinal and Head and Neck) between September 2018-December 2019. Twenty one percent of eligible patients responded to ePRO (5183 of 26,084). Most respondents were female (59%), Caucasian (89%), and age 50-69 years (56% compared to 16% age <50 years, 28% age ≥70; range 19-98 years). The frequency of grade 3 SAEs was pain (10%), fatigue (6%), insomnia (4%), constipation (3%), numbness and tingling/concentration/anxiety/decreased appetite (2%), diarrhea/shortness of breath/sadness (1%), and rash/fever/nausea/vomiting (none) (Table). Conclusions: We observed a consistent distribution of SAEs across cancer types, age and sex. The most frequently reported SAEs are those clinicians struggle to treat with medications - pain, fatigue, insomnia and anxiety. Research to develop effective strategies to address this constellation of SAEs should be prioritized. [Table: see text]

Receipt and survival outcomes by age following second-line therapy for metastatic CRC (mCRC): Analysis of 5,289 patients from the ARCAD Clinical Trials Program

6

Background: Rates and survival outcomes for second-line therapy for mCRC for OA vs. YA are poorly understood. Methods: Pts with available subsequent treatment data after progression from 10 1st line trials were included. Associations between key clinical/disease characteristics, time to initial progression (TTiP) and rate of receipt of second-line therapy were evaluated. Time to progression (TTP) and overall survival (OS) were compared between OA and YA who were enrolled on second-line trials by Cox regression, adjusting for age, sex, ECOG PS, number of metastatic sites, presence of metastasis in lung/liver/peritoneum. Results: OA comprised 16.4% of first-line trials. OA and ECOG PS >0 were less likely to receive second-line therapy than YA. Odds of receiving second-line therapy decreased by 11% for each additional decade of life in multivariate analysis (p=0.0117). OA enrolled in second-line trials experience similar mTTP and mOS as YA (5.1 vs. 5.2mos; 11.6 vs 12.4mos, respectively). Conclusions: OA are less likely to receive 2nd line therapy for mCRC. We did not observe a statistical difference in survival outcomes for OA vs. YA following second-line therapy. Further study is needed to examine unmeasured factors, including comorbidity and functional status given observed inferior outcomes among adults with ECOG PS >0, and consideration given to inclusion of geriatric assessment to select OA likely to benefit from 2nd line therapy for mCRC.

[Table: see text]

Feasibility of pharmacist co-management for patients prescribed oral anticancer therapy for gastrointestinal cancers

77

Background: There is an increased use of oral anti-cancer therapies (OACTs) for treatment of gastrointestinal (GI) cancers. While OACTs provide convenience compared to IV agents, they carry similar risks for drug-drug interactions (DDI), toxicities, and unique challenges like adherence and drug access. Patients on OACTs have fewer touch-points with clinicians, requiring more patient ownership of treatment. Pharmacist co-management of pts has been shown to be successful in teaching and monitoring of IV therapy. We sought to assess feasibility of pharmacist co-management for pts prescribed OACTs for treatment of GI cancers. Methods: In 2019, the Dana-Farber GI Cancer Center (GCC) had an embedded pharmacist 8 hrs/week to help with co-management of pts on OACTs. The pharmacist provided (1) in-person and telephone teaching; (2) comprehensive medication reconciliation; (3) DDI review; and (4) supportive care recommendations. Patients were identified by reviewing provider schedules and through provider referrals. The initial teach visit was one-on-one with each patient before initiation, with joint visits with providers thereafter for monitoring and adherence checks. Data were collected to quantify the types of support/recommendation provided by pharmacist and the impact on clinical workflow. Results: After 4 months in the GCC clinic, the pharmacist has co-managed 26 new pts, 61% seen in-person. In initial visits, the pharmacist identified 3 DDI, updated 15 medication lists, and assisted 11 pts/or providers with drug access and drug information. The pharmacist saw 10 of 26 pts for follow up, totaling 21 encounters. The pharmacist assisted in 17 of the 21 encounters with drug access and drug information. Pharmacist spent 20 min/pt on teaching. For follow-up visits, the pharmacist did not additional incur clinic resources as patients were seen with providers. Conclusions: Pharmacist co-management of patients on OACTs is feasible and offers an added safety resource to pts and providers from initial teaching to monitoring. Future research will focus on the impacts of co-management on clinical outcomes, such as the use of emergency/hospital visits, the duration of therapy, and adherence.

A phase 2 clinical trial of the heat shock protein 90 (HSP 90) inhibitor ganetespib in patients with refractory advanced esophagogastric cancer

Subsets of esophagogastric (EG) cancers harbor genetic abnormalities, including amplification of HER2, MET, or FGFR2 or mutations in PIK3CA, EGFR, or BRAF. Ganetespib which is a novel triazolone heterocyclic inhibitor of HSP90, is a potentially biologically rational treatment strategy for advanced EG cancers with these gene amplification. This multicenter, single-arm phase 2 trial enrolled patients with histologically confirmed advanced EG cancer with progression on at least one line of systemic therapy. Patients received Ganetespib 200 mg/m2 IV on Days 1, 8, and 15 of a 28-day cycle. The primary endpoint was overall response rate (ORR). Secondary endpoints included: Progression Free Survival (PFS); to correlate the presence of HSP clients with ORR and PFS; evaluating the safety, tolerability and adverse events profile. In this study 26 eligible patients mainly: male 77%, median age 64 years were enrolled. The most common drug-related adverse events were diarrhea (77%), fatigue (65%), elevated ALKP (42%), and elevated AST (38%). The most common grade 3/4 AEs included: leucopenia (12%), fatigue (12%), diarrhea (8%), and elevated ALKP (8%). The ORR of 4% reflects the single patient of 26 who had a complete response and stayed on treatment for more than seventy (70) months. Median PFS and OS was 61 days (2.0 months), 94 days (3.1 months) respectively. Ganetespib showed manageable toxicity. While the study was terminated early due to insufficient evidence of single-agent activity, the durable CR and 2 minor responses suggest that there may be a subset of EG patients who could benefit from this drug.

FOLFOX plus ziv-aflibercept or placebo in first-line metastatic esophagogastric adenocarcinoma: A double-blind, randomized, multicenter phase 2 trial

BACKGROUND

Antiangiogenic therapy is a proven therapeutic modality for refractory gastric and gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma. This trial assessed whether the addition of a high affinity angiogenesis inhibitor, ziv-aflibercept, could improve the efficacy of first-line mFOLFOX6 (oxaliplatin, leucovorin, and bolus plus infusional 5- fluorouracil) in metastatic esophagogastric adenocarcinoma.

METHODS

Patients with treatment-naive metastatic esophagogastric adenocarcinoma were randomly assigned (in a 2:1 ratio) in a multicenter, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial to receive first-line mFOLFOX6 with or without ziv-aflibercept (4 mg/kg) every 2 weeks. The primary endpoint was 6-month progression-free survival (PFS).

RESULTS

Sixty-four patients were randomized to receive mFOLFOX6 and ziv-aflibercept (43 patients) or mFOLFOX6 and a placebo (21 patients). There was no difference in the PFS, overall survival, or response rate. Patients treated with mFOLFOX6/ziv-aflibercept tended to be more likely to discontinue study treatment for reasons other than progressive disease (P = .06). The relative dose intensity of oxaliplatin and 5-fluorouracil was lower in the mFOLFOX6/ziv-aflibercept arm during the first 12 and 24 weeks of the trial. There were 2 treatment-related deaths due to cerebral hemorrhage and bowel perforation in the mFOLFOX6/ziv-aflibercept cohort.

CONCLUSIONS

Ziv-aflibercept did not increase the anti-tumor activity of first-line mFOLFOX6 in metastatic esophagogastric cancer, potentially because of decreased dose intensity of FOLFOX. Further evaluation of ziv-aflibercept in unselected, chemotherapy-naive patients with metastatic esophagogastric adenocarcinoma is not warranted.

Improving PROMs collection rate in an outpatient palliative care clinic

105

Background: From January 2018 to March 2018, Dana Farber Cancer Institute (DFCI) launched a pilot to collect Patient-Reported Outcomes of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE) within the adult palliative care (APC) clinic using smart tablets. We had a limited response rate—only 20% of patients attempted to complete the questionnaire. After the pilot ended on March 2018, smart tablets were discontinued and were replaced with a paper version of PRO-CTCAE from April to June 2018. Our aim was to increase the patient attempt and collection rate of the paper PRO-CTCAE from 20% to 50%. Methods: Our primary outcome measure was the percentage of paper PRO-CTCAE attempted and collected. Eligible patients were established patients scheduled to see a provider in the APC clinic. We implemented several Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycles including the implementation of the paper version of the questionnaire, training and educating front desk staff, and posting provider reminders in exam rooms. We used a statistical process control (SPC) chart to track percentage of attempted and collected questionnaires over time and to differentiate between special cause and common cause variation. Results: From April 2018 to June 2018, the PRO-CTCAE collection rate improved from 20% to 48%. Special cause variation was associated with implementation of the paper version of the PRO-CTCAE and increased front desk staff engagement. Increased provider satisfaction was also associated with the paper version of the PRO-CTCAE. Conclusions: Implementing a high-reliability process for collecting patient reported outcome measures in an outpatient palliative care clinic is complex and requires cohesive multi-disciplinary teamwork, a user-friendly patient-facing and provider-facing interface, and a streamlined workflow. The electronic version of PRO-CTCAE will resume in September 2018. We will implement lessons learned from the paper PRO-CTCAE implementation, including ongoing front desk staff engagement and an enhanced provider view in the electronic medical record.

Successes with and barriers to patient-reported outcome deployment at a comprehensive cancer center

292

Background: Routine collection of patient reported outcomes (PROs) reduces hospitalizations and improves quality of life. In the absence of clear implementation guidelines and research guiding deployment, PROs may not have the desired impact on outcomes in routine oncology practice. We share lessons learned from PRO deployment at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute. Methods: We developed a symptom/toxicity assessment tool based on the PRO-CTCAE to capture 15 symptomatic adverse events with a 1-week recall: fatigue/ decreased appetite/insomnia/ shortness of breath/numbness and tingling/concentration, general pain/anxiety/sadness, rash, nausea/vomiting/fever, constipation, and diarrhea. Responses from eligible English-literate patients scheduled for a gastrointestinal cancer center or adult palliative care visit between January 18 to March 22, 2018 were transmitted directly from clinic tablet to the EMR. To evaluate the deployment, we sought qualitative feedback from clinic staff and three multidisciplinary working groups comprised of patients, nurses, pharmacists, operations leaders, quality/safety experts, and health services researchers to identify technical and workflow gaps in PRO Content, Implementation, and Analytics. Results: We noted a 38% response rate of the N = 4440 PROs assigned to N = 4440 scheduled visits for N = 2055 unique patients (36% were completed, 2% started but not completed); 62% were not started. Workflow enhancement requests include an updated summary view, a clinical documentation tool, a scoring algorithm to highlight severe responses, and a quality metric dashboard to evaluate the deployment. Ongoing analyses are studying the proportion of moderate-severe symptomatic adverse events reported and their association with provider action (i.e., supportive care referral, chemotherapy treatment plan modification, or unplanned ED/hospitalization in the subsequent 30 days). Conclusions: Refinement of the PRO deployment strategy is needed to guide implementation efforts and demonstrate meaningful impact in routine oncology practice.

Engaging support staff to redesign and improve the process to communicate with outside physicians

280

Background: Communicating with a patient’s primary care physician and other specialists is a key component of collaborative patient care across organizations. This includes identifying and maintaining a current list of care team members and distributing consult and progress notes. Recently, after transitioning to a new EMR, referring physicians noted a reduction in notes about their patients seen at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute. The process in the new EMR was more burdensome than the automated system in the legacy application: physicians were now required to populate a recipient list, manually attach a note, and arrange for mailing of a printed letter if no fax number was available in the directory. The system did not require notes to be sent, and consequently many physicians chose not to adopt this new administrative work. Methods: A multidisciplinary team was formed to reduce the administrative burden of sending notes from providers and to enhance communication with outside physicians. All adult medical, surgical and radiation oncology exam appointments were in scope. A standardized process was developed in which at each exam visit clinic assistants worked with patients to update the care team list and asked patients which physicians should be sent copies of the note. The clinic assistant prepared the outgoing communication, added the patient’s identified recipients and PCP, and set the communication to automatically send upon the provider completing his/her documentation. The clinical assistants were trained on each clinical floor and held daily debriefs with the project team during the first week to address any issues. Providers were educated on how to change the recipient list or the outgoing communication if desired. Results: In the five months after implementation, the percent of exam appointments with notes sent increased from 42% to 79% (P < 0.001) without significant impact on the time to place patients in exam rooms. Conclusions: Redesigning workflow through engaging support staff can improve communication and coordination with external providers, while reducing the administrative work assigned to providers.[Table: see text]

Efficacy of PD-1 & PD-L1 inhibitors in older adults: a meta-analysis

Background

Immune checkpoint inhibitors targeting PD-1/PD-L1 pathway demonstrated promising activities in variety of malignancies, however little is known regarding their efficacy in adults aged ≥65 years.

Methods

We conducted a systematic review and a study-level meta-analysis to explore efficacy of ICIs based on age, younger vs older than 65 years. We included in this analysis randomized controlled phase II or III studies in patients with metastatic solid tumors that compared efficacy of PD-1 or PD-L1 inhibitors to a non-PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor. Aggregated estimates of overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) are based on random/mixed effects (RE) models to allow for heterogeneity between the studies.

Results

Initial search identified 53 articles, 17 were randomized controlled trials that compared nivolumab, pembrolizumab or atezolizumab to chemotherapy or targeted therapy. Only 9 trials reported hazard ratiios (HR) for OS based on age and were included in this meta-analysis. Out of those studies seven reported HR for PFS but only 4 studies included subgroup-analysis based on age for PFS. The overall estimated random-effects HR for death was 0.64 with 95% CI of 0.54–0.76 in patients ≥65 years vs. 0.68 with 95% CI of 0.61–0.75 in patients < 65 years. The overall estimated random-effects for HR for progression was 0.74 with 95% CI of 0.60–0.92 in patients ≥65 years vs. 0.73 with 95% CI of 0.61–0.88 in patients < 65 years.

Conclusions

PD-1 (nivolumab and pembrolizumab) and PD-L1 (atezolizumab) inhibitors had comparable efficacy in adults younger vs ≥ 65 years.

Personalizing Adjuvant Therapy for Stage II/III Colorectal Cancer

This review focuses on three areas of interest with respect to the treatment of stage II and III colon and rectal cancer, including (1) tailoring adjuvant therapy for the geriatric population, (2) the controversy as to the optimal adjuvant therapy strategy for patients with locoregional rectal cancer and for patients with colorectal resectable metastatic disease, and (3) discussion of the microenvironment, molecular profiling, and the future of adjuvant therapy. It has become evident that age is the strongest predictive factor for receipt of adjuvant chemotherapy, duration of treatment, and risk of treatment-related toxicity. Although incorporating adjuvant chemotherapy for patients who have received neoadjuvant chemoradiation and surgery would appear to be a reasonable strategy to improve survivorship as an extrapolation from stage III colon cancer adjuvant trials, attempts at defining the optimal rectal cancer population that would benefit from adjuvant therapy remain elusive. Similarly, the role of adjuvant chemotherapy for patients after resection of metastatic colorectal cancer has not been clearly defined because of very limited data to provide guidance. An understanding of the biologic hallmarks and drivers of metastatic spread as well as the micrometastatic environment is expected to translate into therapeutic strategies tailored to select patients. The identification of actionable targets in mesenchymal tumors is of major interest.

SUNSHINE: Randomized double-blind phase II trial of vitamin D supplementation in patients with previously untreated metastatic colorectal cancer

3506

Background: In prospective observational studies of mCRC patients, higher plasma levels of 25-hydroxyvitamin D have been associated with improved progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS), but the role of vitamin D supplementation in the treatment of mCRC is unknown. Methods: SUNSHINE was a multi-center double-blind phase II randomized controlled trial in previously untreated mCRC patients. Patients were eligible if they had histologically confirmed mCRC, no prior therapy for metastatic disease, ECOG PS 0-1, and were not taking vitamin D >2,000 IU/day x 1 year. All subjects received standard treatment with mFOLFOX6 + bevacizumab with 1:1 randomization to concurrent: HiVitD (vitamin D3 po 8,000 IU/d x 2 wks as loading dose followed by 4,000 IU/d) or LowVitD (standard vitamin D3 400 IU/d) until disease progression, intolerable toxicity, or withdrawal of consent. The primary endpoint was PFS, with the sample size designed to provide 80% power to detect a HR of 0.66 for PFS at a 1-sided alpha=0.2. Results: From April 2012 to November 2016, 139 patients were randomized. Median age was 54 yrs (range 24-82), 57% were male, 77% were white, and 7% had received prior adjuvant chemo. Baseline characteristics were balanced between arms except ECOG PS = 0 was 42% vs. 60% in HiVitD vs. LowVitD. Median follow-up was 16.1 mos (range 0-45.9) and median compliance with VitD capsules was 98%. Patients randomized to HiVitD experienced longer PFS than those receiving LowVitD (median PFS, 12.4 vs. 10.7 mos, respectively; log rank P=0.03). After multivariate adjustment for prognostic variables, HR was 0.66 (95% CI, 0.45-0.99, 2-sided P=0.04). Comparing HiVitD vs LowVitD, RR was 58% vs. 63% ( P=0.54) and disease control rate was 100% vs. 94% ( P=0.05). The most common grade 3-4 toxicities were as expected for FOLFOX-bevacizumab, and none were related to vitamin D. Currently, 14 patients are still actively receiving treatment, and OS data are not yet mature. Conclusion: SUNSHINE met its prespecified primary endpoint, with patients randomized to HiVitD experiencing longer PFS compared to those randomized to LowVitD. A larger confirmatory phase III randomized trial appears warranted. Clinical trial information: NCT01516216.

Understanding the non-curative potential of palliative chemotherapy: Do patients hear what they want to hear?

6575

Background: Misconceptions about the curative potential of PC are common, and may arise from gaps in informed consent. Another contributing factor could be patients’ desire, or lack of desire, for information about prognosis and PC outcomes. Methods: We surveyed 137 patients with advanced colorectal (N = 102) or pancreatic cancer (N = 35) within 2 weeks of consultation about 1st or 2ndline PC, as part of randomized trial of a PC education intervention at 6 US sites. Patients rated how much information they wanted about PC risks/benefits, including impact on prognosis. Responses ranged from no information to as much as possible on a 5-point Likert scale. They reported decision-making preferences; whether a doctor discussed curability, and how likely they thought PC was to cure their cancer. Chi square and Wilcoxon tests examined whether information and decision-making preferences, or curability discussions were associated with expectations of cure. Multivariable logistic regressions evaluated whether associations were modified by age, race, gender, marital status, or cancer type. Results: Only 44.5% of patients accurately reported that their cancer was not at all likely to be cured by PC. Most patients wanted a lot, or as much information as possible about PC risks/benefits, including likelihood of cure (81.7%), cancer control (84.7%), and impact on length of life (80.3%). Most patients preferred shared (70.8%) versus active or passive decision-making. Neither decision-making nor prognostic information preferences were associated with expectations of cure. Patients (13.9%) who did not recall curability discussions were less likely to have accurate expectations (21% v 48%; OR, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.07-.97). Patient characteristics did not significantly confound this association. Conclusions: Most patients value shared decision-making and want maximal information about PC risks/benefits, including impact on prognosis. Despite wanting prognostic information and reporting curability discussions, many patients report inaccurate expectations about cure from PC. Future studies should examine whether these assertions reflect misunderstandings, differences in belief, or expressions of hope.

Phase II trial of cabozantinib in patients with carcinoid and pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (pNET)

228

Background: Activation of VEGFR2 and c-MET has been implicated in driving growth of neuroendocrine tumors (NET); additionally, expression of c-MET has been associated with shorter survival. Cabozantinib inhibits VEGFR2 and c-MET. We performed a two-cohort phase II study to evaluate the efficacy of cabozantinib in patients (pts) with advanced carcinoid or pNET (NCT01466036). Methods: Pts with progressive, well differentiated, grade 1-2 carcinoid or pNET were enrolled in parallel cohorts and treated with cabozantinib 60 mg po qd . There was no limit to prior therapy. Pts were restaged every 2 mos for the first 6 mos, then every 3 mos. The primary endpoint was objective response rate as measured by RECIST 1.1. Enrollment of approximately 35 patients of each tumor type was planned. Results: 41 pts with carcinoid (median age 63 yrs, 44% male, % ECOG PS 0/1 = 51/49) were accrued. Accrual to the pNET cohort was halted due to investigator/sponsor decision after 20 pts (median age 55 yrs, 60% male, % ECOG PS 0/1 = 40/60). Carcinoid pts completed a median of 8 (range 0-44) 28-day treatment cycles; pNET pts completed a median of 10 (0-35) cycles. 14 pts remain on treatment. Reasons for discontinuation were progression or death (51%), withdrawal of consent or investigator decision (28%), adverse events (AE, 21%). 3/20 pts with pNET achieved PR (ORR 15%, 95% CI 5-36%); 15/20 had SD. 6/41 pts with carcinoid achieved PR (ORR 15%, 95% CI 7-28%); 26/41 had SD . Median PFS was 21.8 mo (95% CI, 8.5-32.0 mo) in pts with pNET and 31.4 mo (95% CI, 8.5 mo-NR) in pts with carcinoid. Gr 3/4 toxicity in ≥ 1 pt included hypertension (13%), hypophosphatemia (11%), diarrhea (10%), lymphopenia (7%), thrombocytopenia (5%), fatigue (5%), increased lipase or amylase (8%). Unexpected Gr 3/4 AEs included heart failure and autoimmune hemolytic anemia, each in 1 pt. 81% of 53 pts completing more than 1 cycle of treatment required dose reduction from the initial 60 mg dose. Conclusions: Treatment with cabozantinib was associated with objective tumor responses and encouraging PFS durations in patients with advanced carcinoid and advanced pNET. While dose reduction was common, treatment was tolerable. Further evaluation of cabozantinib is warranted in both NET subgroups. Clinical trial information: NCT01466036.

Multicenter double-blind randomized phase II: FOLFOX + ziv-aflibercept/placebo for patients (pts) with chemo-naive metastatic esophagogastric adenocarcinoma (MEGA)

4

Background: FOLFOX has RR 53% and PFS 6.8 months in MEGA (CALGB 80403). VEGF inhibition has improved survival in some but not all randomized trials in MEGA. Ziv-aflibercept binds VEGF-A, B and PlGF and has improved survival in refractory metastatic colorectal cancer. Methods: All pts received mFOLFOX6 q14d. Pts were randomized 2:1 to A) ziv-aflibercept 4mg/kg/d1 or B) placebo. Pts were restaged every 8wks. Primary endpoint: 6mos PFS. Results: 64 pts enrolled (Jan 2013-Apr 2015): sex: 55M/9F; age (median): 32-83 (62); ECOG PS 0/1/2: 33/28/3; primary tumor: esophagus 26/GEJ 18/gastric 20; measurable/evaluable: 52/12; metastases: LN 48/liver 25/lung 15, other 12/adrenal 4/bone 3. Of 64 pts: 34 POD, 9 off for tox, 4 died on tx, 3 withdrew, 4 other, 10 on tx (see Table). Conclusion: Ziv-aflibercept did not significantly improve the efficacy of FOLFOX. HTN was predictive of response to ziv-aflibercept. Except for HTN, there was no significant difference in toxicity between tx arms. Clinical trial information: NCT01747551. [Table: see text]

A phase II clinical trial of ganetespib (STA-9090) in previously treated patients with advanced esophagogastric cancers

4090

Background: Subsets of esophagogastric (EG) cancers harbor genetic abnormalities, including amplification of HER2 or MET, or mutations in PIK3CA, EGFR, or BRAF. These genes encode clients of the molecular chaperone heat-shock protein 90 (HSP90), and inhibition of HSP90 may promote the degradation of these oncogenic signaling proteins. Ganetespib is a novel triazolone heterocyclic inhibitor of HSP90 that is a biologically rational treatment strategy for advanced EG cancers. Methods: This was a multicenter, single-arm Phase 2 trial. Eligibility: Histologically confirmed advanced EG cancer; progression on ≤ 2 lines of systemic therapy; ECOG PS 0-1. Treatment: Ganetespib 200mg/m2IV on Days 1, 8, and 15 of a 28-day cycle. Primary endpoint: overall response rate (ORR). Results: 26/28 patients enrolled received ≥ 1 dose of drug. The characteristics of the 26 patients were: male 77%, median age 64 years old; ECOG PS 0/1 42/58%; median number of prior therapies 2; esophageal/GEJ/gastric 27/42/31%; prior platinum 92%, prior fluoropyrimidine 88%, prior taxane 38%, prior trastuzumab 15%. Median follow-up was 83 days. The most common drug-related adverse events were: diarrhea (77%), fatigue (65%), elevated ALKP (42%), and elevated AST (38%). The most common Grade 3/4 AEs included: leucopenia (12%), fatigue (12%), diarrhea (8%), and elevated ALKP (8%). 14/26 required ≥ 1 dose modification. 22/26 patients completed at least 2 cycles of ganetespib and were evaluable for response. One complete response was seen, and this patient continues on treatment as of cycle 31 (27.5 mos). Molecular characterization of this patient’s tumor revealed a KRAS mutation in codon 12. The ORR was 1/26 (4%). Two of six patients with HER2-positive disease achieved 12% and 19% tumor reduction from baseline, respectively. TTP was 48 days (1.6 mos) and OS was 83 days (2.8 mos). Conclusions: Ganetespib showed manageable toxicity. While the study was terminated early due to insufficient evidence of single agent activity, the durable CR and 2 minor responses suggest that there may be a subset of EG patients who could benefit from this drug. The molecular determinants of response, however, have yet to be fully characterized. Clinical trial information: CT01167114.

Multi-drug inhibition of the HER pathway in metastatic colorectal cancer: results of a phase I study of pertuzumab plus cetuximab in cetuximab-refractory patients

PURPOSE

Resistance to cetuximab, a monoclonal antibody against the epithelial growth factor receptor (EGFR), in colorectal cancer (CRC) may result from compensatory signaling through ErbB receptors, ErbB2/neu/HER2 (HER2) and ErbB3/HER3 (HER3). Pertuzumab is a monoclonal antibody that blocks HER2 hetero-dimerization; thus the combination of pertuzumab and cetuximab could possibly overcome cetuximab resistance.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This single-arm, open-label, multicenter phase I/II study was designed to assess the safety and efficacy of pertuzumab and cetuximab in patients with cetuximab-resistant KRAS wild type metastatic CRC. Thirteen patients were enrolled and received cetuximab in combination with pertuzumab at several dose levels in a 3 + 3 design. Patients were assessed for dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) during the first cycle. A phase II portion was planned, but not initiated due to toxicity.

RESULTS

Six of the thirteen patients (46 %) experienced DLTs, therefore the study was terminated early. Grade 3 or higher DLTs included dermatitis with desquamation and/or acneiform rash (n = 6), mucositis or stomatitis (n = 5), and diarrhea (n = 2). There was one Grade 5 event (myocardial infarction) attributed to underlying disease. Among the 13 patients, seven (54 %) were evaluable for response. The objective response rate was 14 %: one patient had a partial response lasting 6 months. Two patients had stable disease (29 %), and four had progressive disease (57 %). Median progression free survival was 2.1 months (95 % CI, 1.5-4.9) and median overall survival was 3.7 months (95 % CI, 1.6-7.9).

CONCLUSION

Combination pertuzumab and cetuximab in refractory CRC was associated with potential antitumor activity; however, the combination was not tolerable due to overlapping toxicities.

Safety and effectiveness of oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy regimens in adults 75 years and older with colorectal cancer

Although the safety and efficacy of oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy regimens for colorectal cancer (CRC) have been demonstrated in adults > 75 years of age enrolled in clinical trials, safety and effectiveness outside the trial setting are less established. In this comparative effectiveness study, we note that older adults with stage III and metastatic CRC treated outside of a clinical trial experienced safety and effectiveness of oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy regimens comparable to that of younger adults.

BACKGROUND

Although the safety and efficacy of oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy regimens for colorectal cancer (CRC) have been demonstrated in adults ≥ 75 years of age who are enrolled in clinical trials, safety and effectiveness outside the trial setting are less established.

METHODS

We retrospectively collected cases of patients ≥ 75 years of age who were diagnosed with stage III and metastatic CRC and initiated treatment between January 2000 and January 2007 at 2 academic hospitals in Boston, MA. Cases were matched in a 1:2 ratio to controls who were < 75 years of age by hospital site, stage of disease (stage III vs. metastatic) and line of therapy (first- or second-line or beyond). The primary study endpoints were grade ≥ 3 treatment-associated toxicities and intolerance (number of dose delays/reductions and hospital/facility admissions during treatment). The secondary endpoint was overall survival.

RESULTS

We identified 84 patients ≥ 75 years of age (25% ≥ 80 years) and 168 controls. In the cohort, 77% had colon cancer, 75% had metastatic disease, and 60% were receiving oxaliplatin as first-line therapy. There was no significant difference in grade ≥ 3 treatment-associated toxicities between the patients and the controls (71.4% vs. 68.5%, respectively; P = .63). Further there was no statistically significant difference between patients and controls for combined endpoints of any grade ≥ 3 toxicity or hospital/facility admission (P = .92). With a median follow-up of 52 months, 2-year overall survival was similar between patients and controls (43% vs. 52%, respectively; P = .87).

CONCLUSION

Older adults with stage III and metastatic CRC treated outside of a clinical trial experienced safety and effectiveness of oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy regimens that was comparable to that of younger adults.

Efficacy, safety, pharmacokinetics, and biomarkers of cediranib monotherapy in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: a phase II study

PURPOSE

We conducted a single-arm phase II study of cediranib, a pan-VEGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor, in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).

EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN

Patients with histologically confirmed measurable advanced HCC and adequate hematologic, hepatic, and renal functions received cediranib 30-mg orally once daily (4 weeks/cycle). The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) rate at 3 months. Other endpoints included response rates, overall survival (OS), pharmacokinetics (PK), and biomarkers for cediranib.

RESULTS

Cediranib treatment resulted in an estimated 3-month PFS rate of 77% (60%, 99%). Median PFS was 5.3 (3.5,9.7) months, stable disease was seen in 5/17 patients (29%), and median OS was 11.7 (7.5-13.6) months. Grade 3 toxicities included hypertension (29%), hyponatremia (29%), and hyperbilirubinemia (18%). Cediranib PK were comparable to those seen in cancer patients with normal hepatic function. Plasma levels of VEGF and PlGF increased and sVEGFR1, sVEGFR2, and Ang-2 decreased after cediranib treatment. PFS was inversely correlated with baseline levels of VEGF, sVEGFR2, and bFGF and with on-treatment levels of bFGF and IGF-1, and directly associated with on-treatment levels of IFN-γ. OS was inversely correlated with baseline levels of sVEGFR1, Ang-2, TNF-α, CAIX, and CD34(+)CD133(+)CD45(dim) circulating progenitor cells and on-treatment levels of sVEGFR2.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the limitations of primary endpoint selection, cediranib at 30-mg daily showed a high incidence of toxicity and preliminary evidence of antitumor activity in advanced HCC. Hepatic dysfunction did not seem to affect the steady-state PK of cediranib. Exploratory studies suggested proangiogenic and inflammatory factors as potential biomarkers of anti-VEGF therapy in HCC.

Effect of adjuvant chemotherapy on survival of patients with stage III colon cancer diagnosed after age 75 years

PURPOSE

Few patients 75 years of age and older participate in clinical trials, thus whether adjuvant chemotherapy for stage III colon cancer (CC) benefits this group is unknown.

METHODS

A total of 5,489 patients ≥ 75 years of age with resected stage III CC, diagnosed between 2004 and 2007, were selected from four data sets containing demographic, stage, treatment, and survival information. These data sets included SEER-Medicare, a linkage between the New York State Cancer Registry (NYSCR) and its Medicare programs, and prospective cohort studies Cancer Care Outcomes Research and Surveillance Consortium (CanCORS) and the National Comprehensive Cancer Network. Data sets were analyzed in parallel using covariate adjusted and propensity score (PS) matched proportional hazards models to evaluate the effect of treatment on survival. PS trimming was used to mitigate the effects of selection bias.

RESULTS

Use of adjuvant therapy declined with age and comorbidity. Chemotherapy receipt was associated with a survival benefit of comparable magnitude to clinical trials results (SEER-Medicare PS-matched mortality, hazard ratio [HR], 0.60; 95% CI, 0.53 to 0.68). The incremental benefit of oxaliplatin over non-oxaliplatin-containing regimens was also of similar magnitude to clinical trial results (SEER-Medicare, HR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.69 to 1.04; NYSCR-Medicare, HR, 0.82, 95% CI, 0.51 to 1.33) in two of three examined data sources. However, statistical significance was inconsistent. The beneficial effect of chemotherapy and oxaliplatin did not seem solely attributable to confounding.

CONCLUSION

The noninvestigational experience suggests patients with stage III CC ≥ 75 years of age may anticipate a survival benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy. Oxaliplatin offers no more than a small incremental benefit. Use of adjuvant chemotherapy after the age of 75 years merits consideration in discussions that weigh individual risks and preferences.

Clinical, pharmacodynamic (PD), and pharmacokinetic (PK) evaluation of cediranib in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC): A phase II study (CTEP 7147)

4112

Background: Sorafenib remains the only approved systemic therapy in HCC. We performed a phase II study of cediranib (AZD2171)—a more potent and selective pan-VEGF receptor inhibitor—in advanced HCC patients (pts). Methods: Eligibility criteria included unresectable or metastatic measurable HCC, ECOG PS ≤2, CLIP score ≤3, and adequate organ function. Patients received cediranib at 30 mg po qd continuously (4-wk cycle). The primary endpoint was progression free survival (PFS). We also assessed overall survival (OS) and response rates, steady-state PK of cediranib, and blood circulating biomarkers. Results: Since 6/16/09, we have enrolled the targeted 17 pts required for the first stage of the planned study: ECOG 0/1/2=5/11/1, CLIP 1/2/3=6/4/7, Child A/B=14/3, BCLC C=17. Nine pts had prior sorafenib. The best response was stable disease in five pts (29%). The median PFS was 5.3 months (95% CI: 3.5-9.7). The median OS was 11.7 months (95% CI: 7.5-13.6). Grade 3 toxicities included hypertension (29%), hyponatremia (12%), elevated SGOT (12%) and one pt each (6%) in SGPT, fatigue, hyperbilirubinemia, cardiac ischemia, and proteinuria. Grade 4 pulmonary embolism and brainstem hemorrhage occurred in 1 pt each. Steady-state PK parameters (mean±SD) were, Cmin, 22±21 ng/mL; Cmax, 55±33 ng/mL; AUCτ, 887±503 ng*h/mL. Plasma levels of VEGF and PlGF increased and sVEGFR1, sVEGFR2 and Ang-2 decreased significantly after cediranib treatment (p<0.05). PFS was inversely correlated with baseline levels of bFGF, sVEGFR2 and VEGF, and OS was inversely correlated with baseline levels of sVEGFR1, Ang-2, TNF-alpha and CD34+CD133+ hematopoietic progenitor cells (p<0.05). Conclusions: Cediranib at 30 mg daily is associated with high frequency of grade 3 hypertension and shows preliminary evidence of antitumor activity in advanced HCC pts. Exploratory studies confirmed potential PD and response biomarkers of anti-VEGF therapy. Cediranib exhibits similar PK in HCC pts as in those with other tumor types and normal/near normal hepatic function. This study was stopped by AstraZeneca after discontinuation of cediranib development for unrelated factors.

Feasibility of computer-based self-administered cancer-specific geriatric assessment (SA-CSGA) in older pts with gastrointestinal malignancy (GIM)

e19586

Feasibility of computer-based self-administered cancer-specific geriatric assessment (SA-CSGA) in older pts w/ gastrointestinal malignancy (GIM) Background: The CSGA (Hurria, JCO 2011) is a brief geriatric assessment consisting of validated measures primarily self-administered using paper format. We developed & tested feasibility of a computer-based SA-CSGA in pts ≥70 yrs w/ GIM. Methods: From 12/2009 - 6/2011, pts ≥70 yrs receiving treatment (rx) for GIM at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute were consented to complete SA-CSGA at baseline (T1= new or change rx) & follow-up (T2 = w/in 4 wks of completing rx). Feasibility endpts are (1) proportion of eligible pts consenting; (2) proportion completing SA-CSGA at T1 & T2; (3) time to completion of SA-CSGA; (4) proportion of MDs reporting change in clinical decision-making due to SA-CSGA. Results: Of the 49 eligible pts, 38 consented (55% female, 89% White, 76% enrolling prior to new rx). Mean age was 77yrs (range 70-89), 38% completed college, 49% married, 27% live alone, and 78% retired. 50% were diagnosed w/ colorectal cancer (ca). Mean MD-rated Karnofsky Performance Status was 87.5 at T1(range 60-100), 83.5 at T2 (range 70-100). At T1, 92% used a touch screen computer; 97% completed the SA-CSGA (51% independently). At T2, all pts used a touch screen computer; 71% completed the SA-CSGA (41% independently). Reasons for not completing SA-CSGA were withdrawal of consent (n=1 at T1 & T2), transfer of care (n=3; T2) or death (n=7; T2). The dominant reason for needing assistance was lack of computer familiarity (n=17 T1, n=14 T2). Mean time to completion was 23min at T1 (range 15-58); 20min at T2 (range 13-35). Among the 8 MDs who consented to participate, SA-CSGA added information to clinical assessment for 75% at T1 (n=27) and 65% at T2 (n=17) but did not alter immediate clinical decision-making. Conclusions: The computer-assisted SA-CSGA feasibility endpt was met for older pts w/ GIM although approximately half required assistance. While the SA-CSGA added information to clinical assessment, results did not impact clinical decision-making. Reasons for this may include relatively high-functioning patients enrolled in this study.

Impact of smoking on patients with stage III colon cancer: results from Cancer and Leukemia Group B 89803

BACKGROUND

Cigarette smoking has been shown to increase the risk of developing colorectal cancer, particularly smoking early in life. Little is known about the impact of tobacco use on colon cancer recurrence among colon cancer survivors.

METHODS

The authors prospectively collected lifetime smoking history from stage III colon cancer patients enrolled in a phase 3 trial via self-report questionnaires during and 6 months after completion of adjuvant chemotherapy. Smoking status was defined as never, current, or past. Lifetime pack-years were defined as number of lifetime packs of cigarettes. Patients were followed for recurrence or death.

RESULTS

Data on smoking history were captured on 1045 patients with stage III colon cancer receiving adjuvant therapy (46% never smokers; 44% past; 10% current). The adjusted hazard ratio (HR) for disease-free survival (DFS) was 0.99 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.70-1.41), 1.17 (95% CI 0.89-1.55), and 1.22 (95% CI 0.92-1.61) for lifetime pack-years 0-10, 10-20, and 20+, respectively, compared with never smoking (P = .16). In a preplanned exploratory analysis of smoking intensity early in life, the adjusted HR for 12+ pack-years before age 30 years for DFS was 1.37 (95% CI, 1.02-1.84) compared with never smoking (P = .04). The adjusted HR for DFS was 1.18 (95% CI, 0.92-1.50) for past smokers and 1.10 (95% CI, 0.73-1.64) for current smokers, compared with never smokers.

CONCLUSIONS

Total tobacco usage early in life may be an important, independent prognostic factor of cancer recurrences and mortality in patients with stage III colon cancer.

New developments in the adjuvant therapy of stage II colon cancer. Risk assessments in the older patient

While adjuvant chemotherapy has proven benefit in stage III colon cancer, its role for stage II colon cancer remains unclear. This article reviews data regarding adjuvant therapy in stage II colon cancer. We will discuss factors to consider in assessing the risk of recurrence in stage II disease. We will also outline considerations regarding adjuvant therapy in older patients.