Optimizing the implementation of systematic financial screening

277

Background: Implementation of routine financial screening is a critical step toward mitigating financial toxicity. Screening facilitates identification and intervention delivery. We evaluate the feasibility and acceptability of systematic financial screening in a large, urban, outpatient cancer center. Methods: We developed and implemented a stakeholder-informed process to systematically screen all patients with cancer for financial hardship and financial worry using two items from the Comprehensive Score for Financial Toxicity. Screening was completed by patients in English or Spanish on paper forms or through the patient electronic portal; all responses were entered into the electronic health record (EHR). Repeated measures were prompted through the EHR monthly. We evaluated the feasibility of the implementation by completion rates, mode of completion and follow-up completion rates; and identified key factors to optimize implementation strategies and improve sustainability through key stakeholder feedback from patients, clinicians and staff. Results: From 3/2021 – 3/2022, 3,500 patients were seen in the outpatient breast oncology clinic and thus, eligible for screening. Of these, 39% (1,349) responded, either by paper or portal, 12% (N = 437) preferred not to answer when checking in via the patient portal, and the remaining 49% (N = 1,714) did not have data in their EHR, meaning screening was not offered or they did not complete the paper forms. Of the 1,349 respondents, most (79%, N = 1,063) responded via portal. Repeated screening measures were completed by 42% (N = 563) more than once. By language preference, response rates were 46% (English), 28% (Spanish), and 29% (Other languages). Completion rates on paper were not sustained after the initial implementation and dropped significantly after 6/2021; this correlated with staffing shortages. After expanding capacity for patients to check-in using kiosks in clinic in 7/2021, completion rates increased 78% in the following 3 months. Significant financial hardship was endorsed by 51% (N = 694), and financial worry by 36% (N = 484). From stakeholder feedback, including patient interviews, components were identified to improve screening completion rates: partnering with staff to facilitate distribution of paper forms for patients who do not use the portal; optimizing patient engagement with the portal; partnering with the electronic health record vendor to ensure non-English access is optimized; and transparent communication to patients regarding the purpose of the screening and resources available. Conclusions: We demonstrate that implementation of systematic financial screening requires an inclusive approach to achieve acceptable and equitable response rates. Electronic data capture contributes to successful financial screening implementation, but inclusive procedures that address language and technology preferences are needed to optimize screening.

Implementation of EHR medication-adherence screening tool in breast cancer clinic

438

Background: Nonadherence to prescribed medications occurs frequently in patient with breast cancer (BC) and can affect BC outcomes as well as outcomes for comorbid conditions. We implemented a process to screen for medication adherence in the electronic health record (EHR) in an urban outpatient BC clinic. Methods: Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) methodology was used to implement a screening process for medication adherence for all patients seen in the outpatient breast oncology clinic. At check-in (via the patient portal or clinic based kiosks), patients were asked to complete an EHR adherence screener. Two PDSA cycles were completed. During cycle one (2/16/22-5/17/22), patients were asked if they received ≥1 prescribed medication; if yes they were asked to complete the questionnaire (y/n); if yes a 3-item questionnaire was used to screen for adherence to all medications over the prior 7 days. Adherence was defined as 3 of 3 responses “none of the time” to “I have missed my medicine;” “I have skipped a dose of my medicine;” and “I did not take a dose of my medicine.” During cycle two (5/17/22-6/5/22) the screener was simplified. Patients were no longer asked to complete the survey; and the survey was modified to 1-item “I did not take a dose of my medicine”, adherence was defined as response of “none of the time”. We evaluated response rate and self-reported non-adherence rate. Results: During PDSA cycle 1 (2/16/22-5/17/22), 2840 visits occurred and 722 (25%) responses were received; 80% noted prescription of ≥1 medication, 38% agreed to complete the survey; and 87% reported adherence to all prescribed medications while 13% reported non-adherence. During PDSA cycle 2 (5/17/22-6/5/22), 512 visits occurred and 172 (33%) responses were received. Of those, 73% reported prescription of ≥1 medication; of those 66%-reported adherence to all prescribed medications, 21% reported non-adherence, and 17% preferred not to answer. Conclusions: This EHR screener is a simple and scalable tool to rapidly screen for medication adherence. Up to a quarter of patients who completed screening reported non-adherence. Further tools are needed to assess adherence among patients who lack access to the patient portal or clinic kiosk, or are uncomfortable checking in with these mechanisms. Future interventions are necessary to further screen potentially non-adherent patients and for interventions to improve adherence once vulnerable patients are identified.

A randomized, phase II trial of fulvestrant or exemestane with or without ribociclib after progression on anti-estrogen therapy plus cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibition (CDK 4/6i) in patients (pts) with unresectable or hormone receptor–positive (HR+), HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer (MBC): MAINTAIN trial

LBA1004

Background: CDK 4/6i has demonstrated benefit in progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in pts with HR+, HER2- MBC when combined with endocrine therapy (ET). While observational data demonstrate a potential benefit of continuing CDK 4/6i and switching ET at progression, no prospective trials have evaluated this approach. We conducted a phase II, multi-center, randomized, trial to evaluate the efficacy of fulvestrant or exemestane +/- ribociclib in pts with HR+HER2- MBC whose cancer previously progressed on any CDK 4/6i + any ET. Methods: In this investigator-initiated, phase II, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, men or women with measurable or non-measurable HR+/HER2- MBC whose cancer progressed during CDK 4/6i and ET were randomized 1:1 to fulvestrant or exemestane +/- ribociclib. Pts treated with prior fulvestrant received exemestane as ET in the randomization; if prior exemestane fulvestrant was the ET; if neither, fulvestrant or exemestane was per investigator discretion, though fulvestrant was encouraged. PFS was the primary endpoint, defined as time from randomization to progression of disease or death. A one-sided log-rank test with a sample size of 120 randomized and evaluable pts with a significance level alpha of 2.5%, achieves 80% power to detect an effect size (difference in PFS) of 3 months. Results: Of the 120 randomized evaluable pts, 1 pt was removed due to not taking ET along with ribociclib/placebo. All but 1 pt was female, the median age was 57.0 years, 88 pts (74%) were white, and 21 (17.6%) were Hispanic. For ET, 99 pts received fulvestrant (83%) and 20 pts exemestane (17%). In terms of prior CDK 4/6i, 100 pts previously received palbociclib (84%), 13 pribociclib (11%), 2 abemaciclib (2%), and 4 palbociclib and another CDK 4/6i (3%). There was a statistically significant PFS improvement for pts randomized to fulvestrant or exemestane + ribociclib [median: 5.33 months, 95% CI (Confidence Interval): 3.25–8.12 months] vs. placebo (median: 2.76 months, 95% CI: 2.66–3.25 months): Hazard Ratio (HR) = 0.56 (95% CI: 0.37-0.83), p = 0.004. Similar results were seen in the subset of pts treated with fulvestrant, with a median PFS for those randomized to ribociclib (5.29 months) vs. placebo (2.76 months), HR = 0.59 (95% CI: 0.38-0.91), p = 0.02. At 6 months, 42% were progression-free on the ribociclib arm vs. 24% on placebo. At 12 months, 25% were progression-free on the ribociclib arm vs. 7% on placebo. Additional endpoints will be reported, including overall response rate and safety. Conclusions: In this randomized, placebo-controlled trial, there was a significant PFS benefit for pts with HR+/HER2- MBC to switch ET and receive ribociclib after progression on CDK 4/6i. Clinical trial information: NCT02632045.

Long-term safety of inavolisib (GDC-0077) in an ongoing phase 1/1b study evaluating monotherapy and in combination (combo) with palbociclib and/or endocrine therapy in patients (pts) with PIK3CA-mutated, hormone receptor-positive/HER2-negative (HR+/HER2-) metastatic breast cancer (BC)

1052

Background: Dysregulating mutations in PIK3CA, encoding the PI3K p110α subunit, occur in ̃40% of HR+/HER2– BCs. Inavolisib is a PI3Kα-specific inhibitor that also promotes degradation of mutant p110α. It has demonstrated encouraging preliminary antitumor activity in pts with PIK3CA-mutated HR+ BC as a monotherapy, and in combo with other anticancer agents. Methods: We included pts from NCT03006172 on treatment ≥1 year with inavolisib alone (Arm A), or in combo with palbo + letrozole (letro) (B), letro (C), fulvestrant (fulv) (D), or palbo + fulv (E; + metformin in Arm F for pts with body mass index ≥30 and/or HbA1c ≥5.7%). Inavolisib was administered orally daily (PO QD) at 3, 6, 9, or 12 mg (3+3 dose-escalation design); letro at 2.5 mg PO QD; palbo at 125 mg PO QD for 21/28 days; and fulv at 500 mg intramuscularly every 4 weeks, in 28-day cycles until intolerable toxicity/disease progression. Safety was assessed by NCI-CTCAE v4. Results: 57 female pts were included (cutoff 07/26/21; N = 1, 18, 6, 12, 15, 5 in Arms A–F); median age: 57 years (range 33–80); median lines of prior therapy: 2 (1–7). All but 2 pts, both in Arm B (3 mg), were assigned the 9 mg inavolisib recommended phase 3 dose. Overall median treatment duration: 19 months (range 12–45); median inavolisib cumulative dose intensity, 95%. The most frequent treatment-related adverse events (AEs; in ≥20 pts/35%) were hyperglycemia (68%), stomatitis (68%; grouped terms), neutropenia (58%), diarrhea (51%), nausea (39%), alopecia (35%), and rash (35%; grouped terms). The most frequent treatment-related Grade (G) 3–4 AEs (≥2 pts/4%) were neutropenia (47%), hyperglycemia (16%), leukopenia (9%), thrombocytopenia (9%), lymphopenia (7%), weight decreased, and hypokalemia (4% each). G3–4 neutropenia, leukopenia, thrombocytopenia, and lymphopenia were all reported in palbo arms. One G5 AE of pleural effusion was reported (disease progression-related). 39 pts (68%) had ≥1 AE resulting in study treatment modification (drug interruption/dose reduction/treatment withdrawal); 11 (19%) had an inavolisib dose reduction and 2 (4%) discontinued treatment due to an AE (1 related G2 diarrhea, 1 unrelated G3 cerebrovascular disorder). AEs typically occurred during the first 6 months and tended to be less frequent in later cycles. No new safety signals were observed with long-term inavolisib use. Conclusions: These data indicate acceptable long-term tolerability. The safety profile of pts on study treatment with inavolisib alone or in combo with endocrine-based anticancer therapies for ≥1 year was similar to that reported for the overall study population. Updated data will be presented. A phase 3 study of inavolisib + palbo + fulv is enrolling (NCT04191499; INAVO120). Clinical trial information: NCT03006172.

COVID-19 outcomes in patients with cancer and HIV: An analysis of the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19)

e18790

Background: Patients with SARS-CoV-2 with a diagnosis of cancer have increased risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes compared to patients without cancer. However, little is known regarding outcomes of patients with COVID-19 and cancer in the setting of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). Given the unique risks of this population, we sought to understand COVID-19 outcomes using registry data. Methods: This is a descriptive research study utilizing the CCC19 registry, an international multi-institutional registry with healthcare provider-reported cases of patients with cancer and COVID-19. Between March 2020-December 2021, 116 persons with HIV (PWH) and 10,642 persons without HIV (PWOH) with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection were identified as eligible for the analysis. Results: Median follow-up time for both groups was 90 days, with interquartile range (IQR) 30-180 days. Most PWH were actively receiving antiretroviral therapy (ART) at the time of COVID-19 diagnosis, with 71% (n = 82) having named drug information available; bictegravir/emtricitabine/tenofovir was the most common ART (n = 25). PWH were of younger age (median 57.5 yrs [IQR 46.5-63.25] vs 65 yrs [IQR 55-74]), male (81% vs 47%), and either non-Hispanic Black or Hispanic (71% vs 34%) compared to PWOH. 12% of PWH (n = 14) were current smokers compared to 6% of PWOH (n = 638), and more than half in each group were never smokers (51% of PWH and 53% of PWOH). The following comorbidities were identified in PWH vs PWOH: cardiovascular (16% vs 20%), pulmonary (16% vs 20%), renal (15% vs 14%), and diabetes mellitus (18% vs 27%). A higher proportion of PWH had hematologic malignancy compared to PWOH (33% vs 19%). More PWH had active cancer which was progressing at the time of SARS-CoV-2 infection compared to PWOH (24% vs 14%). 44% of PWH (n = 51) had received active systemic anticancer therapy within the 3 months preceding SARS-CoV-2 infection (including cytotoxic, targeted, endocrine therapies, and immunotherapy) compared to 51% of PWOH (n = 5,420). PWH had an increased rate of hospitalization (58% vs 55%) compared to PWOH. Although a lower proportion of PWH required supplemental oxygen during hospitalization compared to PWOH (34% vs 38%) and ICU admission rates were identical between the two groups (16% vs 16%), PWH had an increased rate of mechanical ventilation (14% vs 10%) and death (24% vs 18%) compared to PWOH. Conclusions: This is the first known study describing outcomes of patients with cancer and COVID-19 in the PWH population from a large multinational dataset. PWH have characteristics associated with adverse outcomes in prior analyses (male sex, non-Hispanic Black or Hispanic, hematologic malignancy, progressing cancer) but are notably younger and have fewer comorbidities. HIV infection may portend increased risk of severe COVID-19 and death; however, additional analyses, including multivariable regression, are warranted.

Evaluation of a pharmacist-led video consultation to identify drug interactions among patients initiating oral anticancer drugs

1592

Background: The past decade has seen a dramatic increase in the number of oral anti-cancer drug (OACD) approvals in the United States. Though polypharmacy and drug-drug interactions (DDIs) likely contribute to OACD toxicity, the prevalence of these features in patients on OACDs remains largely unknown. We aimed to evaluate a one-time 30-minute pharmacist-led video consultation among metastatic cancer patients initiating OACDs to identify medication list inaccuracies as well as the prevalence, characteristics, and severity of OACD-related potential DDIs. Methods: We conducted a single-arm, prospective telehealth intervention study among 29 patients initiating OACDs to evaluate a one-time 30-minute pharmacist-led video consultation. The video visits focused on identifying and discussing polypharmacy and potential DDIs, and pharmacists then communicated recommendations to each patient's oncologist. We estimated the prevalence, characteristics (QTc prolongation, absorption interactions, etc.), and severity of OACD-related potential DDIs. Lexicomp and Micromedex were used to assess potential DDIs and measure severity on a standardized scale (A – D, X). In addition, we assessed the prevalence of medication list inaccuracies, polypharmacy, and patient satisfaction. Results: Twenty-five patients completed the intervention (86% completion rate) of whom 40% were 75 years of age or older and 60% were men. The majority were white (68%) and non-Hispanic (76%). Sixteen patients (68%) had a solid tumor diagnosis. Nearly half (48%) were insured by Medicare. The median number of medications per patient was 9 with a range of 4 – 21, and 96% of patients had at least 5 prescriptions listed. The median number of medication list errors was 2 with a range of 0 – 16, with at least 1 error for 76% and more than 1 error for 52% of patients. Pharmacists identified potential OACD-related interactions in 9 cases (40%). These included change in drug absorption or metabolism (7), QTc prolongation (1), hypotension (1), and bleeding (1). Interactions were classified as either category C (8) or D (2), requiring close monitoring or a change in treatment, respectively. All patients expressed a high level of satisfaction with the video visit. Conclusions: Polypharmacy, medication list errors, and potential DDIs are prevalent among patients initiating OACDs despite use of an electronic medical record requiring medication reconciliation. Our study suggests that a one-time remote 30-minute pharmacist-led video consultation can effectively identify and address OACD-related potential DDIs, which may decrease medication complexity and improve adherence in this population.

Efficacy of a password-protected, pill-dispensing device with mail return capacity to enhance disposal of unused opioids after cancer surgery

12019

Background: Opioid misuse is a public health crisis. Initial opioid exposures often occur post-operatively, and 10% of opioid-naïve patients who undergo cancer surgery subsequently become long-term opioid users. It has been shown that 70% of opioids prescribed post-operatively go unused, but only 9% of unused pills are disposed of appropriately, which increases the risk of unintended use. We evaluated the impact of an inexpensive, password-protected pill-dispensing device with mail return capacity on disposal of unused pills after cancer surgery. Methods: We conducted a prospective, proof-of-concept pilot study among adult patients scheduled for major cancer-related surgery. Enrolled patients received opioid prescriptions in a pill-dispensing device (Addinex) from a specialty pharmacy. The mechanical device linked to a smartphone app, which provided passwords on a prescriber-defined schedule. Patients were able to enter unique passwords into the device to receive their pills if the prescribed time had elapsed. The smartphone app provided clinical guidance based on patient-reported pain levels, and suggested tapering strategies. Patients were instructed to return the device in a DEA-approved mailer when opioid use was no longer required for acute pain control. Unused pills were destroyed upon receipt. The primary objective was to determine the feasibility of device return, defined as > 50% within 6 weeks. We also explored total pill use and return, patterns of device use and patient satisfaction. Results: We enrolled 30 patients between October 2020 and December 2021. The median age was 46 (range 29–72). Surgical procedures included abdominal hysterectomy (13), mastectomy and reconstruction (10), and soft tissue tumor resections (7). Overall, the majority of participants (n = 24, 80%) returned the device, and more than half (n = 17, 57%) returned the device within 6 weeks of surgery. There were 19 patients who obtained opioids from the device. Among these patients, the majority were satisfied with the device (n = 14, 74%); felt the benefits of the device justified the added steps involved (n = 14, 74%); and would sign up to receive opioids in the device again (n = 13, 68%). The other 11 patients used no opioids. None of these non-users reported any opioid requirements for pain control, and all but one (n = 10, 91%) returned the device and unused pills. In total, 567 opioids were prescribed, and 170 (30%) were used. Of the 397 excess pills, 332 (84% of unused pills, 59% of all pills prescribed) were returned by mail. Conclusions: We found that use of an inexpensive pill-dispensing device with mail return capacity was a feasible and effective strategy to enhance disposal of unused post-operative opioids. Interestingly, a substantial number of prescribed pills were unused. This system also improves confidence with indicated opioid use while reducing diversion.

Post-acute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection in patients with cancer

e18746

Background: Most patients with cancer and COVID-19 will survive the acute illness. The longer-term impacts of COVID-19 on patients with cancer remain incompletely described. Methods: Using COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium registry data thru 12/31/2021, we examined outcomes of long-term COVID-19 survivors with post-acute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection (PASC aka “long COVID”). PASC was defined as having recovered w/ complications or having died w/ ongoing infection 90+ days from original diagnosis; absence of PASC was defined as having fully recovered by 90 days, with 90+ days of follow-up. Patients with SARS-CoV-2 re-infection and records with low quality data were excluded. Results: 858 of 3710 of included patients (23%) met PASC criteria. Median follow-up (IQR) for PASC and recovered patients was 180 (98-217) and 180 (90-180) days, respectively. The PASC group had a higher rate of baseline comorbidities and poor performance status (Table). Cancer types, status, and recent anticancer treatment were similar between the groups. The PASC group experienced a higher illness burden, with more hospitalized (83% vs 48%); requiring ICU (29% vs 6%); requiring mechanical ventilation (17% vs 2%); and experiencing co-infections (19% vs 8%). There were more deaths in the PASC vs recovered group (8% vs 3%), with median (IQR) days to death of 158 (120-272) and 180 (130-228), respectively. Of these, 9% were attributed to COVID-19; 15% to both COVID-19 and cancer; 15% to cancer; and 23% to other causes. Conversely, no deaths in the recovered group were attributed to COVID-19; 57% were attributed to cancer; and 24% to other causes (proximal cause of death unknown/missing in 38% and 19%, respectively). Cancer treatment modification was more common in the recovered group (23% vs 18%). Conclusions: Patients with underlying comorbidities, worse ECOG PS, and more severe acute SARS-CoV-2 infection had higher rates of PASC. These patients suffered more severe complications and incurred worse outcomes. There was an appreciable rate of death in both PASC and non-PASC, with cancer the dominant but not only cause in fully recovered patients. Further study is needed to understand what factors drive PASC, and whether longer-term cancer-specific outcomes will be affected.[Table: see text]

Hospitalization burden and end-of-life (EOL) care in elderly patients with glioblastoma (GBM)

31

Background: GBM is associated with a poor prognosis and early death in elderly patients. Prior studies have demonstrated a high burden of hospitalization in this population. We sought to evaluate and examine trends in hospitalizations and EOL care in GBM survivors. Methods: Using SEER-Medicare linked data, we performed a retrospective observational cohort study of patients aged ≥ 65 years diagnosed with GBM from 2005-2017 who lived at least 6 months from the time of diagnosis. Aggressive EOL care was defined as: chemotherapy or radiotherapy within 14 days of death (DOD), surgery within 30 DOD, > 1 emergency department visit, ≥ 1 hospitalization or intensive care unit admission within 30 DOD; in-hospital death; or hospice enrollment ≤ 3 DOD. We evaluated age, race, ethnicity, marital status, gender, socioeconomic status, comorbidities, prior treatment and percentage of time hospitalized. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to determine factors associated with aggressive end of life care. Results: Of 5827 patients, 2269 (38.9%) survived at least 6 months. Among these, 1106 (48.7%) survived 6-12 months, 558 (24.6%) survived 12-18 months, and 605 (26.7%) survived > 18 months. Patients who survived 6-12 months had the highest burden of hospitalization and spent a median of 10.6% of their remaining life in the hospital compared to those surviving 12-18 months (5.4%) and > 18 months (3%) (P < 0.001). 10.1% of the cohort had claims for palliative care services; 49.8% of initial palliative care consults occurred in the last 30 days of life. Hospice claims existed in 83% with a median length of stay 33 days (IQR 12, 79 days). 30.1% of subjects received aggressive EOL care. Receiving chemo at any time (OR 1.510, 95% CI 1.221-1.867) and spending ≥ 20% of life in the hospital after diagnosis (OR 3.331, 95% CI 2.567-4.324) were associated with aggressive EOL care. Women (OR 0.759, 95% CI 0.624-0.922), patients with higher socioeconomic status (OR 0.533, 95% CI 0.342-0.829), and those diagnosed ≥ age 80 (OR 0.723, 95% CI 0.528-0.991) were less likely to receive aggressive EOL care. Race, ethnicity, marital status, and extent of initial resection were not associated with aggressive EOL care. Conclusions: A minority of elderly patients with GBM in the SEER-Medicare database survived ≥ 6 months; hospitalizations were common and patients spent a significant proportion of their remaining life hospitalized. Although hospice utilization was high in this cohort, 30% of patients received aggressive EOL care. Despite the aggressive nature of GBM, few patients had palliative care consults during their illness. Increased utilization of palliative care services may help reduce hospitalization burden and aggressive EOL care in this population.

Association between insurance plan, prior authorization, and time to receipt of oral anticancer drugs

6

Background: The past decade has seen a dramatic increase in the number of Food and Drug Administration approvals of oral anti-cancer drugs (OACDs). Most OACD prescriptions require coordination between payers and providers, which can delay drug receipt. In May 2021, two bills were introduced in the US House of Representatives (HR 3173 and HR 3258) to streamline the prior authorization (PA) process. In this study, we examined clinical and process-related factors associated with PA and time to drug receipt (TTR) for patients who received a new OACD prescription. Methods: We prospectively collected data on all new OACD prescriptions for adult oncology patients from 1/1/2018 to 12/31/2019. We collected patient demographic, medical, and insurance data, drug type (hormonal, chemotherapy, targeted), and specialty pharmacy interactions with payers and financial assistance groups, including PA information. TTR was defined as the number of days from OACD prescription to patient receipt of the drug. We used multivariable logistic regression to separately assess factors associated with TTR and factors associated with PA for patients who received a new OACD prescription. Results: The cohort for both models included 883 patients who were prescribed 1014 new OACDs. Of these prescriptions, 72.3% (N=733) required PA. The median age was 66 and 44% identified as White. The median TTR was 7 days (IQR 0 – 142; 25% ≥ 14 days; and 5% ≥ 30 days). In unadjusted analyses, PA was associated with insurance and drug type and delayed TTR was associated with PA and insurance type. In a multivariable analysis, patients with Medicaid insurance were more likely to require PA compared to patients with Medicare (OR 1.93 (1.14 – 3.32), p=0.03). In addition, patients prescribed targeted and hormone therapies were more likely to require PA than those prescribed oral chemotherapy (targeted: OR 3.33 [2.38 – 4.68], p<0.001; hormone: OR 4.26 [2.45 – 7.65], p<0.001). A separate multivariable analysis showed that PA is associated with delayed TTR (OR 1.62 [1.18 – 2.24], p=0.003) and that Medicaid is associated with a shorter TTR (OR 0.59 [0.37 – 0.94], p=0.03). Conclusions: The current process for obtaining OACDs is complex and multifaceted. Seventy two percent of delivered OACDs require PA, which is associated with delayed TTR. Earlier intervention and new health policies are needed to reduce time to OACD receipt. [Table: see text]

Factors associated with failure to receive oral anticancer drugs

41

Background: Oral anti-cancer drugs (OACDs) have become increasingly prescribed over the last 10 years and require a significant amount of care coordination. Preliminary administrative database studies have shown that 10-15% of prescriptions are never received by the patient, but the reasons behind this are poorly understood. In this study, we prospectively identified failure to receive (FR) cases in which OACD prescriptions were never received by patients, examined underlying reasons for FR, and assessed clinical and process-related factors associated with FR. Methods: We prospectively collected data on new OACD prescriptions for adult oncology patients at a large, urban academic cancer center from 1/1/2018 to 12/31/2019. We collected patient demographic, clinical, and insurance data, OACD delivery date, and interactions with payers and financial assistance groups. FR was defined as failure to receive a prescribed OACD. Reasons for FR were confirmed by manual chart review and classified into seven categories: clinical deterioration, financial access, provider-driven clinical decision making, patient-directed change, transfer of care, lost to follow up, and other. We calculated the relative proportion of each FR category and used multivariable logistic regression to identify factors associated with FR, including initiation of a prior authorization and drug class. Results: The cohort included 1,080 patients who were prescribed 1,269 new OACDs. Of these prescriptions, 13% (N=163) were categorized as FR. Among the 158 patients with FR, average patient age was 66 years, 55% identified as non-Hispanic white, 61% had any Medicare plan, 11% had Medicaid only, and 25% had commercial insurance. Overall, 18% of FR cases were attributed to clinical deterioration, 13% to financial access, 29% to provider-driven clinical decision making, 17% to patient-directed change, 13% to transfer of care, and 5% were lost to follow up. Univariate analysis showed that FR was less likely in cases where prior authorization was initiated (p < 0.001) and multivariate analysis confirmed this result (OR 0.47 [CI 0.33-0.66], p < 0.001). Conclusions: Though the majority of oncology patients prescribed OACDs received the drug, 13% of patients in our study experienced FR. FR is associated with a lack of prior authorization initiation, which may reflect barriers to access, a change in clinical decision-making, or patient choice. Ultimately, FR is multifactorial and may be appropriate in some cases. More work is needed to determine whether improved access would increase uptake in some patients. [Table: see text]

Efficacy of a password-protected pill-dispensing device to enhance disposal of unused opioids after cancer surgery

264

Background: Opioid misuse is a public health crisis. Initial opioid exposures often occur post-operatively, and 10% of opioid-naïve patients who undergo cancer surgery subsequently become long-term opioid users. It has been shown that 70% of opioids prescribed post-operatively go unused, but only 9% of unused pills are disposed appropriately, which increases the risk of unintended use. We evaluated the impact of an inexpensive, password-protected dispensing device with mail return capacity on retrieval of unused pills after cancer surgery. Methods: Adult patients scheduled for major cancer-related surgery were eligible. Enrolled patients received opioid prescriptions in a password-protected, pill-dispensing device (Addinex) from a specialty pharmacy. The mechanical device links to a smartphone app, which provides passwords on a prescriber-defined schedule. Patients request a password when they are in pain, enter the password into the device and receive a pill if the prescribed time has elapsed. The smartphone app provides clinical guidance based on patient-reported pain levels, and suggests tapering strategies. Patients are instructed to return the device in a DEA-approved mailer when opioid use is no longer required for pain control. Unused pills are destroyed upon receipt. The primary objective was to determine the feasibility of device return, defined as > 50% of patients with device return. We also explored patterns of device use, patient reported outcomes, and device satisfaction via surveys and semi-structured interviews. Results: Between October, 2020 and April, 2021, 13 patients completed the study; 4 patients are currently enrolled. Among the initial 13 patients, 7 underwent abdominal hysterectomy, 4 underwent mastectomy and 2 underwent cutaneous tumor resections. The majority of these patients (n = 10, 77%) returned the device, and more than half (n = 7, 54%) returned the device within 6 weeks of surgery. Only a minority of patients (n = 5, 38%) used the device to obtain opioids; most (n = 8, 62%) used no opioids at home, and all of these patients returned the device and the unused pills. Of 11 patients who participated in semi-structured interviews, most (n = 7, 64%) said they felt safer having opioids in the device instead of a regular pill bottle. Among device users, the majority (n = 4, 80%) reported an overall positive experience. All non-users reported having no opioid requirement for pain control. Conclusions: Our early findings suggest that use of an inexpensive, password-protected, pill-dispensing device to assist with opioid dispensing and return is feasible, with a high rate of device and unused opioid return to the pharmacy. This strategy may be effective for reducing opioid diversion. Analyses and recruitment are ongoing to evaluate the benefits of reducing post-operative opioid consumption.

Impact of a hospital specialty pharmacy in partnership with a free-standing care coordination organization on time to delivery and receipt of oral anticancer drugs

43

Background: Most oral anti-cancer drugs (OACD) prescriptions require extensive coordination between providers and payers, which can delay drug receipt. Specialty pharmacies are intended to facilitate communication between multiple entities to deliver OACDs with increased efficiency. In 2018, our cancer center partnered with Shields Health Solutions (SHS), a freestanding organization providing care coordination to implement a hospital-based specialty pharmacy. We evaluated the rate of failed drug receipt (FR) and time to drug receipt (TTR) before and after specialty pharmacy implementation. Methods: We prospectively collected data on all new OACD prescriptions for adult oncology patients at a large, urban cancer center from 1/1/2018 to 12/31/2019. In fall 2018, a specialty pharmacy was opened to facilitate drug procurement for patients. We collected patient demographic, clinical, and insurance data, OACD name, date prescribed, delivery date, and interactions with payers and financial assistance groups. For prescriptions received, TTR was the number of days from OACD prescription to patient receipt of the drug. FR was defined as failure to receive a prescribed OACD. We excluded OACD prescriptions for a washout period of two months during pharmacy initiation. We used multivariable logistic regression to examine factors associated with TTR > 7 days and FR before and after specialty pharmacy implementation. Results: In total, 883 patients were prescribed 1145 new OACDs. The majority of prescribed drugs were targeted treatment (56%, N = 646) and 72% (N = 819) required prior authorization (PA). Of all prescriptions, 86% (N = 999) were successfully received with an overall median TTR of 7 days. Adjusted analyses showed that patients were more likely to receive their drugs in less than 7 days after specialty pharmacy implementation (OR: 1.4 95% CI 1.04 – 1.81), p = 0.03). In an unadjusted analysis, patients were more likely to receive their initial medications after specialty pharmacy implementation, compared to before specialty pharmacy implementation (89% vs. 84%, p = 0.04). Multivariable analysis showed a trend toward more patients receiving drugs after specialty pharmacy implementation (OR: 1.42, 95% CI 0.98 – 2.03, p = 0.06). Conclusions: The implementation of a hospital-based specialty pharmacy in partnership with SHS decreased TTR. This difference is in part attributable to improved care coordination and communication. A centralized approach may improve overall efficiency due to fewer clinical practice disruptions.

Integration of germline multigene panel testing into breast and gynecologic oncology clinics

164

Background: Germline genetic testing plays an important role in informing cancer screening and risk-reducing strategies, as well as treatment decisions with PARP inhibitors for BRCA-associated malignancies. Referrals to clinical genetics for pre-test counseling and results disclosure can be delayed due to financial and logistical barriers, which may ultimately delay clinical decision-making. Our study objective was to understand patient attitudes, knowledge, and anxiety/distress with point-of-care (POC) genetic testing in breast and gynecologic oncology clinics. Methods: We enrolled patients with early-stage breast cancer undergoing neoadjuvant treatment, metastatic breast cancer, ovarian cancer, or endometrial cancer undergoing POC multigene panel testing with their primary oncologist, rather than a genetic counselor. Pre-test counseling came from discussion with their primary oncologist. Participants completed a survey at time of genetic testing and one after return of genetic test results. Validated measures of genetic testing knowledge, cancer-related distress, and attitudes towards genetic testing were included. Descriptive statistics were generated for all data collected and paired t-tests were conducted for baseline and follow-up comparisons. Results: We enrolled 106 subjects, of which 97 completed the baseline survey. All participants were female with a mean age of 61.5 years (SD 13.5). The cohort consisted of participants with the following tumor types: 80 breast, 2 ovarian, and 16 endometrial. Almost 44% of women identified as Hispanic/Latina, 55% had highest level of education of community/technical college or less, and 51.2% reported annual incomes of less than $50,000. Forty-seven percent of participants had adequate baseline genetic testing knowledge scores (defined as at least 50% correct responses). A majority of participants (86.6%) had positive attitudes toward undergoing genetic testing. Results of genetic testing revealed 11 participants (11.3%) with pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants (of which 36.3% were in BRCA1/2), 25 (25.8%) with variants of unknown significance (VUS), and 61 (62.9%) with benign or likely benign results. The mean cancer-related distress score (scale from 15 to 60, higher score indicates higher levels of distress) was 32.78 (SD 9.74) at baseline and 26.5 (SD 8.9) after receiving genetic testing results (p = 0.002). Genetic test results informed cancer treatment decisions regarding medications and surgery in 15% and 13% of patients, respectively, the majority of which were breast cancer patients. Conclusions: As genetic testing is more frequently used for clinical decision-making it is important to develop ways to efficiently integrate POC testing in the oncology clinics. We demonstrated that POC genetic testing for breast and gynecologic cancers is feasible and can inform clinical decision-making.

Patient factors associated with time to medication receipt of oral anti-cancer drugs

1519

Background: The past decade has seen a dramatic increase in the number of Food and Drug Administration approvals of oral anti-cancer drugs (OACDs). Most OACD prescriptions require coordination between providers, payers, specialty pharmacists, and financial assistance organizations, which can delay drug receipt. We evaluated median time to OACD receipt (TTR) from initial OACD prescription submission and assessed clinical and process-related factors associated with TTR. Methods: We prospectively collected data on all new OACD prescriptions for adult oncology patients at a large, urban outpatient cancer center from 1/1/2018 to 12/31/2019. We collected patient demographic, medical, and insurance data; prescription submission and delivery dates; and interactions with payers and financial assistance groups. TTR was defined as the number of days from OACD initial prescription to patient receipt of the drug. We estimated the median TTR across all patients and used multivariable logistic regression to identify factors associated with TTR above the median. Results: The cohort included 1080 patients who were prescribed 1269 new OACDs. Of these prescriptions, 84% (N=1069) were received, and 71% (N=896) required prior authorization. The median patient age was 66, 44% identified as Non-Hispanic White (White), 25% of patients had commercial insurance, 16% had Medicaid alone, and 58% had Medicare alone or in combination with another plan. The median TTR per patient was 7 days (IQR 0 – 142; 25% ≥ 14 days and 5% ≥ 30 days). In unadjusted analyses, insurance and race/ethnicity were associated with TTR. Compared with patients covered by Medicaid, those with Medicare and supplemental insurance (a partial, not free-standing plan) had nearly 2.5 times the odds of TTR >7 days controlling for other factors. Race/ethnicity showed a trend toward longer TTR with Non-Hispanic Black (Black) patients having a longer TTR compared to White patients, controlling for other factors. We did not observe statistically significant effects of either comorbidity or prior authorization requirement on TTR. Conclusions: Though the majority of oncology patients prescribed OACDs receive the drug, 71% of prescriptions required prior authorization and a quarter of patients waited at least two weeks. Disparities in TTR are primarily driven by financial factors, specifically insurance type.[Table: see text]

Racial and ethnic disparities among patients with breast cancer and COVID-19

6500

Background: Racial/ethnic minorities have disproportionately increased risk of contracting COVID-19 and experiencing severe illness; they also have worse breast cancer (BC) outcomes. COVID-19 outcomes among racial/ethnic minorities with BC are currently unknown. We sought to compare clinicopathologic characteristics and COVID-19 outcomes stratified by race/ethnicity. Methods: The COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium registry (NCT04354701) was used to identify patients with invasive BC and laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 diagnosed in the U.S. between 2020-03-06 and 2021-02-04. The primary analysis was restricted to women who self-identified as non-Hispanic White (NHW), non-Hispanic Black (NHB), or Hispanic (H). Demographic, cancer characteristics, and COVID-19 outcomes were evaluated. COVID-19 outcomes included: hospital admission, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, mechanical ventilation, death within 30 days of COVID-19 diagnosis and death from any cause during follow-up. Descriptive statistics were used to compare clinicopathologic characteristics and Fisher exact tests were used to compare COVID-19 outcomes across the 3 racial/ethnic groups. Results: A total of 1133 patients were identified of which 1111 (98%) were women; of which 575 (52%) NHW, 243 (22%) NHB, 183 (16%) H, and 110 (10%) other/unknown. Baseline characteristics differed among racial/ethnic groups. H were younger (median age: NHW 63y; NHB 62y; H 54y) and more likely to be never smokers (NHW 62%; NHB 62%; H 78%). NHB had higher rates of obesity (NHW 40%; NHB 54%; H 46%), diabetes (NHW 16 %; NHB 32%; H 20%) and combined moderate and severe baseline COVID-19 at presentation (NHW 28%; NHB 42%; H 28%). Cancer characteristics are as shown (Table). Significant differences were observed in outcomes across racial/ethnic groups including higher rates of hospital admission (NHW 34%; NHB 49%; H 34%; P <0.001), mechanical ventilation (NHW 3%; NHB 9%; H 5%; P=0.002), 30-day mortality (NHW 6%; NHB 9%; H 4%; P=0.043) and total mortality (NHW 8%; NHB 12%; H 5%; P=0.05) among NHB compared to NHW and H. Conclusions: This is the largest study to show significant differences in COVID-19 outcomes by racial/ethnic groups of women with BC. The adverse outcomes in NHB could be due to higher moderate to severe COVID-19 at presentation and preexisting co-morbidities. H did not have worse outcomes despite having more active disease and recent anti-cancer therapy, including with cytotoxic chemotherapy – potentially due to younger age and nonsmoking status.[Table: see text]

Opioid prescribing practices in adolescent and young adults with sarcomas

136

Background: Adolescents and young adults (AYAs) with sarcoma undergo procedures that can result in acute and chronic pain. Adult cancer patients are at increased risk of chronic opioid use, and AYAs are vulnerable to misuse. However, opioid prescribing practices in AYAs with sarcoma are not known. We described opioid prescribing during active therapy and identify factors associated with continued opioid prescription post-treatment in AYAs with newly diagnosed sarcoma. Methods: Patients 10–26 years who were diagnosed with sarcoma between 2008–2016 were identified using IBM Marketscan database. Included subjects received anti-cancer therapy (chemotherapy, procedures, and/or radiation) within 30 days of diagnosis and were continuously enrolled in one insurance plan (commercial or Medicaid) >12-months both before diagnosis and after last therapy. Primary outcome was opioid use, defined as at least one opioid prescription during the 12 months following treatment completion. Covariates included age, sex, insurance, treatment type, mental health (MH) and substance use (SU) diagnoses. Results: We included 1,349 patients, 75% had commercial insurance, 21% had a previous MH, and 4% had previous SU diagnosis. 63% of subjects used opioids during treatment and 28% received at least 1 prescription in the year post-therapy. Medicaid insurance was associated with 60% higher likelihood of opioid use during treatment and those with prior use were three-times more likely to continue post- therapy. Conclusions: Opioid prescriptions in AYAs with sarcoma are common during treatment. A significant proportion of patients continue to receive opioids post-therapy, particularly those with a history of use pre-diagnosis. Medicaid insurance and MH disorder are also associated with continued use post-therapy. Further research is needed to establish safe and effective opioid prescribing practices in AYAs with sarcoma. [Table: see text]

The COVID-19 pandemic impact on breast cancer care delivery at an academic center in New York City

88

Background: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has altered healthcare delivery. To save resources and reduce patient exposure, non-urgent care has been postponed. Previous work has focused on cancer patients with COVID-19, but little has been reported on the impact on patients without COVID-19. We aimed to characterize breast cancer (BC) patients without COVID-19 whose care was impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic at an academic center in New York City. Methods: We performed a retrospective cohort study of BC patients treated at a medical oncology practice between 2/1/2020-4/30/2020. Patients were included if they were scheduled to receive intravenous or injectable therapy or were scheduled as a new patient. Patients were excluded if they tested positive for COVID-19 or transferred care during the study period. Demographic and treatment information were obtained by chart review. Delays/changes in systemic therapy, imaging, interventional radiology procedures, radiation, and surgery were tracked. Delays were defined as postponements of scheduled care. Changes were defined as care alterations without postponements. Care impact was defined as any change/delay in any of the above oncologic care a patient was scheduled for. We conducted a univariate analysis to compare demographics and care impact using χ2 analyses. Results: Of 351 eligible patients, the majority had stage 0-III BC (71.9%) and hormone receptor-positive HER2-negative BC (69.5%). Less than half were Caucasian (43.9%). Care was impacted due to the pandemic in 149 (42.5%) of patients. Surgery changes/delays were most frequent (37 of 84 patients, 44.0%), followed by changes/delays in systemic therapy (90 of 351 patients, 25.6%) and imaging (58 of 282 patients, 20.6%). Patients of Asian, Black, and other non-reported races were more likely to experience a care impact vs. Caucasian patients (47.1% vs. 44.4% vs. 55.6% vs. 31.2%, p = 0.001). Hispanic patients were more frequently impacted vs. non-Hispanic patients (47.6% vs. 35.9%, p = 0.06). Medicaid and Medicare patients were also more frequently impacted vs. commercially insured patients (54.7% vs. 41.4% vs. 36.2%, p = 0.02). BC stage and hormone receptor status were not significantly associated with care impacts. Conclusions: We found that nearly half of our BC patients experienced a change/delay in workup or treatment during the COVID-19 pandemic. We also found significant racial and socioeconomic disparities in the likelihood of care impact. Ongoing studies will determine the impact of alterations in care on cancer outcomes.

Effects of COVID-19 on an academic breast oncology center in New York City

51

Background: The influx of patients to the healthcare system due to COVID-19 impacted healthcare practices including the care of breast cancer patients. Our aim is to describe the impact this pandemic had on breast cancer care delivery at an academic center in NYC to inform policy and procedure for future crises that limit patient access to on-site facilities. Methods: A survey was sent to physicians involved in the care of patients with breast cancer at Columbia University Irving Medical Center in May 2020. Participants were asked about practice structure and changes to breast cancer care. The primary outcome was the degree that providers believed breast oncology patients’ clinical outcomes were significantly impacted by COVID-19. Secondary outcomes included changes in diagnostic and management approaches and advice for future providers faced with a similar pandemic. Results: The response rate was 65.4% (17/26). This included physicians from medical oncology (n = 7), radiology (n = 4), breast surgery (n = 3), radiation oncology (n = 2), and plastic surgery (n = 1). Seventy-six percent of physicians somewhat agreed, agreed, or strongly agreed that oncologic outcomes may be significantly impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. Nearly half (47%) of respondents reported delays in the workup of patients due to COVID-19 with 50.0% for mammograms, 47.5% for bone scans, 46.0% for ultrasounds, 43.8% for PET scans, and 43.3% for biopsies. Eighty-two percent reported delays in overall oncologic management. Delays to systemic therapy were: intravenous/targeted therapy (37.9%), intramuscular/subcutaneous endocrine therapy (28.3%), oral chemotherapy/targeted therapy (22.9%), and oral endocrine therapy (12.8%). Delays to local therapy were: surgery (64.4%) and radiation therapy (44.6%). Almost two-thirds (64.7%) reported it necessary to use alternative oncologic management strategies. The most common piece of advice our providers offered was to increase testing capacity to all patients, especially when coming to a healthcare facility. Conclusions: The COVID-19 pandemic has caused major disruption to breast cancer practices. Breast oncology physicians reported delays in management in over 80% of patients, and the need to use alternative management strategies in over 60% of patients. Effects of these disruptions on oncologic outcomes are unknown, but over 75% of our physicians believe this will significantly impact breast oncology patients’ outcomes. There's a need for policies and procedures to structure patient care should there be a future crisis that limits patient access to oncologic care.

Diagnosis of leptomeningeal metastasis (LM) through identification of circulating tumor cells (CTCs) in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF)

3567

Background: Diagnosis of LM from solid tumors can be challenging. The TargetSelector (TS) CTC detection assay has demonstrated highly specific and sensitive CTC capture both for epithelial (CK+) and non-epithelial (CK-) subsets. The assay utilizes a ten-antibody (ab) capture cocktail followed by biotinylated secondary abs that bind to CTCs, enriched in a microfluidic device. TS targeted next-generation sequencing (NGS) assay detects somatic mutations in 12 breast cancer-related genes. The aim was to determine whether TS can improve sensitivity in the diagnosis of LM compared to CSF cytology by lumbar puncture (LP). Methods: CSF was collected prospectively from patients (pts) with a prior solid tumor diagnosis and suspicion of LM. CTCs were isolated from CSF using the TS platform. Cells were stained with cytokeratin (CK), CD45, streptavidin and DAPI. CTCs captured in a microchannel were classified as CK + or -. Peripheral blood samples obtained at time of LP underwent similar CTC analysis. Cell-free total nucleic acids (cfTNA) were extracted from plasma and CSF followed by NGS. Data analysis used the Ion Torrent Suite with annotation and report curation by Ion Reporter and Oncomine Knowledgebase Reporter software respectively. Results: There were 14 pts (13 women and 1 man), median age 56 years (range 32-75) with cancers of the breast (10), lung (1), colon (1), CNS lymphoma (1) or glioma (1). Pts had received a median of 2.5 lines of systemic metastatic therapy (range 0-8). CSF cytology was not sent for 1 pt and TS was not performed for 1 pt. TS and standard cytology had 89% agreement in pts with metastatic breast cancer (MBC, 8/9). Of the 6 pts for whom CTCs were detected in CSF by TS, 3 pts had + cytology (all MBC), 2 pts had - cytology and 1 pt with MBC was not tested by cytology. Of the 3 pts with + CSF by cytology (all MBC), all were detected by TS (Table). Among 5 MBC pts with CTCs present in CSF, ER status was concordant in 2 of 5 (40%). HER2 status was concordant in 3 of 4 (75%) evaluable pts and not determined in 1 pt. Analysis of cfDNA from CSF identified somatic mutations in 3 pts (TP53, PIK3CA, CCND1, respectively). In 1 of 3 pts, the mutation identified in the CSF (PIK3CA) in HR+/HER2- MBC was also identified in the blood. Conclusions: TargetSelector is a viable platform for the detection of breast cancer CTCs in the CSF. NGS performed on CSF samples can identify potentially actionable mutations. [Table: see text]

A standardized workflow to improve the consent process among patients initiating an oral anticancer drug

259

Background: The American Society of Clinical Oncology and The Oncology Nursing Society’s guidelines recommend that consent be obtained and patient education provided prior to oral anticancer drug (OACD) initiation. The aim of this quality improvement project was to improve documentation rates of consent and education prior to OACD initiation in an outpatient breast oncology clinic. Methods: Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) methodology was used to identify the root causes of inadequate OACD documentation; and to evaluate a standardized OACD workflow that included a multidisciplinary (physician, nurse practitioner [NP], and administrative staff) checklist on the disposition sheet and standardized patient education material, used in the Columbia University Irving Medical Center Breast Oncology Clinic. New OACD prescriptions were identified in the electronic health record (EHR) from 2/1/18-4/1/18 (pre-intervention) and 6/5/18-8/17/18 (post-intervention). Documentation of consent and education were evaluated by EHR review. Consent (yes/no) was determined by physician documentation in either the corresponding clinic note or scanned consent form, and education (yes/no) was determined by NP documentation in the education section of the clinic note. Documentation rates were compared pre- and post-intervention. Results: Pre-intervention, 19 patients received a new OACD, and 0 (0%) had documentation of consent or patient education. Root cause analysis revealed the driver of inadequate documentation was the inability to identify patients with a new OACD prescription at the time of their clinic visit. After implementation of the OACD workflow, 23 patients initiated a new OACD, 15 (65.0%) had documentation of consent and 7 (30.0%) had OACD education documented in the EHR. Conclusions: After the first PDSA cycle, documentation of consent and education improved from baseline. However, improvement in both metrics are still needed. Patient volume, staff changes, and the format of the OACD checklist may have limited the efficacy of this intervention. In the next PDSA cycle, the consent process will be linked to the required OACD pre-approval process to further increase OACD documentation.

Use of nonclinical staff to coordinate oral anticancer drug prescriptions

72

Background: In September 2018, Herbert Irving Comprehensive Cancer Center (HICCC) began using non-clinical pharmacy liaisons to oversee coordination of oral anticancer drug (OACD) prescriptions (RXs), a task previously performed by clinical staff. Liaisons interact with payers, specialty pharmacies and financial assistance (FA) groups. We assessed the impact of this strategy on time to receipt of OACDs. Methods: We collected prospective data on all new OACD RXs from HICCC’s medical oncology practice from 1/1/2018 to 9/17/2018 (pre-liaisons) and 9/17/2018 to 5/1/2019 (post-liaisons). We collected patient demographic and insurance data; date of prescription; date of drug delivery; and interactions with payers and FA groups. Federal Drug Association labels were reviewed for drug approval dates and indications. Daily drug cost was defined according to average wholesale price. We define time to receipt (TTR) as days from RX to OACD delivery and used multivariable linear regression to determine factors associated with TTR (log transformed). Results: Over the study period, we evaluated 707 RXs; 93 (13%) were never filled. Of 614 filled RXs, 350 (57%) were placed in the pre-liaison period and 264 (43%) in the post-liaison period. After introduction of liaisons, FA was pursued for more RXs (17% vs 25%, p = 0.007); there was no difference pre- and post-liaisons in patient demographics, distribution of payers, RXs needing prior authorization (PA) (76% vs 77%), off-label RXs (14% vs 16%), RXs for drugs approved < 2 years earlier (5% vs 3%) or mean daily cost ($471 vs $470). Mean TTR before and after liaisons were 11.9 and 11.6 days, respectively. Linear regression showed longer TTR was associated with commercial payers (p = 0.02), need for PA (p = 0.03), FA pursuit (p ≤ 0.0001) and daily OACD cost (p = 0.03); no association was seen with use of liaisons, patient age, off-label use or OACDs approved < 2 years earlier. Conclusions: Implementation of pharmacy liaisons to coordinate OACD prescriptions did not impact the time to OACD receipt, though liaisons were able to pursue financial assistance for more patients. Insurance and cost factors had the greatest impact on time to drug receipt. Task shifting may reduce the clerical workload for providers.

Use of Bevacizumab for Elderly Patients With Stage IV Colon Cancer: Analysis of SEER-Medicare Data

BACKGROUND

Bevacizumab is used for the treatment of metastatic colon cancer in conjunction with first-line chemotherapy. In this study, we examined receipt of first-line bevacizumab and predictors of its use among older patients with stage IV colon cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We used data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare dataset to identify patients with stage IV colon cancer diagnosed from 2005 to 2013 who received FOLFOX (5-fluorouracil/leucovorin/oxaliplatin) or FOLFIRI (5-fluorouracil/leucovorin/irinotecan) as first-line therapy. We used multivariable regression analysis to determine demographic and clinical factors associated with use of concomitant bevacizumab.

RESULTS

We identified 3785 patients with stage IV colon cancer who met our eligibility criteria. Of these, 2352 (62.1%) received bevacizumab. Bevacizumab use has decreased over time from 68.2% in 2005 to 57.6% in 2013 (odds ratio [OR], 0.94; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.91-0.97). Patients were less likely to receive bevacizumab if they were older (compared with 65-69 years, ≥ 80 years: OR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.52-0.80), or had multiple comorbidities (compared with comorbidity score of 0, score of 1: OR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.60-0.89).

CONCLUSION

Over one-half of elderly patients received bevacizumab as part of their first-line therapy for stage IV colon cancer. Bevacizumab use has been slowly decreasing since 2005. Newer anti-epidermal growth factor receptor treatments have not been supplanting bevacizumab, as first-line biologic use in general has also decreased during this time period.

Delay in receipt of newly prescribed oral anticancer drugs

6541

Background: Oral anticancer drug (OACD) prescriptions require coordination between clinicians, payers, specialty pharmacies, and financial assistance (FA) groups, which may delay patient receipt of the drug. Factors associated with delay in receipt of OACDs are unknown. Methods: We prospectively collected data on all new OACD prescriptions (RXs) from the medical oncology practice at the Herbert Irving Comprehensive Cancer Center from 1/1/2018 to 12/1/2018. We collected patient demographic, insurance and clinical information; date of prescription; date of drug delivery; and staff interactions with payers and FA groups. Federal Drug Association (FDA) labels and Micromedex were reviewed for initial drug approval dates, approved indications and average wholesale price. We used multivariable linear and logistic regression to determine factors associated with number of days from prescription to receipt of OACD. Results: During the study period 510 OACD RXs were evaluated. Of these, 84 (16%) were never filled. The most common OACDs were capecitabine (90, 18%), abiraterone (45, 9%), palbociclib (35, 7%) and osimertinib (28, 6%). Of 426 filled RXs, the median time from prescription to receipt was 8 days (IQR 5-13), with 193 RXs (46%) received in ≤7 days, 145 (34%) in 8-14 days and 65 (15%) in 14-28 days, and 23 (5%) at > 28 days. Linear regression showed time to receipt of OACD (log transformed) was associated with having commercial primary insurance (p = 0.02), pursing FA (p = < 0.001), RX of a drug approved by the FDA < 2 years earlier (p = 0.008), drugs without an approved indication for the primary tumor (p = 0.03) and estimated drug cost (p = 0.002). The other included covariates, patient age and prior authorization, were not associated with time to receipt. Logistic regression comparing receipt at ≤14 versus > 14 days found association with FA (OR 3.17; 95%CI 1.78-5.65), FDA approval within 2 years (OR 3.52; 95%CI 1.31-9.45) and off-label use (OR 2.30; 95%CI 1.18-4.50). Conclusions: Over 20% of new OACDs were received 14 days or longer from the date of RX. Financial and insurance related factors; and more expensive and recently approved drugs were associated with longer delays in receipt of therapy. Policy changes to improve the timeliness of OACD access are needed.

Association of baseline cardiovascular risk factors and health care utilization and costs in elderly breast cancer patients enrolled in SWOG clinical trials

11508

Background: Cardiovascular-disease risk factors (CVD-RFs) increase the risk of cardiac events in women undergoing chemotherapy. Less is known about the impact of CVD-RFs on healthcare utilization and costs. Methods: We examined breast cancer patients treated uniformly on SWOG clinical trials from 1999-2011. We identified baseline diabetes, hypertension, hypercholesterolemia, and coronary artery disease (CAD) by linking trial records to Medicare claims; obesity was identified using clinical records. The outcomes were emergency room visits (ER), hospitalizations and costs. Multivariable logistic and linear regression were used. Results: Among the 708 patients included in the analysis, 160 (22.6%) experienced 234 separate hospitalizations, and 193 (27.3%) experienced 311 separate ER visits. Diabetes, hypertension, hypercholesterolemia, and CAD were all associated with increased risk of hospitalizations and ER visit. Hypertension had the strongest association, with more than a threefold risk of hospitalization for those with hypertension compared to those without (OR [95% CI], 3.16 [1.85-5.40], p<0.001). For those with ≥3 CVD-RFs, the risk of hospitalization was greater compared to 0 or 1 CVD-RFs (OR [95% CI], 2.74 [1.71-4.38], p<0.001). Similar results were seen for ER visits. In the first 12 months after trial registration, patients with diabetes ($38,324 vs $30,923, 23.9% increase, p=0.05), hypercholesterolemia ($34,168 vs $30,661, 11.4% increase, p=0.02), and CAD ($37,781 vs $31,698, 19.2% increase, p=0.04) had statistically significantly higher total healthcare costs. Additionally, those with 2 significant CVD-RFs ($35,353 vs. $28,899, 22.3% increase, p=.005) had higher total healthcare costs. Conclusions: Our study demonstrates that the presence of both CVD-RFs and ER visits and hospitalizations are frequent among elderly BC patients. The risk of ER visits and hospitalizations is higher among patients with CVD-RFs, and increases with the number of RFs. Better management of CVD-RFs and more aggressive symptom management may be required to reduce both physical and financial toxicities to elderly patients undergoing BC therapy.

Factors associated with over and underuse of response evaluation in elderly myeloma patients

e19518

Background: Most patients with multiple myeloma (MM) have detectable monoclonal protein. While guidelines do not specify the frequency of lab testing for response evaluation, most MM clinical trials perform monthly assessment. We examined the use of 4 serologic tests – protein electrophoresis (SPEP), immunofixation (IFE), quantitative immunoglobulins (QIG), and free light chain (FLC) in newly-diagnosed MM patients. Methods: We identified patients age ≥65 with MM (ICD-O 34000) in the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER)-Medicare database from 2000-2013. Patients were required to have bone marrow biopsy within 6 months of diagnosis, and taken chemotherapy approved for MM. Use of a test was defined as having ≥1 instance of its CPT code within 12 months of diagnosis. Patients with > 12 instances were defined as overusers. Multiple instances of a test on the same date were counted once. Multivariable logistic regression models using covariates including: age and year at MM diagnosis, race, marital status, Charlson comorbidity, chemotherapy use, number of hospitalizations and oncology office visits within 12 months of diagnosis, were developed to examine associations with overuse. Results: Among 6,214 identified patients, users were: SPEP 5,532 (89%), IFE 4,745 (76%), QIG 5,524 (89%), and FLC 3,864 (62%). The median (interquartile range) times each test was used in the first year following diagnosis were: SPEP 6 (3-10), IFE 3 (2-7), QIG 6 (3-10), FLC 5 (2-9). The numbers of overusers were: SPEP 721 (13%), IFE 265 (6%), QIG 498 (9%), FLC 350 (9%). 231 (4%) patients were overusers of 2 tests. Factors associated with overuse common to all 4 tests were: younger age at diagnosis (eg, SPEP: odds ratio (OR) 2.0 for aged 65-74 vs ≥85; P < .001), more oncology office visits (eg, QIG: OR 2.2 for > 15 vs 0-6; P < .001), and use of combination chemotherapy (eg, SPEP: OR 2.2 for proteasome inhibitor + immunomodulatory drug (IMID) vs those on IMID ; P < .001). Conclusions: In our Medicare population, patients on average underwent response evaluation much less often than monthly, but we also found overuse. Further investigation of the use of these tests is warranted given their central importance to MM care and their cumulative financial cost.

Abstract P1-20-02: Incidence of hyperglycemia in non-diabetic patients with early-stage breast cancer treated with chemotherapy

Background: There are shared risk factors between breast cancer (BC) and diabetes mellitus (DM). BC treatments including chemotherapy given in combination with glucocorticoids can induce hyperglycemia and steroid related DM. Patients with DM are at increased risk of developing chemotherapy related toxicities such as chemotherapy induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN) compared to those without DM. The incidence of hyperglycemia during chemotherapy in non-diabetic patients with early-stage breast cancer is unknown.

Methods: We performed a retrospective analysis of non-diabetic women with stage I-III breast cancer treated with chemotherapy at Columbia University Medical Center from 9/1/2016-8/31/2017 to evaluate hyperglycemia incidence during chemotherapy and up to six months after chemotherapy completion. Eligible patients were identified in the electronic health record (EHR) by ICD9 and 10 codes (ICD9 174.x and ICD10 C50.x) and a record of chemotherapy administration. Non-diabetic patients were defined by chart review as no recorded history of diabetes and no receipt of a diabetes medication in the EHR. Breast cancer stage was determined by chart review. Glucose values were recorded prior to chemotherapy, during chemotherapy, and for six-months after chemotherapy completion. We defined hyperglycemia as a glucose value of ≥200 mg/dl. Median time to hyperglycemia was also calculated.

Results: We identified 82 eligible patients. The majority of patients received dexamethasone during their chemotherapy course (79 patients, 96.3%). The most frequent chemotherapy regimen was doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide and paclitaxel (32 patients, 39.0%). At baseline, 20 patients (24.4%) had a normal body mass index (BMI), 27 patients (32.9%) were overweight, and 31 patients (37.8%) were obese. Hyperglycemia occurred in 8 patients (9.8%) after initiation of chemotherapy. Among patients with hyperglycemia, the maximum blood glucose was between 200-299 mg/dl in seven patients (87.5%), and between 500-599 in one patient (12.5%). The median time to hyperglycemia was 84 days. Among patients who did not experience hyperglycemia, the maximum blood glucose was between 140-159 mg/dl in six patients (8.1%), between 160-179 mg/dl in eight patients (10.8%), and between 180-199 mg/dl in three patients (4.1%). Three patients were diagnosed with DM following chemotherapy completion.

Conclusion: Hyperglycemia occurred in almost 10% of non-diabetic patients who received chemotherapy for early-stage breast cancer. Additionally, over 30% of patients had a blood glucose of 140 mg/dl or higher after chemotherapy initiation. The impact of hyperglycemia on the development of chemotherapy related toxicities in this group is unknown. Future research is needed to identify effective interventions for glucose control during chemotherapy, and to determine if glucose control during treatment can reduce the risk of chemotherapy related toxicities, specifically CIPN.

Citation Format: Accordino MK, Lin A, Wright JD, Trivedi MS, Kalinsky K, Crew KD, Hershman DL. Incidence of hyperglycemia in non-diabetic patients with early-stage breast cancer treated with chemotherapy [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2018 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2018 Dec 4-8; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2019;79(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P1-20-02.

Abstract P6-18-35: A phase 1 study of erlotinib and metformin in advanced triple negative breast cancer

Background: The epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) is frequently overexpressed in triple negative breast cancer (TNBC). However, EGFR inhibitors have not shown efficacy as monotherapy in TNBC. One strategy for overcoming resistance to EGFR inhibition is concomitant inhibition of downstream signaling. Metformin is a LKB1-dependent AMPK activator that inhibits both MAPK and AKT signaling. The combination of the EGFR inhibitor erlotinib and metformin synergistically induces apoptosis in TNBC cell lines and decreases tumor burden in PTEN-null EGFR-amplified mouse xenograft models. We evaluated the combination of erlotinib and metformin in a phase 1 study of patients with advanced TNBC.

Methods: Patients with advanced TNBC who had received at least one prior line of therapy for metastatic disease were eligible. Erlotinib dose was fixed at 150mg daily. Metformin dose escalation was planned according to a 3+3 design, beginning at 850mg BID and escalating to 850mg TID. One de-escalation to 500mg BID was allowed. Dose-limiting toxicities (DLT) were assessed during the first five weeks of therapy. The primary objectives were to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of metformin with fixed dose erlotinib and to determine the potential for clinical benefit. Secondary endpoints were response rate, stable disease rate, and progression free survival. Pre- and on-treatment skin biopsies were collected to determine the effect of the study drugs on their respective cell signaling targets, particularly EGFR, AMPK, and mTOR.

Results: Between March 2013 and May 2015, nine patients were screened and eight were enrolled. Median age was 48 years (range 37-79). Median number of prior therapies for metastatic disease was 2.5 (range 1-6). No DLT events were reported in either of the dose escalation cohorts during the DLT assessment period. AEs occurring in three or more patients and all grade III AEs are reported in Table 1. Grade III diarrhea despite maximum supportive care required dose reduction of metformin from 850mg TID to 850mg BID in one patient. Grade III rash led to study withdrawal in one patient. No grade IV AEs were reported. Per RECIST v1.1, the best observed response was stable disease in two patients (25%). Median time on study was 2.0 months (range 1.2-3.0). Skin biopsy marker assessment is ongoing and will be reported.

Conclusion: The combination of erlotinib and metformin was generally well tolerated in a population of pre-treated metastatic TNBC patients. No unexpected toxicities occurred. While no responses were achieved, stable disease was observed in patients who received this non-chemotherapy combination.

Adverse EventsEventMetformin 850mg BID n=3Metformin 850mg TID n=5All patients n=8 Number of patients (percent) All gradesGrade IIIAll gradesGrade IIIAll gradesGrade IIIRash3 (100)1 (33.3)5 (100)08 (100)1 (12.5)Diarrhea3 (100)05 (100)2 (40.0)8 (100)2 (25.0)Weight loss1 (33.3)05 (100)06 (75.0)0Dry skin1 (33.3)05 (100)06 (75.0)0Nausea2 (66.7)03 (60.0)05 (62.5)0Vomiting1 (33.3)03 (60.0)04 (50.0)0Dry mouth1 (33.3)03 (60.0)04 (50.0)0Dysgeusia1 (33.3)02 (40.0)03 (37.5)0Increased creatinine2 (66.7)01 (20.0)03 (37.5)0Fatigue1 (33.3)02 (40.0)03 (37.5)0Anorexia1 (33.3)02 (40.0)03 (37.5)0Hyponatremia1 (33.3)1 (33.3)001 (12.5)1 (12.5)

Citation Format: Fenn KM, Maurer MA, Lee SM, Crew KD, Trivedi MS, Accordino MK, Hershman DL, Kalinsky K. A phase 1 study of erlotinib and metformin in advanced triple negative breast cancer [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2018 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2018 Dec 4-8; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2019;79(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P6-18-35.

FOLFOX and FOLFIRI Use in Stage IV Colon Cancer: Analysis of SEER-Medicare Data

BACKGROUND

Shortly after the year 2000, randomized trials demonstrated that patients with metastatic colon cancer treated with infusional 5-fluorouracil (5-FU)/leucovorin with either oxaliplatin (FOLFOX) or irinotecan (FOLFIRI) had a comparable progression-free survival benefit, superior to patients who received 5-FU/leucovorin alone. Factors associated with the initial receipt of the FOLFOX or FOLFIRI regimen are unknown. Our goal was to investigate the patterns and predictors of use for first-line FOLFOX and FOLFIRI.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We used the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare linked data set to identify patients with newly diagnosed stage IV colon cancer between the years 2005 and 2013 who received either first-line FOLFOX or FOLFIRI. We used logistic regression to assess demographic and clinical predictors for FOLFOX versus FOLFIRI. Survival was compared by Kaplan-Meier models.

RESULTS

Overall, 3000 patients (79.3%) received FOLFOX and 785 (20.7%) FOLFIRI. FOLFOX was associated with later year of diagnosis (odds ratio [OR] = 0.66, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.54 to 0.82 for 2011-2013 vs. 2005-2007), being female (OR = 0.82; 95% CI 0.69 to 0.98), and living in the southern region of the United States. FOLFIRI was associated with having a higher comorbidity index (OR = 1.33; 95% CI, 1.07 to 1.67 for >1 comorbidity score vs. 0). There was no survival difference observed between the two treatments.

CONCLUSION

The majority of SEER-Medicare patients received FOLFOX and not FOLFIRI as a first-line treatment for stage IV colon cancer. Several demographic and clinical factors were associated with the use of each specific regimen. No survival difference was detected for the 2 groups.

Quality improvement and safety curriculum for hematology/oncology fellows at Columbia University

247

Background: It is imperative to provide Hem/Onc fellows with experiential training in quality improvement (QI) and patient safety methodology. Our objective was to design a curriculum that would provide experience in designing, implementing, and analyzing a QI/safety project with the ultimate aim of engagement in QI/safety efforts throughout their careers. Methods: The curriculum focused on experiential learning and was led by a faculty member with QI/safety methodology training who provided didactics and supervisory support of the projects. Fellows worked in groups (3-5 fellows) to implement a project. Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) methodology was introduced early in the academic year and workshops continued over a one-year time period. At the year end, projects were presented at an institution-wide symposium. Two cohorts (2015-2016, 2017-2018) have completed the curriculum. Results: Program efficacy was measured in several ways. The QIKAT-R tool was administered prior to the curriculum in August 2015 (n = 12) and at completion June 2016 (n = 14). At baseline, the mean score was 3.97 (out of 9) which improved to 7.57 at completion. Comfort level with QI also increased by 42.9%. Annual ACGME survey questions pertaining to an institutional culture of patient safety increased from 88% (2015) to 100% (2016 and 2018) and participation in QI increased from 53% (2015) to 95% (2106) to 100% (2018). Further, fellows (n = 33) successfully completed nine projects which included: improvement of fertility preservation, improvement in the adequacy of bone marrow aspirates performed by fellows, increasing genetic counseling referrals in select patients with colorectal cancer, improvement in smoking cessation counseling, increasing timely chemotherapy order entry, and reduction of unnecessary heparin induced thrombocytopenia antibody testing. The curriculum is currently being adapted to other fellowship programs at Columbia. Conclusions: Our curriculum is an effective method to teach fellows at Columbia University Medical Center a skill set necessary to conduct successful QI/safety projects. PDSA methodology of small cycles of change can be used life-long to continuously assess and improve care quality and safety.

Abstract P6-12-17: Identifying risk factors and effect modifiers of trastuzumab-induced cardiotoxicity among multi-ethnic women with early-stage HER2-positive breast cancer

Introduction: Trastuzumab-based adjuvant therapy is the current standard of care for early-stage HER2-positive breast cancer. However, trastuzumab has also been associated with an increased risk of cardiotoxicity, especially when given following an anthracycline. Trastuzumab-induced cardiotoxicity (TIC) can present as asymptomatic left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) decline or symptomatic heart failure. Our objective was to identify predictors of TIC among multi-ethnic patients with early-stage HER2-positive breast cancer. Unlike prior observational studies, our study included a high representation of racial/ethnic minorities, who are at increased risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) compared to non-Hispanic whites.

Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study in patients with stage I-III HER2-positive breast cancer, diagnosed from 2007 to 2015 at Columbia University Medical Center (CUMC) in New York, NY, who had received adjuvant trastuzumab therapy. Participants had at least two serial echocardiograms or MUGA scans to assess TIC, which was defined as at least a 10% decrease in LVEF from baseline or LVEF &lt;50%. LVEF recovery was defined as at least a 10% increase in LVEF or LVEF &gt;50%. We conducted descriptive statistics and univariate and multivariable logistic regression to estimate the associations between socio-demographic factors, breast tumor and treatment characteristics, and CVD risk factors (including smoking status, body mass index [BMI], hypertension, diabetes, hyperlipidemia, coronary artery disease) and TIC. Interactions between race/ethnicity and CVD risk factors were assessed using a logistic regression model.

Results: In our study population (N=279), the mean age was 52.7 years (standard deviation, 12.1) with 36.6% non-Hispanic white, 18.3% non-Hispanic black, 34.8% Hispanic, and 10.4% Asian patients. There were no differences by race/ethnicity in tumor and treatment characteristics (over half had prior anthracyclines), but racial/ethnic minorities had higher BMI and were more likely to have hypertension compared to non-Hispanic whites. About a third of patients developed TIC and 14.7% had an LVEF decline to &lt;50%, of which 15 (16.1%) experienced LVEF recovery. In multivariable analysis, prior anthracycline use and hypertension were significantly associated with increased odds of developing TIC (odds ratio [OR]: 2.25, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.25, 4.06; OR: 2.13, 95% CI: 1.15, 3.93, respectively). There was a significant interaction (p=0.027) between race/ethnicity and hypertension on odds of developing TIC with hypertensive non-Hispanic white patients experiencing 6.05 (95% CI: 2.19, 16.75) times the odds of developing TIC compared to non-hypertensive non-Hispanic whites.

Discussion: We observed a higher incidence of TIC and lower incidence of LVEF recovery compared to previous clinical trials. Given patient selection for clinical trials, our results may be more representative of clinical practice settings. We found a particularly high risk among non-Hispanic white patients with hypertension. Patients with hypertension may require closer blood pressure monitoring and treatment with anti-hypertensives in order to reduce risk of developing cardiotoxicity.

Citation Format: Yuan A, Topkara V, Hershman DL, Kalinsky K, Accordino MK, Trivedi MS, Yu A, Genkinger JM, Crew KD. Identifying risk factors and effect modifiers of trastuzumab-induced cardiotoxicity among multi-ethnic women with early-stage HER2-positive breast cancer [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2017 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2017 Dec 5-9; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2018;78(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P6-12-17.

Abstract PD7-03: Cost-effectiveness analysis of intraoperative radiotherapy for ductal carcinoma in situ

Background

Whole breast radiation therapy (WBRT) following lumpectomy for ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) is standard of care, however, the risk of local recurrence with and without radiation ranges as low as 0.9% vs. 6.7% over 7 years. Intraoperative radiotherapy (IORT) is a potential alternative with advantages of decreased toxicity to adjacent organs, convenience, and improved quality of life. While prospective trials of IORT for DCIS are ongoing, the objective of this study was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of IORT vs. WBRT vs. no radiation for DCIS.

Methods

We developed a Markov model using TreeAge Pro 2016 to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of WBRT, IORT, and no radiation in patients with DCIS following lumpectomy. Health states included disease free, local recurrence (ipsilateral DCIS or invasive cancer), distant recurrence or death due to breast cancer, and death due to non-breast cancer causes. A 10-year time horizon and societal perspective were used. Model input parameters were derived from the literature. Costs reflected 2016 Medicare rates. The primary endpoint was incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), defined as the difference in cost, divided by the difference in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) of two interventions. We performed analyses of subgroups defined according to DCIS risk (histologic grade, Oncotype Dx® DCIS recurrence score, low risk per RTOG 9804 criteria) and endocrine therapy use (none, tamoxifen, aromatase inhibitor). Sensitivity analyses explored uncertainty in the model.

Results

IORT was the most cost-effective strategy, with an increase of 0.18 QALYs at an incremental cost of $4,728, corresponding to an ICER of $26,943/QALY when compared with no radiation therapy. WBRT resulted in an increase in 0.18 QALYs at an incremental cost of $6859, corresponding to an ICER of $39,085/QALY. For both strategies, the ICERs did not exceed the willingness to pay (WTP) threshold of $100,000.

IORT remained the most cost-effective strategy across DCIS risk groups, but was more cost-effective in higher risk patients, as demonstrated by lower ICERs. In low risk DCIS defined by RTOG 9804 criteria, no radiation was most cost-effective. The ICERs for IORT and WBRT, $152,753 and $208,204/QALY, respectively, exceeded the WTP threshold. IORT remained cost-effective in the setting of endocrine therapy use.

Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratios (ICER) for each radiation strategy for the base case and scenario analyses ICER ($/QALY) No RTIORTWBRTBase Case Analysis 26,94339,085    Scenario Analysis by DCIS Risk GroupHistologic Grade   - Low 36,81152,219- High 25,64337,137    Oncotype Dx DCIS Score   - Low 92,892126,398- High 32,00345,690    Low Risk DCIS 152,753208,204    Scenario Analysis by Endocrine TherapyNo Tamoxifen 23,38734,373Tamoxifen 47,81166,616    Tamoxifen 31,96146,272Aromatase Inhibitor 41,31658,674

Conclusion

IORT was the most cost-effective radiation strategy for DCIS compared to WBRT and no radiation. This applied to all subgroups with the exception of low-risk DCIS defined by RTOG 9804 criteria for whom no radiation was the most cost-effective strategy. These findings provide support for ongoing studies examining the role of IORT for DCIS with high-risk features, as well as alternative treatment strategies for low-risk DCIS.

Citation Format: Onishi M, Connolly EP, Wright JD, Vasan S, Gross T, Tsai W-Y, Chen L, Neugut AI, Accordino MK, Kalinsky K, Crew KD, Hershman DL. Cost-effectiveness analysis of intraoperative radiotherapy for ductal carcinoma in situ [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2017 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2017 Dec 5-9; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2018;78(4 Suppl):Abstract nr PD7-03.

A randomized phase II trial of fulvestrant with or without ribociclib after progression on aromatase inhibition plus cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibition in patients with unresectable or metastatic hormone receptor positive, HER2 negative breast cancer

TPS1112

Background: CDK4/6i, including palbociclib and ribociclib (R), have demonstrated remarkable benefit in progression free survival (PFS) in patients (pts) with HR+, HER2- MBC with anti-estrogen therapy. Switching between anti-estrogen therapies at disease progression is standard of care in the treatment of HR+ MBC. We evaluate the strategy of switching anti-estrogen therapy to fulvestrant (F) and maintaining CDK4/6 inhibition with R in pts with HR+, HER2- MBC who have progressed on an AI + CDK4/6i. Methods: Trial Design Phase II, multi-center, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial to evaluate F +/- R in pts with HR+, HER2- MBC who have previously progressed on any AI + CDK4/6i: Screened at 2 different scenarios: Scenario 1: Before receiving any CDK4/6i Scenario 2: Time of progression of disease (POD) while being treated with an AI + CDK4/6i Intervention At randomization, pts assigned 1:1 to either a) F + R or b) F + placebo, with treatment given in 4-week cycles. Major Eligibility Criteria 1, Metastatic BC, 2. HR+ HER2-, 3. Measurable or unmeasurable disease Specific Aims Primary: PFS. Secondary: Objective response rate, clinical benefit rate, overall survival, and duration of response. Biomarker assessment: amplification of cyclin D1 and cyclin E, phosphoRb and TK1 expression, Rb1 and p16 loss, and ctDNA for ESR1 and PIK3CA mutations. Statistical Methods Assuming a median PFS of 3.8 months with F alone, we predict that F + R will lead to a median PFS of at least 6.5 months. A one-sided log-rank test with a sample size of N = 120 and alpha = 0.025, achieves 80% power to detect a difference in PFS of 2.7. With a 10% dropout, n = 132. Clinical trial registry number NCT02632045.

Bone marrow aspirate quality assessment

76

Background: Bone marrow evaluation is the cornerstone of diagnosis, staging, and measurement of treatment response for many hematologic diseases. Aspirate adequacy is defined by whether the procedure results in a specimen of sufficient quality for pathologic review. Between July 1, 2014 and June 30, 2015, 49.3% of inpatient bone marrow aspirates performed by Hematology/Oncology fellows at Columbia University Medical Center were classified as suboptimal. Methods: We used the Plan-Do-Study-Act methodology to 1) understand the factors contributing to suboptimal aspirates, 2) evaluate the scope of the problem at both fellowship and institutional levels, 3) develop a training seminar to educate fellows on the procedure techniques, and 4) monitor for improvement post-intervention. We identified inpatient bone marrow biopsies performed by Hematology/Oncology fellows between July 1, 2015 and June 30, 2016 and tabulated aspirate adequacy as noted in the reports. A faculty-led educational seminar was held on February 1, 2016. Fellows completed a pre- and post-intervention survey to assess knowledge and experience with bone marrow aspirates. Bone marrow biopsy billing data was used as a surrogate marker for attending supervision. Results: All Hematology/Oncology fellows (n = 19) at Columbia University Medical Center participated. The pre-intervention survey (18 responses; 94.7%) revealed 76.5% of fellows had formal bone marrow aspirate training, 66.6% had supervision 25% to 75% of the time, and 52.9% were uncomfortable performing the procedure alone. Of the 43 aspirates from the pre-intervention period, 22 (51.2%) were adequate. 94.7% of fellows attended the training seminar. Post-intervention, 27 of 50 (54%) bone marrow aspirates were adequate. The post-intervention survey (16 responses; 84.2%) showed 93.3% of fellows were confident performing the procedure alone. There were fewer procedures billed in the post-intervention period (20.9% pre vs 8% post). Conclusions: A formal educational seminar on bone marrow aspirate technique increased fellow comfort with the procedure and trended toward improved aspirate adequacy. The next study phase will institute an annual training session for incoming fellows and create a bone marrow specimen preparation checklist.

Abstract OT2-01-19: A randomized phase II trial of fulvestrant with or without ribociclib after progression on aromatase inhibition plus cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibition in patients with unresectable or metastatic hormone receptor positive, HER2 negative breast cancer

Background

Cyclin dependent kinase 4 and 6 inhibitors (CDK4/6i), including palbociclib and ribociclib (R), have demonstrated remarkable benefit in progression free survival (PFS) in patients (pts) with hormone receptor positive (HR+), HER2- metastatic breast cancer (MBC) when combined with anti-estrogen therapy. Switching between anti-estrogen therapies at disease progression is standard of care in the treatment of HR+ MBC. We evaluate the strategy of switching anti-estrogen therapy to fulvestrant (F) and maintaining CDK4/6 inhibition with R in pts with HR+, HER2- MBC who have progressed on an aromatase inhibitor (AI) + CDK4/6i.

Trial Design

Phase II, multi-center, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial to evaluate F +/- R in pts with HR+, HER2- MBC who have previously progressed on any AI + CDK4/6i. Pts can be screened and registered at two different time points:

Scenario 1: Before receiving any CDK4/6i

Scenario 2: At the time of progression of disease (POD) while being treated with an AI + CDK4/6i

In scenario 1, the study will provide pts with letrozole + R, but pts will not be randomized until they demonstrate POD. At randomization, pts will be assigned 1:1 to either a) F + R or b) F + placebo, with treatment given in 4-week cycles. F will be given as a 500 mg dose intramuscularly every 2 weeks for 3 times and then every 4 weeks, as per standard of care. R or placebo will be given orally at 600 mg daily, 3 weeks on/1 week off. CT scans and bone scan are to be performed prior to every third cycle. Serum and whole blood samples and optional tissue biopsies for biomarker assessment will be performed prior to study treatment (scenario 1), prior to randomization to R +/- F, and when the patient goes off study.

Main Eligibility Criteria:

1. Age ≥ 18 years with unresectable or metastatic BC

2. Estrogen and/or progesterone receptor positive, HER2 negative, as per ASCO-CAP

3. Postmenopausal status or receiving ovarian suppression

4. Measurable or unmeasurable disease; stable CNS disease allowed

5. No clinically significant cardiac disease

6. No concomitant CYP3A4/5 inducer or inhibitor

Specific Aims

Primary: Progression free survival (PFS), defined as the time from randomization to POD or death.

Secondary: Objective response rate (ORR), clinical benefit rate (CBR = ORR + stable disease rate), overall survival (OS), and duration of response. Pts in scenario 1 will also be assessed for PFS, OS, CBR, and safety while receiving AI + R (pre-randomization).

Biomarker assessment will include amplification of cyclin D1 and cyclin E, phosphoRb and TK1 expression, Rb1 and p16 loss, and ctDNA for ESR1 and PIK3CA mutations.

Target Accrual

132 pts accrued from 11 academic medical centers in the U.S, with a goal of completing accrual in two years (∼60 to 72 pts in each scenario).

Statistical Methods

Assuming a median PFS of 3.8 months with F alone, we predict that F + R will lead to a median PFS of at least 6.5 months. A one-sided log-rank test with a sample size of N=120 and alpha=0.025, achieves 80% power to detect a difference in PFS of 2.7 months. N=132 pts allows for a 10% drop-out rate.

Citation Format: Mundi PS, Codruta C, Accordino MK, Sparano J, Andreopoulou E, Vadhat LT, Tiersten A, Esteva F, O'Regan R, Jain S, Mayer I, Forero A, Crew KD, Hershman DL, Kalinsky KM. A randomized phase II trial of fulvestrant with or without ribociclib after progression on aromatase inhibition plus cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibition in patients with unresectable or metastatic hormone receptor positive, HER2 negative breast cancer [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2016 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2016 Dec 6-10; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2017;77(4 Suppl):Abstract nr OT2-01-19.

Abstract P5-13-14: Factors associated with multidisciplinary care in the management of early stage breast cancer

Introduction: In patients with early stage breast cancer (BC) treated with curative intent, multidisciplinary teams (MDT) have emerged as a way to involve a wide range of specialists and encourage effective communication to formulate an optimal treatment strategy for patients. We sought to evaluate the frequency and predictors of MDT evaluation in patients with BC.

Methods: We used the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare linked dataset to evaluate patients diagnosed with stages I and II breast cancer who underwent primary surgery from 2002-2007 and were followed through 2012. We evaluated claims for outpatient visits and characterized the treating physician as a surgeon, radiation oncologist (RO) or medical oncologist (MO). We defined MDT as having seen a physician in each of the three specialties within 12 months of diagnosis. We used multivariable logistic regression to evaluate factors associated with MDT.

Results: A total of 35,484 stage I and II breast cancer patients were included in the analysis. Within the first year, 77.5% visited a medical oncologist, 57.8% visited a radiation oncologist, and 47% of women were seen by all 3 specialists. Prior to surgery, 4.9% of patients were seen by all 3 physicians, with 14.8% seen by a MO and 16.4% seen by a RO in addition to the surgeon. Evaluation by a MDT was more frequent in women who had a lumpectomy vs mastectomy (57.1% vs 28.4%, p&lt;0.0001), Caucasian race as opposed to black and Hispanic (47.4% vs 42.1% vs 37.4%, p&lt;0.0001), those that lived in an urban setting versus rural (48.1% vs 36.25%, p&lt;0.0001), and those that were married versus unmarried (50.8% vs 43.1%, p&lt;0.0001). As age increased, the number of patients who saw all three physicians decreased. As socioeconomic status improved, more patients saw all three physicians. In a multivariate model, evaluation by a MDT was higher in patients with Stage II disease (OR [95% CI] = 1.10 [1.04-1.18]), diagnosed in 2006-2007 (as compared to 2002-2005) (OR = 1.73 [1.63-1.85]), and those who received chemotherapy (OR = 1.51 [1.39-1.64]) and was less likely for older women (OR = 0.77 [0.71-0.84]), those who underwent mastectomy (OR = 0.73 [0.68-0.78]), and those in the lowest socioeconomic quintile (OR = 0.88 [0.80-0.97]). Of those seen by all 3 physicians in the first year, 20.4%, 10.1%, 6.1%, and 3.9% were seen by all 3 specialists in years 2, 3, 4 and 5 respectively. Only 2.2% of patients saw all three specialists all five years.

Conclusions: Early stage breast cancer patients are evaluated by a medical oncologist, surgeon and radiation oncologist less than 50% of the time in the first year after diagnosis. Prior to surgery, where decision making may be most important, only 5% of patients were evaluated by all three specialties. Further research is needed to determine if MDT improves quality of care delivered, treatment adherence, patient satisfaction or breast cancer survival.

Citation Format: Quyyumi F, Accordino MK, Buono DL, Neugut AI, Hillyer GC, Wright JD, Hershman DL. Factors associated with multidisciplinary care in the management of early stage breast cancer [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2016 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2016 Dec 6-10; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2017;77(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P5-13-14.

Abstract P5-08-03: Predictors of aggressive end-of-life care in women metastatic breast cancer

Background: Despite recommendations against aggressive end-of-life (EOL) care, a high percentage of patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC) receive aggressive EOL care. MBC is a heterogeneous disease with a wide variation in survival. EOL care may differ by the patients' long-term course of care. We performed a population-based analysis to evaluate patterns and predictors of aggressive EOL care and associated costs among women with MBC.

Methods: The Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare database was used to identify female patients with MBC diagnosed between 2002 and 2011. Aggressive EOL care in the last month of life was identified using claims data. Specifically: ≥2 emergency department (ED) visits, ≥2 hospital admissions, &gt;14 days hospitalized, admission to the intensive care unit (ICU), admission to hospice within 3 days or less before death, and receipt of intravenous (IV) chemotherapy in the last 14 days of life were evaluated. Direct healthcare costs in the last month of life were calculated from Medicare claims. Patients were categorized into prognosis quartiles based on survival time from diagnosis. Multivariable analysis was performed to identify patient characteristics associated with aggressive EOL care and characteristics associated with high direct healthcare expenditures in last month of life in women with hormone-receptor (HR)+ and HR- MBC. High expenditures were defined as median costs &gt;75th percentile. Factors associated with high expenditures were evaluated using linear regression.

Results: We identified 5,064 eligible patients. Of these, 2,156 (42.6%) received at least one measure of aggressive EOL care in the last month of life. The most frequent aggressive EOL care received in the last month of life were ICU admissions (17.3%) and &gt;1 ED visits (14.1%). Median cost of care in the last month of life was $7,973. Predictors of aggressive EOL care included year of diagnosis (OR 1.04, 95% CI 1.02-1.06), black race as compared to whites (OR 1.50, 95% CI 1.25-1.79), being married compared to single (OR 1.15, 95% CI 1.01-1.32), and a Charlson comorbidity score of ≥2 compared to no comorbidities (OR 1.52, 95%CI 1.32-1.75). Predictors of not receiving aggressive EOL care included age &gt;74 compared to ages 70-74, receiving care in the Midwest compared to the East (OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.70-0.96), and best prognosis compared to worst prognosis (OR 0.46, 95% CI 0.39-0.55). Predictors of high last month of life expenditures were similar in both the HR+ and HR- subsets; receipt of more aggressive EOL care was also associated with higher expenditures in both HR subsets (OR 5.02, 95% CI 3.88-6.49; OR 5.43, 95% CI 3.41-8.65, respectively). Median last month of life expenditures were unchanged from 2002-2012 for the whole population ($7,658 to $5,910, p=0.93), but rose significantly in patients in the worst prognosis quartile ($9,236 to $16,926, p&lt;0.0001)

Conclusion: Patients with MBC frequently received aggressive EOL care. Women with poor prognosis were more likely to receive aggressive EOL care and have higher expenditures in the last month of life. Given the rising costs of cancer care, efforts should be made to identify patients early for EOL interventions to reduce costs, particularly in women with a poor prognosis.

Citation Format: Accordino MK, Wright JD, Vasan S, Neugut AI, Hillyer GC, Hershman DL. Predictors of aggressive end-of-life care in women metastatic breast cancer [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2016 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2016 Dec 6-10; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2017;77(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P5-08-03.

Factors associated with neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist use among commercially insured cancer patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy

24

Background: Neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists (NK1RA) reduce chemotherapy-induced nausea/vomiting (CINV) among patients undergoing highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC). We evaluated factors associated with the use of NK1RA in patients treated with HEC. Methods: We performed a retrospective cohort study using Truven Health Marketscan to identify subjects who initiated HEC (doxorubicin or cisplatin) between 2009 and 2013, and concurrently received a NK1RA. Multivariable logistic regression was used, to determine the association of clinical and demographic factors and NK1RA use. Results: Of 32,004 subjects with cancer who were treated with either doxorubicin or cisplatin-containing regimens, 11,325 (33.3%) did not receive an NK1RA. From 2009 to 2013, NK1RA use increased from 53.2% to 73.5% (p < 0.0001). Compared to non-users, NK1RA users were more frequently treated with cisplatin-based regimens (67.9% vs. 32.1%, p < 0.0001), had in-network claims (66.7% vs. 33.3%, p < 0.0001), were younger, and without other comorbidities. Multivariate analysis demonstrated that NK1RA use was more likely with cisplatin compared to doxorubicin (OR = 1.71, 95% CI 1.62-1.81) and with female compared to male patients (OR = 1.75, 95% CI 1.65-1.84). In-network claims (OR 1.26, 95% CI 1.16-1.36) and comprehensive benefit plans (OR = 1.14, 95% CI 1.04-1.25) were associated with increased NK1RA use, compared to out-of network claims and preferred provider organizations (PPO), respectively. Age ≥ 65 years (OR = 0.64, 95% CI 0.5-0.69) and increased comorbidities (comorbidity score of 1: OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.83-0.94; score of 2- OR 0.61, 95% CI 0.56-0.67) versus a score of 0 were associated with decreased NK1RA use. Conclusions: A substantial proportion of patients receiving HEC do not receive NK1RA, and type of insurance coverage was associated with receipt.

Understanding efficiency of chemotherapy delivery for planned chemotherapy admission at Columbia University Medical Center

206

Background: Delays in administration of planned in-patient chemotherapy can lead to prolonged length of stay (LOS), resulting in increased cost and risk of nosocomial infections and other complications. Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis of cancer patients admitted to Columbia University Medical Center, a tertiary care center, for planned chemotherapy from January 1, 2014 through December 31, 2014. Eligible patients were identified as cancer patients (via ICD9 codes) who were admitted directly to the inpatient hematology/oncology service with intravenous chemotherapy orders submitted within 24 hours of the admission. Patients were excluded if they received oral, non-formulary, intrathecal, or high dose methotrexate therapy. For each admission, the duration of time from admission to infusion start time was recorded. We evaluated patients who were admitted to the Intensive care unit (ICU) separately. Chart review and provider interviews were conducted on a subset of patients. Results: Over 12 months, 314 unique hospital admissions involving 162 patients were included in the analysis. The median time from admission to chemotherapy infusion start was 15.8 hours (mean 31.5, IQR 3.1-41.0 hours). Of the 314 unique admissions, 299 (95.2%) did not require ICU involvement during their hospitalization. Of these patients, median admission to chemotherapy infusion start time was 15.5 hours (mean 29.9, IQR 2.9-38.9 hours). Chart review and provider interview were conducted for 22 patient admissions. In this subset, median time from admission to chemotherapy start was 13.6 hours. Top reasons for delays were: order modifications for lab abnormalities, lack of chemotherapy consent, and delay in chemotherapy delivery to inpatient units. Conclusions: In cancer patients admitted for planned chemotherapy we found a significant delay between hospital admission and infusion start time. Inefficiencies in this process are likely multifactorial on the patient, provider, and systems level, however our data suggests that they may be modifiable. Interventions devoted to reducing the time may decrease LOS, reduce cost, improve patient satisfaction, and reduce risk of complications.

Abstract P1-07-21: Use of serum tumor markers and high cost imaging in women with metastatic breast cancer

Background: Despite data on the sensitivity and specificity of serum tumor marker (STM) tests, there is no evidence to suggest that early changes in therapy related to rising tumor markers have an effect on survival. In fact, the limited data suggests no benefit to early change in therapy. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network recommends monitoring cancer burden in women with metastatic breast cancer (MBC) undergoing therapy; however, they do not provide specific recommendations regarding optimal frequency of STMs or of tumor imaging. We performed a population based analysis to evaluate serum tumor marker usage in patients with hormone sensitive MBC.

Methods: The Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare database was used to identify female patients with hormone receptor positive MBC diagnosed between 2002 and 2011. For each patient, the dates of STMs (CEA and/or CA 15-3/CA 27.29) were recorded; if either or both CEA and CA 15-3/CA 27.29 were ordered on the same day they were counted as one test. We categorized regular STM use as the percentage of patients who had &gt;4 tests in any year, amounting to tests less than 3 months apart; and very frequent STM use as the percentage of patients who had &gt;12 tests in a year, amounting to tests less than 4 weeks apart. Multivariable analysis was performed to further examine patient characteristics associated with frequent STM use. Odds ratios were calculated comparing positron emission tomography (PET) scan use versus computed tomography (CT) use in women with frequent STM testing.

Results: We identified 3,251 eligible patients. Of these, 2,034 (62.6%) had ≥1 STM test in a given year. On average, patients who underwent STM testing were tested 4 times per year (SD 2.9) for an average of 3 years (SD 2.0). Over half of patients with STM testing had regular testing; 1,065 (52.2%) had STM less than every 3 months, 498 (24.5%) less than every 6 weeks, and 146 (7.2%) less than every 4 weeks apart in any given year. Regular STM evaluation was associated with younger age (65-74 vs 75-84) (OR 1.51, 95% CI 1.25-1.83), later year of diagnosis (OR 1.3, 95% CI 1.04-1.69), and high socioeconomic status compared to low socioeconomic status (OR 1.37, 95% CI 1.08-1.73). Similar factors were associated with very frequent STM use (&gt;12 tests/year). Use of PET scan for tumor imaging compared to CT scan use was higher in women with regular STM evaluation (OR=1.97, 95% CI 1.65-2.35) and in women with very frequent STM evaluation (OR=3.77, 95% CI 2.51-5.66).

Conclusion: Regular use of STMs is common in women with hormone receptor positive MBC. Women who had very frequent STMs were almost 4 times more likely to have expensive tumor imaging. Given the rising costs of cancer care, and the increasing survival time in women with metastatic breast cancer, efforts should be made to determine the optimal timing and modality for evaluating response to treatment.

Citation Format: Accordino MK, Wright JD, Vasan S, Neugut AI, Hu JC, Hershman DL. Use of serum tumor markers and high cost imaging in women with metastatic breast cancer. [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the Thirty-Eighth Annual CTRC-AACR San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium: 2015 Dec 8-12; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2016;76(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P1-07-21.