Search

Window of opportunity trials (WOT) are increasingly common in oncology research. In WOT participants receive a drug between diagnosis and anti-cancer treatment, usually for the purpose of investigating that drugs effect on cancer biology. This qualitative study aimed to understand patient perspectives on WOT.We recruited adults diagnosed with early-stage breast cancer awaiting definitive therapy at a single-academic medical center to participate in semi-structured interviews. Thematic and content analyses were performed to identify attitudes and factors that would influence decisions about WOT participation.We interviewed 25 women diagnosed with early-stage breast cancer. The most common positive attitudes toward trial participation were a desire to contribute to research and a hope for personal benefit, while the most common concerns were the potential for side effects and how they might impact fitness for planned treatment. Participants indicated family would be an important normative factor in decision-making and, during the COVID-19 pandemic, deemed the absence of family members during clinic visits a barrier to enrollment. Factors that could hinder participation included delay in standard treatment and the requirement for additional visits or procedures. Ultimately, most interviewees stated they would participate in a WOT if offered (N = 17/25).In this qualitative study, interviewees weighed altruism and hypothetical personal benefit against the possibility of side effect from a WOT. In-person family presence during trial discussion, challenging during COVID-19, was important for many. Our results may inform trial design and communication approaches in future window of opportunity efforts.

524 Background: The immune-responsive nature of bladder cancer has made it an active area of interest for novel applications of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), with multiple ICI agents approved in the metastatic setting and ongoing perioperative trials. Variant histology urothelial carcinoma is a rare, heterogenous, and aggressive disease category associated with poor prognosis and response to standard therapies. This investigator-initiated phase 2 trial explored the addition of durvalumab to neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) in the setting of variant histology MIBC. Methods: Patients with cT2-T4a, N0-N1, M0 histologically-confirmed bladder cancer of variant histology who were candidates for platinum-based NAC and radical cystectomy were eligible for the study. Enrolled patients received durvalumab with each cycle of investigator’s choice of platinum NAC (ddMVAC, cisplatin/gemcitabine, or carboplatin/gemcitabine). The primary objective was to determine the safety and tolerability of each study treatment as assessed by the total number of adverse events of grade 3 or higher, judged by the investigator as probably or definitely related to durvalumab. Secondary objective was to determine the percent of subjects post neoadjuvant chemo immunotherapy who achieve tumor stage of pT2N0M0 or better at cystectomy. Target accrual was 24 patients. Results: Six patients were enrolled (the study closed early due to low accrual). Median age was 72 years, 17% were women, 67% were white, 33% were Asian. 50% received ddMVAC and 50% received carboplatin/gemcitabine. All patients completed the planned cycles of NAC and durvalumab (4 cycles) and 5/6 proceeded to radical cystectomy (one patient declined cystectomy). Three patients experienced a Grade 3 AE that was assessed by the investigator to be related to treatment (table). One patient with sarcomatoid and glandular histology had pathological complete response and one patient with papillary and 10% squamous had pT2N0 at cystectomy. Conclusions: The addition of durvalumab to platinum NAC for patients with variant-histology muscle invasive bladder cancer demonstrates a reasonable safety and tolerability profile. Further investigation into this combination is warranted in larger scale trials. Clinical trial information: NCT03912818 . [Table: see text]

Earlier studies on the cost of muscle-invasive bladder cancer treatments are limited to short-term costs of care. We determined the 2- and 5-year costs associated with trimodal therapy (TMT) vs. radical cystectomy (RC).We performed a retrospective cohort study using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare database. Total Medicare costs at 2 and 5 years following RC vs. TMT were compared using inverse probability of treatment-weighted propensity score models.A total of 2,537 patients aged 66 to 85 years were diagnosed with clinical stage T2-4a muscle-invasive bladder cancer. Total median costs for patients that received no definitive treatment(s) were $73,780 and $88,275 at 2-and 5-years. Costs were significantly higher for TMT than RC at 2-years ($372,839 vs. $191,363, Median Difference $127,815, Hodges-Lehmann Estimate (H-L) 95% Confidence Interval (CI), $112,663-$142,966) and 5-years ($424,570 vs. $253,651, Median Difference $124,466, H-L 95% CI, $105,711-$143,221). TMT had higher outpatient costs than RC (2-years: $318,221 vs. $100,900; 5-years: $367,092 vs. $146,561) with significantly higher costs with radiology, medications, pathology/laboratory, and other professional services. RC had higher inpatient costs than TMT (2-years: $62,240 vs. $33,631, Median Difference $-29,174, H-L 95% CI, $-32,364-$-25,984; 5-years: $75,499 vs. $45,223, Median Difference $-29,843, H-L 95% CI, $-33,905-$-25,781).The excess spending associated with trimodal therapy vs. radical cystectomy was largely driven by outpatient expenditures. The relatively high long-term trimodal therapy costs are prime targets for cost containment strategies to optimize future value-based care.