Search

PURPOSE: Race and ethnicity have been shown to affect quality of cancer care, and patients with low English proficiency (LEP) have increased risk for serious adverse events. We sought to assess the impact of primary language on health care engagement as indicated by clinical trial screening and engagement, use of genetic counseling, and communication via an electronic patient portal. METHODS: Clinical and demographic data on patients with breast cancer diagnosed and treated from 2013 to 2018 within the Stanford University Health Care system were compiled via linkage of electronic health records, an internal clinical trial database, and the California Cancer Registry. Logistic and linear regression models were used to evaluate for association of clinical trial engagement and patient portal message rates with primary language group. RESULTS: Patients with LEP had significantly lower rates of clinical trial engagement compared with their English-speaking counterparts (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 0.29; 95% CI, 0.16 to 0.51). Use of genetic counseling was similar between language groups. Rates of patient portal messaging did not differ between English-speaking and LEP groups on multivariable analysis; however, patients with LEP were less likely to have a portal account (adjusted OR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.83 to 0.96). Among LEP subgroups, Spanish speakers were significantly less likely to engage with the patient portal compared with English speakers (estimated difference in monthly rate: OR, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.24 to 0.77). CONCLUSION: We found that patients with LEP had lower rates of clinical trial engagement and odds of electronic patient portal enrollment. Interventions designed to overcome language and cultural barriers are essential to optimize the experience of patients with LEP.

10607 Background: Young women with breast cancer who carry germline genetic pathogenic variants predisposing to breast and other cancers, including BRCA1 or BRCA2, may face unique challenges when making fertility decisions. Limited data exist on differences in fertility preferences, concerns, and preservation strategies between carriers and non-carriers. Methods: Participants in the Young Women’s Breast Cancer Study, a prospective cohort of women diagnosed with breast cancer at ≤ 40 yrs, who completed a baseline survey with a modified Fertility Issues Survey were included in this analysis. Genetic variant status was determined by medical record review complemented by survey self-report. We excluded carriers whose test date was after baseline survey completion or unknown. Fisher exact and Wilcoxon signed-rank tests were used to compare categorical and continuous variables, respectively, between carriers and non-carriers. Results: Of 1052 eligible women, 118 (11%) tested positive for a pathogenic variant (59% BRCA1, 32% BRCA2, 4% TP53, and 5% other unique pathogenic mutations) and 934 (89%) tested negative or were not tested. Carriers’ median age was 36 yrs (range 23-40) vs 37 (range 17-40, p = 0.01) in non-carriers. Similar proportions (p = 0.67) of carriers (38%, [45/118]) and non-carriers (37%, [343/934]) desired more biologic children before diagnosis. Desire declined after diagnosis similarly in both groups (carriers, 25% [29/118] vs non-carriers, 26% [242/934], p = 0.46). Among these women (n = 271), concern about passing on cancer risk to offspring was common and, although numerically higher among carriers, this difference was not statistically significant (carriers, 55% [16/29] vs non-carriers, 40% [96/242], p = 0.12). In contrast, among those not interested in or unsure about future fertility (n = 738), concern about cancer risk heritability was infrequently reported as affecting fertility decisions (carriers, 11% [9/83] vs non-carriers, 9% [56/655], p = 0.54). The same proportions (p = 0.89) of carriers (36% [43/118]) and non-carriers (36% [339/934]) were somewhat or very concerned about becoming infertile after cancer treatment, and fertility preservation strategy utilization was similar between groups (carriers, 11% [13/118] vs non-carriers, 12% [111/934], p = 0.21). Conclusions: Young women with breast cancer who carry germline pathogenic variants are similarly concerned about future fertility and as likely to pursue fertility preservation as non-carriers. Concern about cancer risk heritability was common among both carriers and non-carriers desiring future fertility, suggesting a gap between perceived and actual risk. Genetic counseling should be included in fertility discussions for all young women with breast cancer, with tailored, risk-mitigating recommendations for those who carry genetic variants.

6517 Background: Disparities in the quality of diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer in sex and gender minority (SGM) populations are largely undefined. Only 24% of studies funded by the National Cancer Institute capture data on sexual orientation, while only 10% capture data on gender identity. To address this gap, the National Academies 2020 Report calls for adding sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI) to ongoing data collection efforts. This case-control study matching SGM patients with breast cancer to cisgender heterosexual controls is the result of linking SOGI data to the Stanford University Healthcare (SHC) Oncoshare breast cancer database, which integrates data from the electronic medical record (EMR) and California Cancer Registry. Methods: An initial database query across the SHC EMR was performed for charts containing SOGI terms in patients with breast cancer seen in SHC Oncology. 686 charts were identified for manual review and after eliminating false positives, the sample was reduced to 92 SGM patients, who were then matched by year of diagnosis, age, stage, ER-status, and HER-2 status to cisgender heterosexual controls within Oncoshare. Additional data on demographics, diagnosis, treatment, and relapse were then manually abstracted from the EMR. Results: The SGM cohort was comprised of 80% lesbians, 13% bisexuals and 6% transgender men. The median age at diagnosis across both groups was 49. SGM patients were 72% white, 4% Asian, 12% Black or Latinx 6% other compared to 63% white, 24% Asian, 6% Black or Latinx, 6% other in the controls (p = 0.0006). Thirteen percent and 32% of SGM patients engaged in risky alcohol and illicit drug use respectively, compared to 3% and 6% of controls (p = 0.028; p < 0.0001). Estrogen exposure risk factors including median age of menarche, first delivery, menopause, and use of exogenous estrogens were balanced between the two groups, but SGM patients had fewer children (median 0 vs 2, p < 0.0001). There was a delay in time to diagnosis from symptom onset in SGM patients versus controls (median 64 days vs 37 days, p = 0.043). There was no difference in surgical approach, use of post-lumpectomy radiation, or use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy for stage III disease. However, SGM patients were less likely to undergo chest reconstruction (55% vs 82%, p = 0.0098) and if ER+, to complete ≥5 years of ER-directed therapy (53% vs 72%, p = 0.048). SGM patients used more alternative medicine (46% vs 29%, p = 0.033) and had a higher rate of documented refusal of recommended oncologic treatments (38% vs 21%, p = 0.0088). Correspondingly, SGM patients experienced a higher recurrence rate (31% vs 14%, p = 0.0124). Conclusions: To our knowledge, this is the first study to examine quality of diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer in SGM patients. Several novel potential healthcare disparities are identified, which should be further evaluated in population-based studies to inform interventions.

524 Background: OFS is an important treatment component for premenopausal women with early and advanced HR+ BC and optimal efficacy may depend on complete E2 suppression with GnRHa, especially when combined with aromatase inhibitors (AI). However, standard assays lack sensitivity and accuracy at very low E2 concentrations, rendering detection of breakthrough ovarian function challenging. More informative data regarding endocrine effects of GnRHa are needed, particularly in young women who derive the most benefit from OFS yet more frequently had breakthrough E2 levels in the SOFT trial substudy, SOFT-EST. Methods: Using a prospective cohort study of women with BC diagnosed at age ≤ 40 years, we identified participants with stage I-IV HR+ BC on OFS treatment with leuprolide, goserelin or triptorelin and blood collected 1 year after diagnosis. Clinical data were obtained through surveys and medical records. Plasma estrogens were measured by liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry, with a limit of detection of 0.2 pg/mL compared to 10 pg/mL with standard assays. We assessed the proportion of women on OFS with E2 > 2.72 pg/mL (10 pmol/L) and > 10 pg/mL. Patient characteristics, estrone (E1) and FSH levels, and disease-free (DFS) and overall survival (OS) were compared between those with and without elevated E2 using Fischer’s exact, Wilcoxon rank sum and log rank tests, respectively. Results: Of 84 patients who met inclusion criteria, 72 (86%) had stage I-III and 12 (14%) had stage IV BC; 25 were on OFS plus AI and 59 were on OFS plus tamoxifen (TAM). Median E2 was 3.1 pg/mL (range 0.2-30.9). 46 patients (55%) had E2 > 2.72 pg/mL, including 8 on AI and 38 on TAM; 4 (5%) had E2 > 10 pg/mL, including 1 on AI and 3 on TAM. Factors associated with E2 > 2.72 pg/mL were no prior chemotherapy, TAM and high E1 ( P ≤.05), but not age, BMI or GnRHa schedule (Table). After a median follow-up of 7 years, DFS events were seen in 6 patients with E2 > 2.72 pg/mL and 5 without ( P =.232); OS events were seen in 7 patients with E2 > 2.72 pg/mL and 5 without ( P =.608). Conclusions: More than half of young women with ER+ BC had E2 > 2.72 pg/mL on OFS, 91% of whom would not have been detected by standard assays. This may be an area amenable to intervention to improve outcomes in young women. However, larger studies are needed to elucidate the optimal E2 target on OFS and clinical implications of incomplete E2 suppression on ultrasensitive assays. [Table: see text]

Online communities are virtual spaces dedicated to hosting conversations between individuals with a common interest. Information can be shared and obtained incrementally, as users can periodically post both questions and responses to other users’ questions. Although online communities have been used frequently by patients for a myriad of health issues, much remains to be learned about these resources. In this commentary, we explore the emerging role of online communities as forums for information exchange and sources of support for patients with cancer and caregivers. We discuss selected examples of online communities launched by research institutions, advocacy groups, philanthropic organizations, start-ups, and novel enterprises featuring collaborations between industry, health care professionals, and advocates. We explore the risks and benefits of online communities as perceived by oncology clinicians and provide practical recommendations for improving communication between clinicians and patients about the use of online resources.

Caring for patients with cancer is a great privilege as well as an emotionally and intellectually challenging task. Stress and burnout are prevalent among oncology clinicians, with serious repercussions for the care of patients. Professional societies must provide guidance for trainees and practicing physicians to mitigate the negative consequences of stress on their personal lives and medical practice. Reflection, reading, and writing about personal experiences provide outlets for fortifying personal reserves and promoting resilience to allow us to recognize the joy and meaning of our work and to forge connections with our peers. Herein, we present some of our own reflections on how and why one might take time to write, and about the power of the written word in oncology and medicine.

10050 Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has affected oncology practice in a variety of ways. We sought to evaluate the impact on pediatric oncology parent and young adult (YA) patient experiences, concerns, and perceived stress. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional Internet-based survey of parents and YA patients in the pediatric oncology and survivorship clinics at Stanford between June-December 2020. Patients were recruited in person by clinic staff or through the electronic patient health portal. Surveys (available in English and Spanish) included the NIH Perceived Stress Scale (PSS-10) and investigator-developed questions evaluating clinical practice changes, concerns about health and cancer care, and pandemic-related challenges. Bivariate analyses evaluated associations between demographic, clinical, and pandemic-related factors and (a) concern about the pandemic affecting health and cancer care, and (b) perceived stress. Results: Among 81 participants (66 parents, mean age 41.6 ± SD 9.6; 15 YAs, mean age 21.9 ± 8.4 years), 37% self-identified as Hispanic/Latino, 36% non-Hispanic white, and 21% Asian. Twenty-eight percent were on treatment and 47% had completed treatment (79% < 5 years prior). Thirty percent reported cancer-related appointment changes, largely rescheduling (75%) and/or switching to telehealth (42%). Nearly half (45%) of parents and 27% of YAs reported feeling ‘very’ or ‘extremely’ concerned about the pandemic affecting their child’s/their health or cancer care. Race/ethnicity emerged as the only demographic feature that was significantly associated with high concern (p = 0.018), with 57% of Hispanic/Latino and only 21% of non-Hispanic white respondents reporting high levels of concern. Specific concerns included fear of severe infection, immunosuppression, and whether infection would change treatment and compromise effectiveness. Parents and YAs reported ‘a lot’ or ‘a great deal’ of challenges in their personal/family life (61%) and work/professional life (48%). Among these were having less support from friends/family (35%), reduced wages/work hours (31%), and job loss (20%) with 20% reporting ≥ 3 challenges. On the PSS-10, stress in the past month was high for parents (mean 30 ± 4) and YAs (mean 31 ± 5.1) on a scale of 0-40. Risk factors for higher stress included: male gender (p = 0.028), less support from family/friends (p = 0.002), and experiencing ≥ 3 pandemic-related challenges (p = 0.013). Conclusions: Our findings confirm the prevalent worry and stress that pediatric oncology patients and families are experiencing during the COVID-19 pandemic. Better communication about cancer care service changes may help to alleviate some concerns. Supportive care resources may also help patients and families cope with psychosocial stressors, particularly among at-risk groups.

e13519 Background: Transitions from pediatric to adult care settings are challenging for adults with a history of complex childhood illness such as cancer. We developed a new clinical model to support young adult survivors of leukemia and bone marrow transplant (BMT) with transitioning from pediatric to adult focused survivorship care. Methods: We established the GREAT (Getting Regular Evaluations After Treatment) survivorship clinic as a collaboration between the adolescent/young adult (AYA) cancer program, pediatric oncologists, and specialists in adult hematologic malignancies. New patient appointments consist of two back-to-back visits: (1) a medical survivorship visit with a pediatric oncologist and an oncologist who specializes in hematologic malignancies/BMT to review the treatment history, medical issues, risk of late effects, and surveillance recommendations, and (2) an AYA-focused visit with a nurse practitioner to review fertility, education/career, and psychosocial concerns. Patients receive a treatment summary through the Passport for Care, based on pediatric survivorship guidelines. The clinic team then communicates with the patient’s primary care provider (PCP) or assists the patient with finding a PCP. Results: Since August 2020, we have seen 17 patients (12 telehealth, 5 in-person, 53% male, 47% non-Hispanic white, 41% Hispanic/Latino, 12% Asian). The median age at clinic visit was 28 years (range 24-39) and median time since treatment was 15 years (range 1-29). Patients were referred through the AYA cancer program: 8 had been regularly followed in the pediatric survivorship clinic, 2 had not been seen in pediatric oncology/survivorship for many years, 3 were treated as children but most recently seen by adult oncologists, and 4 were treated by adult oncologists and referred for AYA-specific survivorship care. Twelve (71%) patients had a PCP they see regularly, while 2 did not have a PCP and 3 were not sure. Communication with PCPs consisted of faxing the clinic note and calling the PCP’s office. All PCPs were receptive and expressed interest in receiving survivorship care recommendations; some preferred to order late effects surveillance imaging/labs, while others preferred the GREAT clinic team to do so, illustrating the value of two-way communication. Thirteen (76%) patients participated in post-clinic interviews. All stated they would recommend the clinic to others. Common themes from interviews included understanding more about their past treatment and having greater confidence managing their health. Conclusions: The model for facilitating care transitions was highly regarded by young adult cancer survivors and highlights opportunities for improving self-management and care coordination. Future directions include expanding to more cancer types, addressing barriers to primary care follow-up, and exploring shared care or co-management with PCPs.

1535 Background: The COVID-19 pandemic affected oncology practice in ways that are still evolving. In particular, COVID-19 has led to changes in cancer treatment for patients (pts) infected with COVID, which may have long-term implications for both COVID and cancer-related outcomes. In this retrospective analysis, we describe changes in cancer management over time for cancer pts diagnosed with COVID-19 at two academic institutions in Northern California. Methods: Adult and pediatric pts diagnosed with COVID-19 receiving active cancer management, defined as therapy/surgery/diagnostics within 3 weeks of COVID diagnosis, were identified through the EMR. Patients whose care was affected by COVID-19 were identified and analyzed for significant intra-group differences with regards to management type, treatment intent, and the time of COVID-19 diagnosis (“early” was defined as March to June 2020 and “late” as July 2020 to January 2021). The duration and characteristics of such changes were compared across subgroups. Chi-squared test was used to compare the incidence of delays between subgroups. Results: Among 134 COVID-positive pts on active cancer management, 83 (62%) had significant changes in management that consisted primarily of treatment delays. More delays were identified in patients treated with curative intent earlier in the course of the pandemic compared to later (OR 4.1, p=0.022). This difference was not seen among pts treated with palliative intent. In addition, pts on oral (PO) therapy were significantly less likely to have treatment changes than those on IV/IM therapy (OR 0.32, p=0.005). This difference was driven by a decrease in management changes for those on PO therapy in the later time period (OR 0.27, p=0.026). Pts diagnosed later were more likely to have delays due to clinical reasons rather than institutional policy (OR 6.2, P

1531 Background: Vaccines are a major step towards control of the COVID-19 pandemic. Estimates from multiple surveys of the general public indicate that 40 to 60% plan to be vaccinated, with some data suggesting that uptake differs by political leanings. The views of people with cancer on COVID-19 vaccination have not been reported. We report survey results of people with cancer, evaluating intent and attitudes toward COVID-19 vaccinations. Methods: An online survey included self-identified patients with cancer, ≥18 years old, in the Inspire Online Community (www.inspire.com). Invitation was restricted to only members of Inspire’s cancer support groups who agreed to be contacted for research. Quantitative data were summarized with descriptive statistics. Data were analyzed by chi-square, ANOVA, and post hoc Tamhane’ T2 testing. Results: 750 responded with the most common cancers represented being prostate (30%), thyroid (24%) ovarian (20%), bladder (8%) and breast (4%). 44% were between 46 and 65 years old and 48% were over 65. Of these, 38% reported being on active treatment. The majority were white (91%), female (56%) and had a bachelor’s degree or higher (72%). Respondents represented the South (38%), West (28%), Midwest (20%), and Northeast (18%). Nearly half of respondents lived in a suburb near a large city. Almost 40% reported an annual income of > $100,000 and 13% reported income < $50,000/year. The proportion that would “definitely” or “most probably” get the COVID-19 vaccine was 80%, with significantly greater interest in people with prostate (85%), bladder (82%) and ovarian cancer (81%). Those with breast cancer reported the highest levels of being uncertain (23%) and 30% of those with thyroid cancer reported they would “probably” or “definitely” not get vaccinated. Older age, male sex, and college graduates were significantly more likely to get vaccinated. Concerns about side effects were reported by 54%, with younger patients significantly more concerned than those 66 years and older. Of 158 participants who listed other reasons they would not get vaccinated, 23% were concerned that the research and development was rushed and 11% worried about how it might interact with a compromised immune system. Using the 2020 Electoral College map to indicate political leaning at the state level, there was no significant difference in vaccine uptake, although significantly more people from blue states agreed that vaccination was the best defense against COVID-19 compared to those from red states (67 vs 33%, p

e24108 Background: Clonal hematopoiesis of Indeterminate Potential (CHIP) is associated with adverse clinical outcomes including increased risk of hematologic malignancies and heart disease. Limited data suggest an increased prevalence of CHIP in patients treated for solid tumors, particularly after exposure to radiation and chemotherapy. CHIP testing may inform risk-reduction strategies for cancer survivors. Little is known about patient knowledge, attitudes, and preferences regarding CHIP testing. Methods: We surveyed survivors without history of recurrence participating in an ongoing prospective cohort study of young women with breast cancer (BC). The survey was sent by email and included an introduction to CHIP including risk factors and clinical associations. Respondents then reviewed a vignette and were asked about CHIP testing preferences (definitely/probably test vs. definitely/probably not test) considering sequentially: 1) population-based 10-year risk of BC recurrence, hematological malignancy and heart disease; 2) estimated increase in these risks with CHIP; 3) current CHIP management; 4) a dedicated CHIP clinic; and 5) a theoretical CHIP treatment. Changes in preferences from the prior scenario were evaluated with the McNemar's test using a type I error rate of 5%. Results: 528/642 (82.2%) eligible women responded to the survey, at a median age of 46 (range: 31-54) years (median time from diagnosis: 108 months (range: 60-168)), and 88% were white. Most had stage 1/2 BC (78.8%) and had received chemotherapy (73.1%) and/or radiation (61.9%). 93.6% had never heard of CHIP prior to survey. After initial patient vignette presentation, most women (87.1%,) recommended CHIP testing if offered. Preferences for testing decreased (p

12081 Background: Young women with breast cancer may be at increased risk for premature development of cardiovascular disease (CVD) in part due to their cancer treatment. Limited data are available on CVD risk among young breast cancer survivors. Methods: Women aged 30-40 years at diagnosis with stage 0-III breast cancer enrolled in a prospective cohort study of women diagnosed with breast cancer at ≤40 were eligible for inclusion in this analysis. Data were obtained from serial surveys and electronic medical records at breast cancer diagnosis and 5-year follow-up. We calculated “excess heart age,” which incorporates a CVD risk-based score (calculated using age, systolic blood pressure, blood pressure medication, diabetes, smoking, body mass index) to estimate the difference in years between an individual’s chronological age and their CVD-risk adjusted age. Multivariable logistic regression models (adjusting for age at diagnosis, stage, and race) were fitted to evaluate associations between treatment (radiation, endocrine therapy, anthracyclines, and trastuzumab) and having a change in excess heart age ≥2 years from baseline to 5 years. Results: Among 372 young breast cancer survivors, mean age at diagnosis was 36.6 (SD 2.89), 93% were white, and 79% were diagnosed with stage I or II breast cancer. Mean excess heart age was.32 (SD: 6.16) years at baseline, which declined to -.07 (SD 6.64) at 5-year follow-up (p=.17). At 5 years, 31% (n=114) of women experienced an increase of at least 2 years in their excess heart age since diagnosis, and their mean excess heart age was 4.34 years (range -9 to 30). In multivariable analyses, receipt of trastuzumab was associated with higher odds (OR: 1.68, 95% CI: 1.02-2.77) of experiencing an increase of ≥2 years in excess heart age between diagnosis and 5 years of follow-up. Endocrine therapy, anthracyclines, and radiation were not significantly associated with a change in excess heart age of ≥2 years at 5 years post-diagnosis. Conclusions: At 5 years post-diagnosis, approximately 1/3 of young breast cancer survivors experienced a change from baseline in their excess heart age of ≥2 years. Further research is warranted to confirm findings regarding trastuzumab and excess heart age, and potential effects on longer-term cardiac outcomes in this population. Extended follow-up of this cohort may further quantify CVD risk over time.[Table: see text]

e13611 Background: The COVID19 pandemic has had significant effects on cancer care, including disruptions or delays to screening, diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up for cancer patients as well as shifts from in-person visits to telemedicine to allow for continued access to care. Methods: We conducted semi-structured in-depth interviews with fifty radiation oncologists, medical oncologists, surgical oncologists, and cancer patients or their caregivers. These physicians and patients were recruited from four different hospitals in varying geographic regions and of varying practice settings. Interviews were conducted between October 2020 and May 2021. Interviews were transcribed, then thematically coded to consensus by three researchers. Results: The COVID19 pandemic shifted cancer care from in-person visits towards telemedicine. Providers recognized the necessity and benefit of telemedicine in increasing access to care, but were generally dissatisfied with use of telemedicine. These reasons included: (1) difficulty conducting physical exam maneuvers and assessing patient status; (2) technological failures, exacerbating barriers to care; (3) absence of “connection” with patients; (4) decreased access to interdisciplinary care teams. Patient perspectives on telemedicine were similarly varied, but were overall positive. Patients appreciated the convenience of accessing telemedicine at home, particularly for those who travel long distances or have difficulty traveling. Patients cited challenges similar to their physicians: technological difficulties and the loss of human connection usually conveyed through touch and physical presence. Conclusions: Telemedicine has been a key tool to allow for continued access to care and may continue to be a visit modality after the pandemic subsides. However, telemedicine poses numerous challenges for both physicians and patients and creative solutions to allow for “human connection” via telemedicine should be sought. Further evaluation is needed to determine the effect of telemedicine on quality of care.

573 Background: We previously proposed a 4R care delivery model which enables patients and care teams to manage timing and sequence of interdependent, time sensitive care with a novel multimodality 4R Care Sequence plan (NCI ASCO Teams Project; Trosman, JOP 2016). We report final results of a program which tested 4R at 10 US centers (4 academic and 6 non-academic) from 2016 to 2019. Methods: 4R Sequences were provided to stage 0-III breast cancer patients (4R cohort, N = 422) at participating centers. Analyses of clinical and patient-reported data compared the 4R cohort to a historical control cohort of patients who received care pre-4R at the same centers (N = 466). Results: We significantly improved 5 guideline recommended referral metrics and 4 referral completion metrics indicating receipt of care by patients who were referred (Table). Although significantly increased, referrals to dental visit and smoking cessation before treatment remained low (< 20% and < 10% respectively). Patient survey comments indicated that insufficient lead time to quit smoking or obtain fertility consult before cancer treatment was a key barrier for completing these referrals. Conclusions: 4R markedly improved referral and receipt of interdependent guideline recommended breast cancer care for most metrics. Future 4R program should optimize the timing of referrals within the 4R Care Sequence to allow sufficient time for smoking cessation and fertility care before treatment initiation. [Table: see text]

e14039 Background: We previously proposed a 4R care delivery model that facilitates teamwork and patient self-management (pSM) in cancer care (NCI ASCO Teams Project, Trosman JOP 2016). 4R (Right Info / Care / Patient / Time) enables patient and care team to manage complex care with an innovative 4R Care Sequence. We tested 4R at 10 US sites in a stepwise mode 2016-2019. Methods: Step 1 included 1 academic and 2 nonacademic sites; step 2 included 3 academic and 4 nonacademic sites. Patients with stage 0-III breast cancer received 4R Sequences (4R Cohort). We surveyed 4R and historical control cohorts of patients treated at the same sites pre-4R. We assessed the impact of implementation metrics on usefulness of 4R to the 4R cohort and on improvement of pSM in 4R cohort vs historical control cohort. Results: Survey response rates: 63%, 422/670 (4R cohort); 47%, 466/992 (control cohort). Three of the five implementation metrics significantly impacted patient usefulness of 4R (Table). Patients at step 2 sites; sites with a systematic care process; and sites with small practices reported significantly higher 4R usefulness than patients in the comparison subgroup within respective metrics. 4R usefulness was not affected by practice setting or availability of patient navigators. pSM was significantly improved between control and 4R cohorts along all implementation metrics (p < .001), but the magnitude of incremental improvement between comparison subgroups varied across metrics (Table), with the largest increment associated with the program step metric. Conclusions: 4R is useful to patients across settings, with or without patient navigators. Stepwise design is effective in increasing 4R impact overtime. Future 4R Program will investigate an expanded array of implementation metrics and their influence on 4R outcomes. [Table: see text]

e19211 Background: We previously proposed a 4R model of teamwork and patient self-management (pSM) in cancer care (NCI ASCO Teams Project, Trosman JOP 2016). 4R (Right Info / Care / Patient / Time) enables patient and care team to manage complex care with an innovative 4R Care Sequence plan, including a novel visual feature describing timing and sequence of care. We report final results of a program which tested 4R at 5 safety net and 5 non safety net US centers from 2016 to 2019. Methods: Patients with stage 0-III breast cancer received 4R plans (4R Cohort). We surveyed 4R cohort and a historical control cohort of patients receiving care at same centers pre-4R. We assessed the usefulness of 4R to the 4R cohort and the impact on pSM in 4R cohort compared to historical cohort. Results: Survey response rates: 63%, 422/670 (4R cohort); 47%, 466/992 (control). 4R significantly increased the composite pSM score and 5 of 7 pSM metrics vs control (Table). The increase was not influenced by patient age, stage or whether treated at safety net site. pSM scores increased in 4R vs control cohort to a similar extent for patients < 65 years old (74% vs 51%, p = .0001) as for patients ≥ 65 years old (78% vs 57%, p = .0002). pSM improved similarly for patients with stage 0 or I breast cancer (77% vs 56%, p = .0001) as for patients with stage II or III breast cancer (72% vs 54%, p = .0001). Safety net patients showed pSM increase (77% vs 51%, p = .0001) similar to non safety net patients (74% vs 58%, p = .0002). Within the 4R cohort, 80% found 4R useful for organizing care and 70% found the novel visual feature useful to manage care timing and sequence. Usefulness was similar for age groups and stages, but higher for safety net than non safety net patients (88% vs 74%, p = .0008). Conclusions: 4R markedly improved patient self-management in early breast cancer across age groups and cancer stages, but further enhancements are needed to benefit as many patients as possible. 4R benefits in safety net setting indicate that 4R may reduce disparities. [Table: see text]

e22527 Background: BCR-ABL tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) have revolutionized treatment of Philadelphia chromosome positive acute lymphoblastic leukemia (Ph+ALL) and chronic myeloid leukemia (CML). The off-target effects of long-term TKI use in children are poorly understood. We evaluated institutional screening practices for cardiac and endocrine late effects in those who had received TKIs at two large pediatric cancer centers. Methods: This retrospective cohort included patients diagnosed with Ph+ALL (post completion of frontline therapy) or CML at age < 21 years with ≥1 years of follow-up. Patients were censored at stem cell transplant, blast crisis, secondary neoplasm, death, or last contact. Demographics, clinical features, and incidence of screening echocardiogram (ECHO), electrocardiogram (EKG), dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA), bone age, and thyroid function (TSH) were abstracted. Descriptive statistics and incidence of screening are presented by diagnosis. Results: The cohort (n = 68) was 50% female, 28% non-Hispanic white, 24% non-Hispanic black, 24% Asian, and 19% Hispanic. CML: Patients were diagnosed at 12.9±4.6 years of age and had 6.3 (0.9-15.6) years of TKI exposure and 6.3 (0.9-15.6) years of follow-up. Imatinib was most commonly used (80%) followed by dasatinib (59%); 48% were exposed to > 1 TKI. Excluding tests at diagnosis, 48% had an ECHO and 48% had an EKG during the follow-up period. TSH, DXA and bone age were measured in 50%, 9% and 11% patients, respectively. Ph+ALL: Patients were diagnosed at 10.8±5.1 years of age and had 2.8 (0.6-11.6) years of TKI exposure and 5.7 (2.1-11.8) years of follow-up. Dasatinib was most commonly used (73%) followed by imatinib (64%); 36% were exposed to > 1 TKI. All received anthracyclines and steroids. Excluding tests at diagnosis, 91% had an ECHO and 77% had an EKG. TSH, DXA and bone age were measured in 82%, 68% and 36% patients, respectively. Conclusions: We note inconsistent cardiac and endocrine screening in patients receiving TKIs for CML and Ph+ALL. Evidence-based guidelines for long-term follow-up and structured monitoring for potential off-target effects are needed. A prospective screening study is in progress and may enhance our understanding of the prevalence of late effects of TKIs. [Table: see text]

e19075 Background: The National Cancer Institute (NCI) provides a template for cancer clinical trial consent forms and recommends a reading grade level of eight grade or lower for such forms. This recommendation aligns with the goal of making clinical trials accessible to more patients. Methods: We surveyed clinical trial leaders at a large tertiary academic cancer center, to provide consent forms for active or recently closed, interventional cancer clinical trials (as of 2019). We requested forms that were preferably from multi-center trials and those perceived to have the highest accruals. We received 26 consent forms representing nine disease groups. Results: The average Flesh-Kincaid reading grade level was 11.2 (reflecting a 11th grade reading level), and no single form met the 8th grade reading level mark. The grade levels were assessed with three additional readability analyses (SMOG, FORCAST, and Raygor, see Table). The average Flesch reading ease was 50.7, rated as “fairly difficult”, with a scale of 0-100 (100 =“very easy” to read). The general HIPAA consent followed similar patterns, with a reading level of 10.9 and a reading ease of 49.2. There was an average of 18-20 words used per sentence. The reading levels and ease did not significantly vary with disease group or phase of trial. Conclusions: The overall readability level of cancer clinical trial forms, at our center, still require at least at least a 10th grade reading level. These forms may be difficult to understand for those with lower English proficiency and/or health literacy. We recommend a basic readability screen of such forms, and use of shorter sentences and simplified writing structure, to aid in comprehension. Flesh-Kincaid: uses word and sentence length; SMOG: used particularly for health messaging; FORCAST: used for functional literacy (number of single syllable words); Raygor: uses number of sentences and letters per hundred words [Table: see text]

Purpose Most research regarding fertility in young women with breast cancer has focused on long-term survivors. Little is known about how fertility concerns affect treatment decisions or fertility preservation strategies at the time of initial cancer diagnosis. Patients and Methods As part of an ongoing prospective multicenter cohort study, we surveyed women with newly diagnosed early-stage breast cancer at age ≤ 40 years. The baseline survey included sociodemographic, medical, and treatment data as well as a modified Fertility Issues Survey, including fertility concern and preservation items. Univariable and multivariable modeling were used to investigate predictors of greater fertility concern. Results Among the first 620 eligible respondents included in this analysis, median age was 37 years (range, 17 to 40 years); 425 women (68%) discussed fertility issues with their physicians before starting therapy, and 319 (51%) were concerned about becoming infertile after treatment. Because of concerns about fertility, four women (1%) chose not to receive chemotherapy, 12 (2%) chose one chemotherapy regimen over another, six (1%) considered not receiving endocrine therapy, 19 (3%) decided not to receive endocrine therapy, and 71 (11%) considered receiving endocrine therapy for < 5 years; 65 (10%) used fertility preservation strategies. Greater concern about fertility was associated with younger age, nonwhite race, not having children, and receipt of chemotherapy. Conclusion Many young women with newly diagnosed breast cancer have concerns about fertility, and for some, these substantially affect their treatment decisions. Only a minority of women currently pursue available fertility preservation strategies in this setting.

147 Background: Symptom monitoring plays an important role in both the physical and psychological challenges of surviving cancer. Anecdotally, cancer survival is characterized by uncertainty, symptom-related fear, and the interpretation of normal bodily sensations as symptomatic of cancer recurrence. This fear may lead to over-vigilance of benign bodily sensations, increasing anxiety and decreasing quality of life. Yet, there are few studies investigating how cancer survivors interpret and make sense of post-cancer symptoms. These studies are needed to guide considerations for clinical practice and the development of supportive interventions. Methods: We conducted in-depth semi-structured interviews with 18 AYA cancer survivors about how they interpret, manage, and respond to physical symptoms during survivorship. Participants were 15-25 years old. The sample was diverse in terms of disease history, ethnicity (8 Hispanic), and gender (9 females, 1 nonbinary). We conducted thematic analysis using a deductive coding scheme that was developed using our Cancer Threat Interpretation (CTI) theoretical model of cognitive, affective, and behavioral processes in post-cancer symptom perception. Results: AYA cancer survivors reported experiencing anxiety in the face of common physical sensations. These sensations were often interpreted as potential signs of recurrence or as late effects of treatment. Survivors most commonly reported worries about pain and fatigue, but also other sensations such as breathlessness. We coded participant transcripts into the following themes: biased attending towards symptoms, biased interpretations of symptoms as threatening, fear and worry about symptoms, and behavioral response to symptoms. In addition, we generated a new theme that was not previously captured in the CTI model: trust in the body. Conclusions: Knowing how to appraise and respond to symptoms such as pain is a challenge for AYA cancer survivors. This rich qualitative data provides support for the CTI model and suggests future directions. The results of this study can inform how clinicians talk to their patients about symptom monitoring after treatment ends.

11620 Background: Cancer experiences are mediated by host and disease factors and affected by social and cultural determinants of health. We sought to characterize perceived supportive care needs and domains of psychosocial functioning among a diverse group of women attending routine appointments for treatment or follow-up of breast and gynecologic cancers. Methods: From July 2018 until January 2019, all patients seen at the Stanford Women’s Cancers Program (serving women treated for breast and gynecologic cancers) were approached to participate. 220 cancer patients (78% breast and 22% gynecologic), mean age 54 (SD = 12) completed an online survey on their supportive care needs assessment (The Short-form Supportive Care Needs Survey Questionnaire) which contains physical, social, information, sexual and psychological scales, anxiety and depression (Patient Health Questionnaire-4) and mindsets about illness and the body mindset (Brief Illness Mindset Inventory). Only 14% of patients refused to take part in the survey. Results: T-test showed that Asian/Asian-American cancer patients (n = 57, 26%) reported fewer needs related to coping with physical symptoms, side effects of treatment and performing usual tasks and activities compared to Caucasian patients (n = 137, 62%), p = .038. Moreover, Asian/Asian-American cancer patients reported fewer depression symptoms (p = .049). Chi-square analyses showed that Asian/Asian-American patients reported less use of psychotherapy over their lifetimes (24.6% vs. 54.0%, p < .001), but significantly higher utilization of Chinese Medicine for cancer symptom management (24.6% vs. 5.8%; p < . 001) compared to the Caucasian patients. T-tests showed that Asian/Asian American patients reported significantly greater agreement with the mindsets that ‘cancer is a catastrophe’ (p = .006) and that their ‘body is an adversary’ (p = .047). Conclusions: In this population of breast and gynecologic patients and survivors we found differences in cancer mindsets, coping and use of mental health and complementary therapies between Asian and Asian-American and Caucasian women. Further analysis to understand the cultural differences are ongoing.

e23160 Background: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have been met with a wave of excitement due to their novel mechanism. We hypothesized that this may impact how patients (via PROs) report treatment tolerability in comparison to traditional therapies. We sought to examine if there was a notable difference in PROs in blinded vs unblinded trials of ICIs. Methods: We systematically searched PubMed, CINAHL, Embase, Web of Science, and Scopus in August 2018 for publications with quantitative PRO data comparing ICIs to cytotoxic chemotherapy. Case series, narrative reviews, and publications lacking original data were excluded. Eligible publications were reviewed to assess if patients were blinded to the agent received, and a comparison for common PRO metrics was performed. Results: Of the 1,450 unique references identified, eight met inclusion criteria: 1 double blinded placebo-controlled trial and 7 trials where patients were aware of the assigned arm. The blinded trial had quantitative PRO data in the form of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) global health status (GHS) score and patient reported symptom burden at week 12. Most (6 of 7; 86%) unblinded trials reported the GHS at either week 12 or 15, and patient symptom burden at these time points as well (5 of 7; 71%). For the EORTC GHS, the blinded trial showed no inter-arm difference at week 12. 4 of 6 (67%) open label trials noted statistically significant differences in GHS favoring the ICI arm. For symptom burden at week 12 or 15, there was no difference found in the blinded study. In unblinded trials, there were domains where patients receiving ICIs reported a statistically significant lower symptom burden than those receiving chemotherapy: fatigue (4 of 5 trials favoring ICIs; 80%), dyspnea (2 of 5; 40%), insomnia (1 of 4; 25%), appetite loss (1 of 4; 25%), and diarrhea (1 of 5; 20%). There were no differences in pain (n = 5), nausea/vomit (n = 5), and constipation (n = 5). Conclusions: We found a trend towards more favorable reporting on common symptoms in unblinded studies of patients receiving ICIs. Our analysis is limited by the lack of available comparisons in the published literature.

554 Background: HER2+ breast cancer (BC) is particularly common in young women. Genomic features of HER2+ tumors before and after H-based therapy have not been described in a population of young women and may point to clinically targetable mechanisms of resistance. Methods: From a large prospective cohort of women diagnosed with BC age ≤40 years, we identified those with HER2+ BC and tumor tissue available for sequencing before and after chemo+H. Whole exome sequencing (WES) was performed on each tumor and on germline DNA from blood. Tumor-normal pairs were analyzed for mutations and copy number (CN) changes. Evolutionary analysis was performed for patients with both pre- and post-treatment (tx) samples. Results: 22 women had successful WES samples from at least one timepoint; 13 of these had paired sequencing results both before and after chemo+H. For the majority of women, post-tx sample was following neoadjuvant chemo + H, though post-tx timepoint for other women represented locoregional or distant metastasis (Table). TP53 was the only gene that was significantly recurrently mutated in both pre- and post-tx samples. Comparison of matched pre-tx and post-tx samples demonstrated that large changes in HER2 CN over the course of tx were uncommon, only 2/13 pts had > 2-fold change in HER2 CN. Other clonal and subclonal genomic alterations were found to be acquired in the post-tx sample compared to the pre-tx sample. One patient acquired a putative activating mutation in ERBB2. Another patient acquired a clonal hotpsot mutation in TP53. MYC gene amplification was observed in 4 post-tx tumors. NOTCH2 alterations were found in post-tx biopsies from 2 different patients, and mutations in STIL were also found in post-tx biopsies from 2 patients, though the function of these mutations is not known. Conclusions: HER2+ breast tumors in young women display genomic evolution following tx with chemo+H. HER2 CN changes are uncommon, but we identified several genes that warrant exploration as potential mechanisms of resistance to therapy in this population.[Table: see text]

6575 Background: Delays in diagnosis (dx) and treatment (tx) affect breast cancer (BC) outcomes. We sought to identify factors associated with delays among young women, who do not undergo routine screening and often have pregnancy or breastfeeding-related breast changes that may mask a BC. Methods: The Young Women’s Breast Cancer Study is a multicenter, prospective cohort that enrolled 1302 women with newly dx BC age ≤40 between 2006-2016. Women reported the method and timing of cancer detection on the baseline survey. 231 were ineligible or excluded due to missing information. Among those reporting self-detected cancers, using multivariable regression we evaluated factors associated with delays ≥90 days (d) from symptom to presentation (self delay) and presentation to dx (care delay); in stage 0-III BC we evaluated delays ≥60d from dx to tx (tx delay). Results: 1071 eligible women had median age at dx of 37 yrs (17-40) and 74% reported self-detected cancers. Self delay or care delay ≥90d was reported in 17% and 13%, respectively. Factors inversely associated with self delay included pregnancy at dx (vs nulliparous, OR 0.10, CI 0.01-0.78) and perceived financial comfort (vs not, OR 0.62, CI 0.41-0.93). Women dx ≤1 year post-partum who breastfed (vs nulliparous, OR 2.60, CI 1.14-5.93) and those with a family history of breast/ovarian cancer (vs none, OR 1.79, CI 1.00-3.19) were more likely to have a care delay. Age was inversely associated with care delays (OR 0.94, CI 0.89-0.99). Tx delay was reported by 10% (105/1015), and associated with being single (vs partnered, OR 1.61, CI 1.02-2.56 ), non-white (vs white, OR 1.85, CI 1.09-3.13) and having Stage 0 BC (vs stage 1, OR: 3.08, CI 1.65-5.77); women with stage 3 BC (vs stage 1, OR 0.13, CI 0.03-0.56) were less likely to have a tx delay. Conclusions: In this cohort, most young women with BC underwent timely dx and tx initiation. Women dx ≤1 year post-partum who breastfed were more likely to experience a care delay, likely because lactational changes may mask BC signs and symptoms. The associations of perceived financial status with self delay and non-white race with tx delay underscore the need for additional support to ensure timely care for underserved populations with the goal of eliminating disparities in outcomes.

11579 Background: PROs are increasingly used as a key tool in patient-focused treatment decisions. However, many cancer PROs were designed to capture the patient experience of those treated with chemotherapeutic agents. Less is known about the utility of PRO instruments in assessing symptoms from ICIs. Methods: We systematically searched the literature to identify peer-reviewed publications that reported PROs for patients receiving ICIs. We excluded case reports/series, narrative reviews, and publications without original data. We then selected the studies that compared ICIs to cytotoxic chemotherapy. Clinician-documented adverse events (AEs) occurring in at least 10% of patients in a study arm were extracted and examined for concordance with symptoms included in the PROs administered to study patients. Results: Of 1,450 identified studies, eight met criteria for inclusion. Seven assessed PROs with the European Organization for the Research and Treatment of Cancer Core Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30), six used the EuroQOL EQ-5D, and one used the Lung Cancer Symptom Scale (LCSS). Across the studies, fatigue, nausea, vomiting, appetite loss, diarrhea, constipation, pruritus, rash, and pyrexia were among the most common clinician-documented AEs. Of these AEs, six are directly correlated with questions on the PRO instruments, and three (pruritus, rash, and pyrexia) are not. AEs with corresponding PRO questions were more common in chemotherapy patients. Pruritus, rash, and pyrexia – AEs without corresponding PRO questions – were more common in patients treated with ICIs (see Table). Conclusions: Existing PRO instruments do not specifically query important symptoms associated with ICIs, underscoring the need to revise the instruments to more appropriately reflect the toxicity profiles of novel agents. [Table: see text]

11574 Background: Weight gain after cancer diagnosis is common in cancer survivors and has been linked to increased treatment toxicity, poor quality of life, and increased risk of second cancers and overall mortality. Young breast cancer (BC) survivors may be especially susceptible to weight changes given the impact of treatments such as chemotherapy and hormonal therapy on menopausal status. Methods: We identified women with Stage 0-III breast cancer diagnosed at ≤40 years (y) between 2006-2016 from a multi-center prospective cohort study. Clinical data including self-reported pre-diagnosis and follow-up weights were obtained using baseline and follow-up patient surveys. Participants missing baseline weight, pregnant at diagnosis/within 1y of diagnosis or with BC recurrence within 1y were excluded; those pregnant or with BC recurrence between 1-3y from diagnosis were excluded from the 3y analysis. Menopausal status at baseline and treatment-related amenorrhea (TRA) in follow-up were defined by self-reported last menstrual period. Factors associated with weight gain (>5%) were evaluated using univariate two-sided Fisher's exact test. Results: At baseline, 1y and 3y post diagnosis, 956, 899 and 687 women were eligible for analysis respectively. Median age at diagnosis was 37y (17 - 40), 65% received endocrine therapy and 74% chemotherapy. Premenopausal status was verified in 94% at baseline. Mean BMI at baseline was 24.4 (SD 5.3) kg/m2; 20% (187/956) were overweight and 12% (116/956) obese. At 1y and 3y, mean BMI increased modestly to 24.7 (SD 5.6) and 24.9 (SD 5.2), respectively with weight gain (>5%) observed in 18% (164/899) and 13% (87/687) respectively. 37% (300/804) and 32% (196/615) of eligible premenopausal subjects experienced TRA at 1y and 3y, respectively. Receipt of chemotherapy, receipt of endocrine therapy and TRA were not associated with weight gain at any timepoint. Conclusions: In this large prospective cohort of young BC survivors, mean BMI increased only modestly over time. Self-reported weight gain was not associated with treatment and not exacerbated by TRA. Further analysis to understand the effects of physical activity and other predictors of weight gain in this population are ongoing.

e18202 Background: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are increasingly valued as a key tool in patient-focused treatment decisions. However, a lack of standardization leads to significant variability in PRO collection and reporting in ground-breaking clinical trials of novel agents. We sought to characterize the mechanisms of assessment and variability by which PROs are reported for newly approved anti-cancer therapies. Methods: We reviewed the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approvals between 2011 and 2017 for anti-cancer new molecular entities (NMEs) and new biologic approvals (BLAs). For each therapy, the pivotal clinical trial leading to FDA approval was identified using the national clinical trial (NCT) number and assessed for inclusion of PROs. A separate PubMed search was conducted to evaluate for PRO publication distinct from the original trial based on national clinical trial registry number. Results: From 2011 to 2017, the FDA approved 66 NMEs/BLAs based on 74 clinical trials for cancer treatment. Of the 74 clinical trial publications, 21 (28%) of the trials published PRO data in their original clinical publication, 18 (24%) published a separate PRO analysis, and 35 (47%) did not publish PRO data in either format. Among the 32 clinical trials (43%) that listed PROs as pre-specified outcomes, 72% published PROs (23/32). The separate PRO analyses (N = 18) were published considerably later following FDA approval (mean 605 days) than the original clinical trials (mean 20 days, N = 74, P < 0.001). Conclusions: As cancer treatment options expand, therapy decisions become increasingly nuanced. PROs assist decision-making by providing detailed information on important aspects of quality of life and tolerability. Our research has identified a significant lag in the publication of companion studies of PRO data associated with pivotal clinical trials, representing a meaningful gap in information critical to patients and oncologists in the process of making informed decisions.

172 Background: Under the NCI ASCO Teams Project, we proposed a 4R Model of teamwork and patient self-management (pSM) (Trosman JOP ’16). 4R (Right Info/Care/Patient/Time) enables patient (pt) and care team to manage complex care continuum with an innovative multimodality 4R Care Project Plan. 4R includes a novel “project” feature – a graphical description of care interdependencies. 4R was previously piloted at 3 Chicago centers (Trosman ASCO ‘18). Methods: In this new study, we improved and tested 4R for impact on pSM at 4 safety net and 3 non safety net centers across the US. 4R Plans were provided to stage 0-III breast cancer pts Jan - Nov’18 (4R cohort). We surveyed the 4R cohort and a historical control cohort of pts who received care at same centers pre-4R, Jan - Dec ’17. Results: Survey response rates: 65%, 105/162 (4R cohort); 44%, 190/432 (control). 4R markedly improved 4 of 5 pSM metrics vs control (Table). Additional analyses showed that safety net pts had a significant increase in 4R vs control cohort in “seldom overwhelmed” (84%, 49/58 vs 64%, 67/104 respectively, p = .007), while non safety net pts had nonsignificant increase. Other metrics improved to a similar extent for safety net vs non safety net pts. Within the 4R cohort, 85% found 4R useful in organizing their care and 73% found 4R’s novel “project” feature useful in understanding care interdependencies. Safety net pts reported similar usefulness of 4R in organizing their care as non safety net pts (88%, 51/58 vs 81%, 38/47, NS) and similar usefulness of the “project’ feature in understanding care interdependencies as non safety net pts (74% vs. 72%, NS). Conclusions: 4R significantly improved patient self-management, but further efforts are needed to expand the benefit to as close to a 100% of pts as feasible. Safety net pts benefited from 4R at similar or higher rates than non safety net pts, indicating that 4R may reduce care disparities. An expansion of 4R across the US continues this work. [Table: see text]

180 Background: Prior research has identified barriers to provision of quality survivorship care in primary care settings such as lack of expert knowledge and training, primary care burden and insufficient communication with oncologists. We implemented a survivorship clinic at an academic medical center in the primary care division with the goal of defining the elements required for a seamless transition and co-management. Methods: The primary care physician received training in cancer survivorship based on the ASCO Curriculum, shadowing of 3 breast medical oncologists and 1 gynecologic oncologist, attendance at the 2018 Cancer Survivorship Symposium and NCCN’s Cancer Survivorship Advocacy Meeting. Patients with breast and gynecologic cancers were referred by their oncologists or APP (PA or NP) at various points in their cancer trajectory. Clinical characteristics of patients were abstracted from the electronic medical record and in-depth interviews were conducted with 2 patients. Results: 41 patients attended the survivorship clinic. The majority (88%) were breast (63%) or gynecologic (24%) cancer survivors. Patient age was evenly distributed with 8 age < 46, 11 age 46-59, and 7 age > = 60. 23 (56%) patients had stage < 3 at diagnosis. 21 (51%) had been cancer-free for five years + and 4 were referred by their oncologist to help with patient co-management during cancer treatment. Of the 8 breast cancer patients < 46 years old, 6 had a genetic mutation and 7 were interested in fertility. 15/26 breast cancer patients are currently on endocrine therapy. Interviewed patients expressed appreciation for receiving whole-person care and knowing there is bidirectional communication between clinicians. Conclusions: Cancer survivors are open to and interested in a survivorship visit based in a primary care clinic; this includes both patients who have been cancer-free > 5 years as well as those recently treated with curative intent. Greater efforts are needed to train primary care physicians to deliver survivorship visits that are customized to meet the needs of cancer survivors.

Many challenges to clinical trial accrual exist, resulting in studies with inadequate enrollment and potentially delaying answers to important scientific and clinical questions.The National Cancer Institute (NCI) and the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) cosponsored the Cancer Trial Accrual Symposium: Science and Solutions on April 29-30, 2010 to examine the state of accrual science related to patient/community, physician/provider, and site/organizational influences, and identify new interventions to facilitate clinical trial enrollment. The symposium featured breakout sessions, plenary sessions, and a poster session including 100 abstracts. Among the 358 attendees were clinical investigators, researchers of accrual strategies, research administrators, nurses, research coordinators, patient advocates, and educators. A bibliography of the accrual literature in these three major areas was provided to participants in advance of the meeting. After the symposium, the literature in these areas was revisited to determine if the symposium recommendations remained relevant within the context of the current literature.Few rigorously conducted studies have tested interventions to address challenges to clinical trials accrual. Attendees developed recommendations for improving accrual and identified priority areas for future accrual research at the patient/community, physician/provider, and site/organizational levels. Current literature continues to support the symposium recommendations.A combination of approaches addressing both the multifactorial nature of accrual challenges and the characteristics of the target population may be needed to improve accrual to cancer clinical trials. Recommendations for best practices and for future research developed from the symposium are provided.

533Background: The Oncotype Dx Recurrence Score (RS) predicts distant recurrence risk and benefit from chemotherapy for women with early-stage estrogen receptor (ER) positive (+)/human epidermal gr...

75 Background: Trust is an integral component of the physician-patient relationship, and its importance is magnified in oncology. In patients with uncommon cancers, aspects pertaining to the rarity of their diagnosis may further influence their inclination towards and perception of trust. We sought to delineate the existing literature landscape of trust in oncology and explore the meaning of trust for patients living with neuroendocrine tumors (NETs), a comparatively rare and chronic malignancy. Methods: We performed a MEDLINE search including combinations of the MeSH headings ‘trust’ and ‘neoplasms’, categorizing articles according to recurrent themes. These themes were then presented to a Northern California NET support group, followed by a discussion. Discussants’ narratives and lived experiences were evaluated with those captured by the current literature to assess areas of concordance as well as to identify areas in need of further study. Results: 355 articles were reviewed, of which 40 articles were included for analysis. Frequently cited factors contributing to measures of trust consisted of race discordance, empathic physician communication, and healthcare systems dynamics. Medical mistrust was associated with poorer cancer screening compliance, reduced adherence to therapy recommendations, and decreased quality of life. Support group participants’ perspectives affirmed these conclusions, adding the lack of medical community awareness of NETs as the major barrier to communicating with their physicians about symptom recognition and shared decision making. Conclusions: Trust in oncology is determined by factors related to patients, physicians, and the healthcare system in which they interact. Medical mistrust is associated with worse measures of cancer surveillance, treatment adherence, and quality of life. Patients with NETs uniquely implicated the insidious and rare nature of their disease, as well as lack of clinician expertise in community settings, in impairing communication with, and therefore, trust in their physicians. Efforts to improve physician-patient communication in those with rare malignancies are needed in order strengthen trust and optimize their care.

Purpose Dose-dense, every-2-week adjuvant chemotherapy using doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide (AC; 60/600 mg/m2 every 2 weeks × four cycles) followed by paclitaxel (175 mg/m2 every 2 weeks × four cycles), requiring filgrastim on days 3 through 10 of each cycle has been shown to improve survival compared with every-3-week treatment schedules but is associated with greater risk of RBC transfusion (13%). The role of long-acting hematopoietic growth factors in facilitating every-2-week chemotherapy and minimizing hematologic toxicity has not been established. Patients and Methods Women with stage I to III breast cancer received dose-dense AC → paclitaxel as neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy. Patients received pegfilgrastim 6 mg subcutaneous (SQ) on day 2 of each cycle. Darbepoetin alfa was initiated at 200 μg SQ every 2 weeks for hemoglobin ≤ 12 g/dL, and administered thereafter, according to a preplanned algorithm. The primary end points were to evaluate the percentage of patients with febrile neutropenia and the percentage of patients requiring RBC transfusion. Results Among 135 women treated on this single arm study, there were two cases of febrile neutropenia (incidence 1.5%). No patients received RBC transfusion. Darbepoetin alfa therapy was initiated in 92% of patients. The modest leukocytosis seen during paclitaxel cycles was attributable, in part, to corticosteroid premedication. Other toxicity and dose-delivery were similar to dose-dense AC → paclitaxel in Cancer and Leukemia Group B 9741. Conclusion Pegfilgrastim and darbepoetin alfa are effective and safe in facilitating every-2-week AC → paclitaxel, minimizing rates of febrile neutropenia and RBC transfusion.

Purpose. Medical Oncology is a rapidly growing specialty, not only in its membership, but in its knowledge base as well. In order to keep pace with the changing profile of health care delivery and still ensure uniform quality subspecialty training, a template for education is needed. Design and Results. An Ad Hoc Committee was created from the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) membership in 1997. Goals of training were discussed, and curriculum guidelines were created. The great expansion in knowledge related to cancer care has led to this current revision of the initial curriculum. The goals of this second edition of ASCO curriculum remain the same and emphasize formal instruction in the following: (1) the treatment of individual malignancies, with an emphasis on a coordinated multidisciplinary approach; (2) a clinical experience that emphasizes patient management in both the inpatient and outpatient settings; (3) the ability to perform specified procedures; and (4) the key tools in basic science that apply to patient management. This document should be considered the educational framework around which a training program is developed. The American Society of Clinical Oncology was founded in 1965, and by 1979, the membership had grown to 2,950. Today, more than 20,000 physicians are members of ASCO. Since the first subspecialty examination in medical oncology was offered in 1973, the number of certified medical oncologists has risen to over 8,000. Medical Oncology is not only one of the youngest subspecialties in internal medicine, but also one of the fastest growing. The recent years have witnessed an explosion in medical technology. The pharmacopoeia of chemotherapeutic agents has grown from the three available agents in 1950 to over 50 antineoplastic agents. Molecular diagnostic testing is now commonplace, and more widespread use of genetic screening is on the horizon. Moreover, an entirely new area of clinical research trials has been initiated in pharmacologic cancer prevention. At the same time, health care has become an “industry” that has resulted in the shift of the majority of cancer care to the outpatient setting, with a focus on costcontainment. It is a challenge to develop a curriculum for training physicians in so dynamic an environment. While the American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) and Accreditation Council on Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) create a basic structure for subspecialty training, the specific items that are to be included in the training curriculum are not within their purview. ASCO leadership has thus taken on the task of creating a “Competence Comprising Curriculum” for From the University of Vermont, Burlington, VT; Northwestern University, Chicago, IL; University of California-San Francisco, San Francisco; Scripps Clinic; Moores UCSD Cancer Center, San Diego, CA; Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center; New York University Medical Center, New York; Albert Einstein Cancer Center, Bronx, NY; Wayne State University, Detroit, MI; University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI; University of Colorado Health Science Center, Denver, CO; Texas Oncology PA, Dallas; University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, Chapel Hill, NC; Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL; Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA.

526 Background: Young age at diagnosis (dx) is a predictor of worse prognosis in patients (pts) with luminal breast cancer (BC). Poorer adherence to endocrine therapy (ET) among younger women may contribute to this disparity. Aim: To assess non-adherent behaviors and associated factors among young women with stage 1-3 hormone receptor (HR)+ BC taking ET. Methods: This study is a part of a multi-center, prospective cohort of pts with dx of BC at or under age 40. On a survey 30 months after dx, among pts reporting taking ET, adherence was measured using a 3-item Likert-type scale (Do you ever forget to take your ET? If you feel worse when you take your ET, do you stop taking it? Did you take your ET exactly as directed by your doctor?). Pts reporting any non-adherent behavior during the last 3 months were classified as non-adherers. Variables with a p-value

10065 Background: Prospective data regarding fertility and pregnancy after breast cancer are limited. Many young survivors are interested future fertility, but pregnancy rates among women attempting and not attempting pregnancy have not been studied prospectively. Methods: As part of a multicenter cohort study, women diagnosed age ≤40 with stage 0-3 breast cancer are surveyed at baseline then annually regarding fertility interest, attempts, and pregnancies. Chi-square tests were used to compare proportions attempting and achieving pregnancy. Results: At least once in the 5 years (yrs) after Dx, 334/959 (35%) women reported interest in future biologic children. The percent interested was stable in the first 3 yrs then declined: 256 (27%, baseline), 244 (27%, 1 year), 209 (25%, 2 yrs), 176 (25%, 3 yrs), 106 (18%, 4 yrs), and 72 (16%, 5 yrs). Pregnancy was attempted by 104/334 (31%) of women who reported interest and 4/625 (1%) who did not. Pregnancy occurred in 118 women (12%), including 76/108 (70%) who attempted and 42/851 (5%) who did not. Attempts and achieving pregnancy were associated with younger age, partnered status, and not having children prior to Dx (table). Lower stage was associated with attempting pregnancy and ER negative disease with achieving pregnancy. Conclusions: A substantial number of young women become pregnant in the 5 years after a breast cancer diagnosis. Given that over 1/3 of pregnancies were among women who did not report attempting, additional attention to contraception counseling should be considered. Further evaluation of assisted reproductive technology use, pregnancy and disease outcomes in this cohort, and the POSITIVE Trial (NCT02308085) will shed light on the feasibility and safety of pregnancy after breast cancer. [Table: see text]

531 Background: The greatest age disparity in early stage breast cancer (BC) outcomes is in young women with hormone receptor positive (HR+) BC. While differences in biology may play a role, understanding the role of non-persistence (early discontinuation) with endocrine therapy (ET) is critical given the demonstrated efficacy of ET in this population. Methods: As part of a prospective cohort that enrolled women with BC diagnosed (dx) at age ≤40 between 2006-2016, we identified women with HR+, Stage I-III BC. Socio-demographic and treatment information, fertility concerns and confidence with the ET treatment decision were assessed by survey within 1 yr of dx. Medical record review was used to ascertain stage and HR status. Women who initiated ET but did not report taking tamoxifen or an aromatase inhibitor at 3 yrs post-diagnosis (or last follow-up if

184 Background: While evidence of the challenges of cancer caregiving has been growing, scant research addresses the experience of partners of young adults with cancer. These individuals and their relationships may be particularly vulnerable to stress, especially when managing the complexity of cancer care and survivorship with their partner. We sought to evaluate psychosocial concerns and mental health in the partners of young survivors of early stage breast cancer (BC). Methods: We invited partners of young women w/BC diagnosed at age ≤ 40 yrs enrolled in a prospective cohort study to participate in a one-time survey evaluating psychosocial concerns including quality of life, coping, social support, financial insecurity, partnership concerns, parenting concerns, anxiety and depression. Logistic regression was used to explore predictors of anxiety (score > 8 on Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS)). Results: Most respondents (284/289) were male, with median age 43 yrs (range 27-65). The median time of survey completion was 62 months (range 16 -114) after their partner’s dx. Respondents were mostly white (93%), working full time (94%), and college educated (78%); 29% reported some financial stress, 74% were parenting children < 18 yrs, and 32% reported at least a fair amount of relationship concern. 42% (106/250) had anxiety (39/289 respondents (13%) had incomplete/missing HADS). In univariable analyses, lower education, working full time, parenting concerns, insufficient social support and maladaptive coping were associated (p < .05) with anxiety. In the multivariable model, only maladaptive coping remained significantly associated with anxiety (p < .01, OR = 2.32 (95% CI: 1.22, 4.39)). Conclusions: Partners of young BC survivors who used less constructive/more maladaptive coping strategies experience negative mental health outcomes after tx has ended. Caregivers’ anxiety may have implications for both their own and survivors’ health and QOL. Future interventions might focus on the development of constructive coping strategies to enhance adjustment and role effectiveness in dealing with the impact of cancer.

202 Background: Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is associated with morbidity and mortality in affected populations. Cancer survivors experience PTSD at a rate higher than the general population, with young age and female gender identified as risk factors. While young women with breast cancer experience greater psychosocial distress in general following diagnosis (dx), little is known about PTSD in this population. Methods: Women dx’d with Stage I-III breast cancer at age ≤ 40 were surveyed as a part of a multi-site cohort study. Demographic, treatment, psychosocial characteristics (including self-reported psychiatric conditions and use of psychiatric medications prior to dx), anxiety and depression (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale), fear of recurrence (Lasry Scale), and social support (Medical Outcomes Study) were assessed within 1 year after dx. PTSD was measured at 30 months post-dx using the PTSD Checklist – Civilian Version; a score ≥ 50 was considered positive for PTSD. Univariable and stepwise multivariable logistic regression were used to evaluate factors associated with PTSD. Results: 572 women were eligible for this analysis; median age at dx was 37 (range: 17-40); 87% had Stage I or II cancer. 37/572 women (6.5%) met criteria for PTSD at 30 months. Lower educational attainment, less financial comfort, less social support, stage 2 (vs. 1) disease, receipt of chemotherapy, fear of recurrence, anxiety and depression, and psychiatric comorbidities were associated (p ≤ 0.05) with PTSD in univariable analyses. Chemotherapy (OR = 3.48, 95% CI = 1.09-11.06), anxiety by HADS (OR = 20.29, 95% CI = 7.83-52.53), and psychiatric comorbidities (OR = 4.22, 95% CI = 1.40-12.74) were associated with increased likelihood of PTSD, whereas college education (OR = 0.25, 95% CI = 0.10-0.59) and greater social support (OR = 0.41, 95% CI = 0.17-0.99) appeared to be protective in multivariable analyses. Conclusions: PTSD affects a minority of young breast cancer survivors, with the prevalence in our cohort similar to that seen in other breast cancer populations. Early identification of those at risk for developing PTSD is essential for the adequate treatment of affected women and for the improvement of health outcomes and quality of life in cancer survivors.

515 Background: Recent clinical trial data have demonstrated that ovarian function suppression (OS) in addition to tamoxifen (T) or aromatase inhibitors (AI) can improve breast cancer free survival in young women with hormone positive (HR+) breast cancer. We evaluated the impact of OS on quality of life (QOL) in young women, a population at risk for worse QOL outcomes and survival. Methods: Patient reported symptom and QOL data were collected 1 year after dx as part a cohort study enrolling women newly dx’d with breast cancer age ≤40. Severity of symptoms (Breast Cancer Prevention Trial checklist) was compared between women on OS+T vs. T alone by Fisher’s exact test. For QOL (Cancer Rehabilitation Evaluation System (CARES) physical, psychosocial, sexual subscales), differences in mean scores between groups were compared with t-tests. All were stratified by receipt of chemotherapy. Due to small numbers, women on AIs were excluded. Results: Of444 women with Stage 0-III, HR+ disease on T, 106 (24%) reported ...

9523 Background: Treatment-related amenorrhea (TRA) is common among premenopausal women treated for early-stage breast cancer and is associated with important reproductive, sexual, and metabolic si...

60 Background: Compassionate communication is critical to patient-centered cancer care. Conversations about sensitive topics are necessary to help patients make well-informed decisions. Still, many oncologists feel ill-equipped during these conversations and thus avoid them or approach them with a purely clinical perspective. Fortunately, empathic communication skills can be learned. This project, Challenging Conversations in Oncology (CCO), involves the development of an experiential workshop to help build skill and confidence communicating with cancer patients. The workshop is part of a movement to reimagine cancer care at Stanford. Methods: The first iteration of CCO was multi-day event with didactic lectures, self-awareness exercises and small group role-play. The faculty was multi-disciplinary, including clinicians in various subspecialties, communications experts and patients themselves. Activities were designed to build skills in interviewing, cultural humility, adapting communications, and dealing with patient and provider emotions. A post-workshop evaluation survey assessed overall effectiveness as well as self-reported learning and perceived enhancement of patient care as a result of participation. Results: The CCO workshop was implemented in Fall 2013. Participants included 17 physicians from various oncology subspecialties. Participants reported that the workshop was very valuable (rating at least 4 on a 5-point scale of overall effectiveness). Common themes included learning to “slow down” and do “less talking, more listening,” taking time to “let patients express themselves…cry, be silent.” Faculty reported enthusiasm watching trainee communication skills “evolve along with…the patient’s story.” Conclusions: This workshop was a significant educational opportunity for junior faculty at Stanford. Feedback suggests the experience was rewarding and influential. It encouraged cultivation of communication skills that will likely benefit doctors and their patients. This fall (Year 2), we will extend this workshop to senior faculty, staff, and administration. The course will continue to evolve to meet the needs of providers and align with comprehensive institutional enhancements in cancer care.

6548 Background: While BRCA testing is recommended for women diagnosed with breast cancer before age 50, little is known about decisions surrounding testing in young patients. Methods: As part of a...

DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2008.20.7803 Freireich and Kurzrock highlight the extraordinary promise of investigational therapies through two patient case presentations of a rare disease, known as “the disease with hope,” that accounts for just 0.62 patient cases per 100,000 person-years. They chose the patient cases of young, fit, and resourceful men diagnosed with hairy cell leukemia, years before effective therapies were available or known. Both of these individuals drew tremendous personal benefit from participating in early-phase clinical trials. The authors correctly ask the key question, “When is it too soon to abandon the prospects for a favorable outcome from investigational therapy?” They go on to note that many oncologists have dismissed the option of referring patients for investigational therapies because of a low likelihood of personal benefit. Even though they acknowledge that when a patient receives a “hopeless” diagnosis it is important for the physician to discuss palliative care, they emphasize the need to be “knowledgeable about...options for participating in clinical research at major research centers.” Oncologists are rightly trained to refer patients for whom there is no effective standard therapy to seek care at major cancer centers and explore the option of treatment on a clinical trial. All of us have rejoiced in the formidable breakthroughs in oncology and celebrate the discoveries of platinum compounds in the treatment of testicular cancer, or the great advances in the use of targeted therapies that help patients live longer and better quality lives. This is our passion. These anecdotes, however, do not address the harsher reality experienced by the vast majority of patients with advanced metastatic malignancy. It is important to acknowledge that solid epithelial cancers are, at present, different from hematologic malignancies. The more typical clinical scenario involves an individual with a solid tumor who has tried more than one chemotherapeutic regimen and has experienced little benefit and considerable toxicity in the process. The patient may, for many reasons, avoid asking the physician to explain his or her prognosis, even as the oncologist may be reluctant to provide details of expected outcomes. Physicians commonly fail to provide vital prognostic information as a result of multiple factors, including a lack of training in communication skills, and the perceived desire to avoid “removing hope.” Such patients are often more comfortable receiving treatment near home, and perhaps cannot afford a trip to a distant city for consideration of a novel treatment. For such individuals, having access to early palliative care represents an opportunity to maintain the hopes of avoiding undue toxicity and fulfilling whatever tasks are important as they near the end of their lives. Failure to prepare patients for death deprives them and their survivors of meaningful interactions that can never be replaced. Recent research shows quite clearly that talking about imminent death does not lead to despair or depression and allows for appropriate care near the end of life— avoiding futile chemotherapy, intubations, and hospitalizations, and leading to longer enrollment in hospice. Other research also shows clearly that patients who overestimate their prognosis do not live longer, but rather just have more chemotherapy, intubations, and deaths in the hospital. Honest communication between patients and their oncologists as to the underlying prognosis and the potential risks and benefits of standard or experimental therapies is essential to clarify goals and options specific to individual patients and their current circumstances. This serves to strengthen the therapeutic alliance. We need improved assessments that include a patient’s performance status, comorbid illnesses, goals and desires, and ability to understand the investigational nature and uncertain benefit of receiving treatment on an early-phase clinical trial. Oncologists need the skills to convey this information in a supportive and empathetic fashion, but also need to recognize when standard treatments no longer hold any promise of improved outcome, be it cure, longevity, or symptom relief. Addressing opportunities for treatment on early-phase clinical trials should be part of routine conversations between eligible cancer patients and their physicians. Ideally, referrals should be made as early as possible in the course of the disease, and not in the last weeks of life. JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY T H E A R T O F O N C O L O G Y: When the Tumor Is Not the Target VOLUME 27 NUMBER 2 JANUARY 1

In her article “Truthtelling,” it is abundantly clear that Dr Lindsay E. Rockwell experienced a great deal of frustration and sorrow, as well as pain, on confronting the imminent death of her patient, Jack, and the suffering of his loving father. She discusses the lack of communication with the patient and his family and its significant impact on his care near the end of life. Rockwell suggests the medical team betrayed both the father and the patient by not being truthful. Let’s take a closer look at the sources of this apparent betrayal. There are many ways and opportunities for communications to go astray, especially in such a tragic case of a young man in the prime of life. Oncologists spend many years mastering the many nuances of chemotherapy and the management of all associated toxicities, gaining confidence and comfort dealing with treatment protocols and adverse effects. Concurrently, they learn to explain difficult concepts, such as risks and benefits of treatment to patients, and how to frame these with the appropriate use of statistics regarding response and survival. Yet many oncologists are still not adequately trained in communicating prognoses or dire news. It is perhaps easier, and certainly more familiar, to describe the next regimen and its adverse effects than to address the big picture and negotiate goals of care. Discussing death and preferences for end-of-life care should ideally flow from conversations about life. Knowing what is important to our patients, what they treasure and think is worth fighting for, and how they wish to be remembered helps guide the dialogue when we run out of treatment options. Could it be that the patient’s father was correct when he said “No one told us Jack was dying”? If so, this is a betrayal by the caregivers and highlights the need for open and honest communication about prognosis and the consequences of not knowing. Lack of training, a desire to avoid painful discussions, an overly optimistic view of the effectiveness of current therapies, collusion between physicians and patients, as well as lack of time all contribute to a physician’s silence. But communication is a twoway street. Let’s focus on the recipient of the news, in this case, the patient’s father. Did he really not know? Was he afraid to ask? Was he unable to hear? Perhaps he simply could not bear to accept that modern medicine and technology could not save his son. Rockwell also expresses anger and frustration at the situation, accepting the father’s expression of grief as truth. But was she present for all conversations? Could it be that Rockwell is expressing her own grief as guilt for not speaking up when she saw the inevitable truth? Coming to terms with the limitations of current treatments and our collective failure to salvage and rescue every patient from death is both difficult and painful. It unleashes our own grief, which is often repressed. Let’s face it: we work in a culture that does not encourage the expression of emotion, and one regrettable consequence is that we often fail to provide a road map for personal coping for our trainees. Feelings of failure and sadness complicate the oncologist’s response to a patient’s demands for more treatment and may lead to unreasonable prolongation of futile therapies and the avoidance of an open discussion that death is near. This case illustrates the damage that can be caused by avoiding frank discussions about death with our patients and their families and not paying enough attention to the well-being of our trainees. We know that the time before death can be experienced as a period of growth and transcendence. With proper forewarning, a person facing an incurable illness has an opportunity to avoid toxicities from futile treatments, heal old wounds, craft a legacy of peace and love, and find solace in having completed meaningful tasks. This is borne out in practice and is the message repeated by those who are dedicated to caring for dying patients. We need to remember the wisdom of Dame Cicely Saunders, founder of the modern hospice movement, who taught that, given enough time and opportunity, most patients find their own sources of strengths and resiliency. Why is it that we are not more supportive of the enormous emotional toll this work takes on younger physicians and on our more seasoned colleagues as well? Those of us who work in teaching hospitals and those mentoring junior colleagues in practice need From the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; and Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA.

1117 Background: SNB in PABC is not often pursued due to concerns for potential fetal harm. There are only limited data available regarding the safety and efficacy of SNB in patients (pts) with PABC. Methods: Pts with PABC who underwent SNB were identified from within an existing multi-institutional PABC cohort diagnosed 1996-2013. Factors evaluated included method and result of SNB evaluation, maternal disease outcome, and fetal outcomes. Results: Within a cohort of 78 PABC pts, 53 had breast surgery while pregnant; 23 (43%) underwent SNB, 27 (51%) underwent initial axillary node (AN) dissection, 18 of whom were clinically node negative, and 3 had no nodal evaluation. Of SNB pts, 21 (91%) had stage 1-2 disease; 14 (61%) had ER/PR+ disease and 7 (30%) HER2+. Eight (35%), 9 (39%), and 6 (26%) women had SNB in the first, second, and third trimesters, respectively. 99-Technetium-labelled sulfur colloid (99-Tc) alone was used for SNB in 14 pts; methylene blue (MB) dye alone was used in 7. SN was identified in 100% of pts; see Table. There were no SNB-associated complications. At a median of 2.4 years from diagnosis, there were no locoregional recurrences, 3 (13%) distant recurrences, and 1 (4%) death from breast cancer. Among pts who underwent SNB, there were 20 liveborn infants and 3 pregnancies ongoing. Of the 20 infants born, 18 were healthy, 1 unknown, and 1 had cleft palate (in setting of maternal risk factors including smoking and methadone). Conclusions: SNB in PABC appears to be a safe and accurate procedure using either 99-Tc or MB techniques. This is one of the largest experiences reported to date of SNB during PABC; however, numbers remain limited and rates of SNB in our cohort were lower than current rates in non-PABC patients. Additional research and monitoring for safety of this procedure is warranted in women with PABC. [Table: see text]

6507 Background: Few studies have comprehensively evaluated surgical decisions in young women with breast cancer. Young women have unique medical and psychosocial concerns, and identifying factors associated with surgical choices in this population can inform their decision-making process. Methods: As part of an ongoing multi-center cohort study enrolling women diagnosed with breast cancer at age 40 or younger, we evaluated 277 women with stage I-III disease who indicated they had a choice between mastectomy and breast conserving surgery (BCS). Logistic regression was used to identify predictors of choosing mastectomy vs. BCS. Independent variables with a p-value ≤ 0.15 in bi-variate analyses were included in the final multivariable model. Results: 172/277 women (62%) had either a single or bilateral mastectomy as their definitive surgery. Median age at diagnosis was 37 (range: 17-40). Most women were married (75%), had stage I or II disease (90%), and estrogen receptor (ER) positive tumors (65%); approximately 14% were carriers of a BRCA 1 or 2 mutation. In the multivariable analysis (Table), having a mutation, nodal involvement, HER2-positivity, tumor grade, lower BMI, having 2 or more children, anxiety, and decisional involvement by the patient were all associated with mastectomy. Age, race, marital status, tumor size, having a first degree relative with breast or ovarian cancer, ER status, fear of recurrence, and depression were not significantly associated with having a mastectomy. Conclusions: Despite being candidates for BCS, many young women choose to have a mastectomy. Our results suggest potential targets for interventions such as anxiety reduction and fostering fully informed shared decision-making. [Table: see text]

1133 Background: Management of pregnancy-associated breast cancer (PABC) requires balancing benefits of therapy with potential risks to the developing fetus. Surgical management can be influenced by gestational age of fetus and tumor stage. Minimal data describe surgical and obstetrical outcomes after mastectomy with immediate breast reconstruction (IR) in a pregnant patient (pt). Methods: Pts who underwent IR after mastectomy were identified within a multi-institutional PABC cohort. Retrospective chart review was performed for outcomes including adverse intraoperative events, immediate postoperative complications, gestational age at delivery and fetal weight. Other parameters evaluated included stage at presentation, duration of surgery, and use of delayed reconstruction in pts who did not receive IR. Results: Within a cohort of 79 PABC pts, 25 (32%) had mastectomy while pregnant, 8 (32%) of whom had IC; 17 (68%) did not undergo IR. Mean gestational age at time of IR was 16.6 weeks (range 10-30) and all IR utilized tissue expander (TE) placement followed by permanent implant placement in 7 pts. In the IR cohort, 1 (12.5%) pt was stage 0, 3 (37.5%) stage I and 4 (50%) stage IIB. There were no intraoperative or immediate postoperative surgical complications. The mean duration of surgery was 198 min with IR (7 pts) vs. 157 min without IR (available for 12 pts). All women who underwent IR delivered at, or close to, term infants of normal birthweight. One pt had pre-term labor after surgery at 29 weeks which resolved with tocolysis. Mean gestational age at delivery was 37.3 weeks in the IR cohort vs. 36.3 weeks in the non-IR cohort. No fetal abnormalities or major obstetrical complications were seen after IR. Post-mastectomy radiation (PMRT) was provided after pregnancy in 2 pts (25%) in the IR cohort and cosmetic outcome was not adversely affected. Conclusions: This report represents one of the largest series describing IR after mastectomy in PABC. Results suggest immediate tissue expander placement after mastectomy may increase duration of surgery but does not lead to adverse obstetrical or fetal outcomes. IR with tissue expanders may preserve reconstructive options when PMRT is indicated.

9100 Background: Sexual dysfunction is a known complication of adjuvant therapy for breast cancer and an important determinant of quality of life. Little is known about the frequency and magnitude of this problem among very young women with breast cancer during the year following diagnosis. Methods: 298 sexually-active women enrolled in an ongoing multi-center cohort study with Stage 0-III breast cancer at or before age 40 were included in this analysis. Treatment data was self-reported on a survey mailed to participants at enrollment. Sexual functioning was assessed using the sexual interest and dysfunction subscales from the Cancer Rehabilitation Evaluation System (CARES). Scores range from 0-4, with higher scores indicative of poorer function. The survey included a measure of anxiety and depression (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale), of body image (CARES) and of physical and menopausal symptoms (Breast Cancer Prevention Trial Symptom Checklist). Mean differences in CARES scores between treatment groups (chemotherapy vs. none; hormone therapy vs. none; lumpectomy vs. mastectomy vs. mastectomy + reconstruction vs. no surgery; radiation vs. none) were compared using T-tests and ANOVA. Multiple regression models were fit to assess symptoms thought to be mediators of the treatment-sexual functioning association. Results: Mean age at diagnosis was 36 (range: 22-40) years and mean time from diagnosis to survey completion was 5 months (range: 1-16). Mean CARES sexual interest and dysfunction scores were higher in women who received chemotherapy compared to those who did not (p