Search

This retrospective, observational study examined patient characteristics, treatment patterns, testing patterns, and outcomes of US patients receiving first-/second- or third-generation epidermal gr...

This retrospective observational study described baseline characteristics, real-world treatment patterns, and outcomes among patients with metastatic breast cancer treated with abemaciclib in the United States.De-identified electronic health record-derived data were used to describe patients who began abemaciclib treatment on or after 30 June 2016 and ≥4 months before data cutoff (31 December 2018). Real-world response (rwR) and real-world progression assessments were abstracted from clinical documentation. Descriptive statistics were used to calculate the real-world best response. The Kaplan-Meier method estimated real-world time to first response (rwTTFR) and real-world progression-free survival (rwPFS).The median age of 118 female patients at abemaciclib initiation was 66.5 years (interquartile range, 57.0, 73.0). The breakdown of patients who received abemaciclib in first, second, third, or later lines was 28.8%, 21.2%, 20.3%, and 29.7%, respectively. Patients received abemaciclib as monotherapy (12.7%) or in combination with endocrine therapy: fulvestrant (59.3%); aromatase inhibitor (22.9%); aromatase inhibitor and fulvestrant (5.1%). There were 68 patients (57.6%) with ≥1 rwR assessment: 41.2% with a real-world complete response or real-world partial response. Median rwTTFR was 3.6 months (95% confidence interval, 3.5, 5.2). Twelve-month rwPFS probability was 61.7%.This study represents utilization and outcomes associated with abemaciclib approximately 1 year following FDA approval. Treatment patterns demonstrated heterogeneity and, as in clinical trials, patients appeared to benefit from abemaciclib treatment in the real world. More research investigating outcomes associated with abemaciclib treatment is needed, with larger samples and longer follow-up to enable closer evaluation by subgroup, regimen, and line of therapy.

Purpose In MONARCH 1 (NCT02102490), single-agent abemaciclib demonstrated promising efficacy activity and tolerability in a population of heavily pretreated women with refractory HR+, HER2− metastatic breast cancer (MBC). To help interpret these results and put in clinical context, we compared overall survival (OS) and duration of therapy (DoT) between MONARCH 1 and a real-world single-agent chemotherapy cohort. Methods The real-world chemotherapy cohort was created from a Flatiron Health electronic health records-derived database based on key eligibility criteria from MONARCH 1. The chemotherapies included in the cohort were single-agent capecitabine, gemcitabine, eribulin, or vinorelbine. Results were adjusted for baseline demographics and clinical differences using Mahalanobis distance matching (primary analysis) and entropy balancing (sensitivity analysis). OS and DoT were analyzed using the Kaplan–Meier method and Cox proportional hazards regression. Results A real-world single-agent chemotherapy cohort (n = 281) with eligibility criteria similar to the MONARCH 1 population (n = 132) was identified. The MONARCH 1 (n = 108) cohort was matched to the real-world chemotherapy cohort (n = 108). Median OS was 22.3 months in the abemaciclib arm versus 13.6 months in the matched real-world chemotherapy cohort with an estimated hazard ratio (HR) of 0.54. The median DoT was 4.1 months in MONARCH 1 compared to 2.9 months in the real-world chemotherapy cohort with HR of 0.76. Conclusions This study demonstrates an approach to create a real-world chemotherapy cohort suitable to serve as a comparator for trial data. These exploratory results suggest a survival advantage and place the benefit of abemaciclib monotherapy in clinical context.

BACKGROUND Primary tumor location is a prognostic factor for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Post hoc analyses of mCRC clinical trials, including FIRE-3, CALGB/SWOG 80405, suggest that primary tumor location is also predictive of survival benefit with cetuximab or bevacizumab in combination with 5-fluorouracil-based chemotherapy. AIM Evaluate prognostic/predictive roles of primary tumor location in real-world mCRC patients treated with cetuximab or bevacizumab plus 5-fluorouracil-based chemotherapy. METHODS This retrospective cohort study selected patients with KRAS wild-type mCRC who initiated first-line therapy with cetuximab or bevacizumab in combination with 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin/irinotecan (FOLFIRI) or 5-fluorouracil/ leucovorin/oxaliplatin (FOLFOX) between January 2013 and April 2017 from the Flatiron Health electronic health record-derived database of de-identified patient-level data in the United States. Primary tumor location was abstracted from patients’ charts. Left-sided primary tumor location (LPTL) was defined as tumors that originated in the splenic flexure, descending colon, sigmoid colon, or rectum; right-sided primary tumor location (RPTL) was defined as tumors that originated from the appendix, cecum, ascending colon, hepatic flexure, or transverse colon. Propensity score matching was used to balance the baseline demographic and clinical characteristics between patients treated with cetuximab and patients treated with bevacizumab. Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression methods were used for survival analyses. RESULTS A total of 1312 patients met the selection criteria. Of 248 cetuximab plus FOLFIRI or FOLFOX patients, 164 had LPTL and 84 had RPTL; of 1064 bevacizumab plus FOLFIRI or FOLFOX patients, 679 had LPTL and 385 had RPTL. Cetuximab LPTL and RPTL patients were more likely to receive FOLFIRI vs bevacizumab patients (LPTL: 64.0% vs 24.3%; RPTL: 76.2% vs 24.9%, P < 0.001). Stage at initial diagnosis was different between cetuximab RPTL vs bevacizumab RPTL patients (P < 0.001); cetuximab RPTL patients were more likely to have stage III disease (44.0% vs 22.6%), while bevacizumab RPTL patients were more likely to have stage IV disease (65.7% vs 48.8%). Cetuximab RPTL patients were more likely to have a documented history of adjuvant chemotherapy vs bevacizumab RPTL patients (47.6% vs 22.3%, P < 0.001). In the propensity score-matched sample, median overall survival (OS) was 29.7 mo (95%CI: 26.9-35.2) for LPTL patients vs 18.3 mo (95%CI: 15.8-21.3) for RPTL patients (P < 0.001). Median OS was 29.7 mo (95%CI: 27.4-NA) for cetuximab LPTL patients vs 29.1 mo (95%CI: 26.6-35.6) for bevacizumab LPTL patients (HR = 0.87; 95%CI: 0.63-1.19; P = 0.378) and 17.0 mo (95%CI: 12.0-32.6) for cetuximab RPTL patients vs 18.8 mo (95%CI: 15.8-22.3) for bevacizumab RPTL patients (HR = 1.00; 95%CI: 0.68-1.46; P = 0.996). The interaction of treatment and primary tumor location was not significant in the Cox regression. CONCLUSION In this real-world mCRC cohort, the prognostic role of primary tumor location was substantiated, but not the predictive role for treatment with cetuximab vs bevacizumab in combination with 5-fluorouracil-based chemotherapy.

Background: Abemaciclib is a selective continually dosed cyclin-dependent kinase 4 and 6 (CDK 4&6) inhibitor approved as a single agent and in combination with endocrine therapy for the treatment of HR+,HER2- metastatic breast cancer (MBC). To date, few publications have reported the real world (rw) use of abemaciclib. This retrospective observational study aimed to describe baseline characteristics, treatment patterns, and outcomes among MBC patients treated with abemaciclib in the US. Methods: HR+,HER2- MBC patients who initiated treatment with abemaciclib on or after 6/30/2016 and at least 4 months prior to the data cutoff date (12/31/2018) were selected from the de-identified Flatiron Health electronic-health record-derived database for US patients. The data were predominantly from a community oncology setting. Baseline demographic and clinical characteristics were recorded at the start of abemaciclib therapy. Using technology-enabled abstraction, rw tumor response (rwTR) assessments on abemaciclib were collected to calculate rw best response (rwBR) which was defined as rw complete (rwCR) or partial response (rwPR). Time to first response (rwTTFR) was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize baseline characteristics and treatment patterns. Results: 118 female MBC patients were treated with abemaciclib. Baseline characteristics are shown in Table 1. Median age at abemaciclib initiation was 66.5 years (interquartile range [IQR] 57-73). 28.8% of patients received abemaciclib in first line (1L), 21.2% in second line (2L), 20.3% in third line (3L), and 29.7% in later lines (4+L). 12.7% of patients (n=15) received abemaciclib as a monotherapy, occurring mostly in later lines. Patients also received abemaciclib in combination with endocrine therapy, including fulvestrant (59.3%), or aromatase inhibitor (22.9%), or other treatment (5.1%). 24.6% of patients received prior treatment with a different CDK 4&6 inhibitor. Most patients (81.3%) had a starting dose of 150 mg of abemaciclib, while other starting doses included 200 mg (8.4%), 100 mg (4.2%), 50 mg (3.4%), or unknown dose (2.5%). During treatment, 6.8%, and 21.2% of patients had a dose reduction or schedule change, respectively. Of the patients with a schedule change (n=25), 72% changed from twice to once daily. Among all abemaciclib patients who had at least 1 rwTR assessment (n=68), 41.2% had a rwBR. Although not statistically significant, there was a trend toward higher rates of rwBR in 1L (65.0%) compared to 2L (37.4%), 3L (35.7%), and 4+L (22.3%). Median rwTTFR was 3.6 months (95% CI: 3.5-5.2). Conclusions: This is one of the first studies describing rw utilization of abemaciclib, and it provides initial insights into scheduling and dosing in an rw population. There is evidence of response to abemaciclib even in later lines. Future research will be needed as treatment patterns evolve and longer follow-up periods are available to further describe patient outcomes. Table 1: Baseline patient characteristicsAbemaciclibN = 118%Race:White63.6Non-white20.3Unknown/missing16.1Stage at initial diagnosis:I11.9II16.1III28.8IV34.7Not documented8.5Tumor grade at initial diagnosis:Grade 19.3Grade 245.8Grade 322.9Unknown/not documented22.0Time between initial and metastatic diagnosis dates among patients who were not metastatic at initial diagnosisa:< 2 years20.8≥ 2 years79.2Menopausal statusb:Post-menopausal93.2Pre-menopausal6.8Modified Charlson comorbidity index (CCI) statusc:0/Unknown72.0116.928.53+2.5Number of sites of metastases, median [IQR]d2.0 [1.0:3.0]Presence of lung metastases34.7Presence of liver metastases22.9Presence of brain metastases7.6Follow-up time (months), median [IQR]6.4 [4.1:9.5]a: Patients not metastatic at initial diagnosis (n=77)b: Derived using age and evidence of gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonistc: Excludes cancer diagnosisd: Interquartile Range (IQR) Citation Format: Gebra Cuyun Carter, Kristin M Sheffield, Anala Gossai, Yu-Jing Huang, Yajun Emily Zhu, Lee Bowman, Emily Nash Smith, Raina Mathur, Aaron B Cohen, Shrujal Baxi, Sarah Rybowski, Amy Lee Chong, Andrew D Seidman. Initial real world treatment patterns and outcomes of Abemaciclib for the treatment of HR+,HER2- metastatic breast cancer [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2019 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2019 Dec 10-14; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2020;80(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P2-08-12.

Background: PTL is a prognostic factor for mCRC. Recent data suggest PTL is also predictive of survival benefit with cetuximab (CET) and bevacizumab (BEV). This study evaluated the prognostic and predictive effect of PTL in patients with KRAS WT mCRC who initiated first-line (1L) therapy with CET vs BEV in the real world. Methods: This retrospective study selected patients with KRAS WT mCRC who initiated 1L therapy with CET or BEV + FOLFIRI or FOLFOX between January 2013 and April 2017 from Flatiron Health’s electronic health record-derived database. PTL was abstracted from patients’ charts. Left-sided PTL (LPTL): splenic flexure to rectum; right-sided PTL (RPTL): cecum to splenic flexure. Propensity score matching was used to balance treatment cohorts on baseline characteristics. Kaplan Meier and Cox regression methods were used for survival analyses. Results: 1,312 patients met the selection criteria. Of 248 CET + FOLFIRI or FOLFOX patients, 164 had LPTL and 84 had RPTL; of 1,064 BEV + FOLFIRI or FOLFOX patients, 679 had LPTL and 385 had RPTL. CET LPTL and RPTL patients were more likely to receive FOLFIRI vs BEV patients (LPTL: 64.0% vs 24.3%; PPPPPP=.378), and 17.0 months (95% CI, 12.0–32.6) for CET RPTL vs 18.8 months (95% CI, 15.8–22.3) for BEV RPTL patients (HR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.68–1.46; P=.996). The interaction of treatment and PTL was not significant in the Cox regression. Conclusions: This study found a prognostic effect of PTL but not a predictive effect. LPTL patients had significantly longer OS vs RPTL patients. However, the treatment effect for CET vs BEV by PTL was not significantly different. Future research is needed to examine differences between real-world and clinical trial populations that may have contributed to divergent results.

Background In MONARCH 1 (NCT02102490), abemaciclib demonstrated promising single-agent activity and tolerability in a population of heavily pretreated women with refractory HR+, HER2- metastatic breast cancer (MBC).1 Confirmed objective response rate (ORR) was 19.7% (95% CI: 13.3, 27.5) and at 18 months minimum follow-up median overall survival (OS) was 22.3 months. Due to the single-arm trial design of MONARCH 1, there is a need to view these results in clinical context relative to available treatment options. This study compared the OS results of abemaciclib in MONARCH 1 vs that in a real-world single-agent chemotherapy cohort with similar patient and disease characteristics. Methods MONARCH 1 study design and key eligibility criteria were previously described.1 The real-world cohort was based on Flatiron Health electronic health records-derived, nationally representative (USA-based) database comprising patient-level structured and unstructured data, curated via technology-enabled abstraction, for patients with MBC between January 1, 2011 through February 28, 2018. A real-world single-agent chemotherapy cohort was created based on the key eligibility criteria of MONARCH 1 and included patients diagnosed with HR+, HER2- MBC who received single-agent chemotherapy (eribulin, capecitabine, gemcitabine, or vinorelbine) following 1-2 prior chemotherapy regimens in the metastatic setting, had an ECOG PS of 0-1, and no prior CDK4 & 6 therapy. The index date was the start of the eligible single-agent chemotherapy, and patients were followed from the index date until date of death, loss to follow-up, or end of the database, whichever occurred earlier. OS results were adjusted using 2 methods (Mahalanobis distance matching and entropy balancing with bootstrapping) to account for baseline demographic and clinical differences between the real-world and trial cohorts. Results A real-world cohort (n=281) with eligibility criteria similar to the MONARCH 1 population (n=132) was identified. A subsequent matching based on Mahalanobis distance was performed to match MONARCH 1 population (n=108) with the real-world cohort (n=108). The matched cohorts demonstrated similar patient and disease characteristics. Median OS was 22.3 months in the abemaciclib arm vs 13.6 months in the matched cohort with an estimated hazard ratio (HR) of 0.54 (95% CI: 0.37, 0.77). Results of a sensitivity analysis performed using entropy balancing were consistent with an adjusted median OS of 12.7 months in the real-world cohort (n=281)with HR of 0.57 (95% CI from bootstrapping: 0.44, 0.78). Conclusion Methodological advances to adjust for potential biases, and improvements in data quality, have evolved enabling the ability to leverage a real-world cohort as an external comparator arm. This study demonstrates the ability to create a real-world chemotherapy cohort suitable to serve as a comparator for MONARCH 1. These exploratory results suggest a survival advantage and adequately place the clinical benefit of abemaciclib monotherapy in clinical context. References Dickler et al, CCR 2017 Citation Format: Rugo H, Dieras V, Cortes J, Patt D, Wildiers H, O'Shaughnessy J, Zamora E, Yardley DY, Carter GC, Sheffield KM, Li L, Andre VA, Derbyshire RE, Li XI, Frenzel M, Huang Y-J, Dickler MN, Tolaney SM. Real-world survival of heavily pretreated patients with refractory HR+, HER2- metastatic breast cancer receiving single-agent chemotherapy - A comparison with MONARCH 1 [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2018 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2018 Dec 4-8; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2019;79(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P6-18-19.

Background: Evidence suggests that there are clinical features associated with a less favorable prognosis among patients with HR+/HER2- metastatic breast cancer (MBC) such as metastases to non-bone sites, including liver and lung, and negative progesterone receptor (PgR-) status. The objective of this study was to compare baseline characteristics and outcomes between those with and without these clinical factors among a cohort of HR+/HER2- MBC patients treated with a CDK4&6 inhibitor (CDK4&6i). Methods: This was a retrospective analysis of the Flatiron Health electronic health records-derived database for US patients diagnosed with MBC between 1/1/2011 and 9/30/2017. The study included a random sample of patients with HR+/HER2- MBC who were treated with a CDK4&6i on or after 6/30/2016. Baseline variables, including demographics, comorbidities, and sites of metastasis, were recorded at start of the first CDK4&6i containing line of therapy in the metastatic setting on or after this date. Dates of real-world progression were abstracted from patient charts. Descriptive statistics and appropriate statistical tests were used to compare baseline characteristics between patients with or without select clinical factors associated with unfavorable outcomes. In patients who received a CDK4&6i-based therapy, Kaplan–Meier methods and univariable Cox proportional hazards models were used to assess real-world progression free survival (rwPFS) by line from start of line to the date of first progression or death within line (unadjusted for treatment and other potential confounders). Results: 518 patients were included in this study. Median age at metastatic diagnosis was 66y (IQR; 59-73y); 99% female and 11.4% had PgR- status. At baseline, 20.5%, 46.3%% and 65.8% of patients had liver, visceral (defined as liver and/or lung), and non-bone only metastases, respectively. Among a total of 207 patients who received a CDK4&6i as initial therapy in the metastatic setting, 69.1% received it in combination with an aromatase inhibitor, 29.5% received it in combination with fulvestrant, and 1.4% as monotherapy. Within the same group, 58 had disease progression or died during first line (1L); median rwPFS measured from start of 1L was not reached (95% CI: 10.7 months, NA). Univariable analyses revealed the presence of liver metastases was associated with a higher risk of progression or death compared to no liver metastases (HR: 2.04, 95% CI: 1.13 - 3.68). Having non bone-only metastases was associated with a higher risk of progression or death compared to having bone-only metastases (HR: 2.23, 95% CI: 1.20 – 4.15). Univariable analyses did not reveal any statistically significant differences in first-line rwPFS by PgR status or presence of visceral metastases. Results from other lines of therapy are forthcoming. Conclusion: In a real world data set, and consistent with prior prospective data, presence of liver and non-bone only metastases were associated with a higher risk of progression among patients with HR+/HER2- MBC receiving initial therapy with a CDK4&6i. The heterogeneity of prognoses among this population reinforces the need to consider these clinical features in treatment decisions for optimal patient outcomes. Citation Format: Saverno KR, Carter GC, Li L, Battiato LA, Huang Y-J, Smyth EN, Price GL, Sheffield KM, Baxi SS, Kuk D, Seidman AD. Influence of prognostic factors on outcomes among metastatic breast cancer patients treated with CDK4&6 inhibitors in routine clinical practice [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2018 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2018 Dec 4-8; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2019;79(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P2-08-38.

Our aim was to develop and validate a practical US healthcare claims algorithm for identifying incident lung cancer that improves on positive predictive value (PPV) and sensitivity observed in past studies.Patients newly diagnosed with lung cancer in Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) (gold standard) were linked with Medicare claims. A 5% Medicare "other cancer" sample and noncancer sample served as controls. A split-sample validation approach was used. Rules-based, regression, and machine learning models for developing algorithms were explored. Algorithms were developed in the model building subset. Rules-based algorithms and those with the highest F scores were evaluated in the validation subset. F scores were compared for 1000 bootstrap samples. Misclassification was evaluated by calculating the odds of selection by the algorithm among true positives and true negatives.A practical single-score algorithm derived from a logistic regression model had sensitivity = 78.22% and PPV = 78.50% (F score: 78.36). The algorithm was most likely to misclassify older patients (ages ≥80 years) or with missing data in the SEER registry, shorter follow-up time in Medicare (3 months), insurance through Veterans Affairs,1 cancer in SEER, or certain Charlson comorbidities (dementia, chronic pulmonary disease, liver disease, or myocardial infarction).In this dataset, a practical point-based algorithm for identifying incident lung cancer demonstrated significant and substantial improvement (7.9% and 23.9% absolute improvement in sensitivity and PPV, respectively) compared with a current standard.

e18581 Background: While most patients (pts) with HR+, HER2- early breast cancer (EBC) do not experience disease recurrence, those with high risk clinicopathologic features may have recurrence within the first few years on adjuvant endocrine therapy (AET). This study estimates risk of recurrence in pts with EBC based on clinicopathologic features and evaluates the medical need for more efficacious treatments using US oncology practice data. Methods: This retrospective study used the nationwide Flatiron Health electronic health record derived deidentified database. The cohort included pts with HR+, HER2- stage I-III breast cancer, diagnosed Jan 2011-Mar 2020, who received surgery and AET. Clinicopathologic features were used to identify a ‘high risk (HiR) group’ (≥ 4 positive axillary lymph nodes (LN), or 1-3 positive axillary LN and ≥ 1 of the following: Grade 3, tumor size ≥ 5 cm, or Ki-67 ≥ 20%) and ‘low risk (LoR) group’ (pts who do not meet above criteria, including a subset with node negative (N0) disease). Cox proportional hazards regression models compared invasive disease-free survival (IDFS) and distant relapse-free survival (DRFS) from AET initiation between groups according to a sequential gatekeeping strategy and stepwise analysis: first compare HiR group to N0 pts; if significant then compare HiR to LoR group. Results: 557 (13.8%) pts were in the HiR group and 3,471 (86.2%) in the LoR group (including 2,867 N0 pts). The study population (median age 64 yrs) was predominantly female (99.2%), white (69.4%) and postmenopausal (75.6%) with median follow-up of 39.6 months. Pts in the HiR group were younger and more likely premenopausal, have a BRCA mutation, invasive lobular carcinoma and less likely to have received an Oncotype DX test compared to LoR pts. Of the 557 HiR pts, 231 (41.5%) had ≥ 4 positive LN and 326 (58.5%) had 1-3 positive axillary LN with additional risk factor(s): tumor size ≥ 5 cm (11.7%), histologic grade 3 (32.0%), and/or Ki-67 ≥ 20% (31.6%). Most HiR pts received radiotherapy (82.4%) and chemotherapy (68.1%). Significant differences in IDFS and DRFS were observed between HiR group and N0 and LoR groups (logrank test p < .0001 for all). The 2-year IDFS rate was 88.1% in the HiR group, compared to 97.4% in N0 pts and 97.1% in the LoR group; 2-year DRFS rates were 89.0% compared to 97.9% and 97.7%, respectively. Pts in the HiR group had significantly higher hazard of invasive disease recurrence or death compared to N0 (HR = 3.42, 95% CI: 2.69-4.34, p < .0001) and LoR group (HR = 3.07, 95% CI: 2.46-3.84, p < .0001). Similar results observed for DRFS (HiR vs N0: HR = 3.46, 95% CI: 2.70-4.44, p < .0001; HiR vs LoR HR = 3.16, 95% CI: 2.50-3.98, p < .0001). Conclusions: Approximately 12% of pts with EBC and high risk clinicopathologic features experienced invasive disease recurrence or death within 2 years of initiating AET. Optimal use of standard therapies and novel treatment options are needed to prevent early recurrence and metastases in these pts.

279 Background: Several therapies have recently gained regulatory approval in the United States (US) as second-line (2L) treatment options for patients with advanced unresectable or metastatic hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Treatment patterns and associated outcomes in a real-world population, especially in the contemporary era, remain understudied. Methods: This retrospective study utilized electronic health record data collected during routine patient care in outpatient oncology practices in the US. Adult patients diagnosed with advanced/ metastatic HCC between April 2017 and January 2020 were identified from the Concerto HealthAI database. Patients who survived at least one month from the end of first-line (1L) systemic therapy but did not initiate 2L therapy were classified as having received supportive care alone (SCA). Demographics, patient and disease characteristics, treatment patterns, and outcomes were described descriptively. Median overall survival (OS) from initiation of 2L therapy or end of 1L therapy for patients receiving SCA until death was estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method. Results: A total of 586 patients with advanced/ metastatic HCC were identified in the database. 330 patients received 1L therapy, and of those patients 63% (N= 207) received systemic 2L therapy (n= 105) or SCA (n= 102). At first diagnosis of advanced/ metastatic HCC, the median age was 64 years, and 86% were male. Of patients with ECOG status available at diagnosis (67%), 45% had ECOG status 0-1. The most common 1L agents prescribed were sorafenib (n= 126, 61%), lenvatinib (n= 28,14%) and sorafenib + nivolumab (n= 13, 6%) The most frequent agents prescribed in 2L were nivolumab (n= 44, 42%), sorafenib (n=18,17%), and lenvatinib (n=9, 9%). The median OS of patients receiving any systemic 2L therapy was 7.7 months (95% confidence interval 5.7-11.1) from time of receiving 2L therapy, whereas the median OS of patients receiving SCA was 5.0 months (95% confidence interval 3.3-7.1) from time of end of 1L therapy. Conclusions: In this contemporary national real-world cohort of patients with advanced/ metastatic HCC, a third of patients who received 1L therapy subsequently received 2L therapy. Next steps include investigating factors associated with non-receipt of 2L therapy, sequencing of therapies when multiple lines of therapies are received, and evaluating outcomes by type of agent received in 2L and beyond.

Aim: To develop a claims-based prediction model of poor performance status (PS) in commercially insured and Medicare supplemental beneficiaries with cancer. Patients & methods: Retrospective analysis was conducted of electronic medical records (EMR) from community oncology practices linked to MarketScan claims. Multivariable logistic regression predicted PS scores from the EMR using claims-based diagnostic and procedure codes. Results: The study included 8442 patients diagnosed with cancer from 2007 to 2015. Overall, 8.1% of patients had poor EMR-based PS. Bootstrapping results from the final model showed sensitivity and specificity of approximately 75% with a predicted probability cutpoint = 0.078, c-statistic = 0.821 and pseudo-R 2 = 0.25. Conclusion: Patients with poor PS can be identified in claims data. This prediction model enables future studies evaluating cancer treatments and outcomes to account for PS.

KRAS (Kirsten Rat Sarcoma) is the most common oncogenic mutation detected in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, the role of KRAS as either a prognostic factor or predictive factor (modifier of treatment effects) in NSCLC is not well established at this time. This systematic literature review (SLR) and meta-analysis synthesized the available evidence regarding the role of KRAS mutation as a predictive factor and/or prognostic factor of survival and response outcomes in patients with advanced/metastatic (stage IIIB-IV) NSCLC. Relevant clinical trials and observational studies were identified by searching MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials. Meta-analyses were performed using data extracted from multivariable and univariable analyses from clinical studies to assess the empirical evidence of KRAS mutation status as a prognostic or/and predicitive factor. 43 selected studies were identified by the SLR and included in this meta-analysis. Pairwise meta-analyses of hazard ratios (HRs) reported in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) did not demonstrate a significant prognostic effect of mutant KRAS on overall survival (OS) (HR=1.10; 95% CI [0.88, 1.38]) or progression free survival (PFS) (HR=1.03; 95% CI [0.80, 1.33]). However, when conducting meta-analyses on HRs reported in observational studies, a statistically significant negative prognostic effect of mutant KRAS was observed (OS HR=1.71; 95% CI [1.07, 2.84]; PFS HR=1.18; 95% CI [1.02, 1.36]). Meta-analyses of objective response rate (ORR) in RCTs demonstrated a negative prognostic effect of mutant KRAS (RR=0.38; 95% CI [0.16, 0.63]). Limited data were available to evaluate the role of KRAS mutation as a predictive factor. In conclusion, this research offers evidence that KRAS mutation may be a negative prognostic factor for survival and response outcomes in patients with advanced/metastatic NSCLC, but further research is needed to address conflicting results on the importance of KRAS mutations as a predictive factor.

There is a paucity of data on the current management and outcomes of liver-directed therapy (LDT) in older patients presenting with stage IV colorectal cancer (CRC). The aim of the study was to evaluate treatment patterns and outcomes in use of LDT in the setting of improved chemotherapy.We used Cancer Registry and linked Medicare claims to identify patients aged ≥66 y undergoing surgical resection of the primary tumor and chemotherapy after presenting with stage IV CRC (2001-2007). LDT was defined as liver resection and/or ablation-embolization.We identified 5500 patients. LDT was used in 34.9% of patients; liver resection was performed in 1686 patients (30.7%), and ablation-embolization in 554 patients (10.1%), with 322 patients having both resection and ablation-embolization. Use of LDT was negatively associated with increasing year of diagnosis (odds ratio [OR] = 0.96, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.93-0.99), age85 y (OR = 0.61, 95% CI 0.45-0.82), and poor tumor differentiation (OR = 0.73, 95% CI 0.64-0.83). LDT was associated with improved survival (median 28.4 versus 21.1 mo, P 0.0001); however, survival improved for all patients over time. We found a significant interaction between LDT and period of diagnosis and noted a greater survival improvement with LDT for those diagnosed in the late (2005-2007) period.Older patients with stage IV CRC are experiencing improved survival over time, independent of age, comorbidity, and use of LDT. However, many older patients deemed to be appropriate candidates for resection of the primary tumor and receipt of systemic chemotherapy did not receive LDT. Our data suggest that improved patient selection may be positively impacting outcomes. Early referral and optimal selection of patients for LDT has the potential to further improve survival in older patients presenting with advanced colorectal cancer.

2035 Background: BM in NSCLC pts are associated with significant morbidity and mortality. This analysis describes the frequency and timing of BM development, pt characteristics, systemic txs, and OS in NSCLC pts with and without BM. Methods: This retrospective observational study identified pts from the Flatiron-Foundation Medicine NSCLC Clinico-Genomic Database diagnosed from 1 Jan 2011 to 31 Oct 2017 with adv NSCLC and a tumor sample analyzed via FoundationOne. Tx pattern data were summarized by period (1 Jan 2011-1 Mar 2015; 2 Mar 2015-31 Dec 2017), therapy class (eg, anti-VEGF and EGFR, platinum-based), and BM occurrence. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize data; Chi-square and t-tests assessed statistically significant differences. OS was measured by site of met (BM only vs no-BM only vs BM and no-BM) via K-M methods from adv diagnosis until death or last activity date (censored). Results: Of 3257 pts, 1018/3257 (31.3%) had BM during follow-up; 726/1018 (71.3%) presented with BM within 30 days of adv diagnosis. The median age at adv diagnosis was 66.2 yrs. Relative to pts without BM, BM pts were younger, more likely to be female, of Asian descent, have stage IV disease, ≥2 met sites (including BM) at initial presentation, ≥3 met sites (including BM) during follow-up, and non-squamous histology (all p < 0.01). Approximately 78% (n = 2534) were treated with ≥1 systemic tx; platinum-based chemo-combinations were the most common 1st line tx, regardless of BM status. Increased use of PD-1/L1 tx was seen in 1st, 2nd, and 3rdline during the latter vs earlier period. No statistically significant difference in OS was observed in pts with BM only (17.1 mos; 95% CI 12.5-29.9), no-BM only (21 mos; 95% CI 19.4-22.8), or BM and no-BM (20.4 mos; 95% CI 18.9-23.3) (log rank p = 0.3027). Conclusions: In met NSCLC pts with a tumor sample that was molecularly profiled, OS was comparable, regardless of site(s) of disease; additional multivariate analyses including molecular profiles are needed. BM screening at initial diagnosis is important given the frequency in NSCLC. Future studies should assess whether the shift in systemic tx patterns impact the development and clinical outcomes.

Trends in the use of modern chemotherapeutic regimens, primary tumor resection, and the timing of chemotherapy and resection in older patients with stage IV colorectal cancer have not been evaluated. We used Cancer Registry- and Medicare-linked data (2000–2009) to describe time trends in resection of the primary tumor and receipt of chemotherapy in patients ≥66 presenting with stage IV colorectal cancer (N = 16,168). The mean age was 77.8 ± 7.3 years; 53.8 % were women and 82.9 % were white. Primary cancer sites were colon in 83.4 % and rectum in 16.6 %. Resection of the primary tumor decreased from 64.6 to 57.1 % (P

BACKGROUND A previous observational study reported that endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) is associated with improved survival in older patients with pancreatic cancer. The objective of this study was to reevaluate this association using different statistical methods to control for confounding and selection bias. METHODS Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare linked data (1992-2007) was used to identify patients with locoregional pancreatic cancer. Two-year survival in patients who did and did not receive EUS was compared by using standard Cox proportional hazards models, propensity score methodology, and instrumental variable analysis. RESULTS EUS was associated with improved survival in both unadjusted (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.67, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.63-0.72) and standard regression analyses (HR = 0.78, 95% CI = 0.73-0.84) which controlled for age, sex, race, marital status, tumor stage, SEER region, Charlson comorbidity, year of diagnosis, education, preoperative biliary stenting, chemotherapy, radiation, and pancreatic resection. Propensity score adjustment, matching, and stratification did not attenuate this survival benefit. In an instrumental variable analysis, the survival benefit was no longer observed (HR = 1.00, 95% CI = 0.73-1.36). CONCLUSIONS These results demonstrate the need to exercise caution in using administrative data to infer causal mortality benefits with diagnostic and/or treatment interventions in cancer research. Cancer 2013;119:3861–3869. © 2013 American Cancer Society.

Obtaining cancer screening on patients with limited life expectancy has been proposed as a measure for low quality care for primary care physicians (PCPs). However, administrative data may underestimate life expectancy in patients who undergo screening.To determine the association between receipt of screening mammography or PSA and overall survival.Retrospective cohort study from 1/1/1999 to 12/31/2012. Receipt of screening was assessed for 2001-2002 and survival from 1/1/2003 to 12/31/2012. Life expectancy was estimated as of 1/1/03 using a validated algorithm, and was compared to actual survival for men and women, stratified by receipt of cancer screening.A 5 % sample of Medicare beneficiaries aged 69-90 years as of 1/1/2003 (n = 906,723).Receipt of screening mammography in 2001-2002 for women, or a screening PSA test in 2002 for men.Survival from 1/1/2003 through 12/31/2012.Subjects were stratified by life expectancy based on age and comorbidity. Within each stratum, the subjects with prior cancer screening had actual median survivals higher than those who were not screened, with differences ranging from 1.7 to 2.1 years for women and 0.9 to 1.1 years for men. In a Cox model, non-receipt of screening in women had an impact on survival (HR = 1.52; 95 % CI = 1.51, 1.54) similar in magnitude to a diagnosis of complicated diabetes or heart failure, and was comparable to uncomplicated diabetes or liver disease in men (HR = 1.23; 1.22, 1.25).Receipt of cancer screening is a powerful marker of health status that is not captured by comorbidity measures in administrative data. Because life expectancy algorithms using administrative data underestimate the life expectancy of patients who undergo screening, they can overestimate the problem of cancer screening in patients with limited life expectancy.

Depression has been associated with delayed presentation, inadequate treatment, and poor survival in patients with cancer.Using Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results and Medicare linked data (1992-2005), we identified patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma (N = 23,745). International classification of diseases, 9th edition, clinical modification codes were used to evaluate depression during the 3 to 27 months before the diagnosis of cancer. The effect of depression on receipt of therapy and survival was evaluated in univariate and multivariate models.Of patients with pancreatic cancer in our study, 7.9% had a diagnosis of depression (N = 1,868). Depression was associated with increased age, female sex, white race, single or widowed status, and advanced stage disease (P.0001). In an adjusted model, patients with locoregional disease and depression had 37% lower odds of undergoing surgical resection (odds ratio, 0.63; 95% confidence interval, 0.52-0.76). In patients with locoregional disease, depression was associated with lower 2-year survival (hazard ratio, 1.20; 95% confidence interval, 1.09-1.32). After adjusting for surgical resection, this association was attenuated (hazard ratio, 1.14; 95% confidence interval, 1.04-1.26). In patients who underwent surgical resection, depression was a significant predictor of survival (hazard ratio, 1.34; 95% confidence interval, 1.04-1.73). Patients with distant disease and depression had 21% lower odds of receiving chemotherapy (odds ratio, 0.79; 95% confidence interval, 0.70-0.90). After adjusting for chemotherapy for distant disease, depression was no longer a significant predictor of survival (hazard ratio, 1.03; 95% confidence interval, 0.97-1.09).The decreased survival associated with depression appears to be mediated by a lower likelihood of appropriate treatment in depressed patients. Accurate recognition and treatment of pancreatic cancer patients with depression may improve treatment rates and survival.

BACKGROUND: The authors' goal was to characterize hospice enrollment and aggressiveness of care for pancreatic cancer patients at the end of life. METHODS: Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results and linked Medicare claims data (1992-2006) were used to identify patients with pancreatic cancer who had died (n = 22,818). The authors evaluated hospice use, hospice enrollment ≥4 weeks before death, and aggressiveness of care as measured by receipt of chemotherapy, acute care hospitalization, and intensive care unit (ICU) admission in the last month of life. RESULTS: Overall, 56.9% of patients enrolled in hospice, and 35.9% of hospice users enrolled for 4 weeks or more. Hospice use increased from 36.2% in 1992-1994 to 67.2% in 2004-2006 (P < .0001). Admission to the ICU and receipt of chemotherapy in the last month of life increased from 15.5% to 19.6% (P < .0001) and from 8.1% to 16.4% (P < .0001), respectively. Among patients with locoregional disease, those who underwent resection were less likely to enroll in hospice before death and much less likely to enroll early. They were also more likely to receive chemotherapy (14% vs 9%, P < .0001), be admitted to an acute care hospital (61% vs 53%, P < .0001), and be admitted to an ICU (27% vs 15%, P < .0001) in the last month of life. CONCLUSIONS: Although hospice use increased over time, there was a simultaneous decrease in early enrollment and increase in aggressive care at the end of life for patients with pancreatic cancer. Cancer 2011;. © 2011 American Cancer Society.

e15658 Background: HCC is associated with a worse prognosis in pts with high baseline AFP levels. The relationship between elevated baseline AFP and survival benefit with systemic HCC treatments in the real world setting is poorly characterized. Methods: A retrospective analysis of clinical outcomes among newly diagnosed advanced HCC pts treated in US community-based oncology practice settings was conducted. Pts treated with sorafenib or best-supportive care (BSC) between 10/1/2007 and 12/31/2013 were identified in the International Oncology Network electronic medical record (EMR) database and were followed until date of death, date of last visit, or 06/30/2014 (end of study). Baseline demographics, clinical characteristics, and AFP (≤ or > 400 ng/mL), plus date of death were extracted from the EMR and physician progress notes. Treatment differences in OS were evaluated and stratified by AFP, AST/ALT, and bilirubin using unadjusted Cox proportional hazards regression models. Results: A total of 370 advanced HCC pts receiving sorafenib (217) or BSC (153) were identified. The mean age was 65.6 years and 77.0% were male. Cirrhosis (38.4%), hepatitis C (36.8%), and alcoholic liver disease (22.4%) were common hepatic-related comorbidities. 45.1% of pts had elevated AFP ( > 400 ng/mL) at baseline. The sorafenib cohort had significantly longer median OS time than the BSC cohort (29.6 vs 19.7 weeks, p= 0.048). OS for sorafenib vs BSC cohorts with AFP≤400 ng/mL and AFP > 400 ng/mL were 45.1 vs 25.3 weeks ( p= 0.128) and 25.3 vs 13.1 weeks ( p =0.197), respectively. Cox models revealed a consistent effect of sorafenib vs. BSC, regardless of AFP level (AFP ≤400ng/mL: HR = 0.79 (95% CI 0.55-1.13), p= 0.200; AFP > 400 ng/mL: HR = 0.80 (95% CI 0.53-1.52), p= 0.297). Conclusions: This study supports the poor prognosis for advanced HCC pts with baseline AFP levels > 400 ng/mL compared to baseline AFP ≤400 ng/mL. Limitations with retrospective, real-world studies require caution in interpretation, but this analysis suggests an OS benefit with sorafenib treatment compared to BSC. There remains an unmet need for effective therapies for advanced HCC associated with elevated AFP levels.

Importance Inappropriate use of colonoscopy involves unnecessary risk for older patients and consumes resources that could be used more effectively. Objectives To determine the frequency of potentially inappropriate colonoscopy in Medicare beneficiaries in Texas and to examine variation among physicians and across geographic regions. Design, Setting, and Participants This retrospective cohort study used 100% Medicare claims data for Texas and a 5% sample from the United States from 2000 through 2009. We identified Medicare beneficiaries aged 70 years or older who underwent a colonoscopy from October 1, 2008, through September 30, 2009. Main Outcome Measures Colonoscopies were classified as screening in the absence of a diagnosis suggesting an indication for the procedure. Screening colonoscopy was considered potentially inappropriate on the basis of patient age or occurrence too soon after colonoscopy with negative findings. The percentage of patients undergoing potentially inappropriate screening colonoscopy was estimated for each colonoscopist and hospital service area. Results A large percentage of colonoscopies performed in older adults were potentially inappropriate: 23.4% for the overall Texas cohort and 9.9%, 38.8%, and 24.9%, respectively, in patients aged 70 to 75, 76 to 85, or 86 years or older. There was considerable variation across the 797 colonoscopists in the percentages of colonoscopies performed that were potentially inappropriate. In a multilevel model including patient sex, race or ethnicity, number of comorbid conditions, educational level, and urban or rural residence, 73 colonoscopists had percentages significantly above the mean (23.9%), ranging from 28.7% to 45.5%, and 119 had percentages significantly below the mean (23.9%), ranging from 6.7% to 18.6%. The colonoscopists with percentages significantly above the mean were more likely to be surgeons, graduates of US medical schools, medical school graduates before 1990, and higher-volume colonoscopists than those with percentages significantly below the mean. Colonoscopist rankings were fairly stable over time (2006-2007 vs 2008-2009). There was also geographic variation across Texas and the United States, with percentages ranging from 13.3% to 34.9% in Texas and from 19.5% to 30.5% across the United States. Conclusions and Relevance Many colonoscopies performed in older adults may be inappropriate. The likelihood of undergoing potentially inappropriate colonoscopy depends in part on where patients live and what physician they see.

Adenosquamous carcinoma of the pancreas is rare. Our understanding of the disease and its prognosis comes mainly from small retrospective studies.Using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database (1988 to 2007), we identified patients with adenosquamous carcinoma (n = 415) or adenocarcinoma (n = 45,693) of the pancreas. The demographics, tumor characteristics, resection status, and survival were compared between the groups.Compared with patients with adenocarcinoma, patients with adenosquamous carcinoma were more likely to have disease located in the pancreatic body and tail (44.6% versus 53.5%, P0.0001). While the stage distribution was similar between the two groups, adenosquamous carcinomas were more likely to be poorly differentiated (71% versus 45%, P0.0001), node positive (53% versus 47%, P0.0001), and larger (5.7 versus 4.3 cm, P0.0001). For locoregional disease, resection increased over time from 26% in 1988 to 56% in 2007. The overall 2-y survival was 11% in both groups. Following resection, patients with adenosquamous carcinoma had worse 2-y survival (29% versus 36%, P0.0001). Resection was the strongest independent predictor of survival for patients with locoregional pancreatic adenosquamous carcinoma (HR 2.35, 95% CI = 1.47-3.76).This is the first population-based study to evaluate outcomes in adenosquamous carcinoma of the pancreas. Compared with pancreatic adenocarcinoma, adenosquamous carcinoma was more likely to occur in the pancreatic tail, be poorly differentiated, larger, and node positive. The long-term survival following surgical resection is significantly worse for adenosquamous cancers; however, patients with adenosquamous carcinoma can still benefit from surgical resection, which is the strongest predictor of survival.