Search

IMPORTANCE: Patients 80 years and older with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) have not consistently received treatments that have established benefits in younger older adults (aged 60-79 years), yet patients 80 years and older are increasingly being offered surgery. Whether adjuvant chemotherapy (AC) provides additional benefit among patients 80 years and older with PDAC following surgery is not well understood. OBJECTIVE: To describe patterns of AC use in patients 80 years and older following surgical resection of PDAC and to compare overall survival between patients who received AC and those who did not. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Retrospective cohort study among patients 80 years or older diagnosed with PDAC (stage I-III) between 2004 to 2016 who underwent a pancreaticoduodenectomy at hospitals across the US reporting to the National Cancer Database. EXPOSURES: AC vs no AC 90 days following diagnosis of PDAC. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The proportion of patients who received AC was assessed over the study period. Overall survival was compared between patients who received AC and those who did not using Kaplan-Meier estimates and multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression. A landmark analysis was performed to address immortal time bias. A propensity score analysis was performed to address indication bias. Subgroup analyses were conducted in node-negative, margin-negative, clinically complex, node-positive, and margin-positive cohorts. RESULTS: Between 2004 and 2016, 2569 patients 80 years and older (median [IQR] age, 82 [81-84] years; 1427 were women [55.5%]) underwent surgery for PDAC. Of these patients, 1217 (47.4%) received AC. Findings showed an 18.6% (95% CI, 8.0%-29.0%; P = .001) absolute increase in the use of AC among older adults who underwent a pancreaticoduodenectomy comparing rates in 2004 vs 2016. Receipt of AC was associated with a longer median survival (17.2 months; 95% CI, 16.1-19.0) compared with those who did not receive AC (12.7 months; 95% CI, 11.8-13.6). This association was consistent in propensity and subgroup analyses. In multivariable analysis, receipt of AC (hazard ratio [HR], 0.72; 95% CI, 0.65-0.79; P

Data are limited regarding whether the availability of biomarker-directed therapy for lung cancer exacerbates racial and socioeconomic disparities. Patients diagnosed with stage IV lung adenocarcinoma from 2008 to 2013 were identified using Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program-Medicare. The primary outcome was a Medicare claim for molecular testing within 60 days of diagnosis, analyzed using multivariable logistic regression; the secondary outcome was overall survival, analyzed using multivariable Cox proportional hazards models. All statistical tests were two-sided. Of 5556 patients, 1437 (25.9%) had molecular testing. Testing rates were 14.1% among black, 26.2% among white, and 32.8% among patients of Asian/other descent (adjusted P

Purpose There are no nationally representative data on oncologists’ use of next-generation sequencing (NGS) testing in practice. The purpose of this study was to investigate how oncologists in the United States use NGS tests to evaluate patients with cancer and to inform treatment recommendations. Methods The study used data from the National Survey of Precision Medicine in Cancer Treatment, which was mailed to a nationally representative sample of oncologists in 2017 (N = 1,281; cooperation rate = 38%). Weighted percentages were calculated to describe NGS test use. Multivariable modeling was conducted to assess the association of test use with oncologist practice characteristics. Results Overall, 75.6% of oncologists reported using NGS tests to guide treatment decisions. Of these oncologists, 34.0% used them often to guide treatment decisions for patients with advanced refractory disease, 29.1% to determine eligibility for clinical trials, and 17.5% to decide on off-label use of Food and Drug Administration–approved drugs. NGS test results informed treatment recommendations often for 26.8%, sometimes for 52.4%, and never or rarely for 20.8% of oncologists. Oncologists younger than 50 years of age, holding a faculty appointment, having genomics training, seeing more than 50 unique patients per month, and having access to a molecular tumor board were more likely to use NGS tests. Conclusion In 2017, most oncologists in the United States were using NGS tests to guide treatment decisions for their patients. More research is needed to establish the clinical usefulness of these tests, to develop evidence-based clinical guidelines for their use in practice, and to ensure that patients who can benefit from these new technologies receive appropriate testing and treatment.

The traditional approach to drug development in oncology, with discrete phases of clinical testing, is becoming untenable owing to expansion of the precision medicine paradigm, whereby patients are stratified into multiple subgroups according to the underlying cancer biology. Seamless approaches to drug development in oncology hold great promise of accelerating the accessibility of novel therapeutic agents to the public but are also accompanied by important trade-offs, including the limited availability of information on the clinical benefit and safety of novel agents at the time of market entry. In this Perspectives article, we describe several opportunities, in the form of novel trial designs or modelling strategies, to improve the efficiency of drug development in oncology, as well as new mechanisms to obtain information about anticancer therapies throughout their life cycle, such as innovative functional imaging techniques or the use of real-world clinical data.

Health care spending in the months before death varies across geographic areas but is not associated with outcomes. Using data from the prospective multiregional Cancer Care Outcomes Research and Surveillance Consortium (CanCORS) study, we assessed the extent to which such variation is explained by differences in patients’ sociodemographic factors, clinical factors, and beliefs; physicians’ beliefs; and the availability of services. Among 1,132 patients ages sixty-five and older who were diagnosed with lung or colorectal cancer in 2003–05, had advanced-stage cancer, died before 2013, and were enrolled in fee-for-service Medicare, mean expenditures in the last month of life were $13,663. Physicians in higher-spending areas reported less knowledge about and comfort with treating dying patients and less positive attitudes about hospice, compared to those in lower-spending areas. Higher-spending areas also had more physicians and fewer primary care providers and hospices in proportion to their total populatio...

Background Several recent studies have suggested an increased cancer risk among patients with heart failure (HF). However, these studies are constrained by limited size and follow-up, lack of comprehensive data on other health attributes, and adjudicated cancer outcomes. Objectives This study sought to determine whether HF is associated with cancer incidence and cancer-specific mortality. Methods The study assembled a cohort from the Physicians’ Health Studies I and II, 2 randomized controlled trials of aspirin and vitamin supplements conducted from 1982 to 1995 and from 1997 to 2011, respectively, that included annual health evaluations and determination of cancer and HF diagnoses. In the primary analysis, the study excluded participants with cancer or HF at baseline and performed multivariable-adjusted Cox models to determine the relationship between HF and cancer, modeling HF as a time-varying exposure. In a complementary analysis, the study used the landmark method and identified cancer-free participants at 70 years of age, distinguishing between those with and without HF, and likewise performed Cox regression. Sensitivity analyses were performed at 65, 75, and 80 years of age. Results Among 28,341 Physicians’ Health Study participants, 1,420 developed HF. A total of 7,363 cancers developed during a median follow-up time of 19.9 years (25th to 75th percentile: 11.0 to 26.8 years). HF was not associated with cancer incidence in crude (hazard ratio: 0.92; 95% confidence interval: 0.80 to 1.08) or multivariable-adjusted analysis (hazard ratio: 1.05; 95% confidence interval: 0.86 to 1.29). No association was found between HF and site-specific cancer incidence or cancer-specific mortality after multivariable adjustment. Results were similar when using the landmark method at all landmark ages. Conclusions HF is not associated with an increased risk of cancer among male physicians.

Background: Technological advances can improve care and outcomes but are a primary driver of health care spending growth. Understanding diffusion and use of new oncology therapies is important, given substantial increases in prices and spending on such treatments. Objectives: Examine diffusion of bevacizumab, a novel (in 2004) and high-priced biologic cancer therapy, among US oncology practices during 2005–2012 and assess variation in use across practices. Research Design: Population-based observational study. Setting: A total of 2329 US practices providing cancer chemotherapy. Participants: Random 20% sample of 236,304 Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries aged above 65 years in 2004–2012 undergoing infused chemotherapy for cancer. Measures: Diffusion of bevacizumab (cumulative time to first use and 10% use) in practices, variation in use across practices overall and by higher versus lower-value use. We used hierarchical models with practice random effects to estimate the between-practice variation in the probability of receiving bevacizumab and to identify factors associated with use. Results: We observed relatively rapid diffusion of bevacizumab, particularly in independent practices and larger versus smaller practices. We observed substantial variation in use; the adjusted odds ratio (95% confidence interval) of bevacizumab use was 2.90 higher (2.73–3.08) for practices 1 SD above versus one standard deviation below the mean. Variation was less for higher-value [odds ratio=2.72 (2.56–2.89)] than lower-value uses [odds ratio=3.61 (3.21–4.06)]. Conclusions: Use of bevacizumab varied widely across oncology practices, particularly for lower-value indications. These findings suggest that interventions targeted to practices have potential for decreasing low-value use of high-cost cancer therapies.

349527 Background: Symptoms are common during cancer care but often go undetected. Digital systems that elicit patient-reported outcomes (PRO) surveys may detect symptoms early and prompt clinicians to intervene, thereby alleviating suffering and averting complications. Methods: In a cluster-randomized trial, U.S.-based community oncology practices were randomized 1:1 to digital symptom monitoring with PRO surveys, or to usual care control. Patients receiving systemic treatment for metastatic cancer were eligible. At PRO practices, participants were invited to complete a weekly survey via web or automated telephone system for up to one year, including questions about nine common symptoms, performance status, and falls. Severe or worsening symptoms triggered electronic alerts to care team nurses, and reports showing longitudinal symptom data were available to oncologists at visits. Pre-specified secondary outcomes included impact on physical function, symptom control, and health-related quality of life (HRQL). The primary outcome of survival is not yet mature. Results: At 52 practices, 1,191 patients were eligible and enrolled (593 PRO; 598 control). Clinically meaningful benefits were experienced in physical function by 13.8% more patients with PRO versus control (P=0.009); symptom control by 16.1% (P=0.003); and HRQL by 13.4% (P=0.006). Mean changes from baseline were superior with PRO versus control for physical function (mean difference 2.47, 95% CI 0.41-4.53; P=0.02), symptom control (2.56, 0.95-4.17; P=0.002), and HRQL (2.43, 0.90-3.96; P=0.002). Patients completed 20,565/22,486 (91.5%) of expected weekly PRO surveys. Conclusions: Digital symptom monitoring during cancer treatment confers clinical benefits. Clinical trial information: NCT03249090.

Introduction: International clinical practice guidelines (ITAC, ASCO, NCCN and ASH) have progressively endorsed direct factor Xa inhibitors (edoxaban, rivaroxaban and apixaban) as an alternative to monotherapy with low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) for the treatment of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in cancer patients. The results from new randomized controlled trials (RCT) which assessed the efficacy and the safety of direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC) compared to LMWH for the treatment of cancer-associated thrombosis (CAT) were released during the past months. We therefore performed an updated meta-analysis of all publicly available data from RCT comparing DOAC with LMWH for the treatment of CAT. Methods: Embase, MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and conference proceedings from all languages were searched up to August 2, 2021. Search strategy, study selection, data extraction and statistical analysis were performed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The primary efficacy outcome was recurrent VTE, and the primary safety outcome was major bleeding. Secondary outcomes included clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding (CRNMB), and all-cause mortality. Risk of bias was assessed by using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool in randomized controlled trials version 2.0. Pooled relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated using the Mantel-Haenszel method of Der Simonian and Laird within a random-effect model. Heterogeneity of effect size across studies was assessed using the I 2 statistic. Publication bias was assessed by visual inspection of funnel plots. All the statistical analyses were performed with the RevMan 5.3 software. Results: Six RCT comparing the efficacy and safety of DOAC versus LMWH, which enrolled a total of 3,690 cancer patients with acute VTE (1850 randomized to the DOAC arms and 1840 randomized to the LMWH arms), were included in the pooled analysis. Main study characteristics are summarized in Table 1. During a follow-up of 3 to 6 months under anticoagulant treatment, recurrent VTE occurred in 99 of 1,850 (5.3%) patients receiving DOACs versus 152 of 1,840 (8.3%) patients receiving LMWH. The risk of recurrent VTE was significantly lower with DOAC than with LMWH (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.52-0.85, p = 0.001, I 2 = 0%, Figure 1A). Major bleeding occurred in 78 (4.2%) patients with CAT treated with DOAC versus 65 (3.5%) patients treated with LMWH. The risk of major bleeding was non significantly higher with DOAC (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.85-1.70, p = 0.31, I 2= 7%, Figure 1B). CRNMB was more frequent in cancer patients receiving DOAC compared to those receiving LMWH (10.3% versus 6.3%, RR 1.63, 95% CI 1.25-2.11, p = 0.0003, I²= 6%, Figure 1C). The rates of all-cause mortality did not differ between the two groups (23.6% in the DOAC arms versus 23.3% in the LMWH arms, RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.89-1.16, p = 0.80, I² = 13%, Figure 1D). Conclusions: In this August 2021 meta-analysis of 3,690 patients treated for CAT, DOAC significantly reduced the risk of recurrent VTE compared with LMWH, without increasing the risk of major bleeding. However, as previously highlighted, the use of DOAC was associated with an increased risk of CRNMB. Our results provide additional evidence for the use of DOAC as a safe and effective first-line option for the treatment of CAT in patients who are not at high risk of bleeding. These findings may increase the level of certainty for the evidence used in the national or international clinical practice guidelines supporting the use of DOAC in cancer patients with CAT. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Connors: CSL Behring: Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria; Alnylam: Consultancy; takeda: Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Abbott: Consultancy.

Objectives: Post-operative morbidity can compromise patient outcome and require acute care services. Cancer patients who utilize the PRO-CTCAE - a standardized, validated method of capturing patient-reported outcomes (PROs) - to report their symptoms have been shown to reduce symptom burden, decrease the need for acute care, and preserve quality of life. Building off this work, a fully EHR-integrated PRO system capturing side effects from surgery could significantly improve health care delivery, particularly in rural populations which has been further challenged by the COVID-pandemic. Methods: Through the NCI's Moonshot-funded IMPACT consortium, Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center (DHMC) in collaboration with 5 other health systems and Epic designed eSyM, an EHR-integrated electronic symptom management program based on the PRO-CTCAE questionnaire. eSyM was deployed at DHMC, a large rural academic medical cancer center, systems beginning in spring 2020, for gynecologic oncology patients having surgery. Prompts to complete questionnaires were disseminated via the standard DHMC Epic-based patient portal (MyChart) on a tapered schedule averaging approximately twice/week for 90 days after surgery. Each survey included at least 6 PRO-CTCAE symptom items including pain, nausea/vomiting, fatigue, anxiety, wound redness and discharge as well items assessing overall wellbeing and functional status. Composite scores were generated for each symptom: 0 for no symptoms, 1-2 for mild/moderate symptoms, and 3 for severe symptoms. Reported severe symptoms automatically prompted an alert message sent directly to nursing staff. Results: Over the past 90 days, 134 women were eligible to participate in eSyM. 101 women were sent automated eSyM questionnaires after surgery through their patient portal. 69 (68%) activated their portal account and 48 (70%) completed at least 1 questionnaire electronically to report symptoms. Women who used eSyM were younger than those who did not activate their account, 54 vs. 61 years (p=0.05). Women completed a mean of 5 questionnaires over a mean of 19 days after surgery. 20% of patients reported severe symptoms, of which pain was the most common. Women who used eSyM were less likely to require hospitalization in the 90 days after surgery than women who did not participate (p Conclusions: Women with activated portal accounts had high rates of eSyM utilization to report symptoms after surgery. eSyM users tended to be younger than women who did not activate their accounts. Amidst the COVID-19 pandemic, an electronic platform to report and monitor symptoms following surgery alleviates some of the some of the burdens placed upon the patient and health care systems with in-person care, especially in rural settings. Future areas of research will include more robust patient cohorts from other institutions utilizing eSyM, and an evaluation of health care outcomes, including symptom burden, acceptability and acute care needs associated with eSyM.

Obtaining information regarding cancer recurrence from a retrospective, EHR-based dataset poses several challenges primarily due to the lack of structured data. Patients are at risk for cancer recurrence beginning at a time point at which they are characterized as having no evidence of disease. The absence of cancer may be indicated on a radiology report or a medical oncologist assessment, requiring manual review and interpretation of potentially ambiguous free text. Further, the recurrence event itself can be defined based on several distinct data sources including pathology, imaging, clinician assessments, or tumor markers. The likelihood of ascertaining recurrence is dependent on the frequency and type of surveillance performed and varies based on tumor type and based on clinicians' thresholds for pursuing workup of borderline or suspicious findings; if follow up assessments are infrequent, there are fewer opportunities to detect recurrence. Given these challenges, there is currently no standardized approach to evaluating cancer recurrence in EHR data, impeding analyses of rare molecular tumor subtypes in multi-institutional linked clinico-genomic databases. For this analysis, we leveraged the AACR Project GENIE Biopharma Collaborative data based on the PRISSMM curation model to develop an algorithm for identifying recurrence among patients diagnosed with stage I-III non-small cell lung cancer or with stage I-III colorectal cancer. This algorithm involves using curated pathology report data to identify a definitive surgery as the time at which patients have completed curative intent treatment. Subsequent imaging reports, pathology reports, medical oncologist assessments and tumor marker data are then evaluated in order to characterize the timing of specific recurrence events. We will present the real-world recurrence algorithm, its underlying rationale and discuss applications of recurrence endpoints. Beyond enabling estimates of recurrence-free survival, identifying cancer recurrence will allow for estimation of progression-free survival among stage I-III patients in addition to estimation of PFS among de novo stage IV patients. Estimating PFS in a large cohort of patients with linked phenomic and genomic data has historically been a limitation of these types of datasets. Overcoming this limitation will allow for precision medicine advances in oncology by facilitating data pooling across institutions and enabling examination of rare molecular subtypes in relation to clinically meaningful endpoints. Citation Format: Jessica A. Lavery, Samantha Brown, Eva Lepisto, Michele L. Lenoue-Newton, Caroline McCarthy, Hira Rizvi, Celeste Yu, Kenneth L. Kehl, Shawn M. Sweeney, Julia E. Rudolph, Nikolaus Schultz, Brooke Mastrogiacomo, Ritika Kundra, Jeremy Warner, Philippe Bedard, Gregory J. Riely, Katherine S. Panageas, Deborah Schrag, AACR Project GENIE Consortium. Defining real-world recurrence in the AACR Project GENIE Biopharma Collaborative Data [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2021; 2021 Apr 10-15 and May 17-21. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2021;81(13_Suppl):Abstract nr 2619.

Studies linking genomic and phenomic data are subject to selection biases, including delayed entry or immortal time bias. Delayed entry can be problematic for time-to-event analyses, but utilization of appropriate statistical methods to account for delayed entry are underutilized. Delayed entry commonly occurs when genomic sequencing results are obtained after the start time for survival estimation. To evaluate the impact of left truncation on overall survival (OS) estimates, we explored outcomes in patients with de novo stage IV non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and colorectal cancer (CRC) from the AACR GENIE Biopharma Collaborative, who had genomic sequencing within a specified timeframe. We analyzed OS from diagnosis and from start of the most common first-line regimen, carboplatin/pemetrexed for NSCLC (N = 212 patients) and FOLFOX for CRC (N = 369 patients). We compared median OS using standard Kaplan-Meier methods to median OS using left truncation methods to account for delayed entry. All NSCLC and CRC patients underwent genomic sequencing after their diagnosis date. Among NSCLC patients on carboplatin/pemetrexed, 41% and among CRC patients on FOLFOX, 14% had sequencing determined after starting first-line regimen. The survfit function in R package survival was used, and the absolute differences and percent differences in median OS estimates were calculated. Failure to account for delayed entry leads to an overestimation of OS, regardless of cohort and start date. Adjusting survival outcomes using left truncation methods reduces the influence of some aspects of selection bias and results in better estimates of time to event outcomes. Analyses from these cohorts can provide meaningful insights about survival outcomes outside the clinical trial setting and may support trial design and reliable selection of control arms. As such, it is imperative that analytic methods to account for the inflated survival estimates are incorporated. EstimateCRC Stage IV (N = 658)NSCLC Stage IV (N = 722)Unadjusted Median (IQR) Overall Survival from Diagnosis (Years)3.2 (2.9, 3.4)2.3 (2.0, 2.5)Median (IQR) Overall Survival from Diagnosis in Years, Adjusting for Delayed Entry2.1 (1.9, 2.4)1.3 (1.1, 1.6)Difference in Medians (Years)1.11.0% Difference in Medians34%44%EstimateCRC Stage IV (N = 369)NSCLC Stage IV (N = 212)Unadjusted Median (IQR) Overall Survival from Most Common First-Line Regimen (Years)2.9 (2.6, 3.4)1.3 (1.0, 1.6)Median (IQR) Overall Survival from Most Common First-Line Regimen in Years, Adjusting for Delayed Entry2.1 (1.8, 2.5)0.9 (0.7, 1.2)Difference in Medians (Years)0.80.4% Difference in Medians28%31% Citation Format: Samantha Brown, Jessica A. Lavery, Eva M. Lepisto, Caroline McCarthy, Hira Rizvi, Celeste Yu, Kenneth L. Kehl, Shawn M. Sweeney, Julia E. Rudolph, Nikolaus Schultz, Ritika Kundra, Brooke Mastrogiacomo, Phillipe Bedard, Jeremy L. Warner, Gregory J. Riely, Deborah Schrag, Katherine S. Panageas, The AACR Project GENIE Consortium. Ignoring left truncation in overall survival within real-world genomic-phenomic data leads to inflated survival estimates [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2021; 2021 Apr 10-15 and May 17-21. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2021;81(13_Suppl):Abstract nr 2620.

Purpose Intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) has been rapidly incorporated into clinical practice because of its technological advantages over 3-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (CRT). We characterized trends in IMRT utilization in trimodality treatment of locally advanced rectal cancer at National Comprehensive Cancer Network cancer centers between 2005 and 2011. Methods and materials Using the prospective National Comprehensive Cancer Network Colorectal Cancer Database, we determined treatment patterns for 976 patients with stage II-III rectal cancer who received pelvic radiation therapy at contributing centers between 2005 and 2011. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with IMRT versus 3-dimensional CRT. Radiation therapy compliance and time to completion were used to compare acute toxicity. Results A total of 947 patients (97%) received 3-dimensional CRT (80%) or IMRT (17%). Ninety-eight percent of these patients received radiation therapy preoperatively, and 81% underwent definitive resection. IMRT use increased from 30% in 2010 and thereafter, with significant variability among institutions (range, 0%-43%). Other factors associated with IMRT use included age ≥65 years, dose >50.4 Gy, African-American race, and no transabdominal surgery. Rates of and time to radiation therapy completion were similar between the groups. Conclusions Although most patients with stage II-III rectal cancer at queried National Cancer Institute–designated cancer centers between 2005 and 2011 received 3-dimensional CRT, significant and increasing numbers received IMRT. IMRT utilization is highly variable among institutions and not uniform among sociodemographic groups but may be more consistently embraced in specific clinical settings. Given this trend, comparative-effectiveness research is needed to evaluate the benefits of IMRT for rectal cancer.

Background Limited systematic data about complaints related to cancer care are available. Patient complaints related to ambulatory care at a large academic cancer center were examined to better understand patient experiences of care and prioritize opportunities for quality improvement. Methods Content analysis of outpatient complaints made to the Patient/Family Relations Office at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, in a two-year period (January 2013–December 2014) were conducted. Narrative complaint records were reviewed independently by two to four reviewers to categorize primary and secondary reasons underlying complaints and to assess complaint severity. Results Among 78,668 outpatients seen during the two-year period, 266 complaints (0.3%) were made to the Patient/Family Relations Office. Some 48% of the complaints involved management issues, including finance and billing (10%), service issues (15%), delays (13%), and access and admission (6%); 11% of complaints related to quality and safety, whereas 41% of complaints related to relationships, including communication breakdowns (15%), patient-staff dialogue (5%), and humanness and caring (18%). Twenty percent of the complaints were classified as high severity, including 57% of quality- and safety-related complaints. Eleven percent of the patients involved in complaints ultimately transferred care to another provider or institution; 43% of high-severity complaints resulted in a transfer of care. Conclusion Most of the concerns represented in the complaints related to humanistic rather than technical aspects of care. A systematic review of complaints would offer the opportunity to improve patient-centeredness of care by identifying areas where care fails to meet patient and family needs.

Objective To compare alternative strategies for specifying cancer-free control cohorts for estimating cancer-attributable costs of care. Data Source, Study Design, Data Extraction Secondary data analysis of Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results data linked to Medicare claims among patients diagnosed with colorectal, lung, breast, and prostate cancers, 2007–2011. We estimated cancer-attributable costs using three alternative reference cohorts: (1) noncancer Medicare patients individually matched by demographic characteristics, (2) noncancer patients individually matched on demographic factors and comorbidity score, (3) cancer patients as their own control, using prediagnosis costs. Principal Findings Among 44,266 colorectal, 61,584 lung, 55,921 breast, and 67,733 prostate patients, mean total Medicare spending in the first year of diagnosis was $59,496, $54,261, $31,895, and $26,305, respectively. Estimates of cancer-attributable costs ranged from 79 percent to 82 percent of spending for colorectal, 76 percent–79 percent for lung, 65 percent–74 percent for breast, and 60 percent–75 percent for prostate cancers, depending on the reference cohort used. For all cancers, estimates were higher when patients were used as their own control, compared to demographic and comorbidity-matched controls. Conclusions Choice of reference group can have a substantial impact on proportion of total costs attributed to cancer and should be clearly defined in analyses of the costs of cancer care.

The AACR Project GENIE is an international data-sharing consortium focused on generating an evidence base for precision cancer medicine by integrating clinical-grade cancer genomic data with clinical outcome data for tens of thousands of cancer patients treated at multiple institutions worldwide. In conjunction with the first public data release from approximately 19,000 samples, we describe the goals, structure, and data standards of the consortium and report conclusions from high-level analysis of the initial phase of genomic data. We also provide examples of the clinical utility of GENIE data, such as an estimate of clinical actionability across multiple cancer types (>30%) and prediction of accrual rates to the NCI-MATCH trial that accurately reflect recently reported actual match rates. The GENIE database is expected to grow to >100,000 samples within 5 years and should serve as a powerful tool for precision cancer medicine. Significance: The AACR Project GENIE aims to catalyze sharing of integrated genomic and clinical datasets across multiple institutions worldwide, and thereby enable precision cancer medicine research, including the identification of novel therapeutic targets, design of biomarker-driven clinical trials, and identification of genomic determinants of response to therapy. Cancer Discov; 7(8); 818–31. ©2017 AACR. See related commentary by Litchfield et al., p. 796. This article is highlighted in the In This Issue feature, p. 783

Endoscopic surveillance of patients with Barrett's Esophagus (BE) is recommended to detect esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) and its dysplasia precursors, but survival benefits are unclear. Using Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) and linked Medicare data, we sought to determine the impact of a prior BE diagnosis on survival in patients with EAC.Our analysis focused on patients over age 65 with primary EAC diagnosed in a SEER region from 2000-2011 and enrolled in Medicare. We identified patients with preexisting BE prior to EAC diagnosis and compared this group to EAC patients without a prior BE diagnosis. A Cox Proportional Hazards model compared survival and included variables such as age, sex, cancer stage, treatment, and medical comorbidities.Among 4,978 SEER-Medicare patients identified with EAC, 577 (12%) had preexisting BE; 4,401 (88%) did not. BE patients had overall lower stage (28.5% stage I vs. 12.8% stage IV) than those without preexisting BE (16.4% stage I vs. 30.6% stage IV). Overall survival was better among patients in the BE group (hazard ratio (HR), 0.56; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.50-0.61); this benefit persisted in the adjusted model (HR, 0.72; 95%, 0.65-0.80). After adjusting for lead-time bias, the HRs attenuated to the null, with an unadjusted HR of 0.96 (95% CI: 0.86-1.05, P=0.39) and adjusted HR of 0.99 (CI: 0.89-1.10, P=0.92).Survival outcomes in patients with a BE diagnosis prior to EAC were statistically better in both the unadjusted and adjusted Cox proportional hazards model. However, this benefit appears to be predominantly lead-time and length-time bias.

Objective To characterize spending patterns for Medicare patients with incident breast, prostate, lung, and colorectal cancer. Data Sources/Study Setting/Study Design 2007–2012 data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program linked with Medicare fee-for-service claims. Data Collection/Extraction Methods We calculate per-patient monthly and yearly mean and median expenditures, by cancer type, stage at diagnosis, and spending category, over the years of diagnosis and death. Principal Findings Over the year of diagnosis, mean spending was $35,849, $26,295, $55,597, and $63,063 for breast, prostate, lung, and colorectal cancer, respectively. Over the year of death, spending was similar across different cancer types and stage at diagnosis. Conclusions Characterization of Medicare spending according to clinically meaningful categories may assist development of oncology alternative payment models and cost-effectiveness models.

Summary Background The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) and the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) have developed frameworks that quantify survival gains in light of toxicity and quality of life to assess the benefits of cancer therapies. We applied these frameworks to a cohort of contemporary randomised controlled trials to explore agreement between the two approaches and to assess the relation between treatment benefit and cost. Methods We identified all randomised controlled trials of systemic therapies in non-small-cell lung cancer, breast cancer, colorectal cancer, and pancreatic cancer published between Jan 1, 2011, and Dec 31, 2015, and assessed their abstracts and methods. Trials were eligible for inclusion in our cohort if significant differences favouring the experimental group in a prespecified primary or secondary outcome were reported (secondary outcomes were assessed only if primary outcomes were not significant). We assessed trial endpoints with the ASCO and ESMO frameworks at two timepoints 3 months apart to confirm intra-rater reliability. Cohen's κ statistic was calculated to establish agreement between the two frameworks on the basis of the median ASCO score, which was used as an arbitrary threshold of benefit, and the framework-recommended ESMO threshold. Differences in monthly drug cost between the experimental and control groups of each randomised controlled trial (ie, incremental drug cost) were derived from 2016 average wholesale prices. Findings 109 randomised controlled trials were eligible for inclusion, 42 (39%) in non-small-cell lung cancer, 36 (33%) in breast cancer, 25 (23%) in colorectal cancer, and six (6%) in pancreatic cancer. ASCO scores ranged from 2 to 77; median score was 25 (IQR 16–35). 41 (38%) trials met the benefit thresholds in the ESMO framework. Agreement between the two frameworks was fair (κ=0·326). Among the 100 randomised controlled trials for which drug costing data were available, ASCO benefit score and monthly incremental drug costs were negatively correlated (ρ=–0·207; p=0·039). Treatments that met ESMO benefit thresholds had a lower median incremental drug cost than did those that did not meet benefit thresholds (US$2981 [IQR 320–9059] vs $8621 [1174–13 930]; p=0·018). Interpretation There is only fair correlation between these two major value care frameworks, and negative correlations between framework outputs and drug costs. Delivery of optimal cancer care in a sustainable health system will necessitate future oncologists, investigators, and policy makers to reconcile the disconnect between drug cost and clinical benefit. Funding None.

Purpose Current Lynch syndrome (LS) prediction models quantify the risk to an individual of carrying a pathogenic germline mutation in three mismatch repair (MMR) genes: MLH1, MSH2, and MSH6. We developed a new prediction model, PREMM5, that incorporates the genes PMS2 and EPCAM to provide comprehensive LS risk assessment. Patients and Methods PREMM5 was developed to predict the likelihood of a mutation in any of the LS genes by using polytomous logistic regression analysis of clinical and germline data from 18,734 individuals who were tested for all five genes. Predictors of mutation status included sex, age at genetic testing, and proband and family cancer histories. Discrimination was evaluated by the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), and clinical impact was determined by decision curve analysis; comparisons were made to the existing PREMM1,2,6 model. External validation of PREMM5 was performed in a clinic-based cohort of 1,058 patients with colorectal cancer. Results Pathogenic mutations were detected in 1,000 (5%) of 18,734 patients in the development cohort; mutations included MLH1 (n = 306), MSH2 (n = 354), MSH6 (n = 177), PMS2 (n = 141), and EPCAM (n = 22). PREMM5 distinguished carriers from noncarriers with an AUC of 0.81 (95% CI, 0.79 to 0.82), and performance was similar in the validation cohort (AUC, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.75 to 0.92). Prediction was more difficult for PMS2 mutations (AUC, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.60 to 0.68) than for other genes. Performance characteristics of PREMM5 exceeded those of PREMM1,2,6. Decision curve analysis supported germline LS testing for PREMM5 scores ≥ 2.5%. Conclusion PREMM5 provides comprehensive risk estimation of all five LS genes and supports LS genetic testing for individuals with scores ≥ 2.5%. At this threshold, PREMM5 provides performance that is superior to the existing PREMM1,2,6 model in the identification of carriers of LS, including those with weaker phenotypes and individuals unaffected by cancer.

Background Breast cancer 2 (BRCA2)-associated breast and ovarian cancers are sensitive to platinum-based chemotherapy. It is unknown whether BRCA2-associated prostate cancer responds favorably to such treatment. Methods A retrospective analysis of a single-institution cohort of men with castration-resistant, metastatic prostate cancer was performed to determine the association between carrier status of pathogenic BRCA2 germline variants and prostate-specific antigen response to carboplatin-based chemotherapy. From 2001 through 2015, 8081 adult men with prostate cancer who had a consultation and/or underwent treatment at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute provided blood samples and consented to analyses of biologic material and clinical records. A subgroup of 141 men received at least 2 doses of carboplatin and docetaxel for castration-resistant disease (94% were also taxane refractory). These patients were categorized according to the absence or presence of pathogenic germline mutations in BRCA2 based on DNA sequencing from whole blood. The primary outcome was the response rate to carboplatin/docetaxel chemotherapy, defined according to a decline in prostate-specific antigen that exceeded 50% within 12 weeks of initiating this regimen. Associations between BRCA2 mutation status and response to carboplatin-based chemotherapy were tested using the Fisher exact test, with a 2-sided P value Results Pathogenic germline BRCA2 variants were observed in 8 of 141 men (5.7%; 95% confidence interval, 2.5%-10.9%). Six of 8 BRCA2 carriers (75%) experienced prostate-specific antigen declines >50% within 12 weeks, compared with 23 of 133 noncarriers (17%; absolute difference, 58%; 95% confidence interval, 27%-88%; P Conclusions BRCA2-associated, castration-resistant prostate cancer is associated with a higher likelihood of response to carboplatin-based chemotherapy than non-BRCA2-associated prostate cancer. Cancer 2017;123:3532-9. © 2017 American Cancer Society.

Purpose Hereditary factors play an important role in colorectal cancer (CRC) risk, yet the prevalence of germline cancer susceptibility gene mutations in patients with CRC unselected for high-risk features (eg, early age at diagnosis, personal/family history of cancer or polyps, tumor microsatellite instability [MSI], mismatch repair [MMR] deficiency) is unknown. Patients and Methods We recruited 1,058 participants who received CRC care in a clinic-based setting without preselection for age at diagnosis, personal/family history, or MSI/MMR results. All participants underwent germline testing for mutations in 25 genes associated with inherited cancer risk. Each gene was categorized as high penetrance or moderate penetrance on the basis of published estimates of the lifetime cancer risks conferred by pathogenic germline mutations in that gene. Results One hundred five (9.9%; 95% CI, 8.2% to 11.9%) of 1,058 participants carried one or more pathogenic mutations, including 33 (3.1%) with Lynch syndrome (LS). Twenty-eight (96.6%) of 29 available LS CRCs demonstrated abnormal MSI/MMR results. Seventy-four (7.0%) of 1,058 participants carried non-LS gene mutations, including 23 (2.2%) with mutations in high-penetrance genes (five APC, three biallelic MUTYH, 11 BRCA1/2, two PALB2, one CDKN2A, and one TP53), 15 of whom lacked clinical histories suggestive of their underlying mutation. Thirty-eight (3.6%) participants had moderate-penetrance CRC risk gene mutations (19 monoallelic MUTYH, 17 APC*I1307K, two CHEK2). Neither proband age at CRC diagnosis, family history of CRC, nor personal history of other cancers significantly predicted the presence of pathogenic mutations in non-LS genes. Conclusion Germline cancer susceptibility gene mutations are carried by 9.9% of patients with CRC. MSI/MMR testing reliably identifies LS probands, although 7.0% of patients with CRC carry non-LS mutations, including 1.0% with BRCA1/2 mutations.

Aims: The US National Cancer Institute recently developed the PRO-CTCAE (Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events). PRO-CTCAE is a library of questions for clinical trial participants to self-report symptomatic adverse events (e.g. nausea). The objective of this study is to inform evidence-based selection of a recall period when PRO-CTCAE is included in a trial. We evaluated differences between 1-, 2-, 3-, and 4-week recall periods, using daily reporting as the reference. Methods: English-speaking patients with cancer receiving chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy were enrolled at four US cancer centers and affiliated community clinics. Participants completed 27 PRO-CTCAE items electronically daily for 28 days, and then weekly over 4 weeks, using 1-, 2-, 3-, and 4-week recall periods. For each recall period, mean differences, effect sizes, and intraclass correlation coefficients were calculated to evaluate agreement between the maximum of daily ratings and the corresponding ratings obtained using longer recall periods (e.g. maximum of daily scores over 7 days vs 1-week recall). Analyses were repeated using the average of daily scores within each recall period rather than the maximum of daily scores. Results: A total of 127 subjects completed questionnaires (57% male; median age: 57). The median of the 27 mean differences in scores on the PRO-CTCAE 5-point response scale comparing the maximum daily versus the longer recall period (and corresponding effect size) was −0.20 (−0.20) for 1-week recall, −0.36 (−0.31) for 2-week recall, −0.45 (−0.39) for 3-week recall, and −0.47 (−0.40) for 4-week recall. The median intraclass correlation across 27 items between the maximum of daily ratings and the corresponding longer recall ratings for 1-week recall was 0.70 (range: 0.54–0.82), for 2-week recall was 0.74 (range: 0.58–0.83), for 3-week recall was 0.72 (range: 0.61–0.84), and for 4-week recall was 0.72 (range: 0.64–0.86). Similar results were observed for all analyses using the average of daily scores rather than the maximum of daily scores. Conclusion: A 1-week recall corresponds best to daily reporting. Although intraclass correlations remain stable over time, there are small but progressively larger differences between daily and longer recall periods at 2, 3, and 4 weeks, respectively. The preferred recall period for the PRO-CTCAE is the past 7 days, although investigators may opt for recall periods of 2, 3, or 4 weeks with an understanding that there may be some information loss.

Since the INT-0116 trial reported a survival advantage, postoperative chemoradiotherapy (CRT) has been a care standard for US patients in whom gastric adenocarcinoma has been diagnosed. We sought to estimate the association between treatment and survival among the older US Medicare population. This is a retrospective cohort study of Medicare beneficiaries aged 65–79 years with stage IB–III gastric adenocarcinoma diagnosed between 2002 and 2009 in a Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results region. Patients were categorized on the basis of treatment: (1) gastrectomy only and (2) gastrectomy plus adjuvant CRT. We examined factors associated with receipt of adjuvant CRT, including stage at diagnosis, comorbidity, and tumor subtype. Overall survival was measured from 90 days after gastrectomy until death or the censoring date of December 31, 2010. Of the 1519 patients who underwent gastrectomy, 41.7% received adjuvant CRT. Factors associated with adjuvant CRT included age younger than 75 years at cancer diagnosis and stage II or stage III cancer. The median overall survival from the time of gastrectomy was 25.1 months (interquartile range 43.7 months) for gastrectomy only and 26.9 months (interquartile range 40.9 months) for adjuvant CRT. Multivariable and propensity-score-stratified models demonstrated a survival benefit associated with adjuvant CRT [hazard ratio (HR) 0.58; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.50–0.67], although the magnitude was greater for stage II tumors (HR 0.50; 95% CI 0.39–0.61) and stage III tumors (HR 0.58; 95% CI 0.45–0.73) than for stage IB tumors (HR 1.02; 95% CI 0.71–1.45). Adjuvant CRT, in conjunction with gastrectomy, was associated with a survival benefit among older patients with stage II or stage III tumors.

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

AKT inhibitors have promising activity in

A typical biosimilar study in oncology uses the overall response evaluated at a specific time point as the primary endpoint, which is generally acceptable regulatorily, to assess clinical equivalence between a biosimilar and its reference product. The standard primary endpoint for evaluating an anticancer therapy, progression-free or overall survival would be a secondary endpoint in a biosimilar trial. With a conventional analytic procedure via, for example, hazard ratio to quantify the group difference, it is difficult and challenging to assess clinical equivalence with respect to progression-free or overall survival because the study generally has a limited number of clinical events observed in the study. In this article, we show that an alternative procedure based on the restricted mean survival time, which has been discussed extensively for design and analysis of a general equivalence study, is readily applicable to a biosimilar trial. Unlike the hazard ratio, this procedure provides a clinically interpretable estimate for assessing equivalence. Using the restricted mean survival time as a summary measure of the survival curve will enhance better treatment decision making in adopting a biosimilar product over the reference product.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES:Non-muscle invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) is a biologically heterogeneous disease and is one of the most expensive malignancies to treat on a per patient basis. In part...

Background Antiangiogenic therapy is a proven therapeutic modality for refractory gastric and gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma. This trial assessed whether the addition of a high affinity angiogenesis inhibitor, ziv-aflibercept, could improve the efficacy of first-line mFOLFOX6 (oxaliplatin, leucovorin, and bolus plus infusional 5- fluorouracil) in metastatic esophagogastric adenocarcinoma. Methods Patients with treatment-naive metastatic esophagogastric adenocarcinoma were randomly assigned (in a 2:1 ratio) in a multicenter, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial to receive first-line mFOLFOX6 with or without ziv-aflibercept (4 mg/kg) every 2 weeks. The primary endpoint was 6-month progression-free survival (PFS). Results Sixty-four patients were randomized to receive mFOLFOX6 and ziv-aflibercept (43 patients) or mFOLFOX6 and a placebo (21 patients). There was no difference in the PFS, overall survival, or response rate. Patients treated with mFOLFOX6/ziv-aflibercept tended to be more likely to discontinue study treatment for reasons other than progressive disease (P = .06). The relative dose intensity of oxaliplatin and 5-fluorouracil was lower in the mFOLFOX6/ziv-aflibercept arm during the first 12 and 24 weeks of the trial. There were 2 treatment-related deaths due to cerebral hemorrhage and bowel perforation in the mFOLFOX6/ziv-aflibercept cohort. Conclusions Ziv-aflibercept did not increase the anti-tumor activity of first-line mFOLFOX6 in metastatic esophagogastric cancer, potentially because of decreased dose intensity of FOLFOX. Further evaluation of ziv-aflibercept in unselected, chemotherapy-naive patients with metastatic esophagogastric adenocarcinoma is not warranted.

Although current federal quality improvement programs do not include cancer surgery, the Centers for MedicareMedicaid Services and other payers are considering extending readmission reduction initiatives to include these and other common high-cost episodes.To quantify between-hospital variation in quality-related outcomes and identify hospital characteristics associated with high and low performance.This retrospective cohort study obtained data through linkage of the California Cancer Registry to hospital discharge claims databases maintained by the California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development. All 351 acute care hospitals in California at which 1 or more adults underwent curative intent surgery between January 1, 2007, and December 31, 2011, with analyses finalized July 15, 2018, were included. A total of 138 799 adults undergoing surgery for colorectal, breast, lung, prostate, bladder, thyroid, kidney, endometrial, pancreatic, liver, or esophageal cancer within 6 months of diagnosis, with an American Joint Committee on Cancer stage of I to III at diagnosis, were included.Measures included adjusted odds ratios and variance components from hierarchical mixed-effects logistic regression analyses of in-hospital mortality, 90-day readmission, and 90-day mortality, as well as hospital-specific risk-adjusted rates and risk-adjusted standardized rate ratios for hospitals with a mean annual surgical volume of 10 or more.Across 138 799 patients at the 351 included hospitals, 8.9% were aged 18 to 44 years and 45.9% were aged 65 years or older, 57.4% were women, and 18.2% were nonwhite. Among these, 1240 patients (0.9%) died during the index admission. Among 137 559 patients discharged alive, 19 670 (14.3%) were readmitted and 1754 (1.3%) died within 90 days. After adjusting for patient case-mix differences, evidence of statistically significant variation in risk across hospitals was identified, as characterized by the variance of the random effects in the mixed model, for all 3 metrics (P .001). In addition, substantial variation was observed in hospital performance profiles: across 260 hospitals with a mean annual surgical volume of 10 or more, 59 (22.7%) had lower-than-expected rates for all 3 metrics, 105 (40.4%) had higher-than-expected rates for 2 of the 3, and 19 (7.3%) had higher-than-expected rates for all 3 metrics.Accounting for patient case-mix differences, there appears to be substantial between-hospital variation in in-hospital mortality, 90-day readmission, and 90-day mortality after cancer surgical procedures. Recognizing the multifaceted nature of hospital performance through consideration of mortality and readmission simultaneously may help to prioritize strategies for improving surgical outcomes.

Real-world evidence derived from electronic health records (EHRs) is increasingly recognized as a supplement to evidence generated from traditional clinical trials. In oncology, tumor-based Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) endpoints are collected in clinical trials. The best approach for collecting similar endpoints from EHRs remains unknown. We evaluated the feasibility of a traditional RECIST-based methodology to assess EHR-derived real-world progression (rwP) and explored non-RECIST-based approaches. In this retrospective study, cohorts were randomly selected from Flatiron Health’s database of patient-level EHR data in advanced non-small cell lung cancer. A RECIST-based approach was tested for feasibility (N=26). Three non-RECIST abstraction approaches were tested for feasibility, reliability, and validity (N=200): (1) radiology-anchored, (2) clinician-anchored, and (3) combined. RECIST-based cancer progression could be ascertained from the EHRs of 23% of patients (6/26). In 87% of patients (173/200), at least one rwP event was identified using both the radiology- and clinician-anchored approaches. rwP dates matched 90% of the time. In 72% of patients (124/173), the first clinician-anchored rwP event was accompanied by a downstream event (e.g., treatment change); the association was slightly lower for the radiology-anchored approach (67%; 121/180). Median overall survival (OS) was 17 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 14, 19). Median real-world progression-free survival (rwPFS) was 5.5 (95% CI: 4.6, 6.3) and 4.9 months (95% CI: 4.2, 5.6) for clinician-anchored and radiology-anchored approaches, respectively. Correlations between rwPFS and OS were similar across approaches (Spearman’s rho: 0.65-0.66). Abstractors preferred the clinician-anchored approach as it provided more comprehensive context. RECIST cannot adequately assess cancer progression in EHR-derived data due to missing data and lack of clarity in radiology reports. We found a clinician-anchored approach supported by radiology report data to be the optimal, and most practical, method for characterizing tumor-based endpoints from EHR-sourced data.

3070 Background: A multi-cancer early detection (MCED) test that uses targeted methylation-based cfDNA technology to detect cancer and predict cancer signal origin (CSO) has potential to efficiently identify malignancies for which effective screening modalities do not exist. A previous version of a blood-based MCED test demonstrated favorable classification and test characteristics. Samples from the ongoing PATHFINDER study were reanalyzed in a prespecified interim analysis to evaluate performance of a more recent version of the test with an updated classifier (eg, updated CSO localization, hematological signal threshold) that is planned for clinical implementation as a general multi-cancer screening tool. Methods: PATHFINDER (NCT04241796) is an interventional, prospective study in which results (cancer signal detected/not detected and predicted CSO) using a previous version of the MCED test are returned to investigators, and those with a signal detected undergo further diagnostic testing. In this prespecified interim analysis, samples from those enrolled as of October 6, 2020 were reanalyzed with the more recent version of the MCED test (these results were not returned to investigators). The positive predictive value (PPV) for cancer detection, overall CSO accuracy, and concordance between the two test versions were assessed. Results: A total of 4011/4047 (99%) participants (pts) were analyzable (mean [SD] age 63.9 [8.7] years, 62% female, 92% white, 24% with prior cancer history, 39% ever smoker [4% current], 6% with genetic cancer predisposition). Cancer signal was detected in 0.95% (38/4011). A total of 27/38 also had signal detected by the previous version of the MCED test, including 19 who reached diagnostic resolution (13 with cancer diagnosis and 6 without); 11/38 were discordant positives. Nine different cancer types were detected in the 13 pts (2 stage I, 3 stage II, 2 stage III, and 3 stage IV); 1 had no AJCC stage expected, 1 metastatic recurrence and 1 stage evaluation underway. A conservative minimal PPV assuming all discordant positives are false positives, was 43.3% (13/30, 95% CI 27.4-60.8%) based on 19 pts with diagnostic resolution and 11 discordant positives. High negative percent agreement (PA) 99.7% (99.5-99.8%) between the two test versions was observed. Positive PA of 43.5% (95% CI, 31.9-55.9%) was consistent with the more stringent threshold for hematologic signal in the recent MCED version, as most discrepant cases had hematologic CSO with the previous MCED test. Among 13 detected cancers, accuracy of the top CSO prediction was 92.3% (12/13, 95% CI 66.7-99.6%). Conclusions: In this prespecified interim analysis, the more recent version of the MCED test detected cancers with high PPV and high accuracy of CSO prediction, supporting readiness for use in clinical practice. Full enrollment cohort data will be available at the meeting. Clinical trial information: NCT04241796.

12112 Background: Previous randomized trials in cancer patients suggest that DOACs are non-inferior to LMWHs for preventing recurrent venous thromboembolism (VTE). However, patients’ perspectives have not been reported. Objective: CANVAS compared LMWHs to DOACs for preventing recurrent VTE in cancer patients. Key 2° endpoints were: 1) health-related quality of life (QOL); and, 2) treatment satisfaction. Methods: CANVAS was an unblinded hybrid comparative effectiveness non-inferiority trial. Between 12/2016 and 4/2020, 671 participants were randomized and followed for 6-months. Patients were assigned 1:1 to receive either a DOAC or a LMWH. Physicians could select any DOAC or LMWH at standard dosing, and patients assigned to LMWH were allowed to transition to Warfarin. Patients from 67 US practices with any invasive solid tumor, lymphoma, multiple myeloma or CLL and a diagnosis of VTE within 30 days of enrollment were eligible. The 1° analysis was conducted in the randomized modified intent-to-treat population, (all subjects who received assigned treatment). Key 2° endpoints were to establish: 1) non-inferior change in HR-QOL; 2) greater perception of benefit; and 3) lower perception of burden for participants receiving DOACs versus LMWHs. Participants reported QOL at 0, 3 and 6 months on the SF-12 survey. At 3 and 6 months, they also reported satisfaction via the Anti-Clot Treatment Scale (ACTS), which includes a burden and a benefit scale. A 2-point change was pre-specified as significant. Results: Neither QOL nor patients’ perceptions of treatment benefits differed between groups. However, patients on DOACs reported lower treatment burden compared to those assigned LMWHs. Conclusions: Among adult cancer patients with VTE, the use of a DOAC compared with a LMWH resulted in no difference in QOL but higher patient-reported satisfaction stemming from decreased perception of the burden of treatment. Clinical trial information: NCT02744092. [Table: see text]

3010 Background: PATHFINDER (NCT04241796) is an interventional, prospective study evaluating implementation of a blood-based multi-cancer early detection (MCED) test that uses targeted methylation-based cfDNA analysis to detect multiple cancer types and simultaneously predict cancer signal origin (CSO). We present a prespecified interim analysis of PATHFINDER evaluating an MCED test in a clinical setting. Methods: Participants (pts; ≥50y) were enrolled into 2 risk cohorts: non-elevated and elevated (smoking history, prior cancer [ > 3y post treatment], or genetic predisposition). MCED test results (cancer signal detected/not detected) were returned to investigators; pts with a signal detected also received a CSO prediction and underwent further diagnostic testing by their medical team. The primary objective was to assess the extent of diagnostic testing needed to achieve diagnostic resolution (eg, time to resolution, number/type of tests). Secondary endpoints included positive predictive value (PPV) and a measure of test satisfaction (following diagnostic resolution [signal detected] and post test [signal not detected]). Results: PATHFINDER consented 6796 pts before closing accrual on 12/4/20; as of October 6, 2020, 4086 consented, 4047 enrolled, and 4033 analyzable pts were included in the interim analysis (62.4% female, 92.1% white). Two study-related adverse events (anxiety of mild severity) were reported. Cancer signal was detected in 1.5% (62/4033) of pts; 40/62 reached diagnostic resolution to date. Kaplan-Meier estimate of median time to resolution was 78 (95% CI, 54-151) days. Among 40 pts that reached diagnostic resolution, ≥1 imaging test was performed in 93% (37/40); ≥1 invasive procedure was performed in 72% (13/18) versus 18% (4/22) of pts with diagnostic resolution of cancer versus no cancer, respectively. Based on results to date, PPV was 45% (95% CI, 30.7-60.2%; 18/40). Of 18 cancer diagnoses, 11 were solid tumors (3 stage IV, 6 stages I-III, 1 metastatic recurrence, 1 missing stage), and 7 were hematologic malignancies (1 stage IV, 4 stages I-III, 2 without AJCC stage). Accuracy of the top CSO prediction in true positives was 82.4% (95% CI, 59.0-93.8%; 14/17). Most pts were satisfied with the test (43.7% extremely satisfied, 30.7% very satisfied, 14.6% satisfied). Signal detection rate and test satisfaction were similar in the 2 risk cohorts; PPV tended to be higher in the elevated risk cohort, as expected. Conclusions: An interim analysis of this return of results study demonstrated promising MCED test results. Of 40 pts achieving diagnostic resolution, nearly half had a diagnostic workup confirming cancer; CSO was predicted with high accuracy for detected cancers. Taken together with the rarity of adverse events and high test satisfaction, these results support the feasibility of clinical implementation. Full enrollment cohort data will be available at the meeting. Clinical trial information: NCT04241796.

12020 Background: Previous randomized trials in cancer patients suggest that DOACs are non-inferior to LMWH for preventing recurrent VTE but have higher risk of bleeding. However, the balance of benefits and burdens remains uncertain. Objective: The CANVAS pragmatic trial compared recurrent VTE, bleeding and death in cancer patients following an initial VTE treated with either DOAC or LMWH therapy. Methods: CANVAS was an unblinded hybrid comparative effectiveness non-inferiority trial, with randomized and preference cohorts. Between 12/16 and 4/20, 671 participants were randomized and followed for 6-months. Between 12/16 and 12/17, 140 participants declined randomization, chose their preferred anticoagulant and were followed for 6-months. The preference cohort was closed when predetermined stopping criteria were met. Final follow-up was 11/30/20. Randomized patients were assigned 1:1 to receive either a DOAC or a LMWH. If assigned to LMWH, transitions to warfarin were allowed. Physicians and patients could choose among any DOAC or LMWH. Doses were suggested based on FDA-approved labeling but not mandated. Patients from 67 practices in the US with any invasive solid tumor, lymphoma, multiple myeloma or CLL and a diagnosis of symptomatic or radiographically detected VTE within 30 days of enrollment were eligible. The 1° analysis was conducted in the randomized modified-into to treat popululation, (all subjects who received study drug). The 1° outcome was recurrent VTE. The aim was to establish noninferiority of anticoagulation with a DOAC as defined by the upper limit of the 2-sided 90% CI for the difference in the event rate at 6 months of < 3%. Secondary outcomes included death and bleeding. Hypothesis testing included only the randomized cohort but propensity score adjusted results for the preference and combined cohorts are also shown. Results: The non-inferiority criteria for recurrent VTE was met. Conclusions: Among adult cancer patients with VTE, the use of a DOAC compared with a LMWH resulted in a noninferior risk of recurrent VTE with no differences in rates of bleeding or death in randomized patients. Clinical trial information: NCT02744092. [Table: see text]

1530 Background: Patients receiving treatment for advanced cancer are at substantial risk for unplanned hospitalization. A validated two-variable risk model can identify patients at increased risk for hospitalization. However, little is known about how model-based estimates of hospitalization risk compare with assessments of treating clinicians. Methods: We identified patients initiating a new line of systemic therapy for advanced non-hematologic cancer. For each patient, we assigned three categorical estimates of 30-day hospitalization risk. The first risk estimate was generated by a validated two-variable risk prediction model with inputs of pretreatment plasma sodium and albumin (PMID: 30995122); continuous risk scores were converted to risk tertiles. We solicited a second risk estimate by real-time survey of a treating oncology clinician; clinicians were instructed to estimate hospitalization risk as low, intermediate, or high, as compared with other patients. A third hybrid risk estimate retained the highest risk category from either the clinician or model risk assessment. We describe the agreement of clinician and model-based estimates of 30-day hospitalization risk, and we compare the sensitivity and specificity of clinician, model, and hybrid high-risk assessments, using McNemar’s test. We compared discrimination of the three risk estimates via the area under the ROC curve (AUC). Results: We identified 104 patients with valid clinician and model hospitalization risk estimates and complete 30-day follow-up. The most common cancer type was lung cancer (27%), the median age was 68 years, and 62% of patients were male. 30-day hospitalization occurred in 21 patients (20.2%). There was moderate to poor agreement between clinician and model categorical estimates of hospitalization risk (weighted kappa = 0.245). The proportion of patients identified as high-risk by the clinician, model, and hybrid assessments was 15.4%, 26.0%, and 33.7%. Sensitivity and specificity of the high-risk categorization for 30-day hospitalization were 38% and 90% for the clinician assessment, 57% and 82% for the model assessment (NSS for comparison with clinician assessment), and 76% and 77% for the hybrid assessment (greater sensitivity [p = 0.008] and lesser specificity [p = 0.001] than clinician assessment). The AUC values for the clinician, model, and hybrid assessments were 0.674, 0.757, and 0.764, respectively. Conclusions: Compared with the estimate of a treating clinician, a two-variable risk model exhibited similar sensitivity and specificity for 30-day hospitalization risk. A hybrid risk assessment incorporating information from the risk model significantly improved on the sensitivity of the clinician risk assessment. Future research should test strategies to prevent hospitalizations by targeting interventions to high-risk patients.

2032 Background: 30-50% of patients with non-early NSCLC will eventually develop BM, with a median survival of less than one year from BM diagnosis. There are no widely accepted clinical risk models for development of BM in patients without them at baseline. We predicted the binary risk of BM using clinical and genetic factors from a large multi-institutional cohort. Methods: Stage II-IV NSCLC patients from the AACR Project GENIE Biopharma Consortium dataset were eligible. This consisted of 4 academic institutions who curated clinical data of patients who had somatic next-generation tumor sequencing (NGS) between 2015-2017. We excluded patients who had BM at baseline, died within 30 days of NSCLC diagnosis, or did not undergo brain imaging. Covariates included demographics, anticancer therapies (received up to 90 days prior to BM development and within 5 years from NSCLC diagnosis), and NGS data; radiotherapy (RT) data were not available. NGS features included mutations and copy number alterations. These features were restricted to those classified as oncogenic by OncoKB. Univariate feature selection with Fisher’s test (p

1551 Background: Immune related adverse events (irAEs) are a major cause of morbidity among cancer patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). irAEs are difficult to identify systematically, which represents a major barrier to the conduct and reproducibility of irAE research. Automated approaches would facilitate cohort identification and understanding of risk factors for irAEs following ICI therapy. Methods: Patients treated with one or more ICIs at a single tertiary cancer center were identified. Patients who received ICIs outside the clinical trial context were used as a development cohort. For each date containing clinical documentation, proxy outcomes expected to correlate with grade 2+ irAEs including irAE related diagnosis codes, key laboratory values, prescriptions for topical and systemic steroids, and irAE keywords were extracted. Intermediate machine learning models were trained to predict the presence of each proxy outcome using structured and unstructured patient data. We used clinical trial irAEs extracted from adverse event tables found in the electronic health record as the “gold standard” outcome for a final training and evaluation cohort. A logistic regression model was used to combine predictions from each intermediate model and generate an overall probability score for each irAE type on a given encounter date. Ten-fold cross-validation was used to evaluate the final machine learning model on a held-out sample of clinical trial patients. Encounter level models were evaluated for predicting the onset of a given irAE on a given date, and patient level models for predicting irAE onset within 6 months of ICI initiation. Results: We identified 3,765 patients treated with ICIs off-trial and 1106 patients treated on ICI clinical trials. Among trial patients, overall incidence of any grade 2+ irAE was 21%. The combined irAE models were able to predict prospective gold standard irAE labels with accurate discrimination at both the encounter and patient level (Table). Conclusions: Machine learning models can identify irAEs among cancer patients in an automated manner, which may facilitate research to mitigate toxicities and optimize clinical outcomes. Validation of these methods in an external institutional cohort is underway.[Table: see text]

6545 Background: Web-SyMS can reduce the burdens of cancer and its treatment. While patients frequently express willingness to use these systems, only a subset actively engages with them. Some patients may lack the tools and confidence needed to benefit from web-SyMS. We sought to characterize these barriers among community-based cancer patients receiving care across six diverse healthcare systems. Methods: We surveyed patients receiving chemotherapy at three healthcare systems (Baptist, TN; Maine Medical, ME; Dana-Farber, MA) and patients recovering from cancer-directed surgery at three healthcare systems (West Virginia University, WV; Dartmouth-Hitchcock, NH; Lifespan, RI). Surveys were conducted as part of a pre-implementation analysis of eSyM – an EHR-embedded web-SyMS that collects, tracks, and manages patient reported outcomes during cancer therapy. Results: Among 563 respondents, access to tech devices (i.e., tablet, computer, or smartphone) was high: 78% reported access to ≥2 devices and only 5% reported access to no devices. However, confidence using tech devices to accomplish online tasks varied: 45% very confident, 38% somewhat confident, 11% little-no confidence. Compared to medical oncology patients, surgery patients were more likely to report being very confident (57% vs. 31%). There were significant differences based on patients’ self-reported tech confidence (Chi-square P

10535 Background: Homologous recombination is a major mechanism of defective DNA repair, but it remains uncertain whether homologous repair deficient (HRD) tumors have favorable prognosis or are more/less likely to respond to treatment than tumors lacking such mutations. Objective: To determine whether lung (NSCLC) and colorectal (CRC) HRD+ tumors have better survival or response to chemotherapy than HRD- tumors. Methods: Patients with de novo stage IV NSCLC or CRC who had next generation sequencing (NGS) between 2015-2018 from one of four cancer centers were identified. Records were curated using the PRISSMM framework to ascertain treatment, overall survival (OS) and progression free survival based on imaging (PFS-I) and oncologists’ notes (PFS-M). Each NSCLC or CRC tumor was categorized as HRD+ if NGS revealed an oncogenic/likely oncogenic mutation in: ATM, BAP1, BARD1, BLM, BRCA1, BRCA2, BRIP1, CHEK2, FAM175A, FANCA, FANCC, NBN, PALB2, RAD50, RAD51, RAD51C, RTEL1, or MRE11A based on the OncoKB database. The tumor was categorized as HRD- if no oncogenic mutation in any of these genes was evident and HRD indeterminate (HRD?) if no mutation was identified but the panel did not include all genes. OS, PFS-I and PFS-M from start of first line therapy were reported by HRD status. The percentage with a good response to first line therapy (≥2x the median) and exceptional response (≥3x the median) was estimated for each endpoint. Results: For NSCLC 4% were HRD+, 59% HRD- and 37% HRD?. For CRC there were 5% HRD+, 60% HRD- and 35% HRD?. There were no significant differences for any survival endpoint between patients who were HRD+ vs HRD- in univariable analyses. The proportion of good and exceptional responders to first line systemic chemotherapy also did not vary by HRD status, though patients with HRD+ CRC were potentially more likely to be exceptional responders. Similarly, no differences between HRD+ and HRD- tumors were apparent for the subgroup receiving platinum containing therapy. Conclusions: NSCLC and CRC patients with somatic mutations in HRD oncogenic genes did not differ from patients lacking such a mutation with respect to OS or PFS. CRC patients with HRD+ tumors may be more likely to be exceptional responders, but sample sizes are limited. By May, the analysis will include breast and pancreatic cancer cases.[Table: see text]

Importance Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common cause of cancer mortality worldwide with more than 1.85 million cases and 850 000 deaths annually. Of new colorectal cancer diagnoses, 20% of patients have metastatic disease at presentation and another 25% who present with localized disease will later develop metastases. Observations Colorectal cancer is the third most common cause of cancer mortality for men and women in the United States, with 53 200 deaths projected in 2020. Among people diagnosed with metastatic colorectal cancer, approximately 70% to 75% of patients survive beyond 1 year, 30% to 35% beyond 3 years, and fewer than 20% beyond 5 years from diagnosis. The primary treatment for unresectable metastatic CRC is systemic therapy (cytotoxic chemotherapy, biologic therapy such as antibodies to cellular growth factors, immunotherapy, and their combinations.) Clinical trials completed in the past 5 years have demonstrated that tailoring treatment to the molecular and pathologic features of the tumor improves overall survival. Genomic profiling to detect somatic variants is important because it identifies the treatments that may be effective. For the 50% of patients with metastatic CRC with KRAS/NRAS/BRAF wild-type tumors, cetuximab and panitumumab (monoclonal antibodies to the epithelial growth factor receptor [EGFR]), in combination with chemotherapy, can extend median survival by 2 to 4 months compared with chemotherapy alone. However, for the 35% to 40% of patients with KRAS or NRAS sequence variations (formerly termed mutations), effective targeted therapies are not yet available. For the 5% to 10% with BRAF V600E sequence variations, targeted combination therapy with BRAF and EGFR inhibitors extended overall survival to 9.3 months, compared to 5.9 months for those receiving standard chemotherapy. For the 5% with microsatellite instability (the presence of numerous insertions or deletions at repetitive DNA units) or mismatch repair deficiency, immunotherapy may be used in the first or subsequent line and has improved treatment outcomes with a median overall survival of 31.4 months in previously treated patients. Conclusions and relevance Advances in molecular profiling of metastatic CRC facilitate the ability to direct treatments to the biologic features of the tumor for specific patient subsets. Although cures remain uncommon, more patients can anticipate extended survival. Genomic profiling allows treatment selection so that more patients derive benefit and fewer are exposed to toxicity from ineffective therapies.

463 Background: In clinical trials, the systematic collection of patient (pt) reported outcomes has been shown to improve quality of life & overall survival. To develop predictive care models for symptom management, we explored the frequency & distribution of SAEs reported by pts who reported electronic patient reported outcomes (ePRO) prior to outpatient visits to the Gastrointestinal Cancer Center (GCC) at Dana Farber Cancer Institute (DFCI). Methods: ePRO is a modified NCI Patient Reported Outcomes – Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events instrument distributed weekly to GCC pts with a medical/surgical/radiation oncology encounter. Responses are available to the care team in the electronic health record. ePRO consists of presence/frequency/severity/interference of 15 core SAEs (fatigue, insomnia, general pain, decreased appetite, nausea, vomiting, constipation, diarrhea, shortness of breath, numbness and tingling, rash, concentration, fever, anxiety, sadness). Responses are scored 0 to 3 (with 2 and 3 indicating moderate and severe SAEs, respectively). We examined the frequency & distribution of grade 2 and 3 SAEs in ePRO responders by age, gender, race/ethnicity. All pts had gastrointestinal cancer and an outpatient visit for treatment, symptom management, follow-up care. Results: From 9/1/2018 to 8/31/2020, 1912 unique pts responded (response rate 23%). Most respondents were age 50-69 years (58% compared to 15% age

Context Many advanced patients with cancer have unrealistic prognostic expectations. Objectives We tested whether offering life expectancy (LE) statistics within palliative chemotherapy (PC) education promotes realistic expectations. Methods In this multicenter trial, patients with advanced colorectal and pancreatic cancers initiating first or second line PC were randomized to usual care versus a PC educational tool with optional LE information. Surveys at two weeks and three months assessed patients' review of the LE module and their reactions; at three months, patients estimated their LE and reported occurrence of prognosis and end-of-life (EOL) discussions. Wilcoxon tests and proportional odds models evaluated between-arm differences in LE self-estimates, and how realistic those estimates were (based on cancer type and line of treatment). Results From 2015 to 2017, 92 patients were randomized to the intervention and 94 to usual care. At baseline most patients (80.9%) wanted “a lot” or “as much information as possible” about the impact of chemotherapy on LE. Among patients randomized to the intervention, 52.0% reviewed the LE module by two weeks and 66.7% by three months—of whom 88.2% reported the information was important, 31.4% reported it was upsetting, and 3.9% regretted reviewing it. Overall, patients' LE self-estimates were very optimistic; 71.4% of patients with colorectal cancer estimated greater than five years; 50% pancreatic patients estimated greater than two years. The intervention had no effect on the length or realism of patients' LE self-estimates, or on the occurrence of prognostic or EOL discussions. Conclusions Offering LE information within a PC educational intervention had no effect on patients' prognostic expectations.