Search

PURPOSE To update recommendations of the ASCO systemic therapy for hormone receptor (HR)-positive metastatic breast cancer (MBC) guideline. METHODS An Expert Panel conducted a systematic review to identify new, potentially practice-changing data. RESULTS Fifty-one articles met eligibility criteria and form the evidentiary basis for the recommendations. RECOMMENDATIONS Alpelisib in combination with endocrine therapy (ET) should be offered to postmenopausal patients, and to male patients, with HR-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative, PIK3CA-mutated, ABC, or MBC following prior endocrine therapy with or without a cyclin-dependent kinase (CDK) 4/6 inhibitor. Clinicians should use next-generation sequencing in tumor tissue or cell-free DNA in plasma to detect PIK3CA mutations. If no mutation is found in cell-free DNA, testing in tumor tissue, if available, should be used as this will detect a small number of additional patients with PIK3CA mutations. There are insufficient data at present to recommend routine testing for ESR1 mutations to guide therapy for HR-positive, HER2-negative MBC. For BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation carriers with metastatic HER2-negative breast cancer, olaparib or talazoparib should be offered in the 1st-line through 3rd-line setting. A nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitor (AI) and a CDK4/6 inhibitor should be offered to postmenopausal women with treatment-naïve HR-positive MBC. Fulvestrant and a CDK4/6 inhibitor should be offered to patients with progressive disease during treatment with AIs (or who develop a recurrence within 1 year of adjuvant AI therapy) with or without one line of prior chemotherapy for metastatic disease, or as first-line therapy. Treatment should be limited to those without prior exposure to CDK4/6 inhibitors in the metastatic setting. Additional information can be found at www.asco.org/breast-cancer-guidelines .

PURPOSE The College of American Pathologists (CAP) has developed a guideline on testing for mismatch repair (MMR) and microsatellite instability (MSI) for patients considered for immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy. ASCO has a policy and set of procedures for endorsing clinical practice guidelines that have been developed by other professional organizations. METHODS The CAP guideline was reviewed for developmental rigor by methodologists. An ASCO Endorsement Panel subsequently reviewed the content and the recommendations. RESULTS The ASCO Endorsement Panel determined that the recommendations from the CAP guideline, published on August 3, 2022, are clear, thorough, and based on the most relevant scientific evidence. ASCO endorses Mismatch Repair and Microsatellite Instability Testing for Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor Therapy: Guideline From the College of American Pathologists in Collaboration With the Association for Molecular Pathology and Fight Colorectal Cancer. RECOMMENDATIONS Within the guideline, MMR immunohistochemistry (IHC), MSI polymerase chain reaction, and MSI next-generation sequencing are all recommended testing options for colorectal cancer, MMR-IHC and MSI-polymerase chain reaction for gastroesophageal and small bowel cancer, and only MMR-IHC for endometrial cancer. No recommendation in favor of any testing method over another could be made for any other cancer. Tumor mutational burden was not recommended as a surrogate for DNA MMR deficiency. If MMR deficiency consistent with Lynch syndrome is detected, it should be communicated to the treating physician. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/molecular-testing-and-biomarkers-guidelines .

Simple Summary Estrogens regulate key physiological functions in the human body, including the development of female reproductive organs. However, dysregulated estrogen signaling—mainly mediated by estrogen receptors (ER)—is associated with many developmental, mental, and other diseases, including cancer. An increasing number of studies have demonstrated that estrogen modulates inflammatory processes within many tissues. In addition to estrogens made within the body, humans are also constantly exposed to many outside estrogens, naturally occurring in plants and those artificially synthesized in industries. Here, we will also discuss the link between chronic exposure to environmental estrogens with tissue inflammation and breast cancer development. Abstract The oncogenic role of estrogen receptor (ER) signaling in breast cancer has long been established. Interaction of estrogen with estrogen receptor (ER) in the nucleus activates genomic pathways of estrogen signaling. In contrast, estrogen interaction with the cell membrane-bound G-protein-coupled estrogen receptor (GPER) activates the rapid receptor-mediated signaling transduction cascades. Aberrant estrogen signaling enhances mammary epithelial cell proliferation, survival, and angiogenesis, hence is an important step towards breast cancer initiation and progression. Meanwhile, a growing number of studies also provide evidence for estrogen’s pro- or anti-inflammatory roles. As other articles in this issue cover classic ER and GPER signaling mediated by estrogen, this review will discuss the crucial mechanisms by which estrogen signaling influences chronic inflammation and how that is involved in breast cancer. Xenoestrogens acquired from plant diet or exposure to industrial products constantly interact with and alter innate estrogen signaling at various levels. As such, they can modulate chronic inflammation and breast cancer development. Natural xenoestrogens generally have anti-inflammatory properties, which is consistent with their chemoprotective role in breast cancer. In contrast, synthetic xenoestrogens are proinflammatory and carcinogenic compounds that can increase the risk of breast cancer. This article also highlights important xenoestrogens with a particular focus on their role in inflammation and breast cancer. Improved understanding of the complex relationship between estrogens, inflammation, and breast cancer will guide clinical research on agents that could advance breast cancer prevention and therapy.

As geographical location can impact the gut microbiome, it is important to study region-specific microbiome signatures of various diseases. Therefore, we profiled the gut microbiome of breast cancer (BC) patients of the Midwestern region of the United States. The bacterial component of the gut microbiome was profiled utilizing 16S ribosomal RNA sequencing. Additionally, a gene pathway analysis was performed to assess the functional capabilities of the bacterial microbiome. Alpha diversity was not significantly different between BC and healthy controls (HC), however beta diversity revealed distinct clustering between the two groups at the species and genera level. Wilcoxon Rank Sum test revealed modulation of several gut bacteria in BC specifically reduced abundance of those linked with beneficial effect such as Faecalibacterium prausnitzii. Machine learning analysis confirmed the significance of several of the modulated bacteria found by the univariate analysis. The functional analysis showed a decreased abundance of SCFA (propionate) production in BC compared to HC. In conclusion, we observed gut dysbiosis in BC with the depletion of SCFA-producing gut bacteria suggesting their role in the pathobiology of breast cancer. Mechanistic understanding of gut bacterial dysbiosis in breast cancer could lead to refined prevention and treatment.

The role of the human gut microbiome has been increasingly appreciated in respect to its influence on human health and disease. It has been proposed that dysbiosis in the gut microbiome and subsequent induction of chronic inflammatory state might have an influence on breast cancer development and prognosis. Therefore this study was undertaken to determine the role of gut microbiome in breast cancer. The Breast Molecular Epidemiology Resource (BMER) resources of the Holden Comprehensive Cancer Center (HCCC) were used to recruit 23 women with breast cancer. Fecal samples were used to characterize the gut microbiome of our patient population using 16S rRNA amplification and Illumina sequencing. Reads were then mapped back to amplicon sequence variant using DADA2 pipeline and compared to a cohort of race, age, and gender matched cohort of regional healthy controls. In our preliminary analysis, we observed that breast cancer patients have distinct microbiota compared to age and gender matched healthy controls. We identified depletion of the anti-inflammatory short chain fatty acid producing bacteria specifically Faecalibacterium, Anaerostipes, Parabacteroides and Phascolarctobacterium in feces from BC patients. Additionally, breast cancer cohort showed enrichment of the pro-inflammatory bacteria such as Eubacterium (dolichum), Bifidobacterium, and Blautia. These bacteria have been previously been identified to change with clinical disease stage and/or BMI, as has genus Bifidobacterium (increased in BC cohort). Within BC group, patients with high grade showed lower levels of Eggerthella lenta and Desulfovibrio whereas patients receiving chemotherapy showed depletion of Sulphur reducing Desulfovibrio and methane producing archaea Methanobrevibacter. Further analysis may lead to insights into the interplay between gut microbiome and breast cancer, as well as the feasibility of therapeutic strategies in the form of novel and existing probiotics. Citation Format: Praveen Vikas, Nicole Cady, Jessica Knobbe, Jemmie Hoang, Meeta Yadav, Melissa Curry, Cathernine Cherwin, Sonia Sugg, Sneha Phadke, Edward Filardo, Ashuthosh Mangalam. Breast cancer patients have reduced levels of short chain fatty acid producing beneficial gut bacteria [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2020 San Antonio Breast Cancer Virtual Symposium; 2020 Dec 8-11; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2021;81(4 Suppl):Abstract nr PS17-57.

The novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has caused catastrophic damage to human life across the globe along with social and financial hardships. According to the Johns Hopkins University Coronavirus Resource Center, more than 41.3 million people worldwide have been infected, and more than 1,133,000 people have died as of October 22, 2020. At present, there is no available vaccine and a scarcity of efficacious therapies. However, there is tremendous ongoing effort towards identifying effective drugs and developing novel vaccines. Early data from Adaptive COVID-19 Treatment Trials (ACTT) sponsored by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) and compassionate use study have shown promise for remdesivir, leading to emergency authorization by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for treatment of hospitalized COVID-19 patients. However, several randomized studies have now shown no benefit or increased adverse events associated with remdesivir treatment. Drug development is a time-intensive process and requires extensive safety and efficacy evaluations. In contrast, drug repurposing is a time-saving and cost-effective drug discovery strategy geared towards using existing drugs instead of de novo drug discovery. Treatments for cancer and COVID-19 often have similar goals of controlling inflammation, inhibiting cell division, and modulating the host microenvironment to control the disease. In this review, we focus on anti-cancer drugs that can potentially be repurposed for COVID-19 and are currently being tested in clinical trials.

Summary Background Data on patients with COVID-19 who have cancer are lacking. Here we characterise the outcomes of a cohort of patients with cancer and COVID-19 and identify potential prognostic factors for mortality and severe illness. Methods In this cohort study, we collected de-identified data on patients with active or previous malignancy, aged 18 years and older, with confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection from the USA, Canada, and Spain from the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19) database for whom baseline data were added between March 17 and April 16, 2020. We collected data on baseline clinical conditions, medications, cancer diagnosis and treatment, and COVID-19 disease course. The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality within 30 days of diagnosis of COVID-19. We assessed the association between the outcome and potential prognostic variables using logistic regression analyses, partially adjusted for age, sex, smoking status, and obesity. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04354701, and is ongoing. Findings Of 1035 records entered into the CCC19 database during the study period, 928 patients met inclusion criteria for our analysis. Median age was 66 years (IQR 57–76), 279 (30%) were aged 75 years or older, and 468 (50%) patients were male. The most prevalent malignancies were breast (191 [21%]) and prostate (152 [16%]). 366 (39%) patients were on active anticancer treatment, and 396 (43%) had active (measurable) cancer. At analysis (May 7, 2020), 121 (13%) patients had died. In logistic regression analysis, independent factors associated with increased 30-day mortality, after partial adjustment, were: increased age (per 10 years; partially adjusted odds ratio 1·84, 95% CI 1·53–2·21), male sex (1·63, 1·07–2·48), smoking status (former smoker vs never smoked: 1·60, 1·03–2·47), number of comorbidities (two vs none: 4·50, 1·33–15·28), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 2 or higher (status of 2 vs 0 or 1: 3·89, 2·11–7·18), active cancer (progressing vs remission: 5·20, 2·77–9·77), and receipt of azithromycin plus hydroxychloroquine (vs treatment with neither: 2·93, 1·79–4·79; confounding by indication cannot be excluded). Compared with residence in the US-Northeast, residence in Canada (0·24, 0·07–0·84) or the US-Midwest (0·50, 0·28–0·90) were associated with decreased 30-day all-cause mortality. Race and ethnicity, obesity status, cancer type, type of anticancer therapy, and recent surgery were not associated with mortality. Interpretation Among patients with cancer and COVID-19, 30-day all-cause mortality was high and associated with general risk factors and risk factors unique to patients with cancer. Longer follow-up is needed to better understand the effect of COVID-19 on outcomes in patients with cancer, including the ability to continue specific cancer treatments. Funding American Cancer Society, National Institutes of Health, and Hope Foundation for Cancer Research.

PURPOSE To increase awareness, outline strategies, and offer guidance on the recommended management of immune-related adverse events (irAEs) in patients treated with chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy. METHODS A multidisciplinary panel of medical oncology, neurology, hematology, emergency medicine, nursing, trialists, and advocacy experts was convened to develop the guideline. Guideline development involved a systematic literature review and an informal consensus process. The systematic review focused on evidence published from 2017 to 2021. RESULTS The systematic review identified 35 eligible publications. Because of the paucity of high-quality evidence, recommendations are based on expert consensus. RECOMMENDATIONS The multidisciplinary team issued recommendations to aid in the recognition, workup, evaluation, and management of the most common CAR T-cell–related toxicities, including cytokine release syndrome, immune effector cell–associated neurotoxicity syndrome, B-cell aplasia, cytopenias, and infections. Management of short-term toxicities associated with CAR T cells begins with supportive care for most patients, but may require pharmacologic interventions for those without adequate response. Management of patients with prolonged or severe CAR T-cell–associated cytokine release syndrome includes treatment with tocilizumab with or without a corticosteroid. On the basis of the potential for rapid decline, patients with moderate to severe immune effector cell–associated neurotoxicity syndrome should be managed with corticosteroids and supportive care. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/supportive-care-guidelines .

PURPOSE To increase awareness, outline strategies, and offer guidance on the recommended management of immune-related adverse events (irAEs) in patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICPi) therapy. METHODS A multidisciplinary panel of medical oncology, dermatology, gastroenterology, rheumatology, pulmonology, endocrinology, neurology, hematology, emergency medicine, nursing, trialists, and advocacy experts was convened to update the guideline. Guideline development involved a systematic literature review and an informal consensus process. The systematic review focused on evidence published from 2017 through 2021. RESULTS A total of 175 studies met the eligibility criteria of the systematic review and were pertinent to the development of the recommendations. Because of the paucity of high-quality evidence, recommendations are based on expert consensus. RECOMMENDATIONS Recommendations for specific organ system–based toxicity diagnosis and management are presented. While management varies according to the organ system affected, in general, ICPi therapy should be continued with close monitoring for grade 1 toxicities, except for some neurologic, hematologic, and cardiac toxicities. ICPi therapy may be suspended for most grade 2 toxicities, with consideration of resuming when symptoms revert ≤ grade 1. Corticosteroids may be administered. Grade 3 toxicities generally warrant suspension of ICPis and the initiation of high-dose corticosteroids. Corticosteroids should be tapered over the course of at least 4-6 weeks. Some refractory cases may require other immunosuppressive therapy. In general, permanent discontinuation of ICPis is recommended with grade 4 toxicities, except for endocrinopathies that have been controlled by hormone replacement. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/supportive-care-guidelines .

PURPOSE To update the American Society of Clinical Oncology endorsement of the Cancer Care Ontario recommendations on the Role of Patient and Disease Factors in Adjuvant Systemic Therapy Decision Making for Early-Stage, Operable Breast Cancer. METHODS Two phase III trials—the Trial Assigning Individualized Options for Treatment (TAILORx) in women with hormone receptor–positive, node-negative tumors and the Microarray in Node-Negative and 1 to 3 Positive Lymph Node Disease May Avoid Chemotherapy (MINDACT) trial—provided the evidence for this update. UPDATED RECOMMENDATIONS Shared decision making between clinicians and patients is appropriate for adjuvant systemic therapy for breast cancer. For patients older than age 50 years and whose tumors have Onco type DX recurrence scores less than 26, and for patients age 50 years or younger whose tumors have Onco type DX recurrence scores less than 16, there is little to no benefit from chemotherapy. Clinicians may offer endocrine therapy alone for these patients. For patients age 50 years or younger with recurrence scores of 16 to 25, clinicians may offer chemoendocrine therapy. Patients with recurrence scores greater than 30 should be considered candidates for chemoendocrine therapy. Based on informal consensus, the Panel recommends that oncologists may offer chemoendocrine therapy to patients with Onco type DX scores of 26 to 30. The MammaPrint assay could be used to guide decisions on withholding adjuvant systemic chemotherapy in patients with hormone receptor–positive lymph node–negative breast cancer and in select patients with lymph node–positive cancers. In both patients with node-positive and node-negative disease, evidence of clinical utility of the MammaPrint assay was only apparent in those determined to be at high clinical risk; the Panel thus did not recommend use of MammaPrint assay in patients determined to be at low clinical risk. Remaining recommendations from the 2016 ASCO guideline endorsement are unchanged. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/breast-cancer-guidelines .

Background primary myelofibrosis (PMF) is a myeloproliferative neoplasm which is associated with clonal molecular and cytogenetic abnormalities (CA) and varied clinical manifestations. While various CA have been previously described, t(15; 17) has not been reported in association with this condition. Case presentation A 69-year-old male presented with constitutional symptoms, cytopenias and bone marrow biopsy revealed immature blasts with fibrosis. Cytogenetic analysis showed a t(15;17) which initially suggested a diagnosis of acute promyelocytic leukemia (APL). However, flourescence in situ hybridization (FISH) and reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) studies were negative for transcripts promyelocytic leukemia (PML) gene and retinoic acid receptor alpha (RARA) or PML-RARA fusion. Along with these results, a second review of bone marrow histology, flowcytometry and the detection of a calreticulin gene (CALR) mutation helped with the correct diagnosis of PMF. Patient was then treated with ruxolitinib, a JAK (Janus kinase) 1 and 2 inhibitor, and eventually proceeded to receive a matched unrelated reduced intensity conditioning (RIC) allogeneic stem cell transplantation (ASCT) and has been doing well at the 6-month follow up. Conclusions Our case highlights two points, that the t(15;17) is diagnostic of Acute Promyelocytic Leukemia (APL) in most cases, there are exceptions and it can be associated with other malignancies without causing any APL like features, as noted in this case. Also, that t(15; 17) by itself is never sufficient to diagnose APL without confirmation by other methods and relying solely on cytogenetics without timely confirmatory tests can lead to risks of delay in diagnosis and appropriate management.

When the COVID-19 pandemic began, formal frameworks to collect data about affected patients were lacking. The COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19) was formed to collect granular data on patients with cancer and COVID-19 at scale and as rapidly as possible. CCC19 has grown from five initial institutions to 125 institutions with >400 collaborators. More than 5,000 cases with complete baseline data have been accrued. Future directions include increased electronic health record integration for direct data ingestion, expansion to additional domestic and international sites, more intentional patient involvement, and granular analyses of still-unanswered questions related to cancer subtypes and treatments.

The novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has caused catastrophic damage to human life across the globe along with social and financial hardships. According to the Johns Hopkins University Coronavirus Resource Center, more than 41.3 million people worldwide have been infected, and more than 1,133,000 people have died as of October 22, 2020. At present, there is no available vaccine and a scarcity of efficacious therapies. However, there is tremendous ongoing effort towards identifying effective drugs and developing novel vaccines. Early data from Adaptive COVID-19 Treatment Trials (ACTT) sponsored by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) and compassionate use study have shown promise for remdesivir, leading to emergency authorization by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for treatment of hospitalized COVID-19 patients. However, several randomized studies have now shown no benefit or increased adverse events associated with remdesivir treatment. Drug development is a time-intensive process and requires extensive safety and efficacy evaluations. In contrast, drug repurposing is a time-saving and cost-effective drug discovery strategy geared towards using existing drugs instead of de novo drug discovery. Treatments for cancer and COVID-19 often have similar goals of controlling inflammation, inhibiting cell division, and modulating the host microenvironment to control the disease. In this review, we focus on anti-cancer drugs that can potentially be repurposed for COVID-19 and are currently being tested in clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: Late‐stage cancer diagnoses disproportionately occur in rural residents, frequently resulting in increased need for symptom management support with minimal access to these services. Oncology Associated Symptoms and Individualized Strategies (OASIS) is an eHealth symptom self‐management intervention that was developed to provide cancer symptom self‐management support and address this disparity. PURPOSE: To engage stakeholders about the symptom management needs and concerns of patients with advanced cancer living in rural areas. METHODS: A 3‐phased, mixed‐methods design was used to (1) assess stakeholder needs and opinions; (2) develop a symptom self‐management website; and (3) obtain usability feedback from potential users. Interviews with stakeholders (patients and clinic staff) from rural areas using a descriptive qualitative approach were analyzed; cross‐cutting themes were identified; a symptom management web application was developed; and stakeholders completed a 12‐item usability survey about the web application. RESULTS: Patients (n = 16) and clinical staff (n = 10) participated in phase 1. Three major themes were identified: “symptom experience,” “symptom management,” and “technology.” Through an iterative process using these results and evidence from the literature, the OASIS web application was developed. Usability testing with N = 126 stakeholders demonstrated that the web application is easy to use, contains relevant content, and has pleasing graphics. No differences were found among patients, family/friends, and staff. Both frequent and infrequent internet users positively evaluated the web application. CONCLUSIONS: Rural stakeholders report significant symptom management needs, are interested in eHealth technologies, and perceived OASIS positively. Future research is needed to evaluate the feasibility, acceptability, and efficacy of OASIS.

Background:National guidelines recommend chemotherapy as the mainstay of treatment for stage IV colon cancer, with primary tumor resection (PTR) reserved for patients with symptomatic primary or curable disease. The aims of this study were to characterize the treatment modalities received by patients with stage IV colon cancer and to determine the patient-, tumor-, and hospital-level factors associated with those treatments.Methods:Patients diagnosed with stage IV colon cancer in 2014 were extracted from the SEER Patterns of Care initiative. Treatments were categorized into chemotherapy only, PTR only, PTR + chemotherapy, and none/unknown.Results:The total weighted number of cases was 3,336; 17% of patients received PTR only, 23% received chemotherapy only, 41% received PTR + chemotherapy, and 17% received no treatment. In multivariable analyses, compared with chemotherapy only, PTR + chemotherapy was associated with being married (odds ratio [OR], 1.9), having bowel obstruction (OR, 2.55), and having perforation (OR, 2.29), whereas older age (OR, 5.95), Medicaid coverage (OR, 2.46), higher T stage (OR, 3.51), and higher N stage (OR, 6.77) were associated with PTR only. Patients who received no treatment did not have more comorbidities or more severe disease burden but were more likely to be older (OR, 3.91) and non-Hispanic African American (OR, 2.92; allPConclusions:PTR was included in the treatment regimen for most patients with stage IV colon cancer and was associated with smaller, nonacademic hospitals. Efforts to improve guideline implementation may be beneficial in these hospitals and also in non-Hispanic African American and older populations.

e18538 Background: Providing comprehensive and coordinated cancer care in rural settings can be difficult due to limited resources. Meeting cancer care standards established by the American Society of Clinical Oncology Quality Oncology Practice Initiative or the American College of Surgeons Commission on Cancer is also challenging due to limited resources; the vast majority of certified or accredited practices/hospitals are in metropolitan areas. It is critical to describe barriers faced by rural providers so models can be developed to facilitate high quality cancer care. Qualitative interviews were conducted to elicit current challenges and barriers among rural Iowa cancer care providers, with the goal of identifying strategies that could facilitate high quality cancer care in rural areas. Methods: Eleven cancer providers associated with 10 (out of 12) Iowa hospitals that diagnose or treat > 100 cancer patients annually and are in non-metropolitan/rural counties (Rural-Urban Continuum Code: 4-9) were interviewed via telephone or video conference. Questions focused on services offered, perceived patient- and system-level barriers to cancer care, perceived strengths and challenges in providing and assessing quality cancer care, challenges to meeting standards of cancer care set forth by national organizations, and referral experiences. Results: The major identified strength of rural hospitals was their geographic proximity to rural patients. Most hospitals provided outpatient chemotherapy, and a minority provide radiation oncology services. Common reasons for referral outside rural hospital networks were lack of specialized diagnostic procedures and complex surgical resections more commonly available at tertiary institutions. Other reasons for referrals include 1) lack of advanced technologies and treatments; 2) lack of certification secondary to inadequate staffing to support data infrastructure for quality improvement or to meet accreditation standards of national organizations; and 3) lack of ancillary patient services such as navigation, survivorship programs, genetic counseling, and education. A final important cause of referral is limited access to clinical trials, an impediment to rural patient participation in investigational treatments. Identified benefits of strengthening collaborations with larger urban/academic cancer centers were access to educational opportunities, tumor boards, shared resources and strategies for data management, clinical trials, patient navigation services and survivorship programs. Conclusions: Rural cancer care providers identified a number of challenges that could be addressed through resource sharing from larger cancer centers. Further research is needed to develop models and approaches that extend resources, services and expertise to rural providers to facilitate high-quality cancer care for all rural patients.

Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) is a heterogeneous disease with poorer outcomes compared to other breast cancer subtypes. Contributing to the worse prognosis in TNBC is the higher rates of relapse and rapid progression after relapse. Advances in targeted therapeutics and conventional chemotherapy for TNBC have been stymied due to the lack of specific targets. Moreover, the responses to chemotherapy in TNBC lack durability, partially accounting for the higher rates of relapse. Immunotherapy, notably immune-checkpoint blockade, has shown to improve survival and maintain robust antitumor responses in both hematologic and solid malignancies. Unlike lung cancer, melanoma, and bladder cancer, most breast cancers are not inherently immunogenic and typically have low T cell infiltration. However, among breast cancer subtypes, TNBC is characterized by greater tumor immune infiltrate and higher degree of stromal and intratumoral tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs), a predictive marker for responses to immunotherapy. Moreover, in TNBC, the high number of stromal TILs is predictive of more favorable survival outcomes and response to chemotherapy. Immunotherapy is being extensively explored in TNBC and clinical trials are showing some promising results. This article focuses on the rationale for immunotherapy in TNBC, to explore and discuss preclinical data, results from early clinical trials, and to summarize some ongoing trials. We will also discuss the potential application of immunotherapy in TNBC from a clinician's perspective.

Immune checkpoints are a diverse set of inhibitory signals to the immune system that play a functional role in adaptive immune response and self-tolerance. Dysregulation of these pathways is a vital mechanism in the avoidance of immune destruction by tumor cells. Immune checkpoint blockade (ICB) refers to targeted strategies to disrupt the tumor co-opted immune suppression to enhance anti-tumor immunity. Cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 (CTLA-4) and programmed cell death 1 (PD-1) are two immune checkpoints that have the widest range of antibody-based therapies. These therapies have gone from promising approaches to Food and Drug Administration-approved first- and second-line agents for a number of immunogenic cancers. The burgeoning investigations of ICB efficacy in blood and solid cancers have underscored the importance of identifying the predictors of response and resistance to ICB. Identification of response correlates is made complicated by the observations of mixed reactions, or different responses in multiple lesions from the same patient, and delayed responses that can occur over a year after the induction therapy. Factors that can influence response and resistance in ICB can illuminate underlying molecular mechanisms of immune activation and suppression. These same response predictors can guide the identification of patients who would benefit from ICB, reduce off-target immune-relate adverse events, and facilitate the use of combinatorial therapies to increase efficacy. Here we review the underlying principles of immune checkpoint therapy and results of single-agent ICB clinical trials, and summarize the predictors of response and resistance.

Introduction While melphalan 200 mg/m2 has been the standard preparative regimen for ASCT, studies are currently evaluating the role of including novel agents along with melphalan to improve outcomes. We have previously reported outcomes in patients younger than 65 years who received intensive conditioning, ASCT, followed by triple maintenance therapy. This current prospective study evaluates the tolerance of this therapy in elderly patients older than 65. Here we report preliminary responses and safety outcomes. Methods and patients A total of 41 eligible patients above the age 65 were prospectively enrolled in the IRB approved phase II trial beginning in June 2013. After induction chemotherapy and stem cell collection, ASCT was performed with a preparative chemotherapy consisting of VDT-Melphalan 200 mg/m2. Early after engraftment, patients were started on maintenance for 2 years with triple agent therapy consisting of either a proteasome inhibitor (PI) or an immunomodulatory drug (Imid), along with steroids. Primary end points include PFS, frequency of severe toxicities, ICU admissions, and percentage of patients able to complete the full course of maintenance. Results Thirty seven of the 41 patients enrolled received a single ASCT and were included in the analysis. Median age was 71 (range: 66 to 77). Twelve patients (59%) had standard risk cytogenetics and 15 patients (40%) had high risk cytogenetics by FISH. Median follow up was 26 months (range: 3 months – 5 years). Median time to neutrophil and platelet engraftment were both 11 days. There was one death within day 100 related to candida sepsis. Only 2 patients were re-hospitalized within 100 days but none required ICU admission. Median time to start post-transplant therapy was 73 days (range: 47 to 185 days). Best responses noted prior to initiation of maintenance were 17 sCR (47%), 3 CR (8%), 10 VGPR (28%) and 6 PR (17%). Thirty five patients (95%) were able to start on planned triple maintenance regimen. Twelve patients have completed 2 years of maintenance therapy at last follow up. A total of 3 patients died during maintenance phase due to progressive disease. Median PFS and OS were not reached and 3 year PFS and OS were 82 and 91%, respectively. Conclusions This is the first trial to prospectively evaluate the safety and efficacy of early ASCT in elderly MM patients using a novel agent conditioning regimen followed by a triple maintenance therapy consisting of either a PI or an Imid combination. These results indicate that the regimen is safe and well tolerated without any increased mortality, and results in a deep, sustained response rates. Longer follow up will determine the long term side effects of the regimen, disease responses and PFS in elderly patients.

e23155 Background: Rural cancer patients have limited access to symptom management specialists. OASIS is an 8-week, web-based intervention addressing this access gap by providing the right symptom management to the right patients at the right time. This feasibility study seeks to describe recruitment and retention patterns and evaluate symptom severity, distress, and interference at 4, 8, and 12 weeks. Methods: Eligibility included: advanced cancer diagnosis, > 18 years old, and living in small town or rural area. Reasons for non-enrollment and dropout were collected. Descriptive statistics were calculated to evaluate recruitment and retention rates along with symptom severity and interference at each time point. The mean severity and distress scores using the 0-10 NRS of the five symptoms with the highest rating was computed for each time point (i.e., baseline, week 4, and week 8). By averaging the five highest rated symptoms, we evaluated the worst symptoms the individual is experiencing at each data point. Results: Fifty-nine people were approached about the study over 18 months, 38 people signed consents, 12 dropped before completing baseline questionnaires, and 9 completed baseline questionnaires but did not start the intervention. Seventeen people completed baseline questionnaires and started the intervention. The recruitment rate was 66%, the retention rates were 50% and 33% at 4 and 12 weeks.Reasons for drop out included lack of bothersome symptoms, too busy, and generally overwhelmed. Mean age of sample was 62 years and majority men (62.5%). Fatigue (M = 6.4), drowsiness (M = 5.4), numbness/tingling (M = 4.4), and sleep disturbance (M = 4.4) were the most severe symptoms at baseline. Mean symptom severity was M = 3.03 and mean interference was M = 2.53 at baseline. For participants who received the full OASIS-WN intervention, between baseline and week 8, the mean interference rating decreased by 1.6±2.1 points (p = .019), mean severity and distress ratings for the five worst symptoms decreased by 1.72±1.72 (p = .004) and 2.2±2.4 (p = .006), respectively. Conclusions: Symptom severity, distress, and interference improved for participants who received the full intervention. Reasons for early drop out suggest symptom management ought to be provided when the situation is optimal for learning. Future research will evaluate the efficacy of OASIS.

Survival of patients with acute myelogenous leukemia (AML), particularly in younger patients, has improved in recent years due to improved understanding of disease biology, post remission therapies and supportive care. AML, however, remains difficult to treat as many patients will still ultimately relapse and die of their disease. This is particularly true in AML patients with identified FMS-like tyrosine kinase 3-internal tandem duplication (FLT3-ITD) molecular mutations, which typically confers a poor prognosis. The FLT3-ITD mutation occurs in about one-quarter of patients diagnosed with AML. Oftentimes, these patients are referred for early allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) in hopes of overcoming this poor prognostic factor. Several studies have demonstrated some benefit with HSCT in patients with FLT3-ITD mutation. However, recent data suggested that FLT3-ITD mutation remains a poor prognostic factor even after early HSCT; these patients remain at risk for early relapse after transplantation, emphasizing ongoing efforts to explore maintenance therapy with FLT3-ITD inhibitors in the post-transplant setting.

Introduction : Melphalan 200mg/m2 has been the standard conditioning regimen for ASCT for multiple myeloma. Novel agents in combination with high dose melphan are being evaluated in clinical trials to improve outcomes. We previously reported results of early ASCT ( < 12 months from diagnosis) using VDT (Bortezomib, Thalidomide, Dexamethasone) plus Melphalan 200mg/m2 conditioning chemotherapy followed by combination maintenance therapy in younger MM patients (Age Methods and patients: A total of 41 eligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma age ≥ 65 were prospectively enrolled in the IRB approved phase II trial beginning in June 2013. After an induction chemotherapy and stem cell collection, ASCT was performed with a preparative chemotherapy consisting of VDT-Melphalan 200mg/m2. The patients were considered to have high risk cytogenetics if they had 17p deletion, t(14;16), amp 1q, or t(4;14) by FISH on CD-138 sorted plasma cells. After engraftment and recovery, patients were started on maintenance therapy for 2 years. Planned regimen for the first year was a combination of VDT as 28 day cycles and year 2 therapy consisted of bortezomib, cyclophosphamide and dexamethasone( VCD) as 28 day cycles. Alternate regimens were used in case of toxicities. Primary end points include PFS, frequency of severe toxicities, ICU admissions, and percentage of patients able to complete the full course of maintenance. Responses were evaluated according to IMWG consensus criteria and adverse events were recorded according to CTCAE v 4.03. Results: 37 of the 41 patients enrolled received single ASCT between 2013 to 2016 of which 35 patients went to receive triple maintenance therapy and were included in this analysis. Median age was 68 (range: 65 to 75y). 12 (59%) and 15(40%) had standard risk and high risk cytogenetics by FISH, respectively. Median follow up was 27 months (3 months - 5 years). Major non-hematologic toxicities ≥ grade 3 were related to infections (25%), diarrhea (16%) and mucositis (11%). Median time to ANC and platelet engraftment was 11 and 17 days, respectively. There was one death within day 100 related to candida sepsis. Only 2 patients were re-hospitalized within 100 days but none required ICU admission. Median time to start post-transplant therapy was 73 days (range: 47 to 185 days). Best responses noted prior to initiation of maintenance were 17 sCR(47.2%), 3CR(8%), 10 VGPR(27%) and 6 PR(17%). 18 patients completed 2 years of maintenance therapy thus far and responses at the time of this analysis include sCR in 16 and CR in 2 patients. A total of 3 patients died during maintenance phase due to progressive disease. Median PFS and OS were not reached and 3 year PFS and OS were around 82 and 90%, respectively. Conclusions: This is the first trial to prospectively evaluate the safety and efficacy of early ASCT in elderly MM patients using a novel agent conditioning regimen followed by an intensive 2 year maintenance therapy. These results from the median follow up of 27 months indicate that the regimen is safe and tolerated without any increased mortality, and results in higher rates of deep and sustained responses. Major non hematologic toxicities included infections and GI related. No increased hospitalizations or ICU admissions were noted. Further follow up will determine the long term effects of the combination maintenance regimen, disease responses and survival in this group of elderly MM patients. Figure Figure. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Introduction The role of early intensive treatment of multiple myeloma, including tandem autologous stem cell transplantation( ASCT) with bortezomib, thalidomide, dexamethasone( VDT) and melphalan 200mg/m2 as a preparative regimen, followed by 2 years of combination agent maintenance therapy, is being studied. We sought to analyze a cohort of patients who received early intensive treatment at the University of Iowa between 2012 and 2016. Patients and Methods All consecutive patients who received early( < 12 months since diagnosis) tandem ASCT and have completed at least 2 years of maintenance therapy between 2012 and 2016 were included for analysis. Planned maintenance therapy consisted of a combination of VDT in 28 day cycles for year 1 and bortezomib, cyclophosphamide and dexamethasone(VCD) in 28 day cycles for year 2. Alternate regimen were used in case of toxicities. The patients were considered to have high risk cytogenetics if they had 17p deletion, t(14;16), amp 1q, or t(4;14) by FISH. Event-free (EFS) and overall survival (OS) probabilities were estimated and plotted using the Kaplan-Meier method. For EFS, time was calculated from date of first transplant to relapse or death due to any cause. Treatment-related mortality was defined as death during transplant phase or maintenance phase due to causes other than disease relapse.The effect of clinical characteristics on outcomes was evaluated using Cox regression models. Estimated effects of predictors are reported as hazard ratios (HR) along with 95% confidence intervals. All statistical testing was two-sided and assessed for significance at the 5% level using SAS v9.4 (SAS Institute, Cary, NC). Responses were measured using IMWG consensus criteria. Results A total of 135 patients met the criteria for inclusion. Key patient characteristics are shown in table 1. The median age at first transplant was 58 years. HCT-CI was high in 68% of patients. 36% of the patients were ISS stage III, and high risk cytogenetics were present in 56%. Preparative regimen was VTD-Mel 200 in 88.9% of patients. Following the first transplant, 59% of patients had achieved CR, and following the second transplant 94.4% of patients achieved CR. At the time of median follow up, 27.4% of patients had died. The cause of death was infection (25%), organ failure (11%), relapsing myeloma (28%) or other (36%). Univariable analysis identified a statistically significant association only for age with risk of progression or death. Kaplan-Meier curves for progression free survival and overall survival in patients with high risk or low risk cytogenetics are shown in Figures 1 and 2 respectively. The hazard ratio for progression free survival and overall survival in patients with high risk vs low risk cytogenetics was 0.86 (95% confidence interval 0.45 - 1.64, p=0.65), and 0.88 (95% confidence interval 0.45 - 1.73, p=0.71), respectively. The 3 year EFS and OS of patients who received early tandem ASCT followed by 2 years of maintenance were 73% and 72%, respectively. Following the 2nd autologous transplant, 128 of 135( 94%) patients were started on maintenance therapy. VTD ( 74%) and VRD (6%) were the most common regimens used. Fifty six patients completed maintenance therapy for 1 year without regimen change, and 60 required regimen change due to toxicities. VRD (20), VPomD (9) and VRMp (8) were the most commonly used alternative regimens in the case of toxicities. Following year 1 of maintenance, 96 patients (75%) started a second year of maintenance. VCD (30%) or RD (23%) were the most common regimens. 63(43%) patients completed 2 years of combination maintenance therapy. Grade III-V non-hematologic toxicities during the combined maintenance phase were infection (56%) and peripheral neuropathy (23%) and hematologic toxicities were thrombocytopenia (13%), neutropenia (12%) and anemia (8%). Conclusion According to our results, patients with high risk cytogenetics did not have an inferior PFS and OS. These results suggest that in newly diagnosed MM patients, upfront treatment using novel conditioning regimen and tandem ASCT followed by intensive maintenance therapy can result in a very high CR rates, particularly in patients with high risk cytogenetics. Infections and peripheral neuropathies were the most common non-hematologic toxicities during maintenance. Longer follow up will determine further impact of maintenance therapy. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Rural cancer patients face many challenges in receiving care, including limited availability of cancer treatments and cancer support providers (oncologists, social workers, mental healthcare providers, palliative care specialists, etc), transportation barriers, financial issues, and limited access to clinical trials. Oncologists and other cancer care providers experience parallel challenges in delivering care to their rural cancer patients. Although no one approach fully addresses the many challenges of rural cancer care, a number of promising strategies and interventions have been developed that transcend the issues associated with long travel distances. These include outreach clinics, virtual tumor boards, teleoncology and other telemedicine applications, workforce recruitment and retention initiatives, and provider and patient education programs. Given the projected increase in demand for cancer care due to the aging population and increasing number of Americans with health insurance through the Affordable Care Act, expansion of these efforts and development of new approaches are critical to ensure access to high-quality care.

Plerixafor in AL amyloidosis: improved graft composition and faster lymphocyte recovery after auto-SCT in patient with end-stage renal-disease