Papademetriou, Eros

e20731 Background: Selective RET (REarranged during Transfection) inhibitors (RETi) have become standard treatment for RET fusion-positive non-small cell lung cancer ( RET + NSCLC), which represent 1–2% of NSCLC cases. Clinical factors that drive front-line versus later-line RETi use and outcomes are not well understood. This retrospective chart review evaluates physician decision drivers alongside real-world effectiveness and safety for pralsetinib (PRAL) in RET + NSCLC. Methods: A retrospective chart review was conducted via a standardized web-based form among US oncologists treating advanced RET + NSCLC. Eligible patients initiated PRAL for RET + NSCLC between October 2020 and December 2024. Data gathered included physician treatment considerations, patient baseline characteristics, and efficacy outcomes. Results: Eighty-two charts from patients who received PRAL as their first (index) RETi were collected from 43 physicians across both academic (41.9%) and community (58.1%) sites. Of the 82 patients, 51.2% received PRAL front line (1L) and 31.7% in the second line (2L). From a predefined list, physicians most often cited comorbidities (36.6%) and ECOG performance status (31.7%) as clinical factors when considering index PRAL therapy and efficacy profile (56.1%), followed by intracranial activity (24.4%) and hypersensitivity to immuno-oncology agents (24.4%) as therapy-related considerations. Although not a primary therapy selection driver, in 13 patients with safety as a consideration, 6 (46.2%) had myelosuppression noted as a concern for index PRAL treatment. RET + NSCLC patients treated in the 1L setting with PRAL had an overall response rate (ORR) of 73.8% (14 CR; 17 PR). For 2L line PRAL, the ORR was 61.5% (1 CR; 15 PR). Anemia (17.1%), diarrhea (13.4%), and constipation (13.4%) were the most frequently reported adverse events (AE). Discontinuation was mainly due to loss of/no response (80.6%), insurance (16.1%), and AEs (3.2%). The single PRAL patient that discontinued due to an AE had edema. There were an additional 7 patients that switched to PRAL due to an AE on a different RETi. The post-switch ORR was 57.1% (4/7); of these patients, 3 maintained their previous response and 1 improved their response. Conclusions: In this retrospective chart review, pralsetinib was used across treatment lines with high real-world response rates, consistent with results from the ARROW trial. Treatment selection was influenced by specific clinical factors including patient comorbidities, ECOG performance status, and safety concerns, with AE-driven switching uncommon yet associated with continued responses.

AbstractBackgroundThe relationship between CINV duration and recurrence in subsequent cycles is largely unstudied. Our objective was to determine if patients experiencing CINV in their first cycle of chemotherapy (C1) would face increased risk of CINV in later cycles and whether the duration of the CINV would predict increased risk of recurrence.Patients and MethodsUsing data from a previously reported phase III trial, we assessed patients’ recurrence of breakthrough CINV after antiemetic prophylaxis for anthracycline+cyclophosphamide (AC) for breast cancer, comparing C1 short CINV vs. extended CINV as a secondary analysis. Complete response (CR) and CINV duration were primary and secondary endpoints, respectively. CR was considered prophylaxis success; lack of CR was considered treatment failure (TF).ResultsAmong 402 female patients, 99 (24.6%) had TF in C1 (TF1). The remaining 303 patients (CR1) had ≥93% CR rates in each subsequent cycle, while the 99 patients with TF1 had TF rates of 49.8% for cycles 2-4 (P < .001). The 51 patients with extended TF (≥3 days) in C1 had recurrent TF in 73/105 later cycles (69.5%, P < .001), while the 48 patients with short TF (1-2 days) in C1 had recurrent TF in 33/108 later cycles (30.6%). The relative risk of recurrence after C1 extended TF was 2.28 (CI 1.67-3.11; P < .001) compared to short TF.ConclusionsProphylaxis success in C1 led to >90% repeat success across cycles of AC-based chemotherapy. For patients with breakthrough CINV, extended duration strongly predicted recurrent CINV. The duration of CINV should be closely monitored, and augmenting antiemetic prophylaxis considered for future cycles when extended CINV occurs.

Abstract Purpose Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) contributes to avoidable acute care, a metric now tracked in Medicare's oncology outcome measure. CINV is preventable, yet guidelines are often not followed. We sought to quantify acute care involving CINV and other avoidable toxicities after highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) to identify excess risk and assess clinician adherence to antiemesis guidelines for HEC. Materials and Methods We retrospectively evaluated U.S. electronic health records (2012-2018) using Medicare's OP-35 outcome measure to identify avoidable acute care involving any of 10 toxicities, including CINV, after HEC regimens relative to non-HEC. Antiemetic guideline adherence was defined as use ofneurokinin-1 (NKl) receptor antagonists Q5 (RAs) plus 5-hydroxytryptamine type 3 RA+ dexamethasone at HEC initiation. Results Among 17,609 patients receiving HEC, acute care rates associated with HEC chemotherapy included 32% cisplatin, 31% carboplatin, and 21% anthracycline/cyclosphospharnide (AC), with 76% meeting the criteria as avoidable events. Oxaliplatin rates were 29%. Avoidable acute care occurred 1.83 times (95% confidence interval, 1.76-1.91, p < .0001) as often after HEC versus non-HEC excluding oxaliplatin; CINV-related acute care occurred 2.29 times as often. Nonadherence to antiemesis guidelines occurred in 34% and 24% of cisplatin and AC courses, respectively, because of omission of a NKl RA. Conclusions Patients treated with HEC regimens experienced high avoidable acute care use, 1.8 times the risk seen for other chemotherapy. Nonadherence to guideline-directed antiemetic prophylaxis highlights the need to ensure adherence to antiemetic guidelines, including the use of NKl RA in HEC. Implications for Practice After survival, perhaps the most important goal in oncology is limiting avoidable acute care, a goal now used by Medicare to impact cancer reimbursement. This study found that patients treated with highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) regimens had high rates of avoidable acute care use, 1.8 times the risk seen for other chemotherapy. A substantial proportion of the avoidable acute care involved chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. Results showed that incomplete adherence to national antiemetic guidelines for HEC regimens primarily driven by omission of upfront neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist use, suggesting that improved adherence can meaningfully resolve this gap in quality and cost of care.

Background: Clinician adherence to antiemetic guidelines for preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) caused by highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) remains poorly characterized. The primary aim of this study was to evaluate individual clinician adherence to HEC antiemetic guidelines. Patients and Methods: A retrospective analysis of patients receiving HEC was conducted using the IBM Watson Explorys Electronic Health Record Database (2012–2018). HEC antiemetic guideline adherence was defined as prescription of triple prophylaxis (neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist [NK1 RA], serotonin type-3 receptor antagonist, dexamethasone) at initiation of cisplatin or anthracycline + cyclophosphamide (AC). Clinicians who prescribed ≥5 HEC courses were included and individual guideline adherence was assessed, noting the number of prescribing clinicians with >90% adherence. Results: A total of 217 clinicians were identified who prescribed 2,543 cisplatin and 1,490 AC courses. Patients (N=4,033) were primarily women (63.3%) and chemotherapy-naïve (92%) with a mean age of 58.6 years. Breast (36%) and thoracic (19%) cancers were the most common tumor types. Guideline adherence rates of >90% were achieved by 35% and 58% of clinicians using cisplatin or AC, respectively. Omission of an NK1 RA was the most common practice of nonadherence. Variation in prophylaxis guideline adherence was considerable for cisplatin (mean, 71%; SD, 29%; coefficient of variation [CV], 0.40) and AC (mean, 84%; SD, 26%; CV, 0.31). Conclusions: Findings showed substantial gaps in clinician adherence to HEC CINV guidelines, including a high variability across clinicians. Clinicians should review their individual clinical practices and ensure adherence to evidence-based CINV guidelines to optimize patient care.

Abstract Background: Anthracycline and cyclophosphamide (AC) is a highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) regimen. Combination netupitant/palonosetron (NEPA) + dexamethasone (DEX) is guideline-recommended for prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in HEC and moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. CMS’ OP-35 measure deems 30-day post-chemotherapy acute care as avoidable if involving nausea and emesis (NV) or any of 8 other toxicities. Results will be publicly reported and impact Medicare reimbursement. CMS (2017) found that 10% of >58,000 patients with avoidable acute care after chemotherapy involved NV. Because NEPA is new, insufficient real world data exist to assess its CINV resource use. CINV-related acute-care after NEPA prophylaxis in AC has been reported in a prospective clinical trial. Our aim was to compare these rates to those seen after prophylaxis with other antiemetics for AC outside of a clinical trial. Methods: Pre-specified endpoints in a prospective trial of oral or IV NEPA + DEX in AC included acute-care use (emergency [ED] visits or inpatient admissions [IP]) involving CINV, defined as emesis or rescue drug use ≤5 days after AC, and concomitant ED/IP in the same period. We also evaluated CINV-related acute care after non-NEPA prophylaxis for AC in breast cancer from 10/2012-8/2018 in IBM Explorys electronic health records. We age-matched patients 3:1 to the NEPA trial. We further adjusted the event rate to address under-reporting of a) CINV rates (vs. 49.2% for aprepitant in AC in a clinical trial [Warr 2005]) and b) acute-care use, projected at 17-50% at sites external to the dataset. To compare the resulting adjusted event rate to the NEPA study, we conducted 10,000 Monte Carlo simulations, using random probabilities from 5.2-8.7% for Explorys patients, and from 0-2% for NEPA patients to address potential reporting variability, despite the trial including daily patient diaries. Analysis of data was limited to the first two cycles, the median duration in the NEPA trial. Results: In the NEPA trial, 402 patients received ≥1 cycle; 391 completed two cycles. Nine patients had IP admissions; none involved CINV. Five patients had 6 total ED visits; one met criteria for involving CINV; the resulting rate of acute care rate involving CINV was 0.25 per 100 patients. For other antiemetics, 2598 patients received AC (excluding NEPA prophylaxis). Among 1206 age-matched to the NEPA trial, 15 patients had acute-care events in the first 2 cycles, (1.24 per 100 patients), an odds ratio of 1:5.1 (CI 0.7-38.5) in favor of NEPA. After adjusting via the simulation, the odds ratio was 1:8.3 (CI: 2.43-24.21) in favor of NEPA. Conclusions: Comparing CINV-related acute care seen in a large prospective trial relative to real-world evidence in patients with breast cancer treated with AC, <1% of patients receiving NEPA prophylaxis required acute care for CINV; the CINV-related acute-care risks seen with other antiemetic prophylaxis were 5 times (unadjusted) to 8 times (adjusted) the levels for NEPA. A similar comparison using only real world data should be conducted as data permit. Citation Format: Lee Schwartzberg, Kathryn J Ruddy, Rudolph M Navari, Thomas W LeBlanc, Rebecca Clark-Snow, Rita Wickham, Gary Binder, William L. Bailey, Ravi Potluri, Luke M Schmerold, Eros Papademetriou, Eric J Roeland. Avoidable acute care involving chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) among patients with breast cancer receiving anthracycline + cyclophosphamide (AC) with NEPA prophylaxis relative to other antiemetics: An external control arm analysis [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2019 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2019 Dec 10-14; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2020;80(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P5-14-07.

e23108 Background: ASCO antiemetic guidelines recommend upfront triple prophylaxis (NK1 receptor antagonist (RA) + 5HT3 RA + dexamethasone) for patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC). Physicians exhibit high variation in HEC guideline adherence, principally involving inclusion of NK1 RA. Whether adherence is associated with selection of the specific 5HT3 RA agent remains inadequately studied. Methods: In the IBM Explorys electronic health record database, we used procedure and diagnosis codes to identify HEC courses and related nausea/vomiting (NV) from 2012 to 2018. We defined HEC guideline adherence as triple prophylaxis at chemotherapy initiation. We assigned HEC courses for ≥ 7 day cycles of cisplatin or anthracycline + cyclophosphamide (AC), or carboplatin (≥ 14 day cycles as a proxy for AUC ≥ 4) to prescribing oncologists based on encounter frequency. We categorized 5HT3 RA use of each physician treating ≥ 5 HEC courses based on their most commonly used 5HT3 and performed descriptive statistics. Results: Of 12,262 HEC courses, 57% involved physicians having greater use of ondansetron (OND) (mean OND to palonosetron (PALO) ratio of 3.9:1). These courses had lower guideline adherence (due to NK1 RA omission) and higher rates of NV for combined HEC, AC, and carboplatin. NV rates for cisplatin did not vary by 5HT3 agent used. Courses involving physicians with greater PALO use (mean OND:PALO ratio of 0.2:1) had superior adherence and NV rates, despite involving a slightly higher risk population (younger and/or female). Conclusions: According to HEC antiemetic guidelines, NK1 RA use should occur independent of 5HT3 RA agent selection. However, we observed less NK1 RA use where OND was preferred, which may have caused the observed higher rates of NV with OND. Further evaluation should assess whether pharmacy cost minimization is a driver of both OND preference and NK1 omission in HEC. [Table: see text]

e16012 Background: 75–85% of bladder cancer patients present with non-muscle invasive disease (NMIBC). While transurethral resection of bladder tumors (TURBT) is the initial standard treatment for visible lesions, there is variation in the utilization of adjuvant intravesical treatments in the real world. This study aims to assess current treatment patterns in privately insured NMIBC patients. Methods: Bladder cancer patients were identified from Truven MarketScan Commercial and Medicare Supplemental databases using ICD-9/ICD-10 codes. In the absence of tumor staging information, patients were considered to have NMIBC based on diagnosis of CIS or an algorithm centered on the use of TURBT, intravesical treatments and absence of immediate progression to muscle invasive disease. Patients were included in the final cohort if they had one year of continuous insurance coverage prior to index diagnosis, and were without any bladder cancer treatment during this period. Results: 18,683 patients met the eligibility criteria and had a median follow-up of 23 months; the mean age was 68.6 years and 75% were male. The median time from diagnosis to TURBT was 8 days. 54% of the cohort had an intravesical treatment (35% specifically with Bacillus Calmette–Guérin (BCG), with median time from TURBT of 69 days). 77% of BCG-treated patients received 5 or more administrations during induction. However, only 22% of patients received maintenance BCG after induction. 16% of the total cohort developed a recurrence or progression during the available follow-up; five percent underwent a cystectomy, while seven percent were diagnosed with metastatic disease. Only 4% of patients with 5 or more BCG administrations during induction met the definition for being BCG-unresponsive; this is influenced by the low adherence to BCG maintenance protocol. Conclusions: Only a third of NMIBC patients are given intravesical BCG treatment. Adherence to BCG maintenance protocols is suboptimal. Rates of cystectomy/ exenteration are low, suggesting patients’ preference of bladder preservation and the unmet need for new bladder-sparing alternatives.

Abstract Background: In order to improve care and reduce costs of cancer treatment, attention has focused on reducing inpatient (IP) and emergency room (ED) utilization. The US Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) recently implemented an oncology outcome measure (OP-35) to assess the quality of care and determine outpatient hospital payment. It assesses 30-day post-chemotherapy rates of IP or ED events deemed “potentially avoidable” by CMS due to association with any of 10 CMS-defined toxicities: anemia, dehydration, diarrhea, fever, nausea, emesis, neutropenia, pain, pneumonia, or sepsis. Although CMS found that 20% of chemotherapy treatment resulted in such events, event rates with highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) are understudied, particularly for breast cancer (bCA) patients treated with anthracycline + cyclophosphamide (AC), carboplatin, or cisplatin. Methods: In a large electronic health record database focused on US integrated delivery networks, HEC courses of therapy were identified from 4Q 2012 to 3Q 2017. IP/ED events within 30 days of chemotherapy administration were considered related to the OP-35 measure if they included a diagnosis code of any of the ten OP-35 toxicities, per CMS' definitions. HEC chemotherapy use, IP/ED events, bCA diagnosis, and toxicities were identified by ICD-9, ICD-10, and procedural codes. Subgroups were evaluated for 3 common HECs: AC, carboplatin (>14 days apart, as a proxy for AUC ≥4), and cisplatin. Results: 4128 courses of HEC in bCA were identified. Of these, 2304 involved AC (median 4 cycles), 1721 involved carboplatin (median 6 cycles), and 103 involved cisplatin (median 4 cycles), with median ages of 55, 59, and 64, respectively. 30-day IP/ED events were seen in 25% of these HEC bCA courses (22%, 30% and 23% for AC, carboplatin, and cisplatin, respectively). The 10 CMS-defined toxicities were associated with an IP/ED event for 73%, 72%, and 76% of events for these AC, carboplatin, and cisplatin courses respectively, confirming that these are principal contributors to 30-day IP/ED use for patients receiving HEC in bCA. The top five that were most commonly associated with IP/ED for bCA for patients receiving AC, carboplatin, or cisplatin were pain 53%/49%/63%, anemia 51%/51%/38%, fever 48%/31%/38%, neutropenia 46%/27%/31%, and nausea/emesis 30%/40%/25%; patients may have had ≥1 toxicity associated with each IP/ED event. The IP/ED rate may be understated because some events, particularly ED, may occur out of the network the EHR data covers. Conclusion: One quarter of patients receiving AC, carboplatin, or cisplatin for bCA visit the ED or are hospitalized within 30 days of at least one of their chemotherapy administrations. Most events involved ≥1 of 10 toxicities deemed avoidable causes of hospitalization by CMS and now tracked as an oncology outcome measure. Relative to patients receiving AC, acute care rates for patients receiving carboplatin were lower for fever and neutropenia and higher for nausea/emesis, perhaps because the study period largely precedes the 2017 addition of carboplatin AUC ≥4 to national guidelines as HEC requiring triplet antiemetic prophylaxis. Toxicity prevention and symptom monitoring are crucial to reduce acute care needs. Citation Format: Ruddy KJ, Roeland EJ, LeBlanc TW, Binder G, Sebastiani S, Potluri R, Schmerold LM, Papademetriou E, Navari RM. Avoidable acute care use associated with nausea and emesis among patients receiving AC, carboplatin, or cisplatin for breast cancer [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2018 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2018 Dec 4-8; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2019;79(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P4-16-05.

Background: Avoiding acute care services can improve cancer care and reduce cost. The US Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services’ (CMS) new oncology outcome measure (OP-35) defines 30-day post-chemotherapy inpatient (IP) and/or emergency department (ED) events (IP/ED) as “potentially avoidable” if involving any of 10 toxicities, including nausea or vomiting (NV). Evidence demonstrates meaningful gaps in oncologists’ adherence to antiemetic prophylaxis guidelines for highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC), and that NV-related IP use costs >$10,000; yet the incidence of avoidable acute care events involving NV is not well studied. Methods: We assessed chemotherapy courses using IBM Explorys electronic health records (4Q 2012–1Q 2018). We identified rates of IP/ED ≤30 days post-chemotherapy, and OP-35 toxicities (NV, anemia, dehydration, diarrhea, fever, neutropenia, pain, pneumonia, or sepsis) by ICD-9, ICD-10, procedure codes, and CMS criteria. We evaluated cisplatin, anthracycline + cyclophosphamide (AC), carboplatin (>14 days apart, as a proxy for AUC ≥4), oxaliplatin (OX), and other non-HEC chemotherapy. We assessed guideline adherence, defined as triple prophylaxis (NK1 RA + 5HT3 RA +dexamethasone) rates at HEC initiation. Results: In 17,609 HEC and 56,624 non-HEC courses, we observed 30-day IP/ED utilization in 29% and 19% of courses, respectively (Table 1). For HEC, 76% of IP/ED use involved ≥1 of the 10 CMS toxicities, most often anemia (42%), pain (41%), dehydration (24%), and NV (24%). Rates of all-cause IP/ED, IP/ED with OP-35 toxicity, and NV-related IP/ED were consistent for HEC and OX. Gaps in triple prophylaxis were common in HEC. Conclusion: Roughly one-third of patients receiving HEC or OX experienced IP/ED events ≤30 days after chemotherapy. Three-quarters of IP/ED events involved ≥1 of 10 OP-35 toxicities linked by CMS to potentially avoidable acute care; of these, one-third involved NV. NV-associated acute care use is considerable, costly, and potentially avoidable with better adherence to antiemesis guidelines.

651 Background: Oxaliplatin (OX), used primarily in gastrointestinal cancers, is considered moderately emetogenic while multiple guidelines classify carboplatin and cisplatin as highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC). The new oncology outcome measure (OP-35) from the US Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) deems 30-day post-chemotherapy inpatient (IP) and emergency room (ED) events “potentially avoidable” if involving nausea or emesis (NV) or any of eight other toxicities. We lack data comparing avoidable IP/ED and NV events for OX relative to platinums classified as HEC. Methods: We assessed OX, cisplatin, and carboplatin courses of therapy from 4Q 2012 to 1Q 2018 using the IBM Watson Explorys database. We identified IP/ED and OP-35 toxicities (anemia, dehydration, diarrhea, fever, NV, neutropenia, pain, pneumonia, or sepsis) by diagnosis and procedure codes, and stratified results by sex and age < 70 (median age at diagnosis for colorectal cancer). An IP/ED event could involve ≥ 1 OP-35 toxicity. We also evaluated a FOLFIRINOX subgroup (receiving irinotecan ≤ 3 days after OX). Results: In sum, we identified 4,231 OX courses (382 FOLFIRINOX) (Table). OP-35 toxicities occurred in 75% of IP/ED events; of these, 34% OX and 42% FOLFIRINOX involved NV. Rates of IP/ED, IP/ED OP-35-defined toxicity, and NV after OX were consistent with cisplatin and carboplatin. Among patients receiving OX, women age < 70 (n = 1388) had higher NV rates vs. others (p < 0.001). Conclusions: Roughly one-third of patients receiving OX experienced IP/ED events ≤ 30 days post chemotherapy. Most involved ≥ 1 of 10 OP-35 toxicities, meeting CMS’ criteria as potentially avoidable acute care. OX IP/ED rates and NV rates were similar to other platinums and were worse among women age < 70, suggesting more aggressive antiemetic prophylaxis should be evaluated. [Table: see text]