Almquist, Daniel

Abstract Background Immune checkpoint inhibitor combined with platinum‐etoposide is the standard first‐line therapy for patients with extensive‐stage small cell lung cancer (ES‐SCLC). The phase 3 clinical trials that led to the approval of chemoimmunotherapy in ES‐SCLC excluded patients who had an Eastern Cooperative Group (ECOG) performance status (PS) of 2–3. Therefore, data on the efficacy of chemoimmunotherapy in patients with an ECOG PS of 2–3 are limited. Methods A retrospective analysis was performed on patients diagnosed with ES‐SCLC who received chemoimmunotherapy (atezolizumab or durvalumab) within the Mayo Clinic Health System between January 2016 and January 2021. The objective of this study was to compare the overall survival (OS), progression‐free survival (PFS), and best clinical response to therapy in patients with an ECOG PS of 0–1 vs. patients with an ECOG PS of 2–3 who received chemoimmunotherapy for newly diagnosed ES‐SCLC. Results In total, 82 patients were included in the study. The mean ± standard deviation age was 68.1 ± 8.3 years. Of these, 56 patients were identified with an ECOG PS of 0–1, and 26 patients were identified with an ECOG PS of 2–3. The median PFS was similar regardless of ECOG PS (5.8 months [95% CI, 4.3–6.0 months] in the ECOG PS 0–1 group vs. 4.1 months [95% CI, 3.8–6.9 months] in the ECOG PS 2–3; p = .2994). The median OS was also similar regardless of ECOG PS (10.6 months [95% CI, 8.4–13.4 months] in the ECOG PS 0–1 group vs. 9.3 months [95% CI, 4.9–12.8 months]; p = .2718) in the ECOG PS 2‐3 group. Conclusions The study results demonstrated no significant difference in PFS or OS among the ECOG PS 2–3 and ECOG PS 0–1 groups. Therefore, chemoimmunotherapy should be considered for patients who have ES‐SCLC with an ECOG PS of 2–3.

PURPOSE: The benefit of routine pre-emptive screening for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infections in patients with cancer before cancer-directed therapies is unclear. Herein, we characterize the outcomes of a cohort of patients with cancer who were diagnosed with COVID-19 by routine screening (RS) in comparison with those diagnosed on the basis of clinical suspicion or exposure history (nonroutine screening [NRS]). METHODS: A multisite prospective observational study was conducted at three major and five satellite campuses of the Mayo Clinic Cancer Center between March 18 and July 31, 2020. The primary outcome was COVID-19–related hospital admission. Secondary outcomes included intensive care unit admissions and all-cause mortality. RESULTS: Five thousand four hundred fifty-two patients underwent RS in the outpatient setting only, and 44 (0.81%) were diagnosed with COVID-19. RS detected 19 additional patients from the scheduled inpatient admissions for surgical or interventional procedures or inpatient chemotherapy. One hundred sixty-one patients were diagnosed with COVID-19 on the basis of NRS. COVID-19–related hospitalization rate (17.5% v 26.7%; P = .14), intensive care unit admission (1.6% v 5.6%; P = .19), and mortality (4.8% v 3.7%; P = .72) were not significantly different between the RS and NRS groups. In the multivariable analysis, age ≥ 60 years (odds ratio, 4.4; P = .023) and an absolute lymphocyte count ≤ 1.4 × 109/L (odds ratio, 9.2; P = .002) were independent predictors of COVID-19–related hospital admission. CONCLUSION: The COVID-19 positivity rate was low on the basis of RS. Comparing the hospital admission and mortality outcomes with the NRS cohort, there were no significant differences. The value of routine pre-emptive screening of asymptomatic patients with cancer for COVID-19 remains low.

8569 Background: Immune checkpoint inhibitor (atezolizumab or durvalumab) combined with platinum-etoposide is the standard first-line therapy for patients with extensive-stage small cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC). The phase III clinical trials that led to the approval of chemoimmunotherapy in ES-SCLC, excluded patients with an Eastern Cooperative Group (ECOG) Performance Status (PS) of Two or Greater. Therefore, data on efficacy of this combination in this subgroup of ES-SCLC patients whose performance status two or greater is limited. Methods: A retrospective analysis was performed of patients diagnosed with ES-SCLC who received chemoimmunotherapy (atezolizumab or durvalumab) within the Mayo Clinic Health System between January 2016 and January 2021. Cases were identified from clinical databases at Mayo Clinic. Data on demographics, ECOG-PS, date of diagnosis, date of progression, whole brain radiation, CNS involvement, liver involvement, stereotactic body radiation, chest consolidation, platinum sensitivity, lines of therapy and last follow up date were extracted. Overall Survival (OS) and progression free survival (PFS) for ECOG-PS 2-3 were compared to patients with an ECOG-PS 0-1. Results: A total of 84 patients were identified with a median age of 68.2 (48-88) years old. Of these, 54 patients were identified with an ECOG-PS 0-1 and 30 patients with an ECOG-PS 2-3. The median PFS for the ECOG PS 0-1 cohort was 5.2 months (95% CI 4.6-6.1) while the median PFS for the ECOG-PS 2-3 cohort was 6.0 months (95% CI 4.2-7.7; logrank p = 0.93). The median OS for the ECOG-PS 0-1 cohort was 10.8 months (95% CI 8.5-12.9) while the median OS for the ECOG-PS 2-3 cohort was 10.3 months (95% CI 6.0-14.1; logrank p = 0.39). Hazard ratios of ECOG-PS 0-1 versus 2-3 showed no tendency of increased PFS or OS for either group within cox proportional hazards models. Forty-three percent of ECOG-PS 0-1 achieved a partial response (PR) and 57% of patients who had ECOG-PS 2-3 also achieved a PR (Fisher’s exact p = 0.23). A complete response was found in 4% of ECOG-PS 0-1 compared to 3% in the ECOG-PS 2-3 cohort. For patients who responded to initial therapy, 46% of ECOG-PS 2-3 patients had a platinum sensitive relapse while only 33% of ECOG-PS 0-1 were still platinum sensitive at the time of relapse. Five ECOG-PS 2-3 patients were able to receive a second-line therapy. Conclusions: To our knowledge, this is the first study to evaluate chemoimmunotherapy in the subgroup of ES-SCLC patients with an ECOG-PS 2 or greater. This retrospective study demonstrated no significant difference in PFS, OS, and ability to achieve a least a PR in ECOG-PS 2-3 cohort when compared to ECOG-PS 0-1. Therefore, chemoimmunotherapy should not be reserved for only an ECOG-PS of 0-1 but should be considered for all treatment eligible patients.

Abstract Abstract Importance: The benefit of routine screening for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infections in patients with cancer before cancer-directed therapies is unclear. Herein, we characterize the outcomes of a cohort of cancer patients diagnosed with Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) by routine screening in comparison with those diagnosed based on clinical suspicion or exposure history (non-routine screening). Objective: To describe and compare the outcomes of cancer patients diagnosed with COVID-19 on routine screening vs. non-routine screening at a multi-site tertiary cancer center. To identify risk factors for COVID-19-related hospital admission. Design: A multi-site prospective observational study was conducted between March 18 and July 31, 2020. Setting: Three major and 5 satellite campuses of the Mayo Clinic Cancer Center. Participants: Adult patients diagnosed with active cancer within the past five years and confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection were included. Primary Outcomes and Measures: Clinical and laboratory data were assessed as independent variables. The primary outcome was COVID-19-related hospital admission. Secondary outcomes included intensive care unit (ICU) admissions and all-cause mortality. Results: Between March 18 and July 31, 2020, 5452 patients underwent routine screening in the outpatient setting, 44 (0.81%) were diagnosed with COVID-19. Routine screening detected additional 19 patients from inpatient and pre-procedural settings; 161 patients were diagnosed with COVID-19 based on non-routine screening. The median age of the entire cohort at diagnosis was 54 years, and 95 patients (42.2%) were female. COVID-19 related-hospitalization rate (17.5% vs. 26.7%, p=0.14), ICU admission (1.6% vs. 5.6%, p=0.19), and mortality (4.8% vs. 3.7%, p=0.72) were not significantly different between routine screening and non-routine screening groups. In the multivariable analysis, age ≥ 60 years (odds ratio: 4.4, p=0.023) and an absolute lymphocyte count ≤1.4 × 109/L (odds ratio: 9.2, p=0.002) were independent predictors of COVID-19-related hospital admission. Conclusions and Relevance: The COVID-19 positivity rate was low based on routine screening. Comparing the outcome with the non-routine screening cohort, there was no significant difference. These results led to an important practice change at our cancer center. We currently follow a testing strategy based on symptoms, exposure, risk factors, and clinical judgment. Citation Format: Zhuoer Xie, Antoine N. Saliba, Jithma Abeykoon, Umair Majeed, Daniel Almquist, Julia Wiedmeier-Nutor, Evandro Bezerra, Xavier Andrade-Gonzalez, Ashley Hickman, Karl Sorenson, Sagar Rakshit, Christopher Wee, Sri Tella, Anuhya Kommalapati, Nadine Abdallah, Joshua Pritchett, Mariza De Andrade, Dipesh Uprety, Andrew Badley, Joleen Hubbard, Naseema Gangat, Carrie A. Thompson, Thomas Witzig, Robert R. McWilliams, Konstantinos Leventakos, Thorvardur R. Halfdanarson. Outcomes of COVID-19 in patients with cancer: Results of a prospective observational comparison of routine screening strategy versus testing based on clinical suspicion [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the AACR Virtual Meeting: COVID-19 and Cancer; 2021 Feb 3-5. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Clin Cancer Res 2021;27(6_Suppl):Abstract nr S06-03.

Over the past decade, significant advances have been achieved in the diagnostic testing, treatment, and prognosis of advanced non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). One of the most significant developments was the identification of specific gene alterations that define subsets of NSCLC. In 2007, ROS1 rearrangements were first described and observed in approximately 1%-2% of patients with NSCLC. Currently, crizotinib remains the therapy of choice for advanced ROS1-rearranged NSCLC without CNS metastases, while entrectinib has emerged as the preferred option for those with CNS metastases. The next-generation inhibitors under development are more potent, have better CNS efficacy, and can overcome important resistance mutations. In this review, we focus on the management of patients with advanced NSCLC harboring a ROS1 rearrangement. We aim to provide insight into the diagnosis, treatment approach, and emerging treatments in this subgroup of NSCLC.

Abstract Background: Recent data from the Impassion130 trial has shown the clinical benefit of PD-1/PD-L1 checkpoint blockade immunotherapy, in combination with chemotherapy, for the treatment of metastatic PD-L1 positive TNBC. The PD-1 inhibitor pembrolizumab has also been evaluated in multiple phase I and phase II clinical trials in advanced TNBC, and is associated with an improved rate of pathologic complete response with chemotherapy in the neoadjuvant I-SPY2 trial. A subset of TNBC cancers have high level amplification of chromosome 9p24.1, which encodes JAK2, PD-L1, and PD-L2 (the PDJ amplicon) which is associated with poor prognosis. The presence of the PDJ amplicon in TNBCand is associated with elevated RNA expression of JAK2 and of PD-L1 and sensitivity of PD-L1 expression to IFN-γ in vitro. It has been demonstrated that amplificationAmplification of PD-L1 showed larger tumors andis associated with higher incidence of lymph node metastasis and poor overall survival. These data suggest that there is a subset of patients with TNBC tumors that have coordinate overexpression of JAK2, PD-L1, and PD-L2, so that combination blockade of these pathways warrants evaluation in the clinical setting. Trial Design: This is a single arm dose-escalation trial for stage IV TNBC patients who have progressed after at least one chemotherapy regimen in the metastatic setting. Monitoring of disease response is done with radiological imaging every 2 cycles as clinically indicated, per standard of care. Pembrolizumab is given IV on day 1 of each 21 day cycle. Ruxolitinib is given at the starting dose of 5 mg po BID daily, escalating to 20 mg po BID daily with subsequent dose levels. Eligibility Criteria: Clinical stage IV ER-/PR- and HER2 negative patients (TNBC) who have progressed after at least one chemotherapy regimen in the metastatic setting. Patients must have a good performance status at the start of study. Patients also must have adequate hematologic and organ function, and have recovered from the acute effects from prior treatments. Tumor expression of PD-L1 by IHC and 9p24.1 gene amplification are measured but are not required for eligibility. Specific Aims: The primary goal is to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of ruxolitinib in combination with fixed dosing of pembrolizumab in patients with advanced/metastatic TNBC. The secondary objectives are to describe the safety profile and clinical response of pembrolizumab in combination with ruxolitinib. Statistical Methods: The phase I study with a target enrollment of up to 21 patients in a standard 3+3 design (3 for each of the first three dose levels and 6 for each of the final two dose levels) plus up to an additional 3 patients that were deemed cancels, ineligible, or replaced for purposes of DLT assessment. Accrual: To date we have enrolled 8 patients since start of enrollment in January 2018, and the projected enrollment is 18 patients. Contact information: For more information or to refer a patient, please contact study coordinator, Nicholas R. Schroeder. He can be reached at (480) 342-3089 or via email at schroeder.nicholas@mayo.edu Citation Format: Daniel Almquist. A phase I study of pembrolizumab combined with ruxolitinib in triple negative breast cancer (TNBC) [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 OT2-04-06.

e20029 Background: Diffuse idiopathic pulmonary neuroendocrine cell hyperplasia (DIPNECH) is a pulmonary disorder with neuroendocrine cell proliferation with potential progression to lung neuroendocrine tumor (Lu-NET). Optimal diagnostic and treatment strategies have yet to be well defined. Herein, we aim to describe the Mayo Clinic experience with DIPNECH. Methods: A retrospective analysis was performed of patients diagnosed with DIPNECH within Mayo Clinic between January 2000-Febuary 2019. Cases were identified from clinical databases at Mayo Clinic. Data on demographics, disease characteristics, time of diagnosis, surgery, and last follow up date were extracted. Extent of symptom burden, treatment approaches, disease progression, and disease-free survival (DFS) were evaluated by chart review. Results: A total of 59 patients were identified with a median age of 63(43-81) years. The cohort was predominantly female (93.2%) and non-smoking (76.3%). Most patients (86.4%) had symptomatic disease with chronic cough being the most common (71.2%) followed by exertional dyspnea (44.1%). Imaging typically showed bilateral lung nodules (93.2%) with mosaic attenuation noted 69.5% of the time. Surgical resection was frequently completed to confirm diagnosis (94.9%). Most patients received inhaled glucocorticoids combined with a beta agonist (79.7%). Oral steroid use was seen in 49.2% of patients whereas a somatostatin analog was used in 15.3% following the diagnosis of DIPNECH. These medical interventions led to symptom relief in 23.7% of the patients. The median follow up for all patients was 19.5 months. Progression of tumorlets was seen in 48.7% of patients with only 7(17.9%) patients progressing to a diagnosis of Lu-NET. The 3-year DFS was 90.5%. Conclusions: This is amongst the largest studies completed evaluating DIPNECH patients. DIPNECH remains a rare disease more commonly diagnosed in women in their early 60’s. DIPNECH appears to have an indolent course with obstructive symptoms being the most common finding. A minority of patients experienced symptom relief with therapy. Overall, DIPNECH appears to have a low risk of progressing to Lu-NET based on the observation of this study.