Background: Breast cancer survivors face a risk of significant psychological distress, which can persist for years after their initial diagnosis. Although numerous guidelines and tools exist to help screen for and measure distress in patients with cancer, additional longitudinal studies are needed to better characterize the trajectory of distress over time. Patients and Methods: We conducted a longitudinal study to evaluate distress and health-related quality of life in patients with breast cancer. Annual assessments included global mental and physical health scores using the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Global-10 (PROMIS-10), posttraumatic stress symptoms using the Impact of Event Scale-Revised (IES-R), and depressive symptoms using the Patient Health Questionnaire-2 (PHQ-2). Eligible participants had stage 0–III breast cancer, with baseline surveys administered within 1 year of diagnosis. Annual follow-up surveys were conducted through year 4 after the baseline survey. Only patients who completed the baseline survey and at least one follow-up survey were included in this analysis. Individuals with stage IV or recurrent breast cancer were excluded. Results: A total of 2,140 individuals were included. Over time, global mental health scores declined slightly, with differences in T-scores from baseline ranging from 0.4 to 0.9. In contrast, global physical health scores improved, with differences in T-scores ranging from 0.3 to 0.6. Mean scores remained in the normative range. Depressive symptoms remained stable throughout the study period, while posttraumatic stress symptoms showed improvement over time. Conclusions: This study provides important longitudinal data on distress subtypes in breast cancer survivors with nonmetastatic disease. Although global mental health declined slightly, depression symptoms remained stable, and posttraumatic stress symptoms improved. Investigation of distress subtypes over time merits further study to advance detection of significant distress across the cancer continuum.
Patterns of progression after immune checkpoint inhibitors for Hodgkin lymphoma: implications for radiation therapy
Abstract Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have demonstrated remarkable response rates in relapsed or refractory Hodgkin lymphoma (HL). Still, most patients eventually progress. Patterns of progression after ICIs are not well described and are essential to defining the role of local therapies in combination with ICIs. We identified patients who received ICIs for HL between 2013 and 2022. Fludeoxyglucose-18 positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) before initiating ICI and at progression on/after ICI were reviewed, and areas of active HL were recorded. An exploratory analysis of treatable progression included patients with ≤5 sites of disease on pre-ICI FDG-PET and progression only at pre-ICI sites. Ninety patients were identified; 69 had complete records, and of these, 32 (52%) had relapsed at ICI initiation, 17 (25%) were refractory, and 16 (23%) received ICI as first-line therapy. Forty-five of 69 patients had ≤5 sites of disease (limited) on pre-ICI FDG-PET. Patients with >5 sites of disease had a higher risk of progression, and every site of disease >5 sites conferred an additional 1.2x higher chance of progression. At a median follow-up of 4.0 years, 41 of 69 patients had progressed on/after ICIs (cumulative incidence 66.4%), and of these, 22 of 41 patients progressed only at pre-ICI sites (cumulative incidence 39.4%). In an exploratory analysis, the cumulative incidence of a treatable progression among 45 patients with limited disease was 34%. The cumulative incidence of any progression among this cohort was 58.9%. More than one-third of patients with limited disease before ICIs experienced progression only at pre-ICI sites of disease. These patients could be candidates for radiation during or after ICIs.
e19533 Background: Pneumocystis pneumonia (PJP) is a catastrophic infection seen in the context of low CD4 counts. Brentuximab vedotin (BV) is a drug antibody conjugate targeting CD30 and is used to treat patients with Hodgkin’s lymphoma (HL) and T-cell lymphoma (TCL). PJP prophylaxis is not currently recommended for patients receiving BV-based treatment despite co-expression of CD30 on CD4 cells. The frequency of PJP following BV remains poorly defined. Methods: We evaluated patients who received BV between January 1, 2011 and October 31, 2021 at Mayo Clinic for the development of PJP. Patient demographics and clinical characteristics including underlying disease, chemotherapy regimen, absolute lymphocyte count (ALC), and steroid exposure were collected. Patients who developed PJP more than 3 months after their last BV exposure were excluded. Results: Of 402 BV recipients identified, 63 received PJP prophylaxis and were omitted. Fourteen of the 339 (4.1%) not on prophylaxis developed PJP following BV. Those infected had a median age of 61 (22-87), 71% were male. The most common diagnoses were HL, TCL, and primary mediastinal B-cell lymphoma at rates of 57%, 21%, and 14% respectively. Therapy regimens included BV monotherapy, BV-CHP, and BV-AVD at rates of 43%, 21%, and 14% respectively. BV represented median 2nd line of therapy (1-10) and patients received median of 3 doses (1-10) prior to PJP diagnosis. Patients with PJP had median ALC of 620 (370-3500). 71.4% (10/14) had an ALC less than 750 and among those with ALC greater than 1000, 75% (3/4) had underlying diagnosis of HL. Three patients had CD4 count measured at time of PJP diagnosis with median value of 157 (5-175). 57.1% (8/14) had no steroid exposure beyond the treatment regimen. 14.3% (2/14) were on chronic doses of 5mg prednisone for autoimmune conditions. Short bursts of steroids (prednisone 40 mg) prior to PJP were seen in 21.4% (3/14) with median exposure of 8 days (7-10). One patient had prolonged steroid exposure but was weaned off 17 days prior to PJP diagnosis. 71.4% were older than 50 years at time of PJP. Conclusions: We observed rates of PJP above the commonly accepted threshold of 3.5% for recommending prophylaxis. Among patients with an ALC greater than 1000, 75% had HL raising the question of a qualitative defect in immunity. Close ALC monitoring is recommended for patients receiving BV with a low threshold to institute PJP prophylaxis, especially amongst those older than 50 or with a diagnosis of HL.[Table: see text]
Abstract P4-11-02: Prevalence and impact of fertility concerns in young women with breast cancer
Abstract Introduction: Breast cancer treatments can impair fertility via direct gonadotoxicity (chemotherapy) as well as by introducing delays in childbearing that allow natural ovarian aging. Guidelines strongly recommend fertility counseling and consideration of fertility preservation techniques for premenopausal women who have not completed their desired childbearing at the time of cancer diagnosis. Prior studies have identified high rates of fertility concern but relatively low rates of fertility counseling and use of fertility preservation techniques. We sought to investigate rates of fertility counseling, use of fertility preservation techniques, and how fertility concerns impact cancer treatment decisions in a modern cohort of patients with breast cancer at a large academic medical center in the United States. Methods: All patients seen at Mayo Clinic Rochester with a new diagnosis (within the year prior) of stage 0-4 breast cancer were invited (by mail or in person) to participate in the Mayo Clinic Breast Registry. After informed consent, participants were asked to complete a baseline survey and annual follow-up surveys. On baseline and one-year surveys, patients were queried about desire for future children and fertility concerns. Nurse chart abstraction was used to collect information about tumor subtype, stage, and treatments received. We examined survey data from women diagnosed under the age of 50 who expressed an interest in having future biological children on either the baseline or year 1 survey between February 2015 and October 2020. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the degree of fertility concern in this population, the impact of that concern on cancer treatment decisions, and steps taken to preserve fertility. Results: Between February 2015 and October 2020, 865 women under age 50 at diagnosis consented to the registry. Of these women, 627 completed a baseline and/or 1-year survey and 100 answered either “yes” or “unsure” to the question: “At the present time, do you wish to have any more biological children in the future?” on one or both surveys. Among the 100 women expressing interest in future child-bearing, 92% were white, 27% had node-positive and one had distant metastatic disease at diagnosis. The age at diagnosis ranged from 19 to 49 years, with a mean age of 33.8 years. Of the 75 who reported a desire for future children at baseline, 28% felt “somewhat concerned” about their future fertility and 40% felt “very concerned.” Of the 70 who reported a desire for future children on the year 1 survey, 17% felt “somewhat concerned” and 59% felt “very concerned.” For those “very concerned” about future fertility at year 1, 65% reported that this concern had a major impact on their treatment decisions. Often, that treatment modification entailed using endocrine therapy for less than 5 years; 52% of those who specified the type of treatment modification they had made indicated this option. Of note, six women who reported no desire for future biological children at baseline were “unsure” at year 1. At year 1, 93% of women recalled a discussion about fertility with their doctor prior to starting treatment, and 49% had taken steps to preserve fertility (32.5% with embryo cryopreservation, 20% with oocyte cryopreservation and 65% with a GnRH agonist; some selected multiple options). Conclusion: We found a reassuringly high rate of patient-reported fertility counseling and use of reproductive endocrinology technologies to preserve fertility in women who reported a desire for additional children at or soon after diagnosis with breast cancer. Consistent with prior studies, fertility concerns frequently impacted breast cancer treatment decisions. It is important to err on the side of inclusivity when providing fertility counseling because desire for fertility can change over time. Citation Format: Samantha Mannion, Alexandra Higgins, Elizabeth A Stewart, Zaraq Khan, Chandra Shenoy, Nicole Larson, Hazel B Nichols, H Irene Su, Ann H Partridge, Fergus J Couch, Janet E Olson, Kathryn Ruddy. Prevalence and impact of fertility concerns in young women with breast cancer [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2021 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2021 Dec 7-10; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2022;82(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P4-11-02.
Immune‐related hematologic adverse events in the context of immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy
Outcomes with different administration schedules of bortezomib in bortezomib, lenalidomide and dexamethasone (VRd) as first‐line therapy in multiple myeloma
AbstractInduction therapy for multiple myeloma with bortezomib (Velcade), lenalidomide (Revlimid), and dexamethasone (d) (VRd) was traditionally administered as bortezomib given twice weekly on a 3 week cycle. A modified schedule of weekly bortezomib has been adopted over time to decrease treatment burden for patients and reduce treatment‐emergent neuropathy. This study evaluates the response rates and outcomes with different schedules of bortezomib in VRd administered for first‐line treatment for patients with newly diagnosed MM (NDMM). We retrospectively analyzed patients treated with upfront VRd from June 30th 2008 to December 31st 2018, for variations of bortezomib administration. Five hundred and fifty‐five (555) NDMM patients met inclusion criteria; median age 63 years and 61% men. Bortezomib was administered twice weekly every 21 days in 43%, once weekly every 21 days in 41% and once weekly every 28 days in 16%. Though peripheral sensory neuropathy was more frequent with twice weekly dosing (P = .002), this group achieved shorter time to best response (P = .01). Weekly every 21‐day treatment saw higher VGPR or better rates (P = .02). However, with median follow up time of 37 months (IQR 22–56), we found no difference in PFS or OS among the groups. While small differences in response rates were found among the varying administration schedules of bortezomib administration, there was no significant effect on PFS or OS. Given that VRd remains a first line standard of care option for newly diagnosed MM, in the absence of a large trial comparing bortezomib dosing schedule modifications, these results are helpful in supporting current practices of once weekly administration.
Cardiovascular Health during and after Cancer Therapy
Certain cancer treatments have been linked to specific cardiovascular toxicities, including (but not limited to) cardiomyopathy, atrial fibrillation, arterial hypertension, and myocarditis. Radiation, anthracyclines, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (Her2)-directed therapies, fluoropyrimidines, platinums, tyrosine kinase inhibitors and proteasome inhibitors, immune checkpoint inhibitors, and chimeric antigen-presenting (CAR)-T cell therapy can all cause cardiovascular side effects. Management of cardiovascular dysfunction that occurs during cancer therapy often requires temporary or permanent cessation of the risk-potentiating anti-neoplastic drug as well as optimization of medical management from a cardiovascular standpoint. Stem cell or bone marrow transplant recipients face unique cardiovascular challenges, as do patients at extremes of age.
Effect of antibiotic use on outcomes in patients with Hodgkin lymphoma treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors
A subset of acute myeloid leukemia (AML) arises either from an antecedent myeloid malignancy (secondary AML, sAML) or as a complication of DNA-damaging therapy for other cancers (therapy-related myeloid neoplasm, t-MN). These secondary leukemias have unique biological and clinical features that distinguish them from de novo AML. Over the last decade, molecular techniques have unraveled the complex subclonal architecture of sAML and t-MN. In this review, we compare and contrast biological and clinical features of de novo AML with sAML and t-MN. We discuss the role of genetic mutations, including those involved in RNA splicing, epigenetic modification, tumor suppression, transcription regulation, and cell signaling, in the pathogenesis of secondary leukemia. We also discuss clonal hematopoiesis in otherwise healthy individuals, as well as in the context of another malignancy, and how it challenges the conventional notion of sAML/t-MN. We conclude by summarizing the current and emerging treatment strategies, including allogenic transplant, in these complex scenarios.