Shah, Sumit

794 Background: HER2 protein, encoded by ERBB2 gene, is the target of emerging therapies for patients (pts) with advanced urothelial carcinoma (aUC). High HER2 IHC expression (IHC 3+) is present in ~15% of pts with aUC, while >50% of pts have HER2 IHC 1+/2+/3+ expression. EVP is the preferred 1 st line regimen for pts with aUC, but the impact of HER2 status on EVP outcomes is unclear. Methods: We identified pts from the UNITE study with tumor samples tested for HER2 by IHC and another cohort with next-generation sequencing (NGS) data available. Outcomes were compared by HER2 IHC status (HER2 IHC 0/1+ vs 2+/3+) and separately based on ERBB2 status (alteration vs wild-type). X 2 test was used to compare observed response rate (ORR) and logistic regression was used to compare disease control rate (DCR). Duration of response (DOR), progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) from EVP start were evaluated using log-rank test and Cox proportional hazards models. Multivariate analysis (MVA) included age, sex, race, ECOG PS, neutrophil:lymphocyte ratio, albumin, hemoglobin, primary tumor site, tumor histology, prior lines of treatment, and metastatic sites as covariates. Results: Among 521 pts treated with EVP from 16 sites, 112 had HER2 IHC data and 313 had NGS. Median age was 71, 74% were men, 84% Caucasian, 82% had ECOG PS 0-1, 65% pure urothelial histology, and 73% received frontline EVP. HER2 IHC distribution (n=112) was 27%/21%/37%/15% for 0/1+/2+/3+, respectively. ERBB2 alterations were present in 14% (44/313). Baseline characteristics were similar in HER2 0/1+ and 2+/3+ pts, except more primary bladder tumors in 2+/3+ pts (83% vs 63%, p=0.01). For the overall cohort (n=521), with a median follow up of 7.3 mos from EVP start, ORR was 54%, DCR 81%, median DOR (mDOR) 8.5 mos, median PFS (mPFS) 8.5 mos, and median OS (mOS) 19.8 mos. Pt outcomes by HER2 IHC status are shown (Table). In univariate analysis (UVA), pts with HER2 IHC 0/1+ had longer mOS compared to HER2 IHC 2+/3+, but this was not significant in MVA (HR: 0.5; CI: 0.2–1.3, p=0.17). No significant differences were observed in other outcomes. Evaluating clinical outcomes by ERRB2 status, no significant differences were seen for ERBB2 -altered vs wild-type pts. Conclusions: In this retrospective study, no significant differences were seen in EVP treatment outcomes based on HER2 IHC status or ERBB2 status. These findings are hypothesis-generating and require validation in larger and prospective cohorts. HER2 0/1+ (n=54)* HER2 2+/3+ (n=58) OR (95%CI, p) HR UVA (95%CI, p) HR MVA (95%CI, p) ORR 49% (23/47) 55% (27/49) 1.3 (0.6-2.9, p=0.5) - - DCR 79% (37/47) 88% (43/49) 1.9 (0.7-6.2, p=0.2) - - mDOR 11.7 mos 10.4 mos - 1.3 (0.7-2.4, p=0.4) 1.2 (0.4-3.3, p=0.8) mPFS 5.9 mos 7.1 mos - 0.8 (0.5-1.4, p=0.5) 1.1 (0.5-2.5, p=0.9) mOS 42.4 mos 18.7 mos - 2.3 (1.1-4.5, p=0.02) 2.0 (0.8-5.4, p=0.2) *HER2 0/1+ used as reference.

e13890 Background: Many oncology practices have reported continued use of telemedicine since onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the future sustainability of telemedicine within oncology practices remains unclear, particularly because federal policies that enabled adoption in response to the public health emergency (PHE) have not been made permanent. Understanding similarities and differences in telemedicine utilization at high-volume oncology centers is crucial for shaping evidence-based policy that enables equitable access to oncology care across varying geographies. Methods: This is a cross-sectional, year-over-year, retrospective cohort analysis of trends in telemedicine utilization across all medical oncology clinical appointments conducted among adult patients (age >18) from January 2019 to December 2023 at Stanford Medicine Cancer Center (SM) – comprising multiple campuses in the California Bay Area – and the Mayo Clinic Comprehensive Cancer Center (MC) – a multiregional cancer practice with tertiary referral campuses in Minnesota, Florida, and Arizona, as well as community-based clinics throughout the Upper Midwest. Results: Both institutions exhibited a similar trend in telemedicine adoption over time. This was characterized by an initial surge in utilization following the PHE declaration in March 2020, followed by sustained utilization rates from 2021 to 2023. However, telemedicine use as a proportion of the overall practice differed significantly between institutions. At SM, the rate of telemedicine visits as a proportion of overall clinical practice was 60.3% (49,136/ 81,502) in 2021, 59.9% (52,247/ 87,215) in 2022, and 57.2% (55,007/ 96,163) in 2023. At MC, the proportion of telemedicine utilization was 12.8% in 2021 (23,873/186,086), 14.7% in 2022 (28,985/196,777), and 14.0% in 2023 (30,208/215,941). Deployment in the setting of new versus return visits also differed between institutions. In 2023, telemedicine accounted for 53.7% (6,440/11,998) of new and 57.7% (48,567/84,165) of return visits at SM, compared to 15.5% (3,359/21,728) and 13.8% (26,849/194,213) at MC. Additionally, while video visits were the predominant modality used to conduct telemedicine visits at both institutions from 2021 onward, in 2023 phone visits still made up 17.9% (5,394/30,208) of all telemedicine visits at MC, compared to just 5.4% (2,990/55,007) at SM. Conclusions: Stanford Medicine and Mayo Clinic exhibited a pattern of initial growth of telemedicine adoption in 2020, followed by sustained utilization from 2021-2023. We observed unique differences in the overall proportion, visit type deployment, and modality of telemedicine utilization between institutions. However, this study confirms telemedicine visits have remained a fixture of medical oncology care for many patients at these institutions since the COVID-19 pandemic.

e23345 Background: Telemedicine enables patients to attend visits remotely and is associated with shorter wait times (i.e. scheduling-to-appointment duration). However, its impact on patient–clinic distance and wait times for new patients in high-volume surgical oncology centers remains unclear. In these centers, where appointment availability and travel distance significantly influence care decisions, understanding telemedicine’s impact on access is essential as federal policies supporting telemedicine continue to be under legislative review. To address this, we examined the relationship between new patient visit modality, distance, and wait time across demographics, providing insights to guide policy makers, and clinical practice. Methods: We extracted visit data from a multispecialty surgical oncology center in Northern California from 2019 to 2023 and used linear models with fixed effects for clinician and patient characteristics to assess the association of NPV modality with distance and wait times. We calculated distance using geodesic measurements between residential ZIP codes and care sites and derived median household income and education levels from the American Community Survey. Results: There were 10596 NPVs in 2019, and 13982 in 2023, conducted by 78 and 100 clinicians respectively. The proportion of NPV visits conducted by telemedicine increased from 0% to 28% during this period. From 2021–2023, NPVs conducted by telemedicine were more likely to fall outside the center’s 2019 catchment area (80th percentile of distance) with an adjusted odds ratio of 1.89 (95% CI 1.62, 2.21). Wait times for telemedicine NPVs was 3.0 days shorter (95% CI [2.0, 3.9]) than in-person visits. Compared to the reduction in wait times for patients aged 45–65 (2.8 days, 95% CI [1.8, 3.8]), those 80 and older had a smaller reduction (1.9 days, 95% CI [0.9, 2.8]), while patients aged 65–79 had a greater reduction (3.4 days, 95% CI [2.4, 4.5]). This effect did not significantly vary by sex, race, ethnicity, education, income, or insurance status. Conclusions: At this multispecialty surgical oncology center, new patients seen via telemedicine were more likely to reside outside the center’s traditional catchment area and had shorter wait times, with these differences varying by demographic characteristics. Strategic telemedicine integration tailored to patient needs could enhance access by reducing wait times and expanding specialized surgical oncology care to patients across broader geographic distances.

ImportanceSystematic data on the association between anticancer therapies and thromboembolic events (TEEs) in patients with COVID-19 are lacking.ObjectiveTo assess the association between anticancer therapy exposure within 3 months prior to COVID-19 and TEEs following COVID-19 diagnosis in patients with cancer.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis registry-based retrospective cohort study included patients who were hospitalized and had active cancer and laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. Data were accrued from March 2020 to December 2021 and analyzed from December 2021 to October 2022.ExposureTreatments of interest (TOIs) (endocrine therapy, vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors/tyrosine kinase inhibitors [VEGFis/TKIs], immunomodulators [IMiDs], immune checkpoint inhibitors [ICIs], chemotherapy) vs reference (no systemic therapy) in 3 months prior to COVID-19.Main Outcomes and MeasuresMain outcomes were (1) venous thromboembolism (VTE) and (2) arterial thromboembolism (ATE). Secondary outcome was severity of COVID-19 (rates of intensive care unit admission, mechanical ventilation, 30-day all-cause mortality following TEEs in TOI vs reference group) at 30-day follow-up.ResultsOf 4988 hospitalized patients with cancer (median [IQR] age, 69 [59-78] years; 2608 [52%] male), 1869 had received 1 or more TOIs. Incidence of VTE was higher in all TOI groups: endocrine therapy, 7%; VEGFis/TKIs, 10%; IMiDs, 8%; ICIs, 12%; and chemotherapy, 10%, compared with patients not receiving systemic therapies (6%). In multivariable log-binomial regression analyses, relative risk of VTE (adjusted risk ratio [aRR], 1.33; 95% CI, 1.04-1.69) but not ATE (aRR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.56-1.16) was significantly higher in those exposed to all TOIs pooled together vs those with no exposure. Among individual drugs, ICIs were significantly associated with VTE (aRR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.01-2.07). Also noted were significant associations between VTE and active and progressing cancer (aRR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.01-2.03), history of VTE (aRR, 3.10; 95% CI, 2.38-4.04), and high-risk site of cancer (aRR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.14-1.75). Black patients had a higher risk of TEEs (aRR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.03-1.50) than White patients. Patients with TEEs had high intensive care unit admission (46%) and mechanical ventilation (31%) rates. Relative risk of death in patients with TEEs was higher in those exposed to TOIs vs not (aRR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.91-1.38) and was significantly associated with poor performance status (aRR, 1.77; 95% CI, 1.30-2.40) and active/progressing cancer (aRR, 1.55; 95% CI, 1.13-2.13).Conclusions and RelevanceIn this cohort study, relative risk of developing VTE was high among patients receiving TOIs and varied by the type of therapy, underlying risk factors, and demographics, such as race and ethnicity. These findings highlight the need for close monitoring and perhaps personalized thromboprophylaxis to prevent morbidity and mortality associated with COVID-19–related thromboembolism in patients with cancer.

ImportanceCytokine storm due to COVID-19 can cause high morbidity and mortality and may be more common in patients with cancer treated with immunotherapy (IO) due to immune system activation.ObjectiveTo determine the association of baseline immunosuppression and/or IO-based therapies with COVID-19 severity and cytokine storm in patients with cancer.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis registry-based retrospective cohort study included 12 046 patients reported to the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19) registry from March 2020 to May 2022. The CCC19 registry is a centralized international multi-institutional registry of patients with COVID-19 with a current or past diagnosis of cancer. Records analyzed included patients with active or previous cancer who had a laboratory-confirmed infection with SARS-CoV-2 by polymerase chain reaction and/or serologic findings.ExposuresImmunosuppression due to therapy; systemic anticancer therapy (IO or non-IO).Main Outcomes and MeasuresThe primary outcome was a 5-level ordinal scale of COVID-19 severity: no complications; hospitalized without requiring oxygen; hospitalized and required oxygen; intensive care unit admission and/or mechanical ventilation; death. The secondary outcome was the occurrence of cytokine storm.ResultsThe median age of the entire cohort was 65 years (interquartile range [IQR], 54-74) years and 6359 patients were female (52.8%) and 6598 (54.8%) were non-Hispanic White. A total of 599 (5.0%) patients received IO, whereas 4327 (35.9%) received non-IO systemic anticancer therapies, and 7120 (59.1%) did not receive any antineoplastic regimen within 3 months prior to COVID-19 diagnosis. Although no difference in COVID-19 severity and cytokine storm was found in the IO group compared with the untreated group in the total cohort (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.80; 95% CI, 0.56-1.13, and aOR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.41-1.93, respectively), patients with baseline immunosuppression treated with IO (vs untreated) had worse COVID-19 severity and cytokine storm (aOR, 3.33; 95% CI, 1.38-8.01, and aOR, 4.41; 95% CI, 1.71-11.38, respectively). Patients with immunosuppression receiving non-IO therapies (vs untreated) also had worse COVID-19 severity (aOR, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.36-2.35) and cytokine storm (aOR, 2.32; 95% CI, 1.42-3.79).Conclusions and RelevanceThis cohort study found that in patients with cancer and COVID-19, administration of systemic anticancer therapies, especially IO, in the context of baseline immunosuppression was associated with severe clinical outcomes and the development of cytokine storm.Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04354701

Abstract Among 2,186 U.S. adults with invasive cancer and laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, we examined the association of COVID-19 treatments with 30-day all-cause mortality and factors associated with treatment. Logistic regression with multiple adjustments (e.g., comorbidities, cancer status, baseline COVID-19 severity) was performed. Hydroxychloroquine with any other drug was associated with increased mortality versus treatment with any COVID-19 treatment other than hydroxychloroquine or untreated controls; this association was not present with hydroxychloroquine alone. Remdesivir had numerically reduced mortality versus untreated controls that did not reach statistical significance. Baseline COVID-19 severity was strongly associated with receipt of any treatment. Black patients were approximately half as likely to receive remdesivir as white patients. Although observational studies can be limited by potential unmeasured confounding, our findings add to the emerging understanding of patterns of care for patients with cancer and COVID-19 and support evaluation of emerging treatments through inclusive prospective controlled trials. Significance: Evaluating the potential role of COVID-19 treatments in patients with cancer in a large observational study, there was no statistically significant 30-day all-cause mortality benefit with hydroxychloroquine or high-dose corticosteroids alone or in combination; remdesivir showed potential benefit. Treatment receipt reflects clinical decision-making and suggests disparities in medication access. This article is highlighted in the In This Issue feature, p. 1426