Hickman, Ashley

Background: Financial toxicity (FT), or the negative impact of medical expenses experienced by patients, is a known adverse effect of cancer treatment that result in worse health outcomes for patients. However, there is limited literature investigating FT in lymphoma with even less data on predictors such as age, gender, and socioeconomic factors. As lymphoma treatment options expand, it is vital to understand the impact of these treatments on patients' financial well-being. We investigate FT through patient reported outcomes from the Lymphoma Epidemiology of Outcomes (LEO), a large multi-institution prospective cohort study of non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL). Methods: Patients with newly diagnosed NHL were enrolled into the LEO cohort from 2015-2020. Clinical, pathology and treatment data were abstracted from medical records, and participants were offered self-administered surveys at enrollment and selected follow-up time points. Participants were included if they completed at least four of six survey questions on FT adapted from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS) within the first year after diagnosis. Questions focused on either material hardship (unable to cover costs; file for bankruptcy; borrow money; work extra job or hours) or psychological stress (worried about paying large medical bills). We evaluated FT as answering positively to any question (any vs none). Associations with FT were evaluated using chi-squared tests. All analyses were performed using R (v4.2.2). Results: 3202 patients completed at least four survey questions relating to FT. Mean age at diagnosis was 62 years (18-94), 56% were male, and majority identified as white (90%). Characteristics associated with FT are reported (p<0.001). FT was more likely in younger patients: 18-25 years (64%, 30/47), 26-44 years (73%, 299/313), and 45-64 years (58%, 799/1375) as compared to those 65-79 years (36%, 459/1272) and ≥80 years (35%, 69/195). FT was highest in patients without a high school diploma (54%, 45/84), followed by patients with a high school diploma (52%, 209/402), and an associate's degree (57%, 358/627). It was lowest in patients with a bachelor's (45%, 224/296) or post-graduate degree (39.6%, 216/545). Higher FT was seen in those receiving disability income (65%, 47/72); whereas less FT was seen in retired patients (36%, 299/828). FT rates inversely correlated with income: 65% for income < $21,000 (184/283), 61% for $21,000- $39,999 (224/370) and 60% for $40,000-$65,999 (293/491). Lower FT noted for income range of $66,000-$106,000 (47%, 323/681) or > $106,000 (37%, 324/872). Patients separated from a partner (82.9%, 19/23) had the highest FT, followed by patients living with a partner (64%, 48/75), divorced (56%, 103/184), and never married (53.4%, 79/148). Patients who were married (47%, 793/1672) or widowed (41%, 60/146) reported the lowest FT. Higher FT was reported in DLBCL (55%, 631/1146), MCL (55%, 172/315), and TCL (53%, 119/226) when compared to FL (44%, 327/746), MZL (44%, 137/316), and other NHL (44%, 200/453). This is likely related to treatment as more FT was seen in patients who received an anthracycline and/or alkylator containing therapy (54%, 1066/1963) versus non-systemic (43%, 120/278) and observation (35%, 168/483). In multivariable analyses, FT strongly correlated with age at diagnosis, household income, and treatment type. The odds ratio and 95% confidence intervals for the most significant category within each variable are as follows: age per 1 year (0.96, [0.95-0.97]), income > $106,000 vs < $21,000 (0.28, [0.21-0.38]), and observation vs anthracycline and/or alkylator (0.56, [0.44-0.71]). Conclusion: Nearly 50% of patients with lymphoma experience FT, seen as material hardship and psychological stress, within the first year of diagnosis. Patients with a younger age (18-44), less education, and lower household income reported higher levels of FT; whereas those who were retired or married/widowed reported lower FT. Lymphoma subtypes that require more anthracycline and/or alkylator containing therapy imposed higher FT. Understanding these risk factors can help clinicians identify patients who may benefit from additional resources during lymphoma management.

e21554 Background: Pregnancy associated melanoma (PAM) occurs in 1% of female patients with melanoma and affects 1 in 2200 pregnancies. Antepartum evaluation of melanoma must incorporate both maternal and fetal factors, and currently there is lack of standardization. Our study aimed to review the incidence of antepartum melanoma at our institution and highlight patterns in management and treatment during this high-risk scenario. Methods: After IRB approval, the Mayo Clinic electronic medical record was searched with key words “melanoma” and “pregnancy”. 25 patients with melanoma during pregnancy were identified from 1987-2023. 6 patients were excluded as skin changes noted during pregnancy were not formally diagnosed as melanoma until after delivery. Abstracted data included demographic information, disease characteristics, staging (per AJCC guidelines at time of diagnosis), and clinical outcomes. Survival data were calculated. Results: 19 patients were included. Diagnosis occurred at an average maternal age of 30 years (range 24-38 years) and a mean gestational age of 20 weeks (range 6-35 weeks). All patients had a term delivery. 4 patients underwent labor induction at 37 weeks for staging/treatment. 60% of patients had a delay in imaging or treatment attributed to pregnancy, including 1 patient who was upstaged with metastatic disease based on postpartum imaging. 82% of stage I-III patients underwent wide local excision during pregnancy; however, 35% of sentinel lymph node sampling was delayed until postpartum. 3 stage II/III patients received adjuvant therapy (interferon or sargramostim) after delivery. Adjuvant immunotherapy was discussed with 2 patients in the postpartum period but ultimately not given due to the time lapse between surgery and delivery. 1 patient with stage IV disease diagnosed at a gestational age of 20 weeks was evaluated with MRI PET scan then treated with vemurafenib monotherapy during pregnancy. Workup and outcomes were reviewed by stage (Table 1). 7 of 19 patients had subsequent pregnancies, and 1 had recurrence of melanoma during a second pregnancy (stage II followed by stage IV). Due to a low number of censoring events, median progression free survival and overall survival were not reached. Conclusions: Melanoma diagnosed during pregnancy can be safely and effectively staged with sentinel lymph node surgery, MRI imaging (PET-MRI vs standard), and CT imaging with shielding without a need for early induction of labor nor a delay in cancer care. Furthermore, we report a patient with stage IV disease treated with vemurafenib during and immunotherapy after pregnancy, indicating that treating stage IV PAM with systemic therapy is a consideration. [Table: see text]

Abstract Immune related adverse events (irAEs) from immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are well documented for nearly every organ system, except for the reproductive system. Mouse models have demonstrated that ICIs can decrease ovarian follicular reserve and impair oocyte maturation, which may have implications for fertility (PMID: 36008687). There are no studies investigating the effect of ICIs on fertility in humans. We sought to evaluate ovarian function in women treated with ICIs compared to untreated women by evaluating non-invasive surrogate markers of ovarian reserve, anti-müllerian hormone (AMH) and antral follicle counts (AFC). We enrolled women 18 - 40 years old diagnosed with stage III or IV melanoma. Participants underwent phlebotomy for AMH levels and a pelvic ultrasound to assess AFC. The medical record was retrospectively reviewed to obtain data on patient characteristics, treatments, and outcomes. A total of 14 patients with stage IIIA - IV melanoma participated. Six patients received ICI treatment before AMH and AFC testing while 8 had no prior ICI exposure. The ICI group ages ranged from 22-40 years with a median age of 31 years. The untreated group ages ranged from 25-39 years with a median age of 32 years. The time between starting an ICI and enrolling in the study ranged from 28 - 351 days. ICI regimens included ipilimumab/nivolumab, nivolumab, pembrolizumab, and atezolizumab (on a clinical trial). Four of these six patients experienced an irAE during their course, including: dermatitis, hepatitis, colitis, thyroid dysfunction, and adrenal insufficiency. Median AMH levels were lower for patients treated with ICIs (2.9 vs 4.0 ng/mL), as was median AFC (22.5 vs 23.5 ng/mL). Only three patients’ clinicians discussed fertility preservation. None of the patients underwent fertility preservation. Our study found lower AMH and AFC in women with melanoma who were treated with an ICI compared to untreated women. Although AMH and AFC are surrogate markers for ovarian reserve and fertility, and our study is a small cohort, these early results suggest that ICIs may impact ovarian function. Age is less likely to be a confounding factor as the median age of the treated group was younger than the untreated group. While these results are preliminary, when considered in conjunction with recent pre-clinical data showing changes within the ovaries after ICI treatment, fertility consultation should be considered for young women prior to ICI initiation. We are investigating associations between AMH, AFC, age, ICI exposure, and future pregnancies in an ongoing prospective study. Citation Format: Ashley Hickman, Katherine Smith, Zaraq Khan, Elizabeth Ann Enninga, Yulian Zhao, Elizabeth Cathcart-Rake, Haidong Dong, Lisa Kottschade, Svetomir Markovic, Heather Montane, Anastasios Dimou, Yiyi Yan. Investigating the effect of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) on ovarian function in young patients with melanoma. [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2023; Part 1 (Regular and Invited Abstracts); 2023 Apr 14-19; Orlando, FL. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2023;83(7_Suppl):Abstract nr 6644.

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.

e17518 Background: Morbidity and mortality for patients with cervical cancer has improved significantly over the past few decades with modern multimodal therapy. However, neuroendocrine carcinoma of the uterine cervix (NCUC), which accounts for 1-2% of cervical cancers, remains a deadly subtype. In this study, we combine data from Mayo Clinic (MC) and the University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics (UIHC) to provide information on tumor characteristics, treatment, and outcomes. Methods: The electronic medical record was reviewed for patients with NCUC from MC and UIHC. Data on diagnosis, treatment, and outcomes were collected through chart review. Primary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Secondary endpoints included median survival, survival at 1 year after surgery, and survival at 1 year by first line chemotherapy agent. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was used to estimate median PFS, median survival, and OS. Fisher’s test analysis was used to calculate survival at 1 year after surgery and by first line chemotherapy agent. Results: There were 62 patients (MC: 26, UIHCC: 36) with NCUC stage I-IV (stage I: 29, stage II: 9, stage III: 7, stage IV: 14, unknown: 3). Median age of diagnosis was 47 years (range 21-77 years). By subtype, 47 were small cell (76%), 9 were large cell (15%), and 6 were unknown/undetermined (9%). The initial treatment modalities for each patient are outlined in the table. 28 patients had complete/partial response or stable disease from first line treatment, while 10 patients had disease progression. Of the patients who initially responded or had stable disease, 16 later progressed (57%) with a median time to progression of 15 months. Median follow up was 65.1 months with a median OS of 28.5 months. Median survival for those with stage I was 40.9 months, stage II: 54.6 months, stage III: 8.75 months, and stage IV: 11.7 months. There was a significant difference in overall survival at 1 year between those who received surgery and those who did not in stage I/II ( p = 0.01). There was no significant difference in overall survival at 1 year for those who received surgery in stage III/IV. There was no statistical difference in survival at 1 year for carboplatin or cisplatin in combination with etoposide as first line chemotherapy agent. Conclusions: NCUC is an aggressive malignancy that is usually progressive despite multimodal therapy. Our study demonstrated a median overall survival of 28.5 months and 5-year survival rate of 21%. Our study showed a survival benefit at 1 year for those who receive surgery with stage I/II NCUC. There was no significant survival benefit at 1 year between carboplatin or cisplatin in combination with etoposide as first line agent.[Table: see text]

5554 Background: A better understanding regarding the burden of treatment side effects in patients with gynecological malignancies could help guide symptom interventions and oncologic therapy decision-making. We aim to inform understanding of symptom burden in epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) by analyzing patient-reported symptom data from patients treated for this condition over a 16-month period. Methods: Patients receiving medical oncology care at Mayo Clinic Rochester and at Midwest Mayo Clinic Health System community sites have received symptom-focused surveys prior to each medical oncology visit since March 28, 2019 through the Enhanced Electronic Health Record Facilitated Cancer Symptom Control Study (E2C2). These surveys, administered either through the electronic medical record portal or on a clinic tablet prior to each oncology office visit, no more frequently than every 2 weeks, include six linear analogue scales measuring sleep disturbance, pain, anxiety, emotional distress, and fatigue (SPADE), as well as physical dysfunction on a scale of 0 (none) to 10 (as bad as you can imagine). Scores of 0-3 were considered mild symptoms, 4-6 moderate symptoms, and 7-10 severe symptoms. We collected survey results from March 28, 2019 to July 20, 2020 for patients with EOC and reviewed the number of surveys per patient in addition to the average symptom scores. Results: From March 2019 to July 2020, for patients with EOC, there were 2974 encounter-based surveys from 762 patients. The number of surveys completed by each patient ranged from 1-20. The following number of patients returned the correlating number of surveys: 1 survey:240 patients; 2 surveys:145; 3 surveys:79; 4 surveys:56; 5 surveys:58; 6 surveys:45; 7 surveys:38; 8 surveys:27; 9 surveys:22; ≥10 surveys:52. The average score from all surveys for each symptom was: 2.41 for sleep disturbance, 2.03 for pain, 2.32 for anxiety, 1.97 for emotional distress, 3.26 for fatigue, and 2.50 for physical dysfunction. Please see the table for the proportion of surveys that reported symptoms as mild, moderate, or severe. Conclusions: Fatigue and physical dysfunction were reported most frequently in patients with EOC, while emotional distress and pain were reported least frequently. 20% of surveys reported moderate to severe emotional distress, while 40% reported moderate to severe fatigue. A targeted approach to symptom management is needed for patients undergoing EOC evaluation and treatment. Our next steps in this analysis include an assessment of potential predictors of greater symptom burden (e.g., specific treatments, age, and other clinical and sociodemographic characteristics). Clinical trial information: NCT03892967. [Table: see text]

Epithelioid hemangioendothelioma (EHE) is a rare vascular neoplasm which typically originates from liver, lung, or bone. Due to the low incidence of disease, the most effective treatment is not easily studied and much of the information known about EHE has been learned through case reports and case series. In this case, we will present an uncommon form of primary soft tissue EHE with local recurrence, bone metastasis, and lymphangitic spread to the lungs leading to respiratory failure. Imaging of the chest was atypical for EHE with intraseptal thickening and hilar lymphadenopathy. Respiratory failure was progressive despite aggressive multimodal treatment. This case highlights an unusually aggressive recurrence and metastasis of primary soft tissue EHE with atypical pulmonary imaging findings.

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.