Chang, George J.

PURPOSE Social determinants of health (SDOH) shape cancer treatment access, adherence, and outcomes, yet their collection and use within National Clinical Trials Network (NCTN) studies remain poorly defined. This study examined how demographic and SDOH-related variables were historically collected and published to identify gaps that constrain the study of social context within NCTN trials. METHODS Participant-level data from completed phase III trials for gastrointestinal (GI) cancers conducted by the Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology (Alliance) or its legacy groups from 1999 to 2018 were pooled. Thirteen measures were assessed: four demographic and nine SDOH-related. The proportion of individual participants with data collected for each measure was evaluated. Data utilization was evaluated for all primary articles and via targeted review of related publications using the number either reporting subgroups or publishing analyses for each measure. RESULTS A total of 12,701 participants across 11 trials were included. All trials collected demographic measures (<2% of patients missing), insurance status (1% missing), and ZIP code (3% missing). Education level was collected in two trials (28% missing) with marital and employment status collected in one trial (41% missing for both). No trials collected data on other SDOH-related measures. Education level was the only SDOH-related measure reported in primary articles, and none reported analysis of SDOH-related measures. Of the 149 related publications, <2% reported or analyzed any SDOH-related measure. CONCLUSION Across Alliance and NCTN legacy group phase III trials for GI cancers, demographic variables have been consistently collected and frequently reported or analyzed, whereas SDOH-related measures are inconsistently collected and rarely published in the literature. These findings demonstrate a historical absence of routine SDOH data capture and utilization within NCTN trials.

Abstract Background The tumor, node, metastasis (TNM) classification at pathological evaluation determines prognosis following cancer treatment. For rectal cancer patients undergoing neoadjuvant therapy, whether ypTNM likely confers different prognosis than pTNM. We compared survival outcomes of patients classified by ypTNM vs pTNM staging. Methods Patients with resected locoregional rectal cancer from the National Cancer Database who underwent upfront surgery (pTNM) and had ≥5 years follow-up (2010-2017) were compared with those receiving neoadjuvant therapy followed by surgery (ypTNM). To address treatment selection bias, analyses were stratified by receipt of guideline-concordant care. Overall survival (OS) was compared using Kaplan-Meier and multivariable Cox regression analyses. Results Of 50 436 patients (median age = 60; 61.4% male), 11 732 (23.3%) underwent upfront surgery and 38 704 (76.7%) received neoadjuvant therapy; 78.8% of the upfront surgery group received guideline-concordant care. In analyses stratified by guideline-concordant care, overall survival was similar for stage 0-I (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.05; 95% CI = 0.96 to 1.15) but significantly worse for ypTNM vs pTNM in stage II (HR = 1.50; 95% CI = 1.27 to 1.77; 5-year OS = 75.6% vs 83.2%) and stage III (HR = 1.60; 95% CI = 1.46 to 1.75; 5-year OS = 67.0% vs 78.2%). Multivariable analysis confirmed ypTNM was associated with worse survival at each stage (stage 0-I: HR = 1.14, P = .004; stage II: HR = 1.49, P &lt; .001; stage III: HR = 1.60, P &lt; .001). Conclusion Stage for stage, ypTNM classification is associated with worse survival than pTNM classification, with increasing difference at higher stages. Future staging systems and management guidelines should account for these differences to optimize prognostication and stratification for clinical trials and surveillance strategies.

Objectives To estimate the proportion and correlates of self-reported financial difficulty among patients with multiple myeloma (MM) or chronic lymphocytic leukaemia (CLL). Setting Sixty-six US community and minority oncology practices affiliated with the National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Programme (NCORP). Participants A total of 521 patients (=18 years) with MM or CLL consented and 416 responded to a survey (completion rate=79.8%). Respondents had a MM diagnosis (74.0%), an associate degree or higher (53.4%), were White (89.2%), insured (100%) and treated with clinician-administered drugs (68.0%). Study design Observational, theoretical model and protocol-based patient survey administered between May 2019 and June 2020. Primary and secondary outcome measures Financial difficulty was assessed using a single-item measure, the EORTC QLQC30: Has your physical condition or medical treatment caused you financial difficulties in the past year? and using an any-or-none composite measure of 22 items assessing financial difficulty, worries and the use of cost-coping strategies. Multivariable logistic regression models assessed the association of financial difficulty with diagnosis, socioeconomic and treatment characteristics. Results About 16.8% reported experiencing financial difficulty using the single-item measure and 60.3% using the composite measure. Most frequently endorsed items in the composite measure were financial worry about having to pay large medical bills related to cancer and difficulty paying medical bills. Financial difficulty using the single-item measure was associated with having MM vs CLL (adjusted OR (aOR), 0.34; 95% CI, 0.13 to 0.84; p=0.02), having insurance other than Medicare (aOR, 2.53; 95% CI, 1.37 to 4.66; p=0.003), being non-White (aOR, 2.21; 95% CI, 1.04 to 4.72; p=0.04) and having a high school education or below (aOR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.21 to 0.64; p=0.001). Financial difficulty using the composite measure was associated with having a high school education or below (aOR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.41 to 0.94; p=0.03). Conclusions US patients with MM and CLL report financial difficulty, especially those with low socio-economic status. Interventions are needed to mitigate patients financial difficulty. Trial registration number NCT03870633 .

3520 Background: Recent analyses highlight nonhierarchical outcomes using the 8 th Edition AJCC staging system for CC. For instance, the 5-year survival rate for stages I and IIIa patients (pts) closely align. Additionally, tumor deposits (TDs) have been established as significant prognostic indicators. The AJCCCCEP commissioned this study to develop an updated pathological staging system for CC focused specifically on pts without distant metastasis (M0), while retaining the existing stage IV classification. Methods: Individual patient data (IPD) from pts diagnosed with cc (2010- 2017) in the NCDB were divided into training (70%) and internal validation (30%) datasets. External validation used IPD from clinical trials. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). Risk classification development for M0 pts incorporated ungrouped data on pathologic T categories, the number of involved regional lymph nodes (LN+), and TD counts. Recursive partitioning and regression tree analyses were applied to construct hierarchical staging levels. Pre-specified criteria required survival probabilities to be consecutive and show clear separations using Kaplan-Meier (KM) estimates with pairwise log-rank test P of < 0.005 for the training and < 0.05 for validation analyses. Results: Data from 281,997 pts (median age 67 years, 50% male, 81% white, 55% T3, 19% T4, 44% N+, 26% M+, and 11% with ≥1 TD) were analyzed, with a median follow-up of 7.3 years. The updated staging system (Table) met pre-specified criteria, with all observed pairwise P < 0.0001 in the development and internal validation sets. KM OS curves displayed a hierarchical separation across all sub-levels after the 1 st year of diagnosis. Consistent results were seen in pts treated with adjuvant chemotherapy in 4 trials (all pair-wise P < 0.0001). Conclusions: The proposed pathological staging system for M0 pts fulfills pre-specified criteria for hierarchical risk stratification, validated both internally and externally, and provides an evidence-based update. Pending review process, the AJCCCCEP will recommend that these changes be made to the Version 9 staging protocol for colon cancer to improve prognostication for CC pts. Stage T, # of LN+, # of TD M % of pts 1y OS (CI), % 3y OS (CI), % 5y OS (CI), % I T1, 0, 0 0 5 96 (95-97) 91 (90-92) 84 (83-86) IIa T2, 0, 0 0 10 95 (94-95) 88 (88-89) 80 (79-81) IIb T1, 0, 1+T1, 1+, 0T2, 0, 1+T2, 1-4, 0T3, 0, 0 0 27 93 (92-93) 84 (84-85) 75 (75-76) IIIa T1, 1+, 1+T2, 1-4, 1+T2, 5+, 0T3, 0, 1+T3, 1-4, 0 0 14 92 (91-92) 80 (80-81) 71 (70-72) IIIb T2, 5+, 1+T3, 1-4, 1+T3, 5+, 0T4a, 0-4, 0T4b, 0-2, 0 0 13 86 (86-87) 69 (68-70) 58 (57-59) IIIc T3, 5+, 1+T4a, 0-4, 1+T4a, 5+, anyT4b, 0-2, 1+T4b, 3+, any 0 5 78 (77-80) 53 (51-54) 40 (38-41) IVa Any 1a 19 59 (58-60) 28 (28-29) 17 (16-18) IVb Any 1b 7 43 (42-44) 14 (13-14) 6 (6-7) CI: 95% confidence internal; Peritoneum involvement data were not available before 2018 in NCDB. Thus, IVa/b were based on 7 th Edition.

The determination of an optimal treatment plan for an individual patient with rectal cancer is a complex process. In addition to decisions relating to the intent of rectal cancer surgery (ie, curative or palliative), consideration must also be given to the likely functional results of treatment, including the probability of maintaining or restoring normal bowel function/anal continence and preserving genitourinary functions. Particularly for patients with distal rectal cancer, finding a balance between curative-intent therapy while having minimal impact on quality of life can be challenging. Furthermore, the risk of pelvic recurrence is higher in patients with rectal cancer compared with those with colon cancer, and locally recurrent rectal cancer is associated with a poor prognosis. Careful patient selection and the use of sequenced multimodality therapy following a multidisciplinary approach is recommended. These NCCN Guidelines Insights detail recent updates to the NCCN Guidelines for Rectal Cancer, including the addition of endoscopic submucosal dissection as an option for early-stage rectal cancer, updates to the total neoadjuvant therapy approach based on the results of recent clinical trials, and the addition of a “watch-and-wait” nonoperative management approach for clinical complete responders to neoadjuvant therapy.

Objective: To assess the effect of a practice-level preoperative frailty screening and optimization toolkit (OPTI-Surg) on postoperative functional recovery and complications in elderly cancer patients undergoing major surgery. Background: Frailty is common in older adults. It increases the risk of poor postoperative functional recovery and complications. The potential for a practice-level screening/optimization intervention to improve outcomes is unknown. Methods: Thoracic, gastrointestinal, and urologic oncological surgery practices within the National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP) were randomized 1:1:1 to usual care (UC), OPTI-Surg, or OPTI-Surg with an implementation coach. OPTI-Surg consisted of the Edmonton Frail Scale and guided recommendations for referral interventions. Patients 70 years old or above undergoing curative intent surgery were eligible. The primary outcome was 8 weeks postoperative function (kcal/wk). The key secondary outcome was complications within 90 days. Mixed models were used to compare UC to the 2 OPTI-Surg arms combined. Results: From July 2019 to September 2022, 325 patients were enrolled in 29 practices. One hundred ninety-nine (64 UC, 135 OPTI-Surg) and 279 (78 UC, 201 OPTI-Surg) were evaluable for primary and secondary analysis, respectively. UC and OPTI-Surg patients did not significantly differ in total caloric expenditure (2.2 UC, 2.0 OPTI-Surg) after adjusting for baseline function (P=0.53). UC and OPTI-Surg patients did not significantly differ in postoperative complications (25.6% UC, 35.3% OPTI-Surg, P=0.5). Conclusions: Frailty assessment was successfully performed, but the OPTI-Surg intervention did not improve postoperative function nor reduce postoperative complications compared with UC. Future analysis will explore practice-level factors associated with toolkit implementation and the differences between the coaching and noncoaching arms.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the fourth most frequently diagnosed cancer and the second leading cause of cancer death in the United States. Management of disseminated metastatic CRC involves various active drugs, either in combination or as single agents. The choice of therapy is based on consideration of the goals of therapy, the type and timing of prior therapy, the mutational profile of the tumor, and the differing toxicity profiles of the constituent drugs. This manuscript summarizes the data supporting the systemic therapy options recommended for metastatic CRC in the NCCN Guidelines for Colon Cancer.

With improved medical treatments, the prognosis for many malignancies has improved, and more patients are presenting for transplant evaluation with a history of treated cancer. Solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients with a prior malignancy are at higher risk of posttransplant recurrence or de novo malignancy, and they may require a cancer surveillance program that is individualized to their specific needs. There is a dearth of literature on optimal surveillance strategies specific to SOT recipients. A working group of transplant physicians and cancer-specific specialists met to provide expert opinion recommendations on optimal cancer surveillance after transplantation for patients with a history of malignancy. Surveillance strategies provided are mainly based on general population recurrence risk data, immunosuppression effects, and limited transplant-specific data and should be considered expert opinion based on current knowledge. Prospective studies of cancer-specific surveillance models in SOT recipients should be supported to inform posttransplant management of this high-risk population.

370 Background: Mounting evidence suggests tailored preparation targeting geriatric vulnerabilities can improve functional outcomes after major surgery in older adults. Although many surgeons express interest in surgical optimization of older patients, few practices have the time or expertise to deliver geriatric prehabilitation before surgery. This study investigated the effectiveness of OPTI-Surg, a frailty prehabilitation toolkit, for improving surgical outcomes. In this abstract, we report adherence to the OPTI-Surg toolkit in the intervention arm. Methods: Thoracic (T), gastrointestinal (GI), and urologic (GU) oncological surgery practices affiliated with NCI’s Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP) were randomized 1:1:1, stratified by practice type, to usual care (control), OPTI-Surg toolkit, or OPTI-Surg with an implementation coach. The toolkit was implemented at the practice level and consisted of the 12-item Edmonton Frail Scale (EFS) and guided recommendations for interventions including referrals directed at identified vulnerabilities. Eligible patients were ≥70 years old and undergoing curative intent surgery for T, Gl, or GU cancers. Results: From July 2019 to October 2021, 155 patients were enrolled in the OPTI-Surg intervention arm. The EFS was administered to 153 (98.7%) of the enrolled patients, 143 of whom went on to have surgery. Overall, 134 (93.7%) surgical patients had at least one deficit identified on the EFS assessment and 55 (41.0%) of these patients received a recommended referral intended to optimize surgical outcomes. Among the 55 patients who received referrals, 44 (80.0%) followed through on the referral. Individual deficit rates were highest for medication use, general health status, and functional performance, and referrals were most frequently made for deficits in continence and functional independence (Table). Conclusions: In the OPTI-Surg geriatric surgical optimization trial, implementation of the frailty screening with the EFS assessment was successful. Rates of recommended referrals for patients with identified deficits, however, were low. When referred, most patients followed through for targeted prehabilitation. Clinical trial information: NCT03857620 .[Table: see text]

LBA2 Background: Radiation with sensitizing fluoropyrimidine (5FUCRT) is a standard curative intent treatment for LARC. It improves disease-free survival (DFS) by decreasing pelvic recurrence but has short- and long-term toxicity. The PROSPECT trial compares FOLFOX chemotherapy with selective use of 5FUCRT (intervention) to 5FUCRT (control) for neoadjuvant treatment prior to TME for LARC. Methods: Eligible patients (pts) had cT2N+, cT3N-, cT3N+ rectal cancers deemed appropriate for neoadjuvant therapy prior to low anterior resection with TME. Pts with distal, T4 tumors, threatened radial margins or > 4 enlarged lymph nodes were ineligible. Pts were randomized 1:1 without blinding. Pts in the control group received 5FUCRT with 5040 cGy over 5.5 weeks with either capecitabine or 5FU. Pts in the intervention group had 6 cycles of mFOLFOX6 followed by restaging. If tumor regression was > 20%, then TME was performed without radiation; if < 20%, 5FUCRT was given before TME. DFS was the 1°outcome, defined as time from randomization to any recurrence or death, analyzed in the per-protocol population. One interim analysis was conducted with α spending = 0.001. Noninferiority (NI) of the intervention could be claimed if the upper limit of the 2-sided 90.2% confidence interval (CI) of the DFS hazard ratio did not exceed 1.29 (NI margin). Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), local recurrence free survival, R0 resection, pathologic complete response (CR), and toxicity. Results: From June 2012 to December 2018, 1194, pts were randomized and 1128 initiated protocol-assigned treatment. Median age was 57, 34.5% were women and 61.9% had clinically positive nodes. 53 of 585 pts in the intervention group (9%) received preop 5FUCRT. DFS was analyzed after 227 events and median follow-up of 58 months. Conclusions: FOLFOX chemotherapy with selective use of 5FUCRT is non-inferior to 5FUCRT for neoadjuvant treatment of LARC prior to low anterior resection with TME. Patients and physicians have alternative strategies for management of LARC. Clinical trial information: NCT01515787 . [Table: see text]