Ramsey, Scott D.

11135 Background: Cancer screening programs can improve outcomes and may reduce treatment cost and utilization by shifting cancers to earlier, more curable stages at diagnosis (Dx). Few studies have evaluated the impact of screening on outcomes prior to diagnosis. Such information is needed to better understand the potential impact of newer blood-based multicancer early detection technologies. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study using SEER cancer registry data linked with Medicare claims. Patients with a breast cancer (BC) or colorectal cancer (CRC) Dx between 2010-2019 were included if they were 65-74 years old at Dx, continuously enrolled in Medicare Parts A&B, had a Charlson Comorbidity Index of ≤2, and no cancer for ≥12 months prior to Dx. Those enrolled in an HMO or with high genetic risk for BC (in BC cohort) were excluded. Patients were assigned to screening groups prior to Dx; screening was defined as ≥1 screening procedure in the 6 months prior to Dx using CPT/HCPCS codes. Screening included FIT/FOBT, sigmoidoscopy, colonoscopy, CT colonography, mt-sDNA (CRC), and mammography (BC). Screened and not screened groups were compared for statistical significance using chi-squared for categorical variables, Wilcoxon rank-sum test for continuous variables. Results: Screening procedures were more prevalent in the BC cohort (68%) than the CRC cohort (44%) (table). Both screened subgroups (vs non-screened subgroups) had significantly lower proportions of patients diagnosed at stage 4 (2% vs 10% BC, 16% vs 27% CRC) and shorter times from first screening or imaging procedure to confirmed diagnosis (BC: 33 vs 227 days, CRC: 14 vs 29 days). Screened patients in both cancer cohorts had a similar number of average procedures prior to treatment initiation as non-screened (BC: 4.8 vs 4.2, CRC: 3.3 vs 3.3 respectively, including screening procedures). Conclusions: Individuals diagnosed with BC and CRC through screening exhibit earlier stage diagnoses and shorter intervals to diagnosis. Novel screening technologies such as MCED tests can potentially improve peri-diagnostic outcomes in cancers lacking existing or widely adopted screening methods. [Table: see text]

PURPOSE Routine collection of sexual orientation (SO) and gender identity (GI; collectively SOGI) in cancer clinics advances cancer care equity. METHODS In 2022, NCI Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP) practice groups were asked about routine collection of SOGI data in the electronic health record. The proportions of practice groups reporting collection of SO and/or GI data were calculated, and practice group characteristics were assessed for associations. RESULTS Of 271 practice groups nationwide, 42% (n = 112) collect SO data, 58% (n = 157) collect GI data, and 35% (n = 96) collect both. In multivariate analyses, SO data collection was associated with practice groups having minority outreach staff (odds ratio [OR], 2.07 [95% CI, 1.12 to 3.81]; P = .02); GI data collection was associated with practice groups located in the Northeastern United States (OR, 2.08 [95% CI, 0.73 to 5.91]; P = .045), and those with a higher proportion of new patients who were White (OR, 1.02 [95% CI, 1.01 to 1.04]; P < .001). Practice groups in the South were least likely to collect SOGI data (OR, 0.49 [95% CI, 0.26 to 0.94]; P = .004). There were no statistically significant differences in SO and/or GI collection on the basis of the practice group's proportion of Medicaid/Medicare patients, number of new patients with cancer per year, or practice ownership. CONCLUSION Slightly over one third of NCORP practice groups report routinely collecting SOGI data. There are regional differences in data collection, underscoring the need to craft targeted, region-specific interventions focused on boosting the capture and recording of SOGI data in an affirming manner.

PURPOSE BMT CTN 1102 was a phase III trial comparing reduced-intensity allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (RIC alloHCT) to standard of care for persons with intermediate- or high-risk myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS). We report results of a cost-effectiveness analysis conducted alongside the clinical trial. METHODS Three hundred eighty-four patients received HCT (n = 260) or standard of care (n = 124) according to availability of a human leukocyte antigen–matched donor. Cost-effectiveness was calculated from US commercial and Medicare perspectives over a 20-year time horizon. Health care utilization and costs were estimated using propensity score–matched cohorts of HCT recipients in the OptumLabs Data Warehouse (age 50-64 years) and Medicare (age 65 years and older). EuroQol 5 Dimension (EQ-5D) surveys of trial participants were used to derive health state utilities. RESULTS Extrapolated 20-year overall survival for those age 50-64 years was 29% for HCT (n = 105) versus 13% for usual care (n = 44) and 31% for HCT (n = 155) versus 12% for non-HCT (n = 80) for those age 65 years and older. HCT was more effective (+2.36 quality-adjusted life-years [QALYs] for age 50-64 years and +2.92 QALYs for age 65 years and older) and more costly (+$452,242 in US dollars (USD) for age 50-64 years and +$233,214 USD for age 65 years and older) than usual care, with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of $191,487 (USD)/QALY and $79,834 (USD)/QALY, respectively. For persons age 50-64 years, there was a 29% chance that HCT was cost-effective using a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $150K (USD)/QALY and 51% at a $200K (USD)/QALY. For persons age 65 years and older, the probability was 100% at a WTP >$150K (USD)/QALY. CONCLUSION Among patients age 65 years and older with high-risk MDS, RIC HCT is a high-value strategy. For those age 50-64 years, HCT is a lower-value strategy but has similar cost-effectiveness to other therapies commonly used in oncology.

Introduction The Blood and Marrow Transplant Clinical Trials Network 1102 study (BMT CTN 1102, NCT02016781) was a multicenter, biologic assignment trial, where patients aged 50-75 with intermediate-2 or high risk de novo myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) were assigned to reduced-intensity allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (alloHCT) or best supportive care (non-alloHCT) based on donor availability. A parallel economic evaluation was performed alongside BMT CTN 1102. Here, we report on the financial impact of the treatment protocol on patients using a prospective cost diary study conducted within the trial. Methods BMT CTN 1102 enrollees were offered the option to participate in the parallel cost diary study at the same time of primary study enrollment. The cost diary survey instrument, comprised of 19 questions, covered the domains of out-of-pocket (OOP) costs of healthcare and financial hardship indicators. Surveys were distributed at 1- (1M), 7- (7M), and 19-months (19M) after enrollment. Study participants were grouped by actual treatment received, rather than group assignment. Responses were analyzed using univariate Fisher's exact and Wilcoxon rank sum tests for association. Results Out of 216 enrollee invitations, 138 patients (64%) returned at least one survey. Total completed surveys at the 1M, 7M, and 19M timepoints were 103 (39%), 93 (35%), and 71 (27%), respectively. 50 (36%) completed only one survey, while 41 (39%) completed surveys at all three timepoints. Of all respondents, median age was 67.7 years (IQR: 64.8-70.3), 88 (64%) were male, 128 (93%) white, and 126 (91%) were non-Hispanic. Among respondents of the 1M, 7M and 19M surveys, 82 (80%), 78 (84%), 65 (92%) received alloHCT, respectively. Mean OOP costs by category are presented in Table 1. While alloHCT patients experienced higher OOP costs compared to non-alloHCT patients across all categories (outpatient services, prescription medications, and accommodations for healthcare), none of the comparisons were statistically significant. However, total OOP costs were significantly higher among alloHCT patients at 1 and 7 months (mean over past 30 days, 1M: $889 vs. $217, p=0.046; 7M: $678 vs. $349, p=0.03; 19M: $328 vs. $103, p=0.15). Financial hardship indicators are presented in Table 2. While alloHCT patients experienced greater financial hardship compared to non-alloHCT patients across all categories (mobilized reserve funds, borrowed money to pay for care, developed debt due to care), none of the comparisons were statistically significant. However, alloHCT patients were significantly more likely to experience at least one of these factors of financial hardship at 7 months (1M: 38% vs. 19%, p=0.13; 7M: 42% vs. 13%; p=0.04; 19M: 37% vs. 0%, p=0.08). Discussion Patients with MDS who received alloHCT incurred substantially more OOP costs overall compared to patients who did not receive alloHCT, most notably for accommodations related to alloHCT. Similarly, alloHCT patients were more likely to develop financial hardship, including mobilizing reserve funds, borrowing money, and developing debt. These findings demonstrate that treatment-related OOP expenditures associated with alloHCT are substantial and may pose significant burdens for some populations receiving alloHCT. Financial navigation and assistance, which have been shown to help patients address cost burden in solid tumor settings, should be considered for MDS patients prior to alloHCT. Small final sample sizes limited our analyses significantly; further research into OOP costs and financial hardship among larger cohorts of alloHCT patients are necessary to confirm these findings. Acknowledgement Support for this study was provided by grants #U10HL069294 and #U24HL138660 to the Blood and Marrow Transplant Clinical Trials Network from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and the National Cancer Institute. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the NIH.

6591 Background: BMT CTN 1101 was a Phase III randomized controlled trial evaluating the comparative effectiveness of unrelated umbilical cord blood (UCB) versus HLA-haploidentical related donor bone marrow (haplo-BM) cell sources for hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) in patients with high-risk hematologic malignancies (leukemias, lymphomas). We report results of an economic evaluation conducted as part of the clinical trial. Methods: 368 patients (90% of planned accrual) enrolled from 33 centers in the U.S. were randomly assigned to unrelated UCB (n=186) or haplo-BM (n=182) transplant. Healthcare utilization and costs were estimated using propensity-score matched cohorts of BMT patients in the OptumLabs Data Warehouse for trial participants <65 years, and Medicare claims for trial participants ≥65 years. Cost-effectiveness was calculated from payer perspectives (commercial, Medicare) over a 20-year time horizon from time of transplant. Weibull models (best fit based on AIC/BIC) were used to extrapolate survival from 5-year trial follow-up data. Trial participant surveys (EQ-5D) were used to derive health state utilities for estimating Quality-Adjusted Life Years (QALYs). One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess uncertainty in results. Outcomes were discounted at 3% annually. Results: At 5-year follow-up, overall survival was 42% for haplo-BM versus 36% for UCB (P=.06). Over a 20-year time horizon, haplo-BM is expected to be more effective and more costly for <65 year-olds and in ≥65 year-olds it is expected to be more effective and less costly. In one-way uncertainty analyses, for persons <65, the cost/QALY result was most sensitive to life years and health state utilities. For persons ≥65, life years were more influential than costs and health state utilities. Using probabilistic sensitivity analysis, for persons <65 there was a 43% chance that haplo-BM was cost-effective using a willingness to pay threshold of $150k/QALY and 52% at a $200K/QALY threshold. Conclusions: Results from a large national clinical trial indicate that compared to UCB, haplo-BM was moderately cost-effective for patients aged <65 years, and less costly and more effective for persons ≥65 years. Haplo-BM is a fair value choice for commercially insured patients with high-risk leukemia and lymphoma who require HCT. For Medicare enrollees, haplo-BM is a preferred choice when considering costs and outcomes. [Table: see text]