Ng, Lay She

e12707 Background: Anthracycline-based chemotherapy remains a cornerstone of breast cancer treatment but is limited by dose-dependent cardiotoxicity. Sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) have demonstrated cardioprotective effects across diverse populations. Preclinical models suggest they may mitigate anthracycline-induced cardiotoxicity. However, clinical data evaluating this association remain limited. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study using the TriNetX real world data platform, including adults with breast cancer who received anthracycline within one year of diagnosis. Patients were stratified by SGLT2i use within one year of diagnosis into the SGLT2i group and the non-SGLT2i group. Propensity score matching (PSM) was performed to balance baseline demographics and comorbidities. Outcomes included 3-year all-cause mortality, heart failure, myocardial infarction, atrial fibrillation, mean left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), mean Troponin I, and mean brain natriuretic peptide level (BNP), analyzed using risk ratios (RR) and Kaplan-Meier survival analysis. Results: After PSM, 2912 patients were included in each group, with a mean follow-up of 630.3 days in SGLT2i group and 756.7 days in non-SGLT2i group. Mean age was 61.5 years vs 62.3 years (SGLT2i group vs non-SGLT2i group), with more than 98% of females in both groups. Most patients were White (49.0% in SGLT2i group and 48.6% in non-SGLT2i group), followed by African American (23.7% vs. 23.4%), unknown races (14.0% vs 14.0%), and Asian (9.5% vs. 9.8%). At baseline, the SGLT2i group had lower mean LVEF (53.4% vs 61.9%), higher mean Troponin I (0.992 vs 0.0849), and higher mean BNP levels (778 vs 240). SGLT2i group was associated with significantly lower 3-year all-cause mortality (Hazard ratio 0.52, 95% CI 0.44–0.61). Heart failure incidence (9.5% vs 6.0%; p = 0.0005) was significantly higher in the SGLT2i group. Mean LVEF in SGLT2i group was significantly lower (51.7% vs 58.9; p < 0.0001) and mean BNP level was significantly higher in SGLT2i group (685.5 vs 383.0; p = 0.0336). No significant differences were observed in myocardial infarction (3.9% vs 3.4%; p = 0.4459), atrial fibrillation (3.4% vs 4.5%; p = 0.0799), and mean troponin I (0.085 vs 0.113, p = 0.5191). Conclusions: In this real-world cohort, SGLT2i use was associated with lower 3-year all-cause mortality despite higher rates of heart failure. Notably, patients receiving SGLT2i had worse baseline cardiac function yet demonstrated more favorable trends in cardiac biomarkers, including smaller declines in LVEF, reductions in BNP, and lower mean troponin I levels, suggesting a slower progression of cardiac dysfunction. These findings support a potential cardioprotective and survival benefit of SGLT2i in patients with breast cancer receiving anthracycline therapy and warrant confirmation in future studies.

8598 Background: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) have become a cornerstone of treatment for lung cancer. Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RA) have been associated with improved outcomes in cancer patients in prior studies; however, their impact on outcomes among lung cancer patients receiving immunotherapy remains limited. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study using the TriNetX real-world data platform. Adult patients with lung cancer treated with ICIs, including PD-1, PD-L1, or CTLA-4 inhibitors, were included. Patients were stratified based on exposure to GLP-1 RA. Propensity score matching (1:1) was performed to balance baseline demographics and comorbidities, including type 2 diabetes mellitus and body mass index. Primary outcomes included all-cause mortality, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, and hospitalization. Secondary outcomes included immune-related pneumonitis, colitis/enteritis, cachexia, and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). Results: After matching, 2,013 patients were included in each group, with a median follow-up of 372 days in the GLP-1 RA group and 383 days in the non-GLP-1 RA group. Mean age was 66.8 and 67.2 years, respectively, and approximately 50% of patients were male. Most patients were White (77.2% vs 71.8%), followed by Black (14.1% vs 14.0%) and Asian (2.1% vs 1.8%). GLP-1 RA use was associated with a significantly lower all-cause mortality rate compared with non-use (35.7% vs. 53.4%; p < 0.0001), with a hazard ratio of 0.65 (95% CI, 0.59–0.71). Significant reductions were also observed in ICU admissions (22.8% vs 29.0%; p = 0.0001), hospitalizations (64.1% vs 71.8%; p = 0.0001), pneumonitis (5.2% vs 6.8%; p = 0.0457), and MACE (19.9% vs 25.3%; p = 0.0026). No significant differences were observed in colitis/enteritis (9.3% vs 9.4%; p = 0.9704) or cachexia (8.0% vs 9.8%; p = 0.0650). In a subgroup analysis of lung cancer patients not receiving ICI, GLP-1 RA use was similarly associated with lower mortality, ICU admission, hospitalization, and MACE, without differences in immune-related toxicities. Conclusions: GLP-1 RA use among lung cancer patients was associated with improved survival, reduced healthcare utilization, and fewer selected adverse events in patients receiving ICI therapy. These associations likely reflect established metabolic and cardiovascular benefits of GLP-1 RA and may also involve antitumor mechanisms suggested in prior studies. Residual confounding related to healthcare access and socioeconomic factors cannot be fully excluded and should be considered when interpreting these findings. Prospective studies are warranted to validate these observations and clarify underlying biological mechanisms.

Abstract Use of brentuximab vedotin (BV) and PD-1 monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) before autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) could impact the benefit of post-ASCT BV maintenance in relapsed/refractory (R/R) classic Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL). We identified 1091 patients with R/R cHL who underwent ASCT between 2010-2022. In total, 244 (22%) received a PD-1 mAb and 443 (41%) received BV before ASCT, while 305 (28%) received BV maintenance. We performed 1:1 propensity score matching to assess the efficacy of BV maintenance in different patient subgroups. Among 608 matched patients, the 3-year progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival were 73% (95% confidence interval [CI], 70-78) and 95% (95%CI, 93-97), respectively. BV maintenance was associated with improved PFS for patients with no exposure to novel agents, especially those with 2+ modified AETHERA risk factors (0-1 factors: hazard ratio (HR), 0.51; 95%CI, 0.24-1.09; P =.083; 2+ factors: HR, 0.40; 95%CI, 0.25-0.65; P&lt; .001). In contrast, BV maintenance was not associated with a significant PFS benefit for any patient subgroup who received novel agents before ASCT (BV-treated, 0-1: HR, 1.43; 95%CI, 0.53-3.81; P =.48; 2+: HR, 0.79; 95%CI, 0.34-1.82; P =.58; PD-1-treated, 0-1 [P&gt;.99], 2+: HR, 0.25; 95%CI, 0.03-2.14; P =.21). In particular, we observed excellent outcomes for patients undergoing ASCT in a complete response after one line of PD-1-based salvage treatment with no significant benefit for BV maintenance observed (2-year PFS 100% vs 95%; P&gt;.99). The benefit of BV maintenance appears to be attenuated for patients receiving novel agents with salvage therapy. Omission of BV maintenance should be considered for patients anticipated to have excellent outcomes.

Abstract Combination therapy incorporating programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) blockade results in unprecedented response rates in both frontline and relapsed/refractory (R/R) classical Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL). Previous retrospective studies have suggested benefit for PD-1 blockade before autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) but included few patients receiving PD-1 blockade with cytotoxic chemotherapy. To explore the impact of anti–PD-1 based salvage on outcomes for patients with R/R cHL, we retrospectively reviewed 1280 patients with R/R cHL who underwent ASCT from 2010 to 2022 at 6 transplant centers, none of whom received PD-1 blockade as part of frontline therapy. Overall, 25% received a PD-1 inhibitor at any point before ASCT (10% in conjunction with chemotherapy), 28% received salvage brentuximab vedotin (BV) without PD-1 blockade, and the rest received salvage chemotherapy alone. Patients who received PD-1 inhibitors at any point before ASCT had a significantly higher 2-year progression-free survival than those who received BV without PD-1 inhibitors or patients receiving chemotherapy alone (88.2%, 70.2%, and 67.4%, respectively; P&lt; .0001). When restricted to patients in complete response before ASCT, the benefit of PD-1 blockade remained significant. PD-1 blockade before ASCT is independently associated with superior post-ASCT outcomes and patients proceeding to ASCT should be treated with PD-1–based salvage.

207 Background: CAR-T & bispecific antibodies (BsAb) for large B-cell lymphoma offer deep responses, but have unique toxicities requiring close monitoring. Different practice settings have varied strategies for managing these toxicities, leading to increased costs, healthcare resource use, & reduced quality of life. With no direct comparison, rationale for therapy selection may vary. This study explores provider choices, sequencing strategies & access barriers. Methods: A survey of US-based Hematologists was conducted on practice demographics, therapy availability, preferences, & barriers in LBCL. Responses were analyzed across clinical scenarios. Results: Responses were received from 45 physicians. Availability of CAR-T & BsAb varied with 75% prescribing both, & only BsAb being available at 9% of providers’ centers. There was a strong preference for CAR-T over BsAb—higher among academic vs. nonacademic providers (96% vs. 78%; p = 0.03) & at CAR-T vs. non-CAR-T centers (100% vs. 72%; p = 0.001). Even at BsAb-only centers, preference leaned toward CAR-T, though notably lower compared to CAR-T centers. Among centers without either, 86% preferred CAR-T. Practice volume had no impact. Reasons for favoring CAR-T included perceived better outcomes (55%), shorter treatment (26%), center choice (19%), more experience (48%), & curative potential (21%). BsAb selection was driven by CAR-T unavailability & logistical barriers (distance to specialized center, insurance delays, referral complexity, manufacturing time, & hospitalization needs). Axi-cel was preferred by 69% ( p = 0.0001) vs. other CAR-T for third-line or later due to experience with use, response rates, center choice, & logistical ease. Liso-cel (26%) & Tisa-cel (2%) were chosen for perceived favorable toxicity over Axi-cel. Axi-cel was also preferred second-line vs. Liso-cel (73% vs. 24%; p < 0.0001) for similar reasons. Among BsAb, Epcoritamab was favored by 56% for administration ease (subcutaneous), experience, & center preference; Glofitamab by 42% for shorter duration, experience, & center preference. There was no difference by academic vs nonacademic practice & volume for both CAR-T & BsAb. In patients with prior non-CAR-T anti-CD19 therapy, providers chose CD19 CAR-T over CD20 BsAb (80% vs. 18%; p < 0.0001). For relapse after second-line CAR-T, 78% providers preferred BsAb as the next line over other options ( p < 0.0001) due to more favorable response rates, toxicity profile, & experience with use. Providers prioritized response rates, survival, & toxicity profile in their treatment decisions. Logistics, duration, frequency, & cost were less important. There were no differences based on practice setting & CAR-T experience. Conclusions: Despite higher preference for CAR-T due to perceived superior outcomes, access barriers exist. Efforts to streamline referral pathways, logistics, & expand availability are crucial to improve outcomes.

Background: Despite effective front-line therapies, DLBCL & MM have high relapse rates. Novel therapies like CAR-T & bispecific antibodies (BsAb) offer deep & durable remission compared to salvage therapies, but have a unique toxicity profile (TP) that requires monitoring. With no head-to-head trials, the rationale for therapy selection may vary. This study explores provider choices, sequencing preferences, & access barriers. Methods: Two anonymous surveys (MM and DLBCL) of US-based Hematologists were conducted from 2/2024 to 6/2024, on practice settings, CAR-T & BsAb availability, treatment preferences & barriers. Responses were analyzed to assess preferences across clinical scenarios. Results: Surveys were completed by 37 MM & 45 DLBCL providers. Most were at centers offering both CAR-T & BsAb. Most gave CAR-T inpatient, & BsAb outpatient. CAR-T was given by 73% MM providers & 66% DLBCL (92% used Cilta-cel, 96% used Ide-cel; 100% used Axi-cel, 90% used Liso-cel & 73% Tisa-cel). In MM, 78% used Teclistamab, 60% Talquetamab & 24% Elranatamab. In DLBCL, 62% used Epcoritamab & 40% Glofitamab. Providers preferred CAR-T over BsAb in MM after 4+ prior lines of therapy (LOT) (89%), & in DLBCL after 2+ prior LOT (93%). CAR-T was favored more among academic providers & those at CAR-T centers. Practice volume did not impact selection. Among providers at centers with BsAb-only, CAR-T was preferred by 60% (MM) and 50% (DLBCL). Providers at centers without both favored CAR-T (MM: 75%, DLBCL: 86%). CAR-T was chosen for better outcomes, short treatment, center choice, & prior experience. Other factors that influenced decisions were lower incidence of cytopenia/infection & “BsAb effective post-CAR-T, less so vice versa” (MM), & “curative potential of CAR-T” (DLBCL). Logistical barriers & institutional constraints influenced BsAb selection: CAR-T unavailability, access to specialized centers, referral complexity, insurance delay, manufacturing delay & hospitalization needs. In MM, 78% providers preferred Cilta-cel over Ide-cel, especially academic providers & those with CAR-T experience. CAR-T volume did not impact selection. Cilta-cel was preferred due to perceived better response rate (RR), more experience, “progression-free survival (PFS) benefit”, center choice, & logistical issues with Ide-cel. Ide-cel was selected due to center choice, favorable TP & insurance preference. Teclistamab was preferred by 78% due to more experience, better RR, TP & center choice, Elranatamab by 11% (better TP, RR, & “PFS”), & Talquetamab by 11% due to having a non-BCMA target. Academic providers preferred Teclistamab (89% vs 50%), & nonacademic providers preferred Talquetamab (38% vs 4%) and Elranatamab (13% vs 8%). In DLBCL after 2+ LOT, 69% favored Axi-cel due to prior experience, RR, center choice, & logistical issues with other products. Liso-cel & Tisa-cel were chosen by 27% & 2%, respectively, due to favorable TP. Axi-cel was also preferred 2nd line by 73% for similar reasons, while 24% favored Liso-cel for its favorable TP. Epcoritamab was preferred by 56% (subcutaneous injection, more experience & center choice) & Glofitamab by 42% (shorter treatment duration, easy administration, more experience, & center choice). Practice setting & volume did not impact selection between products in DLBCL. InBCMA-naïve MM pts, majority (97%) chose an anti-BCMA agent over GPRC5D due to better RR, TP, prior experience, & center choice. InBCMA-exposed pts, most (92%) favored an anti-GPRC5D agent. In contrast in DLBCL, 80% chose CD19 CAR-T after prior CD19-directed therapy, & 18% chose CD20 BsAb. Therefore, antigen escape was less of a concern in DLBCL vs MM. For relapse after 2nd line CAR-T in DLBCL, 78% preferred BsAb over other salvage options due to better RR, TP, & more experience. Providers prioritized RR, survival, & TP in decision making. Treatment logistics, duration, frequency, & cost were less crucial. MM providers also prioritized quality of life, which was less so in DLBCL. There were no differences in priority based on practice setting & experience with CAR-T. Conclusion: The study highlights factors influencing therapy choices in MM & DLBCL. Despite CAR-T's potential for better outcomes, significant access barriers exist. Efforts to streamline referral pathways, logistics, & expanding availability are crucial to improve outcomes. Understanding these preferences & barriers can guide future management strategies.

e23252 Background: The UPMC-Kline Health Center (KHC) in Harrisburg, PA, shows a lower cervical cancer screening rate compared to the general population in the USA (57.08% vs 78%, respectively, based on the Medical Group Fiscal Year 2023 Internal Quality Measures). To understand this gap, we distributed a comprehensive questionnaire to patients, aiming to pinpoint factors contributing to the lower screening rate and plan targeted interventions for improvement. Methods: We randomly distributed questionnaires to female patients aged 21 to 61 during appointment check-in at the KHC, considering our linguistically diverse patient population with surveys available in Spanish, English, and Nepali. Given the diverse linguistic landscape of our patient population, we prepared questionnaires in Spanish, English, and Nepali. The survey aims to identify and address specific clinic-related problems, with a follow-up assessment after a few months to gauge improvements following interventions targeting the underlying causes of screening gaps. Results: Over a three-month span, 65 questionnaires were completed. Among the participants, 38% (25 patients - 7 white/Caucasian, 11 black/African American, 1 Asian, 7 others; 12 Hispanic, 13 non-Hispanic) revealed that they had not undergone screening within the past three years. The analysis of this subgroup unveiled significant issues: 84% (21/25) did not receive paperwork to schedule the test, 88% (22/25) were not contacted to schedule the test, 76% (19/25) did not receive reminder notifications before appointments, and 72%(18/25) expressed concerns about the lack of insurance coverage for costs. Furthermore, 76% (19/25) indicated the requirement to pay a co-pay, and an equal percentage reported difficulties in obtaining the screening test. Additionally, 72%(18/25) mentioned that their healthcare providers did not discuss the screening's importance, while 76%(19/25) noted their providers did not explain the purpose of the test. Conclusions: These findings underscore critical gaps in communication, accessibility, and cost-related barriers to cervical cancer screening at KHC. This ongoing quality improvement project, scheduled for data recollection in a few months, encompasses proposed interventions such as automated reminders, technology integration for communication, and distributing flyers in clinic and waiting areas to foster open communication and address inadequate discussions about the importance of screening. The aim is to improve patient awareness, engagement, and ultimately prevent delayed cancer diagnoses. KHC is committed to enhancing the cervical cancer screening rate to minimize the likelihood of delayed cancer diagnoses.

e23244 Background: The UPMC-Kline Health Center (KHC) located in Harrisburg, PA, has a lower colon cancer screening rate compared to the general patient population in the USA (26.03% vs 78%, respectively, according to the Medical Group Fiscal Year 2023 Internal Quality Measures). To understand the reasons behind this disparity, a comprehensive questionnaire was conducted aiming to identify factors contributing to the lower colonoscopy screening rate and to implement targeted interventions to improve the situation. Methods: Surveys were distributed to eligible patients aged 45 to 75 at the clinic, considering linguistic diversity by preparing questionnaires in Spanish, English, and Nepali. Distribution, randomized and conducted by medical assistants, aims to identify and address specific clinic-related issues. Subsequent assessment, after a few months, will determine improvements resulting from interventions targeting the underlying causes of screening gaps. Results: Over a three-month period, a total of 77 questionnaires were completed and collected. We analyzed responses from 33 patients (42%, 14 females, and 19 males; 16 white/Caucasian, 14 black/African American, 2 Asian, 1 other; 8 Hispanic/Latino, 25 non-Hispanic/Latino) who had not undergone a colonoscopy in the past 10 years. Findings revealed that 72% (24/33) of patients reported not receiving paperwork for scheduling, while 72% (24/33) were not contacted to schedule the test. Additionally, 78% (26/33) of patients did not receive a reminder call or message before their scheduled appointments. 51% (17/33) of patients highlighted a lack of insurance coverage for costs, with 63% (21/33) indicating the need for a co-pay. 57% (19/33) of patients reported difficulties in obtaining the screening test. 51% (17/33) of patients mentioned that their healthcare provider discussed the importance of the screening test, and 54% (18/33) of patients noted that their providers explained the purpose of the test. Conclusions: The survey identifies scheduling, communication, and cost-related barriers to colon cancer screening at KHC. Proposed interventions, including the implementation of automated reminders, integrating technology to facilitate communication, and incorporating flyers within the clinic and patient waiting areas. This quality improvement project is ongoing, with data scheduled for recollection in a few months. These measures are anticipated to foster improvements, aiding more patients in preventing delayed cancer diagnoses. KHC aims to create a patient-friendly environment by addressing scheduling inefficiencies, improving communication, and tackling financial concerns for timely and accessible colon cancer screenings.