Karlin, Nina J.

73 Background: This study evaluated the impact of diabetes mellitus (DM) on survival in gastric and esophageal cancer patients, and examined the impact of these cancers on glycemic control in DM. Methods: Patients with newly diagnosed gastric and esophageal cancers with DM (n = 92) were identified from the Institutional Cancer Registry and matched to 92 gastric and esophageal cancer patients without DM according to age, gender and year of cancer diagnosis (2006 to 2016). The electronic medical record provided information on DM and cancer therapies and laboratory results. Overall survival (OS) was estimated with the Kaplan-Meier method and compared by Cox regression analysis using stratification for matched pairs. Mixed models were used to compare hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) and glucose during the year following cancer diagnosis. Results: Mean age of the entire cohort was 68 years, 91% were white, 78% were men, and 53% had stage III/IV disease. Adenocarcinoma (79%) was the most common histologic type. BMI was significantly different between DM and non-DM patients (p = 0.006). Alcohol use at time of cancer diagnosis was more prevalent in non-DM patients vs. DM (p = 0.018). Among those with DM, mean HbA1c during the year following cancer diagnosis was 6.8%. Mean glucose was significantly different between DM and non-DM patients (149 mg/dL vs. 116 mg/dL, p < 0.001). For glucose, there was a significant interaction effect (p = 0.005) as DM patients demonstrated a decrease in glucose values over time compared to non-DM patients. Median follow-up time was 35 months. Three year OS was estimated at 46% (95% CI: 36-58%) for DM patients versus 52.0% (95% CI: 41-64%) in non-DM (p = 0.25). Hazard ratio (stratification for matched pairs) was 1.95 (95% CI: 1.14 – 3.43; p = 0.02). Three year PFS was estimated at 40% (95% CI: 31-53%) for DM patients versus 50% (95% CI: 40-63%) for non-DM patients (p = 0.12). Hazard ratio (stratification for matched pairs) was 1.74 (95% CI: 1.04-2.90; p = 0.03). Conclusions: Gastric and esophageal cancer and its treatment did not affect glycemic control. Risks of death and progression are greater in DM patients as compared to non-DM.

239 Background: The aim of this case-control study was to determine the impact of DM on survival in pancreatic cancer patients, and to examine the impact of pancreatic cancer on glycemic control in DM. Methods: Ninety-two patients with newly diagnosed pancreatic cancer from 2007 to 2015 with DM were identified from the institutional Cancer Registry and matched to ninety-two pancreatic cancer patients without DM according to age, gender, and year of pancreatic cancer diagnosis. The file was linked to the electronic medical record to obtain information on DM and pancreatic cancer therapies, and laboratory results. Overall survival (OS) was estimated with the Kaplan-Meier method and compared by Cox regression analysis. Mixed models were used to compare hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) and glucose over time. Results: Mean age of the entire pancreatic cancer cohort was 70 years, most (92%) were white, most common (88%) histology was adenocarcinoma, and majority (41%) were stage IV. No differences in age, race/ethnicity, histology, or tumor stage were detected between patients with and without DM, although DM patients had higher body mass index (P = 0.014). Mean ca 19-9 (U/ml) was 804 for diabetics, and 395 for non-diabetics. Among those with DM the mean HbA1c during the year following cancer diagnosis was 7.3%. Time (days since diagnosis) was significant in DM patients (p = 0.014) as HbA1c decreased over time. Mean glucose during the year following diagnosis among DM patients was significantly higher compared to non-DM patients [160.6 (SD = 38.0) versus 117.2 (SD = 19.0); p < 0.001]. Both groups had a decline in glucose over time (p = 0.008). In Kaplan-Meier survival analysis (median follow-up time of 11.9 months), 2 year overall survival was estimated at 15% [95% CI: 8-24%] for DM patients versus 26% [95% CI: 17-36%] in non-DM patients. Hazard ratio (for matched pairs) was 1.15 (95% CI: 0.75-1.77; p = 0.51). Conclusions: DM did not adversely impact survival in patients with pancreatic cancer. Pancreatic cancer did not affect glycemic control. Elevated ca 19-9 in diabetic patients may be an unreliable marker for gauging disease progression.

101 Background: Diabetes mellitus (DM) has been associated with an increased risk of mortality among patients with many types of cancers. The aim of this case-control study was to determine the impact of DM on short-term overall survival in prostate cancer patients, and to examine the impact of prostate cancer on glycemic control in DM. Methods: 276 patients with newly diagnosed prostate cancer from 2007-2014 with DM were identified from the Institutional Cancer Registry and matched to 276 prostate cancer patients without DM according to age and year of prostate cancer diagnosis. The file was linked to the electronic medical record to obtain information on DM and cancer therapies, and laboratory results. Results: The mean age of the entire prostate cancer cohort was 72 years, most (93%) were white, the most common Gleason score (in 52%) was 7, and the majority (56%) were tumor stage 2. No differences in age, race/ethnicity, Gleason score, or tumor stage were detected between patients with and without DM, although DM patients had higher body mass index (P = .031). Among those with DM the mean hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) was 6.7%. In Kaplan-Meier survival analysis (median follow-up time of 43.7 months), 5-year overall survival was estimated at 88% for DM patients versus 93% in non-DM patients. Hazard ratio (for matched pairs) was 1.64 (95% CI: 0.77-3.46, P = .20). Moreover, mean HbA1c and glucose values among DM cases did not significantly change over 1 year (P ≥ .13). Mean glucose among DM patients was significantly (p < 0.01) higher compared to non-DM patients. Conclusions: DM did not adversely impact survival in prostate cancer patients. In addition, prostate cancer or its treatment does not appear to affect glycemic control. Both patients and their providers can be reassured that the two concurrent diagnoses do not adversely interact to worsen short term outcomes.

55 Background: The aim of this retrospective study was to examine the overall survival (OS) of metastatic breast cancer patients over a decade and assess for any differences with respect to age, tumor characteristics, and ECOG status. Methods: Data on metastatic breast cancer cases from 1999-2010 were retrieved from the institutional cancer registry and linked to electronic medical records. Through chart review of 240 metastatic breast cancer cases, we determined hormone receptor (HR), HER2/neu (HER2), ECOG, age at diagnosis of metastatic cancer and mortality data. Kaplan-Meier survival curves for OS were used and compared between HR status, HER2 status, ECOG, and age at diagnosis using log-rank regression and Cox Regression analysis was performed to control for these variables. A 95% confidence interval (CI) was used. Results: The median OS of the sampled cases was 2.2 years (CI: 1.8-2.5 years). Analysis for overall survival by pre-determined age groups demonstrated no significant difference between the age groups (p value 0.46), but did yield a statistical difference based on ECOG status (p value 0.0001). Cox regression analysis showed consistent findings where survival was significantly affected by HR, HER2 status and ECOG but not age (HR: p value <0.0001; HER2: p value 0.0132; ECOG: p value <0.0001; age at diagnosis: p value 0.8462). Analysis for OS based on HR yielded a median survival of 1.4 years (CI: 0.9-1.6 years) for HR negative and 2.5 years (CI: 2.2-3.0 years) for HR positive (p value 0.0018). HER2 yielded a median survival of 1.8 years (CI: 1.4-2.3 years) for no amplification and 3.0 years (CI: 2.5 - 3.4 years) for amplification (p-value 0.0043). HR negative, HER2 non-amplified tumors had the poorest median OS at 0.7 years (CI: 0.5 - 1.1 years) whereas those tumors with HR positive, HER2 amplified had the best median OS at 3.0 years (CI: 2.5 - 4.7 years) with a p value < 0.0001. Conclusions: In this retrospective analysis, there was no significant survival difference with respect to age. Age continued to have no significant effect on survival when adjusting for ECOG, hormone status, and HER2/neu status. Those factors that did act as determinants of survival were ECOG status, hormone status and HER2/neu status of the tumor.