Storandt, Michael H.

4163 Background: Standard first-line systemic therapy for hepatocellular carcinoma involves immune checkpoint inhibitors, including A+B and the STRIDE regimen consisting of D+T. However, there is limited data comparing outcomes of patients receiving these two regimens. We aimed to compare the survival and safety profiles of patients receiving A+B versus D+T as first-line systemic therapy for advanced HCC in a propensity score matched analysis. Methods: We performed a retrospective cohort study using data from TriNetX, a healthcare database of over 150 million patients in the United States. We identified adult patients with a history of HCC and included those who received A+B or D+T as first line treatment. Propensity score matching (PSM) was conducted, matching for patient demographics (age, sex, race), clinical history (alcohol use, ascites, esophageal varices, viral hepatitis), and laboratory parameters [platelets, albumin, bilirubin, INR, alpha-1-fetoprotein (AFP)]. Median overall survival (mOS) and relevant patient safety events were compared between those who received A+B or D+T. Results: We identified 2,762 patients who had HCC who were treated with A+B or D+T, of which 2,030 patients received A+B and 723 patients received D+T. Compared to patients in the A+B cohort, those who received D+T were more often older (68.5 vs 66.9 years, standardized mean difference (SMD) = 0.17), had lower platelet counts (186.4 vs 198.6, SMD = 0.11), had higher prevalence of ascites (33.1% vs 20.3%, SMD = 0.29), and alcohol use (23.8% vs 18.8%, SMD = 0.12). After PSM, 723 patients were included in survival analyses, with all variables adequately balanced except for albumin, which was higher in the A+B group (3.6 vs 3.5, SMD = 0.19). At 90 days after starting therapy, D+T was associated with higher incidence of immune-mediated colitis [5.3% vs 2.6%, odds ratio (OR) 2.1; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.2-3.7], and a higher risk of hospitalization [35.4% vs 27.9%, OR 1.4; 95% CI, 1.1-1.8]. At 6 months, the risk of hypertension and proteinuria was higher in the A+B cohort [21.9% vs 13.7%, OR 0.57; 95% CI, 0.34-0.95], which persisted at 1 year [28.1% vs 16.5%, OR 0.51; 95% CI, 0.32-0.81]. There was no significant difference in mOS between those receiving A+B or D+T [18.3 months vs 22.8 months, hazard ratio (HR) 0.94; 95% CI, 0.79-1.1]. Conclusions: In patients with advanced HCC who received A+B or D+T as first-line systemic therapy, we found that A+B was associated with higher risk of hypertension and proteinuria, while D+T was associated with a higher risk of immune-mediated colitis and hospitalization. No significant difference in mOS was observed between the cohorts. These findings suggest that safety profiles, rather than survival differences, may be used to guide optimal first-line treatment regimens. Prospective studies are warranted to further assess differences in patient outcomes.

12007 Background: YAs with cancer, defined as those diagnosed prior to the age of 40, may experience greater symptom burden compared to those diagnosed at older ages. We evaluated the impact of an ePROM-triggered, CC-based, supportive care intervention on symptom burden in YAs with cancer. Methods: The Enhanced, Electronic Health Record-facilitated Cancer Symptom Control (E2C2) trial was a cluster-randomized, pragmatic trial (NCT03892967) that enrolled oncology patients seen at Mayo Clinic Rochester and within the Mayo Clinic Health System (sites in Minnesota and Wisconsin) between March 2019 and January 2023. Patients routinely reported the severity of six SPPADE symptoms (Sleep deficit, Pain, Physical function impairment, Anxiety, Depression, and Energy deficit/fatigue) on 11-point numerical rating scales. Symptom severity was classified as none to mild (0-3), moderate (4-6), or severe (7-10). Those with moderate or severe symptoms were offered symptom management education, while those with severe symptoms were also offered the option to work virtually with a symptom care manager. In this post hoc analysis, we examined the effects of the intervention on change in symptom scores among YAs and time to improvement to a mild/moderate level in those with at least one severe symptom. Results: Among 40,659 patients who responded to at least one survey, 2,598 were YAs and 38,061 were adults ≥ 40 years. Among YAs, 10.7%, 24.3%, and 65.1% were 18-24 years, 25-31 years, and 32-39 years, respectively. A greater proportion of YA patients were female (61.5% vs 57.0%), of a non-white race (12.4% vs 5.3%), living in an urban setting (65.7% vs 55.1%), single (36.4% vs 9.6%), on non-government insurance (78.1% vs 36.6%), employed (72.6% vs 37.4%), and had a Bachelor’s degree or greater (37.8% vs 28.3%, p < 0.001 for all). Fewer YA patients had metastatic disease compared to older patients (24.2% vs 35.2%, p < 0.001). Compared to a pre-intervention baseline, the mean change in symptom score for YA patients following the intervention demonstrated improvements in anxiety (-0.195) and depression (-0.168, p < 0.0001 for both), while physical function impairment worsened over the intervention period (0.101, p = 0.014). Compared to adults ≥ 40 years, YAs experienced greater intervention effects for management of depression ( p < 0.001), fatigue ( p = 0.01), pain ( p < 0.0001), and physical function impairment ( p < 0.0001). Among YAs with a severe symptom during the intervention period, median time to improvement to a mild/moderate level was longer for anxiety compared to those ≥ 40 years (3.5 vs 2.7 months, p = 0.009). Conclusions: Routine ePROM surveillance, coupled with CC-based symptom management, led to improvements in anxiety and depression among YAs with cancer, although, time to improvement was longer for anxiety compared to adults ≥ 40 years.