Taraba, Jodi L

AbstractProfessional standards for academic health care system pharmacy departments and clinical pharmacists advocate for research and scholarly activities. Developing and sustaining a research program in a clinical pharmacy department is challenging. Over the span of a decade, a robust pharmacy research program was developed in an academic medical center not affiliated with a college of pharmacy. The aim of this manuscript is to provide a framework suitable for scaling research in pharmacy departments within an academic medical center. Objectives to accomplish the aim includes describing the structure and evolution of the clinical pharmacy department research program, listing measurable outputs and achievements of the pharmacists and the program and describing the barriers encountered and solutions that were enacted to overcome them. Elements critical to building and sustaining a research program in the pharmacy department included long‐term commitment from within the department, a departmental research infrastructure, support from institutional leadership, research funding from the institution, and a growth mindset in accordance with company initiatives to support evolving research needs. A research curriculum was developed for pharmacy residents and pharmacists, created electronic tools for research proposal scientific reviews and allocation of funds, and established departmental research career development awards that allowed for protected time to pursue research and professional development. Over the first 10 years of the program, publication rates grew more than three‐fold, faculty appointments and promotions increased approximately five‐fold, and pharmacist investigators obtained extramural federal funding. Further offsetting clinical workload relative to dedicated research time remains a challenge. The experience and success at this academic medical center suggest it is feasible to develop a robust, sustainable clinical pharmacy department research program.

Abstract Abstract Title: Real-world analysis comparing Black and White patients with triple-negative breast cancer receiving therapy per KEYNOTE-522 Background: KEYNOTE-522 was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial which resulted in the FDA approval of pembrolizumab with neoadjuvant chemotherapy for patients with newly diagnosed, high-risk, early-stage triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC). Despite the significant improvement in pathological complete response (pCR) and event-free survival rates across all patients, the landmark trial included only 4.5% Black patients. It is essential to assess outcomes in representative treatment populations. We assessed real-world toxicity and treatment outcomes across Black and White patients who received standard-of-care treatment per KEYNOTE-522. Methods: In this retrospective, multicenter study, we examined patients with early-stage TNBC who received planned treatment per KEYNOTE-522 as standard-of-care (SOC) therapy. 16 sites were included in the analysis. IRB approval was obtained from each participating site. Number and length of treatment delays, treatment-related toxicities (both chemotherapy and immune-related) of all grades, and pCR rate were collected from the electronic medical record of each participating site, and deidentified data were shared for central analysis. Results: Of the 577 patients who initiated treatment with chemotherapy and immunotherapy, 534 patients were included in this analysis with 105 patients who self-identified as Black (19.7%) and 429 who self-identified as White (80.3%). There were no statistically significant differences in clinical and pathological characteristics between the two groups. White women were more likely to have grade 3+ immune-related adverse events (irAEs) compared to Black women (33.8% vs 20.9%, P=0.011). There was no significant difference across Black and White patients with respect to grade 3+ chemotherapy-related adverse events. Out of the 444 patients who have completed surgery, no difference in pCR rate was observed between Black and White women (45/86 52.3% vs 200/358 55.9%) (p = 0.6). The authors also saw no difference in the rates of hospitalizations between Black and White women (39% vs 36% p = 0.5), and rates of acute care utilization (38% vs 38% p = 0.9). Conclusions: We report safety and efficacy across Black and White women in a real-world analysis of patients who received treatment per KEYNOTE-522. Notably, White patients had a significantly higher frequency of grade 3+ irAEs, although the reason for this finding is unclear based on this analysis. Black patients had similar pCR rates and rates of treatment-related hospitalizations compared to White patients. Assessment of outcomes and toxicity by race in clinical trials and real-world analyses are critical in drug development. Citation Format: Mara Hofherr, Andrew Davis, Spenser January, Emily Owen, Farah Raheem, Lida A. Mina, Suganya Arunachalam Karikalan, Lauren Lyons, Meredith Watson Rose, Katherine Madden, Jerline Hsin, Aimee Keegan, Wai Yu, Shawna Kraft, Allison Schepers, Emily Armgardt, Douglas Mazewski, Alison Svoboda, Kayla Harwood, Jodi Taraba, Yonatan Resnick, Shelly Hummert, Lisa Grate, Sidney Keisner, Jacob Hobbs, Todd Davis, Kristin Bastian, Dawn Minikel, Wiliam Adler, Traci White, Avneek Singh Sandu, Fouad Boulbol, Kelsey Finch, Katherine Clifton. Real-world analysis comparing Black and White patients with triple-negative breast cancer receiving therapy per KEYNOTE-522 [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2023 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2023 Dec 5-9; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2024;84(9 Suppl):Abstract nr PS14-02.

Abstract Title: Real-world analysis of adverse events in patients with triple-negative breast cancer receiving therapy per KEYNOTE-522 Background: KEYNOTE-522 was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial which resulted in the FDA approval of pembrolizumab with neoadjuvant chemotherapy for patients (pts) with newly diagnosed, high-risk, early-stage triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC). Given the improvement in pathological complete response (pCR) and event-free survival rates, this regimen has emerged as standard-of-care (SOC) therapy. To date, real world outcome analyses are limited. Methods: In this retrospective, multicenter study, we examined pts with early-stage TNBC who received planned treatment per KEYNOTE-522 as SOC. 16 sites were included in the analysis. IRB approval was obtained from each participating site. Number and length of treatment delays, treatment related toxicities (both chemotherapy and immune-related) of all grades, and pCR rate were collected from the electronic medical record of each participating site, and deidentified data were shared for central analysis. Results: 577 pts were included in this analysis. The median age of the cohort was 52 [range 27-77]. 457 pts had T1-2 disease and 139 had T3-4 disease. 316 pts had N0 disease and 261 had N1-3 disease. 506 pts had baseline ECOG 0, 62 had ECOG 1, and 9 had ECOG 2-3. Of the 482 patients who had surgery at the time of this analysis, 219 patients had pCR (54.5%) and 192 pts were still receiving treatment. 217 patients (37%) had an adverse drug event (ADE) causing dose reductions and 228 patients (39.5%) had to discontinue treatment early. There were 360 unplanned care visits, with 91 patients having 2+ visits. 66 patients had hospitalizations due to the regimen with 102 total hospitalizations. 179 (31%) of patients had grade 3+ immune related adverse events (irAEs), including many that are rare and potentially serious. 317 (54%) had an immune related adverse effect (see Table 1). There was no significant difference in the frequency of grade 3+ irAE based on age or body mass index. We observed no difference in residual disease between patients who discontinued treatment early and those who did not. However, if patients had an ADR causing a dose reduction, pts were significantly more likely to have residual disease (P=0.039) Conclusions: In a multicenter real-world analysis, the KEYNOTE-522 regimen was associated with a high frequency of dose reductions, early treatment discontinuations, ER visits, and hospitalizations. This may have accounted for a lower pCR rate than observed in the landmark clinical trial. Most grade 3+ irAEs occurred at greater frequency in our real-world analysis. Providers should carefully monitor for toxicity to ensure optimal patient outcomes. Table 1 Citation Format: Mara Hofherr, Katherine Clifton, Spenser January, Emily Owen, Farah Raheem, Lida A. Mina, Suganya Arunachalam Karikalan, Lauren Lyons, Meredith Watson Rose, Katherine Madden, Jerline Hsin, Aimee Keegan, Wai Yu, Shawna Kraft, Allison Schepers, Emily Armgardt, Douglas Mazewski, Alison Svoboda, Kayla Harwood, Jodi Taraba, Yonatan Resnick, Shelly Hummert, Lisa Grate, Sidney Keisner, Jacob Hobbs, Todd Davis, Kristin Bastian, Dawn Minikel, Traci White, William Adler, Avneek Singh Sandu, Fouad Boulbol, Kelsey Finch, Andrew Davis. Real-World Analysis of Adverse Events in Patients with Triple Negative Breast Cancer Receiving Therapy per KEYNOTE-522 [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2023 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2023 Dec 5-9; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2024;84(9 Suppl):Abstract nr PS14-06.

Introduction To date, there is no adherence estimator to identify risk of nonadherence prior to initiating oral oncolytics. Methods A workgroup was assembled through the National Community Oncology Dispensing Association and tasked with creating a tool to meet this need. Tool constructs were defined after a review of the literature identifying top barriers to adherence. A second literature search was conducted to identify questions targeting specific barriers from validated adherence questionnaires. Once a finalized draft was complete, the risk assessment tool was built into an electronic survey where a risk category can be automatically calculated for the patient. Results The six most impactful factors affecting compliance to oral oncolytics were identified as patient's confidence, health literacy, perception of treatment, quality of life, social support, and complexity of chemotherapy regimen. A six-item questionnaire was created with five patient-directed questions and one clinician-directed question. Examples and descriptions were provided for clinicians to consider when categorizing complexity of a regimen. The tool was designed for responses to each question to be indexed into categories through a 10-point system. Results will be stratified into low, moderate, or high risk for nonadherence. Conclusion The creation of a tool to predict nonadherence prior to starting therapy is an unmet need for patients initiating oral oncolytics. The aim of this tool is to meet those needs and better guide clinicians to provide patients with strategies to better manage nonadherence. Next steps include tool validation and piloting in clinical practice.

Abstract Background: Two poly (adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase inhibitors (PARPi) are currently FDA-approved for the treatment of HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer (MBC) in carriers of germline pathogenic variants (PVs) in BRCA1 or BRCA2 (BRCA1/2). This study explores the clinical outcomes of MBC patients treated with a PARPi. Methods: In this retrospective study, we included MBC patients treated with a PARPi between January 2017 and February 2022 at Mayo Clinic (Minnesota, Arizona, Florida, and Mayo Clinic Health Systems). We used the Kaplan Meier method to estimate the time-to-treatment-failure (TTF) and the log-rank test to compare different subsets. In addition, predictors of TTF were identified in a multivariate cox-proportional hazard regression model, including age at PARPi initiation, race, ethnicity, histology, estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR), and HER2 expression of the tumor, the number of prior therapies, type of PARPi, and PV carrier status (germline BRCA1/2 or PALB2 vs. somatic BRCA1/2 vs. other). Results: Sixty-five patients treated with PARPi (olaparib: 51; talazoparib: 14) were included in the final analysis. Fifty-five patients were carriers of germline PVs in BRCA1 (n=24, 37%), BRCA2 (n=27, 42%) or PALB2 (n=4, 6%), whereas ten patients (15%) had no germline PVs but the tumor had a somatic mutation in the homologous recombination-related (HRR) genes (7 in BRCA1/2, 2 in ATM, and 1 in CDKN2A and CDH1). At the data cutoff, 48 (74%) patients had discontinued PARPi due to progression or death. Fifteen (23%) patients required a dose reduction due to side effects. Occurrence of grade ≥ 3 side effects: anemia in 8, fatigue in 4, neutropenia in 2, and thrombocytopenia in 2 patients. Eight (15.7%) patients in the olaparib group and seven (50%) patients in the talazoparib group required a dose reduction for side effects. No patient on olaparib required drug discontinuation due to side effects, whereas two patients on talazoparib were switched to olaparib due to cytopenias and could tolerate olaparib. Median TTF in the overall population was 8 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 6.4 – 9.6), and there was no difference (p=0.64) in TTF between the olaparib and talazoparib groups. Median TTF in the germline BRCA1, BRCA2, and PALB2 PV carriers were 7, 8, and 11 months, respectively (p=0.57). Among patients with somatic BRCA1/2 mutations, the median TTF was 4 months. Numerically, patients with HER2-positive tumors (n=8) had a shorter TTF compared to HER2-negative tumors (Median TTF: 4 vs. 8 months, p=0.098). No significant difference in TTF was observed by ER or PR status of the tumor, age at initiation of PARPi, the number of prior therapies, and prior use of platinum-based chemotherapy or CDK4/6 inhibitors. In multivariate analysis, HER2 positivity (hazard ratio [HR]: 8.0, 95% CI: 2.2 – 29.4, p=0.002), somatic BRCA1/2 mutations (HR: 7.6, 95% CI: 1.2 – 50.0, p=0.03) and somatic mutations in other HRR genes (HR: 19.1, 95% CI: 3.1 – 118.6, p=0.002) were associated with worse TTF. Conclusions: In the real world, PARPi were well-tolerated with promising time-to-treatment-failure (TTF) benefits comparable to data from clinical trials. Notably, relatively shorter TTF was observed in patients with somatic BRCA1/2 and other HRR gene mutations and HER2-positive MBC. These findings improve our understanding of the role of PARPi in MBC and will help to guide treatment decisions with PARPi in the clinical setting. Citation Format: Nusrat Jahan, Jodi Taraba, Karthik V. Giridhar, Roberto A. Leon-Ferre, Amye J. Tevaarwerk, Elizabeth Cathcart-Rake, Ciara C. O’Sullivan, Prema Peethambaram, Timothy J. Hobday, Kathryn Ruddy, Lida A. Mina, Pooja Advani, Felipe Batalini, Matthew P. Goetz, Tufia C. Haddad, Fergus J. Couch, Siddhartha Yadav. Clinical outcomes of metastatic breast cancer patients treated with poly (adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase inhibitors (PARPi): the Mayo Clinic experience [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2022 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2022 Dec 6-10; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2023;83(5 Suppl):Abstract nr P4-01-22.

Abstract Background: SG was approved in 2020 for the treatment of metastatic triple negative breast cancer (TNBC). The most common grade 3/4 adverse event in the ASCENT trial was neutropenia (51.2%) with a 6% incidence of febrile neutropenia. 1 Package insert recommendations do not endorse primary prophylactic growth factor support, rather only initiating if severe neutropenia occurs on treatment.2 Objective: This study retrospectively reviewed the utilization of growth factor support in patients (pts) with metastatic TNBC initiated on SG at each Mayo Clinic Enterprise site. Methods: We performed a multi-center, retrospective review of all pts with TNBC who received SG from January 2021 to December 2021 at Mayo Clinic sites in Minnesota, Florida, Arizona, and its community-based health system network. Data collected included history of neutropenia with previous cycles of SG resulting in a treatment delay, number of cycles, grade of neutropenia and cycle/day of treatment plan when growth factor added. Pts who received only one dose of SG were excluded. The Fisher’s exact test was utilized to compare the difference in the use of primary prophylaxis between sites. Results: 67 pts received at least two doses of SG. Within this cohort, 42 pts (63%) received growth factor support during treatment with SG. Growth factor support was most often added during the first two cycles (59.5%). A total of 12 patients initiated growth factor with no history of delays related to neutropenia and without neutropenia at the time of administration. Eleven of these pts had growth factor support added on Cycle 1 as primary prophylaxis. Primary prophylaxis was most common at Mayo Clinic – Rochester compared to the other sites (Table 1), however there was not a statistically significant difference (p=0.27). There were 26 pts (39%) with a treatment delay due to neutropenia while receiving SG, of which 21 (81%) were managed with the addition of growth factor (13 pegfilgrastim, 8 filgrastim). The median number of cycles for all pts was 5 (range: 1-25). Pts who received growth factor were treated with a median of 5 cycles (range: 1-25) and pts who did not receive growth factor were treated with a median of 4 cycles (range: 1-19) (p=0.10). Conclusions: We observed wide variability in the use of prophylactic growth factor between Mayo Clinic sites with SG. The optimal practice of growth factor use with SG warrants further exploration. References: 1. Bardia A, Hurvitz SA, Tolaney SM, et al. Sacituzumab govitecan in metastatic triple-negative breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2021;384(16):1529-1541 2. Immunomedics, Inc. Trodelvy (sacituzumab govitecan-hziy) [package insert]. Foster City, CA: Gilead Sciences; 2020. Table 1: Grade of neutropenia for patients receiving SG when growth factor initiated Citation Format: Kaylee Clark, Jamie L. Carroll, Alvaro Moreno-Aspitia, Brenda Ernst, Farah Raheem, Ashley Heil, Beth Boyer, Kristin Mara, Matthew P. Goetz, Roberto A. Leon-Ferre, Karthik V. Giridhar, Jodi Taraba. Mayo Clinic Enterprise patterns of growth-factor utilization for sacituzumab govitecan (SG)-induced neutropenia among patients with metastatic triple negative breast cancer [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2022 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2022 Dec 6-10; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2023;83(5 Suppl):Abstract nr P4-07-56.

Abstract Introduction: We performed matched case-control studies utilizing cohorts of postmenopausal women with ER+ breast cancer receiving adjuvant aromatase inhibitors (AI) on MA.27 [anastrozole, exemestane] or PreFace [letrozole] to assess the association between estrogen suppression after 6 months of treatment and an early breast cancer (EBC) event within 5 years of AI initiation (Clin Cancer Res 2020;26:2986-98). We found a significant 3.0-fold increase in risk of an EBC event for those taking anastrozole with levels of estrone (E1) ≥1.3 pg/mL and estradiol (E2) ≥0.5 pg/mL, but not for exemestane or letrozole. Given these findings we designed a prospective pharmacodynamic (PD) study to evaluate the impact of anastrozole (1 mg/day: ANA1) on E1 and E2 levels, and among those with inadequate estrogen suppression (IES: E1 ≥1.3 pg/mL and E2 ≥0.5 pg/mL), to evaluate the safety and PD efficacy of high-dose anastrozole (10 mg/day: ANA10), which has been found to be safe in prior clinical trials (Cancer 1998;83:1142-52). Methods: Post-menopausal women with stage I-III, ER ≥1% positive/HER2-negative breast cancer who were candidates for anastrozole were eligible after completion of locoregional therapy and chemotherapy, as clinically indicated. Women who were pre-menopausal at diagnosis were not eligible. All patients received 8-10 weeks of ANA1, after which those with adequate estrogen suppression (AES: E1< 1.3 pg/mL or E2< 0.5 pg/mL) came off study. Those with IES went on to receive ANA10 for 8-10 weeks, followed by letrozole (2.5 mg/day: LET) for 8-10 weeks. All patients were managed at their treating oncologist’s discretion following study discontinuation. E1 and E2 blood levels were measured pre-treatment and after completion of each treatment cycle by a CLIA-approved liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry in the Immunochemical Core Laboratory at Mayo Clinic. With a sample size of 29 patients with IES after ANA1, a one-sided binomial test of proportions with a significance level of 0.05 will have an 87% chance of rejecting the proportion with AES after ANA10 is at most 25% (Ho) when the true proportion is at least 50%. Specifically, the null hypothesis is rejected if the number of women with AES after ANA10 is 12 or more. Data lock was July 6, 2022. Results: Of the 161 women enrolled from April 2020 through May 2022, 3 withdrew consent prior to start of ANA1 and 2 were ineligible; thus, 156 women comprised the study cohort. Median patient age was 64 years (range 44-86), 10% of patients were of Hispanic ethnicity and/or non-white race, and 15% received chemotherapy. Six patients remain on ANA1, and 10 discontinued ANA1 due to refusal (7), adverse event (AE) (2), or COVID-19 (1). Forty-one of the remaining 140 patients (29.3%; 95%CI: 21.9-37.6%) had IES with ANA1. Nine of these 41 patients did not go on to ANA10 due to refusal (6) or AE (3). Of the 32 patients who started ANA10, 8 remain on treatment, 5 discontinued due to refusal (3) or AE (1-grade 2 urinary tract infection; 1-grade 1 palpitations), and 19 had a blood draw 45 days or more after starting ANA10. No grade 3-5 AEs or grade 2 hot flashes or arthralgias were reported. Of these 19 patients, 14 achieved AES with ANA10 (73.7%; 95%CI: 48.8-90.9%). All 19 patients switched to LET of which 3 remain on treatment, 1 is missing E1/E2 data, and 15 had a blood draw 45 days or more after starting LET. Of these 15 patients, 10 maintained AES, 2 acquired AES with LET, and 3 no longer had AES. Anastrozole and letrozole drug levels will be reported at the meeting. Conclusions: Approximately 29% of postmenopausal women with ER+/HER2- BC receiving adjuvant anastrozole 1 mg/daily had IES. A majority of these patients achieved AES with dose escalation to ANA10 without tolerability issues. E1 and E2 levels are logical biomarkers given the mechanism of action of anastrozole, and further study utilizing them to determine the optimal dose of anastrozole for a given patient should be performed. Citation Format: Tufia C. Haddad, Vera Suman, Karthik V. Giridhar, Alvaro Moreno-Aspitia, Donald Northfelt, Brenda Ernst, Kostandinos Sideras, Ciara C. O’Sullivan, Ravinder Singh, Zeruesenay Desta, Jodi Taraba, Barbara Goodnature, Matthew P. Goetz, Liewei Wang, James N. Ingle. Anastrozole dose escalation for optimal estrogen suppression in postmenopausal early stage breast cancer: A prospective trial [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2022 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2022 Dec 6-10; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2023;83(5 Suppl):Abstract nr OT1-04-02.

Abstract Background: Cyclin dependent kinase (CDK) 4/6 inhibitors (CDK 4/6i) can improve outcomes in ER-positive/HER2-negative (ER+/HER2-) breast cancer. The choice of CDK 4/6i selection and dose depends on clinical context and/or potential side effect of profile of each unique CDK 4/6i. The objective of this study was to evaluate practice patterns in patients initiated on CDK 4/6i and assess adherence to recommended laboratory monitoring in breast cancer patients in both an institutional and national dataset. Methods: The institutional cohort (IC) involved a retrospective chart review of patients newly initiated on palbociclib between May 8, 2018 - June 4, 2019 at Mayo Clinic, Rochester. The national cohort (NC) reviewed medical and pharmacy claims data from the OptumLabs Data Warehouse (OLDW) and included patients who were initiated on palbociclib (P), ribociclib (R) or abemaciclib (A) between February 6, 2015 - September 30, 2019. NC patients were required to have a minimum of 6 months baseline coverage, 6 months coverage after first prescription and Day 1 labs drawn. For both cohorts, patients were ≥18 years old with metastatic ER+/HER2- breast cancer. Data was collected for up to 6 cycles of treatment and included cycle start dates, doses, dates of lab draws and dose changes. Laboratory adherence was defined as a complete blood count being drawn +/- 3 days of the defined timepoint for the IC and +/- 5 days for the NC with a l4-day window for Cycle 1, Day 1 labs. Results: The IC included 81 patients and the NC 2600. In the NC, the most prescribed CDK 4/6i was P (90%), followed by A (6%) and R (4%). Prescription breakdown by geographic region was Midwest (26%), Northeast (14%), South (47%), West (13%). Ethnic breakdown of the group was White (68%), Black (15%), Hispanic (8%), Asian (3%) and unknown (6%). P practice pattern data were available for both the IC and NC, but R and A data in the NC only. In the IC, the initial P dose was 125 mg (95%), 100 mg (1%) and 75 mg (4%). In the NC, P (n=2329) dose was 125 mg (81%), 100 mg (15%) and 75 mg (4%). Dose reductions were common with 25% and 28% of patients requiring one dose reduction and 16% and 9% of patients requiring two dose reductions in the IC and NC, respectively. In NC patients initially treated with P, 5% were subsequently treated with A and 2% with R. In the NC, A (n=163) was initiated at 200 mg (7%), 150 mg (79%), 100 mg (10%) and 50 mg (4%). One dose reduction was required in 25% of patients and 6% required two dose reductions. Of those initially treated with A, 16% were subsequently treated with P and 1% with R. In the NC, R (n=108) was initiated at 600 mg (81%), 400 mg (8%) and 200 mg (11%). One dose reduction was required in 17% of patients and 2% required two dose reductions. Of those initially treated with R, 7% each were subsequently treated with P and 10% with A. Laboratory adherence was assessed for P only. For the IC, a total of 81 patients were included (mean age 61±13 years, 98% female and 95% White). The NC included 2329 patients (mean age 66±12 years, 99% female and 69% White). Laboratory adherence is listed in the table below: Conclusions: P was the most commonly prescribed CDK 4/6i. Dose reductions were less common with R. Adherence to laboratory monitoring was higher in our institutional cohort than in a national administrative claims database. Initiatives to ensure that labs are drawn at recommended timepoints during P therapy will be important for safety. ICNCC1D193%100%C1D1589%61%C2D191%71%C2D1558%55%C3D199%62%C4D190%55%C5D184%53%C6D178%50%C = cycle, D = day. Citation Format: Jodi Taraba, Kavya Swarna, Allison Golbach, Lindsey Sangaralingham, Kathryn Ruddy, Kristin Mara, Matthew Smith, Tufia Haddad, Karthik Giridhar. Evaluation of CDK 4/6 inhibitor practice patterns and institutional versus national adherence to palbociclib laboratory monitoring in breast cancer patients [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2021 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2021 Dec 7-10; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2022;82(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P3-23-05.

Abstract Assessment of patient out-of-pocket cost for palbociclib therapy in advanced breast cancerBackground:Palbociclib has demonstrated improved outcomes in patients with advanced hormone receptor positive (HR+)/human epidermal growth factor 2 (HER2) negative breast cancer when used in combination with endocrine therapy 1,2. The current average wholesale price of therapy with this medication class exceeds $190,000 per year (at full dose). Financial toxicity is a major concern in the oncology population and can decrease patient quality of life and may result in non-adherence 3,4. Our objective was to describe the out-of-pocket cost burden for patients treated with palbociclib. Methods:A retrospective review of patients newly initiated on palbociclib therapy between May 5, 2018 and May 30, 2019 was completed at our institution. Patients were included if they were 18 years of age and older, newly starting palbociclib for advanced or metastatic HR+/HER2- breast cancer, had US-based insurance, and received palbociclib from our internal specialty pharmacy. Cost information was collected utilizing dispensing reports and additional patient-specific information was obtained from the EHR. Descriptive statistics were performed on the collected data. Results:A total of 44 patients were included in the cost analysis. Primary sources of coverage for these patients included commercial insurance (n=13), Medicare (n=25), and state/federal insurance (n=6). We first assessed costs with primary insurance coverage alone. The sum of all the initial cycle out-of-pocket copays after primary insurance totaled $49,108. The median individual copay was $291, the range was $0 to $2,943, and 9 of the 44 patients had no copay after the primary insurance was applied. The impact of assistance programs, which include independent grant funding, copay cards, vouchers, and secondary Medicaid plans, was significant. After applying primary insurance and aid from assistance programs, the sum of all initial cycle out-of-pocket copays reduced from $49,108 to $3,172. After assistance, 33 of the 44 patients had an initial copay cost of $0. Over 90% of the out-of-pocket total was from two patients (one each with a copay of $2,467 and $497). Ultimately, Mayo Clinic Specialty Pharmacy helped patients avoid $45,851 in first cycle out-of-pocket copays, of which $41,079 and $4,772 were for Medicare and commercially-insured patients, respectively. Copay cost by type of insurance was assessed. All patients with commercial insurance (n=13) had no actual copay for the first cycle. Medicare patients (n=25) are not eligible for copay cards and had larger pre-assistance copays compared to commercial patients (median $2,454 vs. $45). Vouchers or grants were utilized by 16 out of 25 Medicare covered patients. State/Federal insurance included 2 Tricare and 4 Medicaid patients. While ineligible for copay card assistance, the copays for these patients were low, ranging from $0-$28. Standard Medicare D plans do not have an out of pocket maximum for the year. The catastrophic phase requires an ongoing copay of 5% of the total claim cost, resulting in approximately a $600 per month copay for the remainder of the calendar year during the study period. When combined with the first cycle cost of approximately $2500, the yearly out-of-pocket cost for a patient with a standard Medicare D plan is roughly $10,000. Conclusion:Patients initiating therapy with palbociclib are commonly faced with high out-of-pocket costs. The availability, eligibility, and use of financial assistance programs are imperative in decreasing the financial toxicity. Specialty pharmacies play an important role in obtaining financial assistance which leads to decreased out-of-pocket expenses for patients. Citation Format: Allison P Golbach, Matthew D Smith, Jodi L Taraba, Karthik V Giridhar. Assessment of patient out-of-pocket cost for palbociclib therapy in advanced breast cancer [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2020 San Antonio Breast Cancer Virtual Symposium; 2020 Dec 8-11; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2021;81(4 Suppl):Abstract nr PS7-49.