Majeed, Umair

4079 Background: Cell-free circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) holds significant promise and is being used for clinical decision making in multiple tumors. This study aimed to evaluate the prognostic value of pre-treatment ctDNA in metastatic biliary tract cancers (BTC) treated with platinum based first-line chemotherapy treatment. Methods: We performed a retrospective analysis of 67 patients who underwent ctDNA testing before platinum-based chemotherapy for first-line treatment for metastatic BTC. For analysis we considered the detected gene with highest variant allele frequency (VAF). Results of ctDNA analysis were correlated with patients’ demographics, progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Results: The median age of patients was 67 y/o (27-90). 54 (80.6%) of 67 patients evaluated had intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma; seven had extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma and six gallbladder cancer. 46 (68.6%) of the patients were treated with cisplatin plus gemcitabine, 14 (21%) patients received gemcitabine and other platinum (carboplatin or oxaliplatin) combinations while 7 (10.4%) patients were treated on a clinical trial with gemcitabine and cisplatin plus additional targeted agents (CX4945 or PEGPH20). TP53, KRAS, APC, FGFR2 and IDH1 were the genes with highest frequency as dominant clone. The median dominant clone allele frequency (DCAF) was 3% (0-97%). DCAF >3% was associated with statistically significant worse PFS (median PFS: 4.05 vs. 7.70 months, p=0.046) and OS (median OS: 10.8 vs. 18.8 months, p=0.056). Each 1% increase in DCAF is associated with a hazard ratio of 26.21 in OS when adjusting for subtypes, age, treatment type, and CA19-9 [Table]. Conclusions: Patients with metastatic BTC with DCAF > 3% at diagnosis have worse PFS and OS compared to patients with low ctDNA when treated with upfront platinum-based chemotherapy.[Table: see text]

Abstract Abstract Importance: The benefit of routine screening for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infections in patients with cancer before cancer-directed therapies is unclear. Herein, we characterize the outcomes of a cohort of cancer patients diagnosed with Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) by routine screening in comparison with those diagnosed based on clinical suspicion or exposure history (non-routine screening). Objective: To describe and compare the outcomes of cancer patients diagnosed with COVID-19 on routine screening vs. non-routine screening at a multi-site tertiary cancer center. To identify risk factors for COVID-19-related hospital admission. Design: A multi-site prospective observational study was conducted between March 18 and July 31, 2020. Setting: Three major and 5 satellite campuses of the Mayo Clinic Cancer Center. Participants: Adult patients diagnosed with active cancer within the past five years and confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection were included. Primary Outcomes and Measures: Clinical and laboratory data were assessed as independent variables. The primary outcome was COVID-19-related hospital admission. Secondary outcomes included intensive care unit (ICU) admissions and all-cause mortality. Results: Between March 18 and July 31, 2020, 5452 patients underwent routine screening in the outpatient setting, 44 (0.81%) were diagnosed with COVID-19. Routine screening detected additional 19 patients from inpatient and pre-procedural settings; 161 patients were diagnosed with COVID-19 based on non-routine screening. The median age of the entire cohort at diagnosis was 54 years, and 95 patients (42.2%) were female. COVID-19 related-hospitalization rate (17.5% vs. 26.7%, p=0.14), ICU admission (1.6% vs. 5.6%, p=0.19), and mortality (4.8% vs. 3.7%, p=0.72) were not significantly different between routine screening and non-routine screening groups. In the multivariable analysis, age ≥ 60 years (odds ratio: 4.4, p=0.023) and an absolute lymphocyte count ≤1.4 × 109/L (odds ratio: 9.2, p=0.002) were independent predictors of COVID-19-related hospital admission. Conclusions and Relevance: The COVID-19 positivity rate was low based on routine screening. Comparing the outcome with the non-routine screening cohort, there was no significant difference. These results led to an important practice change at our cancer center. We currently follow a testing strategy based on symptoms, exposure, risk factors, and clinical judgment. Citation Format: Zhuoer Xie, Antoine N. Saliba, Jithma Abeykoon, Umair Majeed, Daniel Almquist, Julia Wiedmeier-Nutor, Evandro Bezerra, Xavier Andrade-Gonzalez, Ashley Hickman, Karl Sorenson, Sagar Rakshit, Christopher Wee, Sri Tella, Anuhya Kommalapati, Nadine Abdallah, Joshua Pritchett, Mariza De Andrade, Dipesh Uprety, Andrew Badley, Joleen Hubbard, Naseema Gangat, Carrie A. Thompson, Thomas Witzig, Robert R. McWilliams, Konstantinos Leventakos, Thorvardur R. Halfdanarson. Outcomes of COVID-19 in patients with cancer: Results of a prospective observational comparison of routine screening strategy versus testing based on clinical suspicion [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the AACR Virtual Meeting: COVID-19 and Cancer; 2021 Feb 3-5. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Clin Cancer Res 2021;27(6_Suppl):Abstract nr S06-03.

With the advent of targeted therapy for non-small-cell lung cancer, there are many new available treatment options for patients whose cancer harbors an actionable mutation or alteration. These new medications come with numerous side effects, for some of which, the management is not well defined. Alectinib is a second-generation tyrosine kinase inhibitor approved for stage-IV lung adenocarcinoma with anaplastic lymphoma kinase gene rearrangement. Severe (⩾Grade 3) skin rash is a rare side effect of alectinib. Reintroducing alectinib in patients with severe skin rash is not well defined in the medical literature. While other case reports have outlined their approach and desensitization protocol, the maximum dose that patients were titrated up to in a desensitization protocol was 300 mg twice daily. Here, we report a case of Grade 3 skin rash secondary to alectinib, and our experience in managing the rash and reintroducing alectinib with a unique desensitization protocol to a max of 600 mg twice daily (full dose). This case could provide further guidance to oncologists managing patients with this adverse event and may aid in reducing concerns to both patients and physicians about recurrence of skin rash at the maximum dose.

230 Background: Inpatient mortality review is commonly used to improve patient care. Individual review of outpatient deaths is less common, yet 30-day mortality after hospital stay is an important quality metric. In this study, we sought to identify opportunities for care improvement by reviewing outpatient mortalities for cancer patients who died within 30 days of hospitalization. Methods: We identified 48 patients at Mayo Clinic Florida, with a hematologic (heme) or solid tumor (onc) cancer, who died within 30 days of an index hospital stay in 2018. We created a 32-question review survey to address quality of care around the hospital stay. The review team consisted of 1) heme or onc attendings, 2) heme/onc fellows, and 3) palliative care attendings. Each case was reviewed by one member of each of the 3 groups, split into heme or onc cases. Discrepancies in objective data points were resolved by the research team. Results: Of 143 surveys sent to 13 physicians (3 heme), 112 responses from 11 physicians (1 heme) for 47 patients were received. Twenty-one patients (45%) received cancer therapy within 30 days of death, and 23 (49%) were admitted >2 times in 2 months prior to death. For onc cases, attendings rated prognosis as discussed 83% of the time, vs 65% of fellows and 39% of palliative care; in heme cases, the attending rated prognosis as discussed 11% of the time, vs 86% of fellows and 50% of palliative care. In heme cases, the attending rated expected survival <3 months in 33% of cases vs 71% by fellows and 89% by palliative care; in onc cases, the reviews were more consistent (79% attending, 85% fellow, 93% palliative care). See Table for timing of prognosis discussions and palliative care involvement. Conclusions: The most common improvement opportunities identified by reviewing heme/onc patients who died within 30 days of a hospital stay included documented prognosis discussion and involvement of palliative care. Opportunities differed between heme and onc patients. Future directions include identifying and mitigating barriers that providers face in reaching these goals for their patients. [Table: see text]

e19088 Background: Significant disparities in the stage at diagnosis and survival outcomes exist between various groups diagnosed with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) based on sex, race, insurance coverage, and marital status. Previously published data shows disparities more in patients who are African-American, Asian and low income. Little data has been published on factors that influence timeliness to treatment initiation in patients diagnosed with HCC. Methods: Retrospective analysis was performed on 96,586 patients diagnosed with HCC from 2004-2014 using data in the National Cancer Database (NCDB). Time to treatment was divided into two categories: ≤40 days (early, n = 66322) and > 40 days (late, n = 30264). We carried out univariate and multivariate analyses to compare demographic, clinical, treatment, and facility-related factors influencing the timeliness of treatment initiation in HCC. Results: Univariate analysis revealed a significant difference in time to treatment initiation based on age, race, income, insurance status, type of area, geographic region, type of facility, and cancer stage (P < 0.001). Multivariate analysis showed that household income < $30,000/year, Pacific region, urban area of residence, black race, age 70-79 years old or ≥80 years old, academic centers, stage II disease and medicaid insurance were all factors with longer time to treatment initiation. Discussion: HCC is the sixth most common cancer and the second leading cause of cancer mortality worldwide. The 5-year relative survival for localized, regional, and distant stages are 32.6%, 10.8% and 2.4% respectively. In our results we noted significant disparities in time to treatment with respect to various socioeconomic factors. These results are comparable to that reported in other cancer types. Further subgroup analysis of our data shows 2581 patients who received their first treatment after 200 days. In a similar study done in Taiwan, those treated more than 181 days and 61–180 days after diagnosis had a 1.68 and a 1.39 increased risk of death respectively, which were statistically significant. Many factors contribute to delayed treatment, some of which are difficult to circumvent, however where possible efforts should be made to overcome these. Conclusions: Various socioeconomic factors were found to affect the time to treatment initiation in HCC patients. The next step would be to strategically implement policies and practices to address these factors.

SummaryImmunoglobulin light‐chain (AL) amyloidosis is a clonal plasma cell disorder characterised by production and deposition of misfolded monoclonal light chains in vital organs with potential to cause irreversible organ damage. The treatment of AL amyloidosis has evolved along the lines of multiple myeloma (MM) owing to clonal plasma cells being at the root of both disease processes. Treatment with melphalan and autologous haematopoietic cell transplantation, as well as proteasome inhibitors and immunomodulatory agents, are the standard of care for AL amyloidosis. While these treatment modalities are highly effective against the neoplastic plasma cells, patients often relapse and those with advanced disease may be unable to tolerate these treatments due to side‐effects. Immunotherapy with monoclonal antibodies, bispecific antibodies, antibody–drug conjugates and chimeric antigen receptor T cells have revolutionised the treatment armamentarium for MM. These novel immunotherapy agents are in the early phases of evaluation and clinical development for patients with AL amyloidosis. The present review aims to discuss the role of novel immunotherapies currently in development and their potential for use in the treatment of AL amyloidosis.