Cook, Curtiss B.

Background: The goal of this study was to assess patient perspectives and satisfaction with the MiniMed 670G insulin pump. Those participants who used the pump as part of a hybrid closed loop were also asked to provide their views on the automatic feature (auto mode). Methods: Adults with type 1 diabetes mellitus using the Medtronic™ 670G pump were asked about their experience with the device using a semi-structured survey developed by the research team. Responses were quantified to identify emergent themes. Results: Seventeen participants used the pump as part of a hybrid closed loop system, while four participants used the pump in combination with a nonintegrated continuous glucose monitoring system. Overall, participants indicated a high level of satisfaction with the pump (14/21) mostly because of improvements in blood glucose (BG) control (15/21). Least liked features were physical design and structure (6/21), frequency of user input (5/21), alert frequency (4/21), and difficulty of use (3/21). Those using the hybrid closed loop were satisfied with the auto mode feature (11/17), mostly because of improvements in BG control (9/17). The least liked features of the auto mode technology were that blood glucose levels remained elevated (5/17) and the frequency of alerts (4/17). Conclusion: Participants indicated a high level of satisfaction with the pump and its auto mode featured mostly because of improvements in BG control. They also pointed out some key aspects of the device that are of potential clinical or commercial relevance. Additional research is needed to further evaluate users' perspectives on this new device.

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.