Yu, James B.

1079 Background: Brain metastases (BM) are a common and fatal complication of breast cancer but survival varies widely based on various prognostic factors (PF). Hence, patient counseling and therapeutic decisions should be individualized. We previously published a prognostic index (Breast GPA) based on cohort A (1985-2007, n = 642), updated it with tumor subtype in cohort B (1993-2010, n = 400) and are now updating it with a larger contemporary cohort (C). Methods: A multi-institutional (19) multi-national (3) retrospective database of 2473 breast cancer patients with BM diagnosed from 1/1/2006-12/31/2017 was created and compared to our prior cohorts. Demographic, clinical, molecular factors, tumor subtype and treatment were correlated with survival. Kaplan-Meier survival estimates were calculated and compared with log-rank tests. Results: The median survival (MS) for cohorts A, B and C improved over time [12, 14 and 16 mo, respectively ( < 0.01)] despite the subtype distribution becoming less favorable: Luminal B (ER/PR/HER2+) decreased from 26% to 21%; HER2 (HER2+/ER/PR-) decreased from 31% to 17%, Luminal A (ER/PR+/HER2-) increased from 20% to 31%; Basal (ER/PR/HER2-) was unchanged at 24%.MS by subtype improved from 21 to 27 mo in Luminal B, 18 to 25 mo in HER2, 10 to 14 mo in Luminal A and 6 to 9 mo in Basal tumors. The number of BM was 1 in 35%, ≤4 in 67% and > 10 in 18%. PF significant for survival were tumor subtype, age, KPS, number of BM and extracranial metastases (ECM) (all < 0.01). Surprisingly, Hispanic women (7%) showed improved survival (p < 0.01). BRCA1 was mutated in 57/533 (11%) and those patients showed a trend (0.16) toward improved survival. Treatment patterns have changed: the use of whole brain radiation therapy decreased from 71% to 67% to 47% in cohorts A, B and C, respectively. Conclusions: Despite the shift to less favorable tumor subtypes, MS has improvedbut varies widely by diagnosis-specific PF. Compared to prior cohorts, number of BM and ECM were identified as new PF. Ethnic, genetic and treatment differences between the eras are apparent. The updated Breast GPA, based on these data, and the correlation between BRCA1 and tumor subtype will be presented.

167 Background: Physicians have a variety of resources available about the treatment of localized prostate cancer. Yet, it is largely unknown what resources and evidence radiation oncologists and urologists commonly use to inform patients and possibly alter clinical practice. In this national survey study, we assessed the types of resources prostate cancer specialists’ use and the level of evidence needed to change treatment recommendations in localized prostate cancer. Methods: From a random sample, 1,422 physicians were sent a mail survey assessing what type of information was used to guide prostate cancer treatment. The survey also queried what level of evidence could alter recommendations. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to identify for differences in physician characteristics for each outcome. Results: Survey response rates were similar for radiation oncologists and urologists (44% vs. 46%; p=0.46). Specialty-specific journals represented the most commonly used resource to inform the clinical practice for radiation oncologists (65%) and urologists (70%). Relative to radiation oncologists, urologists were less likely to utilize medical journals (25% vs. 38.7%, OR: 0.50; p=0.01), cancer journals (21.7% vs. 50.8%, OR: 0.50; p<0.001), but more likely to rely on clinical guidelines (46.3% vs. 37.7%,OR: 1.6; p=0.006). Radiation oncologists and urologists both viewed RCT’s as the most likely source of evidence needed to change treatment recommendations (85% vs. 77%). Conclusions: Both specialties most commonly rely on their specialty-specific journals to inform their clinical practice and view RCT’s as the level of evidence needed to change treatment recommendations for localized prostate cancer. Radiation oncologists embraced greater diversity in literature, while urologists were more likely to use clinical guidelines. Utilizing this information may overcome barriers to the dissemination and adoption of new treatment paradigms for localized prostate cancer.

89 Background: Lymph node counts have been proposed as a quality metric for patients undergoing radical prostatectomy (RP) and pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND). It is unclear whether surgical approach and hospital characteristics independently determine the number of lymph nodes removed at PLND. Therefore, we assessed the variation in lymph node counts from a population-based cohort of patients undergoing surgery for intermediate and high-risk prostate cancer. Methods: Using the National Cancer Database, we identified all surgically treated patients diagnosed with pre-treatment intermediate or high-risk prostate cancer from 2010 to 2011. The primary outcome was the number of lymph nodes retrieved at the time of RP. Generalized estimating equations were used to assess for differences in the adjusted number of lymph nodes retrieved after accounting for patient and hospital characteristics and surgical approach. Results: Overall, 35,876 patients were diagnosed with intermediate (61.2%) and high-risk (38.8%) prostate cancer and underwent RP and PLND. On multivariable analysis, open radical prostatectomy (ORP) and high volume and academic hospitals were independently associated with greater lymph node counts compared to robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) and medium/low and community hospitals, respectively (all p<0.001). After adjusting for patient and hospital variables, higher adjusted lymph nodes counts were observed for ORP compared to RARP (7.1 vs. 6.1; p<0.001). Adjusted counts were also higher for high volume compared to medium/low volume hospitals (7.8 vs. 5.9; p<0.001), and academic compared to community hospitals (7.3 vs. 5.6; p<0.001). Conclusions: Among patients with aggressive prostate cancer treated with RP and PLND, lymph node counts varied by surgical approach and hospital characteristics.

Purpose:To quantify the burden and complexity associated with treatment of Medicare beneficiaries with stage I non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC).Methods:Using the SEER-Medicare database, we conducted a retrospective cohort study of Medicare beneficiaries who were diagnosed with stage I NSCLC from 2007 to 2011 and who were treated with surgery, stereotactic body radiation therapy, or external beam radiation therapy. Main outcome measures were the number of days a patient was in contact with the health care system (encounter days), the number of physicians involved in a patient’s care, and the number of medications prescribed. Logistic regression modeled the association between patient characteristics, treatment type, and high treatment burden (defined as ≥ 66 encounter days).Results:On average, 7,955 patients spent 1 in 3 days interacting with the health care system during the initial 60 days of treatment. Patients experienced a median of 44 encounter days with high variability (interquartile range [IQR], 29 to 66) in the 12 months after treatment initiation. The median number of physicians involved was 20 (IQR, 14 to 28), and the median number of medications prescribed was 12 (IQR, 8 to 17). Patients who were treated with surgery had high treatment burden (predicted probability, 21.6%; 95% CI, 20.2 to 23.1) compared with patients who were treated with stereotactic body radiation therapy (predicted probability, 16.1%; 95% CI, 12.9 to 19.3), whereas patients who were treated with external beam radiation therapy had the highest burden (predicted probability, 46.8%; 95% CI, 43.3 to 50.2).Conclusion:The treatment burden imposed on patients with early-stage NSCLC was substantial in terms of the number of encounters, physicians involved, and medications prescribed. Because treatment burden varied markedly across patients and treatment types, future work should identify opportunities to understand and ameliorate this burden.