Ma, Xiaomei

PURPOSE Despite evidence of diagnostic accuracy but unclear long-term clinical benefit, national utilization patterns of prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography (PSMA-PET) are undefined. METHODS We conducted a serial cross-sectional study to evaluate the use of PET imaging among commercial insurance beneficiaries with prostate cancer using administrative claims from deidentified Blue Cross Blue Shield Axis database. Eligible patients included prevalent and incident prostate cancer cases. We calculated the proportions undergoing PET imaging in semiannual periods from January 1, 2016, through December 31, 2024. We examined the association between regional-level contextual sociodemographic and health care characteristics, and regional use of PSMA-PET imaging in 2024. RESULTS A total of 514,750 male beneficiaries age 40-89 years with prostate cancer were identified between 2016 and 2024. The proportion of individuals with prostate cancer undergoing PET imaging increased from 4.5 [95% CI, 4.1 to 4.9] per 1,000 in the first half of 2016 to 77.6 (95% CI, 76.2 to 79.1) per 1,000 in the second half of 2024, P < .001. Increases in PET were driven by uptake of PSMA-PET following approval in 2021, which increased from 0.8 (95% CI, 0.6 to 0.9) per 1,000 in the second half of 2021 to 77.0 (95% CI, 75.5 to 78.5) per 1,000 in the second half of 2024, P < .001. PSMA-PET use in 2024 was higher in regions with greater education (99.3 v 114.6 per 1,000 in lowest [Q1] v highest [Q4] educated) and income (95.4 v 112.3 per 1,000 in Q1 v Q4 income) measures, P < .001. CONCLUSION PSMA-PET was rapidly incorporated into clinical practice among commercial insurance beneficiaries with prostate cancer with higher adoption in geographic regions with higher income and education.

Purpose: Prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography (PSMA-PET) improves prostate cancer (PCa) localization, particularly in biochemical recurrence (BCR). The primary objective was to assess management patterns after PSMA-PET for BCR at 2 academic centers. Methods: This study evaluated clinical management within 6 months after first PSMA-PET for patients with BCR after local therapy. Management categories included no treatment, local therapy, systemic therapy, and metastasis-directed therapy (MDT). We also evaluated clinical management decision variation across strata of PSMA-PET results PSA levels (<2.0, 2.0-4.99, and ≥5.0 ng/mL) at time of imaging. Results: We identified 581 patients who received PSMA-PET from February 2021 to June 2023. PSMA-PET findings were negative in 142 (24%) and demonstrated localized recurrence in 86 (15%), regional nodal disease in 60 (10%), and distant metastasis in 293 (50%). Distant metastasis was identified in 105 (35%) patients with PSA < 2.0, 67 (60%) with PSA 2.0 to 4.99, and 115 (71%) with PSA ≥ 5.0. In patients with negative PSMA-PET, 63 (44%) received treatment. Conversely, 92% with detected metastases were treated (systemic therapy in 189 [64%], MDT in 75 [26%], and local therapy in 7 [2%]). Treatments differed by the PSA level within strata of PSMA-PET findings. Among 293 patients with metastases, MDT was used more commonly in patients with PSA < 2.0 (37%) than PSA 2.0 to 4.99 (30%) or PSA ≥ 5.0 (13%). Conclusions: Most patients undergoing PSMA-PET for BCR had identifiable disease and initiated therapy within 6 months. Identification of distant metastases and treatment choices differed by the PSA level at imaging. Prospective research is needed to determine whether earlier detection and treatment initiation improve clinical outcomes.

34 Background: Prostate specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography (PSMA-PET) imaging improves prostate cancer visualization and has been proposed as a tool to guide treatment decisions. As PSMA-PET imaging agents were not approved in the United States (US) until December 2020, little is known about national patterns of PET imaging utilization. Methods: We conducted a dynamic cohort study to evaluate use of PET imaging among insurance beneficiaries aged 40-89 years with a diagnosis of prostate cancer using deidentified administrative claims from Blue Cross Blue Shield Axis. We calculated the proportions of patients undergoing PET imaging in semiannual periods from January 1, 2016, through December 31, 2022, examining tracers specific to prostate cancer, including PSMA-targeted agents as well as fluciclovine, sodium fluoride, and choline tracers. Cochran-Armitage tests were used to evaluate trends in the proportion of individuals receiving PET imaging over time. We also assessed the association between regional [hospital referral region (HRR)] level contextual sociodemographic and healthcare characteristics and regional use of PSMA-PET imaging in 2022 using chi-square tests. Results: There were 410,505 beneficiaries with prostate cancer identified in the study period. The semiannual proportion of patients undergoing PET imaging increased from 4.5 [(95% confidence interval (CI) 4.1-5.0] per 1,000 in the first half of 2016 to 41.7 (95% CI 40.6-42.9) per 1,000 in the second half of 2022, p<0.001. Increases in PET imaging were driven by uptake of PSMA-PET imaging, which increased from 0.7 (95% CI 0.6-0.9) per 1000 in the second half of 2021 to 37.5 (95% CI 36.4-38.6) per 1,000 in the second half of 2022, p<0.001. Following approvals of PSMA-PET agents, other forms of PET imaging rapidly decreased – from 18.2 (95% CI 17.4-18.9) per 1000 in the second half of 2021 to 4.6 (95% CI 4.3-5.0) per 1,000 in the same period of 2022, p<0.001. Compared to HRRs in quartile 1 (Q1), HRRs in Q4 of PSMA-PET use in 2022 had higher levels of education (25.0% with college education or higher in Q1 versus 29.4% in Q4, p=0.005) and median household income ($50,200 in Q1 versus $60,900 in Q4, p<0.001). Conclusions: In this study from a large commercial US health insurer, PSMA-PET was rapidly incorporated into clinical practice and is now the dominant prostate cancer radiotracer. However, the initial uptake of PSMA-PET may be accompanied by disparity, as our data suggests less use in areas with lower income and education measures.

Abstract Background: Myelofibrosis (MF), polycythemia vera (PV), and essential thrombocythemia (ET), are chronic MPNs associated with a broad array of symptoms that may negatively impact patients’ quality of life (QoL). To enhance patient care, it is important to have a current and clear understanding of how MPNs affect the overall health and daily lives of patients. The MPN LANDMARK SURVEY was developed to examine patients’ perceptions of these MPNs related to disease burden, QoL, productivity, and activities of daily living (ADLs). Methods: Eligible patients diagnosed with an MPN were recruited to participate in an online survey conducted from May–July 2014in the US. Patients were asked about the overall burden of disease and impact of symptoms on their QoL, productivity, and ADLs. Descriptive analyses were conducted to assess these outcomes and examined by calculated (not reported) prognostic risk score (MF - DIPSS: Passamonti, Blood 2010; PV: Tefferi, Leuk 2013; ET - IPSET: Passamonti, Blood 2012) and symptom severity quartiles, which were determined using the MPN Symptom Assessment Form (MPN-SAF) total symptom scores. Results: 813 patients (MF=207; PV=380; ET=226) responded to the survey. A majority of patients were female (MF, 54%; PV, 62%; ET, 72%), approximately half were aged 60–74 years (MF, 55%; PV, 51%; ET, 46%), and most were covered by health insurance (>98%). Nearly half (48%) were diagnosed within the last 5 years and average time to diagnosis from first symptoms was >2 years. A high proportion of patients had intermediate to high prognostic risk scores (MF, 94%; PV, 87%; ET, 44%). The majority of patients reported feeling anxious or worried about their MPN (MF, 91%; PV, 78%; ET, 74%). Among all groups, fatigue was the most severe symptom reported (mean MPN-SAF score=6.0–6.4 on a scale of 0–10). A subset of patients in each group described their symptoms as very severe (severity score ≥7 on a scale of 0–10; MF: fatigue [59%], problems with sexual desire [49%], inactivity [46%]; PV: inactivity [48%], fatigue [49%], problems with sexual desire [49%]; and ET: problems with sexual desire [49%], fatigue [50%], headaches [40%]). The majority of patients reported that MPN-related symptoms reduced their QoL (MF, 81%; PV, 66%; ET, 57%); this was reported in all risk groups but more frequently by patients with a high risk score vs a low risk score in MF and ET (MF, 89% vs 69%; PV, 63% vs 65%; ET, 71% vs 59%). A more substantial QoL impact was reported by patients in high vs low symptom quartiles (MF, 95% vs 51%; PV, 94% vs 33%; ET, 93% vs 15%). Similarly, MPNs also had a marked negative impact on reduced work hours, sick days, voluntary job termination, receipt of medical disability, early retirement, and ADLs (Table 1). For example, among patients employed, approximately one fourth reported missing ≥1 day of work (MF, 29%; PV, 19%; ET, 23%) in the last 30 days before the survey. Even patients with low prognostic risk scores often reported missing ≥1 day of work (MF, 33%; PV, 23%; ET, 22%) or cancelling ≥1 day of planned activities (MF, 46%; PV, 35%; ET, 34%). Patients in the high vs low symptom quartiles were more likely to call in sick to work (MF, 48% vs 0%; PV, 52% vs 4%; ET, 38% vs 0%) or cancel ≥1 day of planned activities (MF, 77% vs 5%; PV, 56% vs 7%; ET, 67% vs 3%). Conclusion: The findings from this large, first-of-its-kind survey demonstrate a marked burden of disease across all 3 MPNs that is not limited to symptoms but extends to QoL, productivity, and ADLs. Although high prognostic risk scores have long been associated with a significant burden of disease, in this study, patients with a low risk score also reported significant burden. The symptom burden reported is consistent with previous studies, thus validating the present dataset. MPN treatment considerations should include reducing the symptom burden and improving QoL and productivity to enhance the overall health and lives of MPN patients. Disclosures Mesa: Incyte Corporation: Research Funding; CTI: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Eli Lilly: Research Funding; Promedior: Research Funding; NS Pharma: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Miller:Incyte Corporation: Honoraria, Research Funding. Thyne:Incyte Corporation: Speakers Bureau. Mangan:Incyte Corporation: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Alexion Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Goldberger:Incyte Corporation: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Fazal:Incyte Corporation: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Ma:Incyte Corporation: Consultancy. Wilson:Incyte Corporation: Honoraria. Dubinski:Incyte Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Boyle:ICF International: Employment, Equity Ownership. Mascarenhas:Incyte Corporation: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation: Research Funding.

Abstract Background : Patients diagnosed with myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPNs), including myelofibrosis (MF), polycythemia vera (PV), and essential thrombocythemia (ET), experience disease burdens that can negatively affect their quality of life. Disconnects between patient and physician perceptions of disease burden or poor patient-physician communication may delay or prevent achievement of treatment goals. The MPN LANDMARK SURVEY is the first large US-based survey designed to evaluate disease burden and patient-physician communication in MPN disease settings. Methods : All eligible patients diagnosed with 1 of the 3 MPNs and physicians treating patients with MPNs that were recruited were surveyed in the US during May-July 2014.The surveys included ≤67 questions (depending on the type of MPN and respondent) and required approximately 20–25 minutes to complete. Descriptive analyses were conducted to identify gaps in perceptions of disease burden and patient-physician communication. Results : The MPN LANDMARK SURVEY was completed by 813 patients (MF=207; PV=380; ET=226) and 457 physicians. Approximately half of the patients were 60–74 years of age (MF, 55%; PV, 51%; ET, 46%), the majority were female (MF, 54%; PV, 62%; ET, 72%) and had a degree from a 4-year college or postgraduate institution (MF, 65%; PV, 65%; ET, 58%), and >98% had health insurance. The majority of physicians graduated from medical school 5–24 years before the survey (67%) and practiced in outpatient settings (single specialty groups, 42%; academic hospitals, 31%). Patient-physician communication gaps were identified in several important areas: (1) Prognostic assessment: most patients did not recall receiving a prognostic risk score, but most physicians reported classifying patients by prognostic risk (Table 1). (2) Symptom assessment: physicians were more likely than patients to report that physicians ask about patients' most important disease-related symptoms or about a full and comprehensive list of symptoms (Table 1). (3) Treatment goals: the most important treatment goals were different in MF (patients: delay disease progression; physicians: improve symptoms) and PV (patients: delay disease progression; physicians: prevent vascular/thrombotic events) settings (Table 2). Patients and physicians in the ET setting both reported that prevention of vascular/thrombotic events was the most important treatment goal. Patients and physicians in the MF and PV settings reported fatigue as the most pressing disease manifestation that patients would like to resolve (MF: patients, 47%; physicians, 65%; PV: patients, 33%; physicians, 31%), whereas patients and physicians differed in the ET setting (patients: fatigue, 33%; physicians: stroke, 29%). Most patients reported a desire to be ≥50% responsible for their treatment decisions (MF, 72%; PV, 71%; ET, 75%). Physicians reported that most patients sometimes or often did not wish to comply with their primary treatment recommendation (MF, 77%; PV, 84%; ET, 79%). (4) Treatment satisfaction: overall, more than one third of patients were “somewhat satisfied” or “dissatisfied” with their physician's communication about their condition and treatment (MF, 34%; PV, 43%; ET, 45%) and with their physician's overall management of their disease (MF, 36%; PV, 40%; ET, 42%). Among patients who changed their MPN doctor (MF, 47%; PV, 46%; ET, 56%), dissatisfaction with prior care received was the most frequently reported reason for the change (MF, 40%; PV, 37%; ET, 33%). Approximately one fifth to one fourth of patients included their doctor's office among the most helpful sources of information about their diagnosis (MF, 27%; PV, 22%; ET, 20%), and most patients included the internet among the most helpful sources (MF, 90%; PV, 87%; ET, 89%). Conclusion : Important disconnects exist between patients' and physicians' perceptions in MPN disease settings. In addition, the majority of physicians report classifying patients by prognostic risk, including PV and ET settings, which do not have widely accepted prognostic risk scores. Although physicians generally appreciate the burden that MPNs have on patients, patient management may be enhanced with improved elucidation of patient symptoms and clear communication regarding the goals and potential benefits of interventions. Disclosures Mesa: Incyte Corporation: Research Funding; CTI: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Eli Lilly: Research Funding; Promedior: Research Funding; NS Pharma: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Miller:Incyte Corporation: Honoraria, Research Funding. Thyne:Incyte Corporation: Speakers Bureau. Mangan:Incyte Corporation: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Alexion Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Goldberger:Incyte Corporation: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Fazal:Incyte Corporation: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Ma:Incyte Corporation: Consultancy. Wilson:Incyte Corporation: Honoraria. Dubinski:Incyte Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Boyle:ICF International: Employment, Equity Ownership. Mascarenhas:Novartis Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Incyte Corporation: Consultancy, Research Funding.

BACKGROUNDThis analysis of the myeloproliferative neoplasm (MPN) Landmark survey evaluated gaps between patient perceptions of their disease management and physician self‐reported practices.METHODSThe survey included 813 patient respondents who had MPNs (myelofibrosis [MF], polycythemia vera [PV], or essential thrombocythemia [ET]) and 457 hematologist/oncologist respondents who treated patients with these conditions.RESULTSGreater proportions of physician respondents reported using prognostic risk classifications (MF, 83%; PV, 59%; ET, 77%) compared with patient recollections (MF, 54%; PV, 17%; ET, 31%). Most physician respondents reported that their typical symptom assessments included asking patients about the most important symptoms or a full list of symptoms, whereas many patient respondents reported less specific assessments (eg, they were asked how they were feeling). Many patient respondents did not recognize common symptoms as MPN‐related. For example, approximately one‐half or more did not believe difficulty sleeping resulted from their MPN (MF, 49%; PV, 64%; ET, 76%). Physician respondents underestimated the proportion of patients who had symptomatic PV or ET at diagnosis compared with patient respondents. There was discordance regarding treatment goals: among patient respondents with MF or PV, “slow/delay progression of condition” was the most important treatment goal, whereas physician respondents reported “symptom improvement” and “prevention of vascular/thrombotic events,” respectively. Finally, more than one‐third of patient respondents were not “very satisfied” with their physician's overall management/communication.CONCLUSIONSThe care and satisfaction of patients with MPN may be improved with increased patient education and improved patient‐physician communication. Cancer 2017;123:449–458. © 2016 The Authors. Cancer published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of American Cancer Society.

Abstract Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have identified SNPs in six genes that are associated with childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL). A lead SNP was found to occur on chromosome 9p21.3, a region that is deleted in 30% of childhood ALLs, suggesting the presence of causal polymorphisms linked to ALL risk. We used SNP genotyping and imputation-based fine-mapping of a multiethnic ALL case–control population (Ncases = 1,464, Ncontrols = 3,279) to identify variants of large effect within 9p21.3. We identified a CDKN2A missense variant (rs3731249) with 2% allele frequency in controls that confers three-fold increased risk of ALL in children of European ancestry (OR, 2.99; P = 1.51 × 10−9) and Hispanic children (OR, 2.77; P = 3.78 × 10−4). Moreover, of 17 patients whose tumors displayed allelic imbalance at CDKN2A, 14 preferentially retained the risk allele and lost the protective allele (PBinomial = 0.006), suggesting that the risk allele provides a selective advantage during tumor growth. Notably, the CDKN2A variant was not significantly associated with melanoma, glioblastoma, or pancreatic cancer risk, implying that this polymorphism specifically confers ALL risk but not general cancer risk. Taken together, our findings demonstrate that coding polymorphisms of large effect can underlie GWAS “hits” and that inherited polymorphisms may undergo directional selection during clonal expansion of tumors. Cancer Res; 75(22); 4884–94. ©2015 AACR.