Kaleem, Tasneem

122 Background: Mixed response (MR) to systemic therapy is common and associated with a poor prognosis. MR often represents a therapeutic dilemma resulting in the discontinuation of a therapy to which a portion of the tumor is still sensitive, due to the emergence of resistance in other metastatic deposits. We hypothesize that discordant responses in patients receiving immunotherapy may be associated with genomic variation within discordant tumors. Methods: We defined MR with the following criteria: 1) At least one tumor has increased in size while another tumor has decreased; 2) One or more tumors have remained stable while another has increased; 3) One or more tumors have remained stable while another has decreased. 4) A new tumor has developed while other tumors have decreased or remained stable. Between 2012 and 2017, we identified 112 patients with a MR. Two patients with metastatic lung cancer, treated with nivolumab underwent paired, simultaneous sampling of discordant tumors. Results: Both patients treated with nivolumab demonstrated genomic heterogeneity between discordant tumors on next-generation sequencing, including one patient with SCLC. Conclusions: MR remains a common and challenging therapeutic quandary. Genomic heterogeneity and differences in TMB of metastatic tumors demonstrating a MR, may be factors that contribute to this phenomenon. Further characterization of genomic discrepancies in MR may provide insights into mechanisms of emerging resistance, as well as, more rational and effective combinatorial therapies.[Table: see text]

PURPOSE: Quality payment programs aim to adjust payments on the basis of quality and cost; however, few quality metrics exist in radiation oncology. This study evaluates and predicts the top spenders (TS) after radiation therapy (RT). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patient characteristics, cancer details, treatments, toxicity, and survival data were collected for patients treated with RT at Mayo Clinic from 2007 to 2016. Standardized costs were obtained and adjusted for inflation. TSs were identified as those with greater than 93rd percentile costs (≥ $120,812). Prediction models were developed to predict TSs using training and validation sets using information available at consultation, after RT, and at last follow-up. RESULTS: A total of 15,131 patients were included and 1,065 TSs identified. Mean cost overall was $55,290 (median, $39,996) for all patients. Prediction models 1, 2, and 3 had concordance statistics of 0.83 to 0.83, 0.85 to 0.85, and 0.87 to 0.88, respectively in training and validation, indicating excellent prediction of TSs. Factors that were most predictive of TSs included stage N/A and stage 4 ( v stage 0; odds ratio [OR], 18.23 and 8.44, respectively; P < .001); hematologic, upper GI, skin and lung cancers ( v breast; OR, 11.45, 7.69, 3.81, and 2.43, respectively; P < .01); immunotherapy, surgery, and chemotherapy use (OR, 4.36, 2.51, and 1.61, respectively; P < .01); hospitalizations within 90 days of RT (OR, 2.26; P < .01); or death during the episode (OR, 1.56; P < .01). CONCLUSION: This is the first study of its kind to predict with high accuracy the highest spenders in radiation oncology. These patients may benefit from pre-emptive management to mitigate costs, or may require exclusion or adjustment from quality payment programs.

6633 Background: Quality based payment programs in medicine are currently being introduced nationally, aimed to improve care and reduce cost. This study aimed to evaluate the top spenders (TS) after cancer diagnosis and predict TS at two separate time points using predictive analytics. Methods: Patient characteristics, cancer details, treatments, adverse events, and outcomes were collected for patients treated for cancer at Mayo Clinic from 2007 - 2017. Standardized costs over a 2 year period after first treatment were obtained from the Mayo Clinic Cost Data Warehouse with Medicare reimbursements assigned to all services and adjusted to the 2017 GDP Implicit Price Deflator for inflation. TS were identified as those with greater than 93rd percentile costs (≥$113,158) due to a sharp rise in cost at that level. Descriptive statistics and univariate analysis were used for comparison. A prediction model with a training (80%) and validation set (20%) using multivariate selection was used to predict TS and was repeated using information available at 1) the time of consultation and 2) at last follow-up. Results: A total of 80,385 patients were included and 5,626 TS were identified. Mean cost (25th, 75th percentile) overall was $44,953 ($16,776, $51,889). Prediction models at time 1 and 2 had ROC AUC statistics of 0.82 and 0.89 in training and 0.82 and 0.88 in the validation indicating good prediction of high costs. Factors most predictive of TS included need for blood transfusions within 90 days of treatment (OR 5.3), bone marrow transplant (OR 4.0), mild liver disease (OR 3.5), hemiplegia (OR 3.4), weight loss > 10% within 90 days of treatment (OR 3.3), upper GI cancer (OR 3.0), ‘other’ cancer type (OR 2.8), immunotherapy use (OR 2.7), and hospitalizations within 90 days (OR 2.4), all p < 0.001, among others. The largest costs were due to hospital services in the TS and non-TS groups, mean costs $114,258 and $13,185 respectively. Conclusions: This is the first study to predict with high accuracy the top spenders in Oncology. Patient comorbidities and toxicities were among the strongest predictors of high costs, along with certain treatments (bone marrow transplant and immunotherapy). Our findings suggest that quality payment programs should adjust for comorbidities, and that reducing toxicity may be an effective method at reducing costs.

Introduction: Individuals receiving systemic anticancer therapies for advanced solid tumors routinely undergo imaging studies to assess the efficacy of the treatment. Mixed response (MR) to cancer therapy is a common but poorly described phenomenon. There is a paucity of data regarding both the incidence and possible mechanisms of this clinical quandary. Potential etiologies include tumor heterogeneity, differences in tumor microenvironment, and discrepancies in drug delivery to different tumor deposits. It is also possible that MR simply reflects differences in the rate of resistance emerging. MR represents a therapeutic dilemma for the clinician. Methods: Mixed tumor response was defined as: One tumor decreasing in size; one tumor increasing in size (classified as RECIST response/progressions), One tumor stable; another tumor progressing, One tumor stable; another tumor responding, New tumor; another tumor responding or remaining stable. Between 2015 and 2017, 120 restaging CT scans were reviewed of patients who had received at least 1 line of therapy for advanced cancer diagnosis which showed MR; hematologic malignancies were excluded. Charts were reviewed to determine the clinical decision that was made at the time of the MR. Results: A total of 120 scans with MR were reviewed from various solid tumor diagnoses. 38 scans were excluded due to loss of follow-up or death. Of the remaining 82 scans, therapy was switched in 30, the same therapy was continued in 50, and an additional agent was added to the current treatment in 2 cases (Table). Of the patients in which treatment was switched, 20% (6/30) showed response to treatment on the following scan. Of the cases that were kept on current treatment, none showed response on the following restaging scan which was done 6–8 weeks later. There were 4 (10%) deaths prior to the next scan in the group that had treatment switched and similarly 5 deaths (10%) prior to the next scan in the group in which treatment remained the same. Conclusion: MR is associated with a poor prognosis, irrespective of treatment decisions. These data are retrospective and our sample size is small, so definitive conclusions cannot be drawn. However, changing therapy when a MR is observed may be of benefit to some patients. A prospective evaluation to more accurately describe and understand the MR phenomenon is warranted.

145 Background: Palliative radiation treatment (pRT) is used for symptomatic bone metastases (mets). Several fractionation schedules show equal efficacy for pain relief, and ASTRO’s Choosing Wisely recommends 8Gy x1, 4Gy x5, or 3Gy x10. This study aims to investigate the cost implications of pRT for bone mets. Methods: Patients (Pts) treated with pRT for bone mets at Mayo Clinic from 2007 - 2016 were included in this study. Costs for all services were subdivided into RT and total costs at 30 & 90 days (30D & 90D). Standardized costs were obtained from the Mayo Clinic Cost Data Warehouse and Medicare reimbursements were assigned to all services with cost to charge adjustments and 2017 GDP Implicit Price Deflator for inflation. Cost means were compared via the Kruskal-Wallis test. Results: 538 pts were treated with pRT, 124 receiving 8Gy x1, 204 receiving 4Gy x5, and 210 receiving 3Gy x10. Pts with breast and prostate cancer were most likely to be treated with 3Gy x10 and pts with GI and lung cancer were most likely to be treated with 8Gy x1. RT costs at 30D were $1,497, $1,891, and $1,982 (p=0.03) and RT costs at 90D were $2,602, $2,753, and $3,032 (p=0.08) for initial RT regimens of 8Gy x1, 4Gy x5, and 3Gy x10. Total costs of care at 30D were similar from $15,969 - 17,687 (p=0.6) and total costs at 90D were similar from $22,361 - 23,219 (p=0.7) between arms. A total of 23%, 28%, and 39% of pts were alive 2 years following pRT from each arm (p=0.07). Conclusions: This is the first study of its kind to analyze actual treatment costs for the three most common pRT regimens in bone mets. Single fraction RT was most used for pts with poor prognoses and was associated with lower RT costs at 30D, but similar RT costs at 90D, possibly due to retreatment. RT choice had no impact on overall costs of care at 30D or 90D. pRT remains of high value, representing only 11-13% of total costs.[Table: see text]

126 Background: Palliative radiation treatment (pRT) is a common and effective treatment for patients with symptomatic bone metastases. However, patients receiving RT for bone metastases often may have a poor performance status and are more likely to experience toxicity during or after treatment. This study aims to investigate the number and type of toxicity event occurring during or after pRT for bone metastases. Methods: Patients treated with RT for bone metastases at Mayo Clinic from 2007 to 2016 were included in this study. Demographic, disease, treatment, and toxicity information were collected. Specifically, toxicity events were identified as emergency department (ED) visits and inpatient hospitalization (IH) within 90 days, breaks in treatment >4 days, and excessive 30 day financial toxicity defined as standardized Medicare costs >1 standard deviation above the mean. RT treatment was compared by dose and fractionation via descriptive statistics. Results: A total of 538 patients treated with pRT were identified, 124 receiving 8Gy x1, 204 receiving 4Gy x5, and 210 receiving 3Gy x10. Patients with breast and prostate cancer were most likely to be treated with 3Gy x10 and patients with GI and Lung cancer were most likely to be treated with 8Gy x1. A description of the patient characteristics and toxicities are shown in Table 1. For 8Gy x1, 4Gy x5, and 3Gy x10 breaks in treatment were rare (0%, 2%, and 3.3%), ED visits (15%, 24%, & 28%), IH (12%, 23%, & 19%), and financial toxicity (13%, 18%, & 21%) were common. A total of 22.6%, 27.5%, and 38.6% of patients were alive two years following pRT from each group. Conclusions: Toxicity during or shortly after pRT of bone metastases is common. This study confirms that additional steps should be taken to monitor and mitigate toxicity in this vulnerable patient group. [Table: see text]

147 Background: Prostate cancer patients treated with external beam radiation therapy are instructed to present daily with a full bladder to decrease small bowel and bladder toxicity and to increase reproducibility of treatment. However, older patients may have difficulty presenting with full bladders and variation of bladder volume with treatment is unknown. The objective of this study was to assess bladder filling at the time of radiation treatment (RT) using a bladder ultrasound in patients undergoing treatment for prostate cancer. Methods: Patients with prostate cancer were prospectively enrolled prior to CT simulation from January to August 2017. Bladder volume was recorded during CT simulation and daily immediately prior to RT. Patients were instructed to drink 8-12 ounces of water 30-60 minutes prior to RT. Three bladder volume measurements were recorded daily and averaged at the time of each treatment. Average bladder volume during treatment and the number of treatments with low bladder volumes ( < 50cc, < 60cc, and < 100cc) were reported using descriptive statistics. Results: A total of 13 patients completed a median of 42 days of RT during the study period, resulting in 550 daily bladder volumes. Ten patients were treated definitively and 3 with salvage radiation after prostatectomy. The median age of patients in the study was 72 years. Older patients were statistically more likely to present with low bladder volumes, with percentage of treatments with a bladder volume less than 50cc, 60cc, and 100cc being 29%, 42%, and 66% compared to only 4%, 7%, and 18% in patients aged < 70 (P < 0.01). The average bladder volume at the time of CT simulation was 176cc ± 57cc and the average volume during treatment was 140cc± 93cc, which was not statistically different (P = 0.28). The bladder volume did not significantly change over the course of treatment. Conclusions: Older patients (age 70+) with prostate cancer were more likely to present for RT with low bladder volumes in this prospective study. Our findings suggest that older patients should receive extra counseling about bladder filling and/or may require less bladder filling at the time of CT simulation to provide more accurate bowel dosimetry measurements.

182 Background: The purpose of this study was to examine the associations of three different measures of anxiety and depression with patient reported distress (PRD) level and survival after radiotherapy (RT). Methods: 518 patients who underwent RT between 2012 and 2016 were included in this retrospective study. PRD was assessed at the time of RT using the NCCN thermometer and a 30 question survey of distress related items. PRD and clinical and demographic data was retrospectively collected and analyzed. The three measures this study focused on that assessed patient anxiety and depression involved asking patients about their level of concern regarding feeling down, regarding loss of interest, and regarding feeling nervous. Associations between baseline patient characteristics and survival after start of RT were evaluated using single variable Cox proportional hazards regression models. Hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated. Associations of level of concern regarding patient anxiety/depression with survival after RT were evaluated using single variable and multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression models. Results: Overall, PRD level and concern regarding anxiety/depression were positively correlated (p < 0.001). Additionally, there was a significant association between level of concern regarding feeling down and palliative patients (p = 0.03). There was also a significant association between level of concern regarding loss of interest and palliative patients (p = 0.03), with level of concern highest for thorax, breast, and head and neck. There was also a significant different between level of concern regarding feeling nervous and gender (p = 0.05). There was not a significant difference between any of the three measures and survival after RT (all p ≥ 0.21). Conclusions: Anxiety and depression in patients receiving palliative and curative RT was associated with overall distress. Baseline screening of PRD may identify patients who would benefit from intervention to address the causes of their underlying anxiety and depression.

192 Background: Patient privacy is of the utmost importance for the emotional needs of a cancer patient and their family. As an effort to improve privacy, quality, and coordination of care within our Radiation Oncology department, in 2016 a patient pager system was devised to inform patients to prepare for daily treatment rather than verbally call the patient's name in waiting rooms. Methods: During June 2016, patients undergoing daily radiation therapy participated in a six-question survey addressing various aspects of the paging service, privacy prior to pager use, and demographics. Six radiation therapists also participated in a 7-question survey addressing privacy and workflow. Participants rated their experience on a scale of 1 to 5 (1 being poor, 5 being excellent). Surveys were collected and retrospectively reviewed. Results: 42 patients completed the survey. Patients rated "Very Good" to "Excellent" for the following categories: “Paging system more convenient than being called”(4.6), “Protection of privacy”(4.6), “Easiness”(4.7) and whether “Pager should be utilized for all appointments” (4.3). Patients rated “Patient privacy when name is called” as "Good" to "Very Good" (3.7). Seven patients also underwent therapy prior to pager implementation and rated the new system in comparison as "Very Good" to "Excellent" for “Privacy protection”(4.6), “Efficiency” (4.6), and “Satisfaction” (4.6). Only 24 filled out demographic information. Of the 24 patients, 54% of patients were female, 87% were above the age of 50, and all patients were receiving at least 10 treatments. Staff rated "Fair" to "Very Good" for “More preparation time” (2.8), “Patient use difficulty”(3.2), “Patient positive feedback”(2.3), “Receiving patients” (2.2) and “Workflow” (2). However, “Patient privacy” was rated as "Very Good" to "Excellent" (4.2). Conclusions: Overall, patients and staff highly rated the paging system for protecting privacy in the waiting room. Patients who experienced waiting room procedure prior to pager implementation display greater satisfaction with a paging system. However, it did not change overall workflow. Our study shows clinics should prioritize patient privacy in the waiting room to improve the emotional needs of the patient.