Butterfield, Richard

Abstract BACKGROUND Trigeminal neuralgia (TN) refractory to medical management is often treated with microvascular decompression (MVD) involving the intracranial placement of Teflon. The placement of Teflon is an effective treatment, but does apply distributed pressure to the nerve and has been associated with pain recurrence. OBJECTIVE To report the rate of postoperative pain recurrence in TN patients who underwent MVD surgery using a transposition technique with fibrin glue without Teflon. METHODS Patients were eligible for our study if they were diagnosed with TN, did not have multiple sclerosis, and had an offending vessel that was identified and transposed with fibrin glue at our institution. All eligible patients were given a follow-up survey. We used a Kaplan-Meier (KM) model to estimate overall pain recurrence. RESULTS A total of 102 patients met inclusion criteria, of which 85 (83%) responded to our survey. Overall, 76 (89.4%) participants responded as having no pain recurrence. Approximately 1-yr pain-free KM estimates were 94.1% (n = 83), 5-yr pain-free KM estimates were 94.1% (n = 53), and 10-yr pain-free KM estimates were 83.0% (n = 23). CONCLUSION Treatment for TN with an MVD transposition technique using fibrin glue may avoid some cases of pain recurrence. The percentage of patients in our cohort who remained pain free at a maximum of 17 yr follow-up is on the high end of pain-free rates reported by MVD studies using Teflon. These results indicate that a transposition technique that emphasizes removing any compression near the trigeminal nerve root provides long-term pain-free rates for patients with TN.

Background: There remains a lack of awareness around the American Academy of Neurology (AAN) procedural criteria for brain death and the surrounding controversies, leading to significant practice variability. This survey study assessed for existing knowledge and attitude among healthcare professionals regarding procedural criteria and potential change after an educational intervention. Methods: Healthcare professionals with increased exposure to brain injury at Mayo Clinic hospitals in Arizona and Florida were invited to complete an online survey consisting of 2 iterations of a 14-item questionnaire, taken before and after a 30-minute video educational intervention. The questionnaire gathered participants’ opinion of (1) their knowledge of the AAN procedural criteria, (2) whether these criteria determine complete, irreversible cessation of brain function, and (3) on what concept of death they base the equivalence of brain death to biological death. Results: Of the 928 people contacted, a total of 118 and 62 participants completed the pre-intervention and post-intervention questionnaire, respectively. The results show broad, unchanging support for the concept of brain death (86.8%) and that current criteria constitute best practice. While 64.9% agree further that the loss of consciousness and spontaneous breathing is sufficient for death, contradictorily, 37.6% believe the loss of additional integrated bodily functions such as fighting infection is necessary for death. A plurality trusts these criteria to demonstrate loss of brain function that is irreversible (67.6%) and complete (43.6%) at baseline, but there is significantly less agreement on both at post-intervention. Conclusion: Although there is consistent support that AAN procedural criteria are best for clinical practice, results show a tenuous belief that these criteria determine irreversible and complete loss of all brain function. Despite support for the concept of brain death first developed by the President’s Council, participants demonstrate confusion over whether the loss of consciousness and spontaneous breath are truly sufficient for death.

Background Patients with myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPNs) are faced with severe disease-related fatigue among a range of other constitutional and spleen-related symptoms. The MPN-Symptom Assessment Form (SAF) is recommended for use to characterize symptom burden (Scherber R, et al. Blood 2011). Within the SAF, a profile of 18 symptom items are evaluated ranging in severity from 0 (absent) to 10 (worst imaginable). The SAF is often summarized to the MPN-SAF Total Symptom Score (TSS) for analysis purposes - a single computed sum of the 10 most clinically meaningful symptom scores, including fatigue (Emanuel R, et al. J Clin Oncol 2012). Though the SAF includes a fatigue item, initial deployments of the MPN-SAF TSS incorporated a 0-10 scaled fatigue item taken from the Brief Fatigue Inventory (BFI; Mendoza T, et al. Cancer 1999). A subsequent version of the MPN-SAF TSS for use within myelofibrosis clinical trials (called the MFSAF v4; Gwaltney C, et al. Leuk Res 2017) employed a harmonized fatigue item. This analysis employing data from two studies was carried out to assess the use of the SAF fatigue item within the MPN-SAF TSS for consistency with the MFSAF v4. Methods Both BFI and SAF fatigue items were included in an initial online survey evaluating disease burden among patients with MPNs. Participants were assigned to survey variants as a function of their age. Survey variants included those to receive 1 instance of either the BFI or SAF fatigue item, instances of both BFI and SAF, or 2 instances of the same fatigue item. Surveying was aimed to assess the worst symptom experience in the patient's last 24 hours. Additionally, an independent survey assessing the impact of COVID-19 among MPN patients was deployed using the SAF fatigue item for the MPN-SAF TSS. This modified version was then used to test internal validity. Pearson correlation (r) and t-tests were used to assess association, Bland-Altman methods were used to evaluate systematic agreement between BFI and SAF fatigue scores, and Cronbach's alpha was used to measure internal consistency. Results There were 229 participants assigned both BFI and SAF fatigue items within the same survey. Among them, 51% (n=117) received the BFI item first and 49% (n=112) the SAF item first. No difference was seen between first and second fatigue scores (mean difference [first-second] = 0.00; 95%CI -0.18, 0.17). BFI and SAF fatigue scores were highly correlated (r=0.88, p<0.001) and showed 88.7% agreement in categorizing severe versus non-severe fatigue (score ≥ 7 versus < 7). Overall concordance in severity category was 73.4% (category [score range]: absent [0]; mild [1-3]; moderate [4-6]; severe [7-10]). Constructing the MPN-SAF TSS using the BFI and SAF fatigue components separately, the original and modified MPN-SAF TSS were nearly identical (r=0.997, p<0.001), and had equivalent internal consistency (both Cronbach's alpha=0.88). The Bland-Altman plot further indicates the 2 fatigue measures have high agreement with no evidence of directional bias and negligible overall bias (Figure 1: regression slope = -0.04, p=0.25; mean difference=0.22; 95%CI 0.05, 0.39). Within the COVID-19 survey (n=1217), the modified version of the MPN-SAF TSS was consistent with known correlates among disease characteristics (Emanuel R, et al. J Clin Oncol 2012). For example, more severe MPN-SAF TSS scores were highly correlated with low quality-of-life (n=1156, r = -0.50, p<0.001), and associated with those reporting spleen enlargement (n=301) versus not (n=617) (p<0.001; mean difference=7.7; 95%CI 5.4, 10.1). Conclusion The BFI and SAF fatigue items are highly consistent in raw score, severity category, and in contribution to the MPN-SAF TSS. There was no order effect seen in which fatigue item was asked first. The independent COVID-19 survey using the modified MPN-SAF TSS was validated and shows high internal consistent. In the ongoing development to capture the symptom experience, this analysis shows disease-related fatigue is equivalently measured using the SAF fatigue survey item in harmonization with the MFSAF v4. Disclosures Mesa: Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; CTI BioPharma: Research Funding; Promedior: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; Samus Therapeutics: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; LaJolla Pharmaceutical Company: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Sierra Oncology: Consultancy.

Abstract INTRODUCTION Leptomeningeal disease (LMD) is an aggressive, late-stage complication of systemic cancers that maintains a poor prognosis with an average survival of 3-6 months. Ommaya reservoirs (OR) are an accessible alternative to serial lumbar punctures for the delivery of intrathecal chemotherapy in the treatment of LMD. However, widespread use of OR has been limited by reports of complications, limited physicians trained in their use, and the stigma of brain surgery. Here, we assess survival and complication rates for patients who received intrathecal chemotherapy through OR for LMD treatment. METHODS After IRB approval, chart review of patients who received at least one administration of intrathecal chemotherapy through OR for LMD treatment between 2017- 2020 at Mayo Clinic in Phoenix, Arizona was conducted. Charts were reviewed for demographics, treatment type, complications, and outcomes. RESULTS A total of 10 patients were included. The median overall survival from date of first OR injection was 110.5 days (95% CI: 64 – not estimable). The median time to progression from the first injection was 55.5 days (95% CI: 45 – 753). A total of 82 OR injections were conducted for an average of approximately 8 injections per patient. Two patients (20%) experienced mild adverse events – grade 2 or lower by Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events with a single injection. The majority of injections involved no adverse events with the overall risk of any complication at 2.4%. None of the patients experienced infection, a commonly reported complication of OR use. CONCLUSIONS Our results support the inclusion of intrathecal chemotherapy via OR into the treatment paradigm in patients with leptomeningeal malignancies. This approach is feasible, safe, and median survival is comparable with data reported in published series. The overall complication rate in patients receiving intrathecal chemotherapy through OR is very low including the risk of infection.

Introduction: Response assessment at day 100 post Autologous Stem Cell Transplant (ASCT) is associated with long-term relapsed free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) in multiple myeloma (MM). The International Myeloma Working Group (IMWG) are the preferred criteria to define best response to treatment and define relapse. In the last years, response assessment has incorporated minimal residual disease (MRD) status -associated with improved RFS and OS (Munshi et al); and PET/CT combined with clinical characteristics -also associated with favorable outcomes (Zamagni et al. NCT01910987; MMY3033). The 2016 IMWG MRD criteria, combined imaging (PET/CT) plus next-generation sequencing (NGS) MRD-negative to define complete response (CR). To our knowledge, there is limited data examining the correlation and prognostic value of MRD and FDG-PET/CT at day 100 post ASCT in MM. IN this study, we aimed to determine the prognostic valued of MRD by NGS combined with PET/CT in RFS and OS status after high dose chemotherapy and ASCT in MM. Methods: Patients who underwent ASCT for MM at Mayo Clinic Arizona and had MRD and PET/CT data were included in the study. Clinical data was obtained via retrospective chart review. Cytogenetic risk (CyR) was classified using the mSMART criteria . Disease and ASCT related characteristics were compared by MRD status. MRD was measured by NGS on bone marrow aspirates using the previosly validated clonoSEQ ® Assay (Adaptive Biotechnologies Corporation, Seattle, USA) tracking the IgH, IgK and IgL rearrangements at a minimum sensitivity level of 10-5. MRD was defined by residual clonal cells per million nucleated cells as: negative= 0, borderline= 1-5, positive >5. PET/CT scans were performed locally at baseline and at day 100. Comparisons were performed using the chi-square test for categorical variables, Wilcoxon rank-sum test for continuos variables, McNemar's test and Cohens's Kappa for agreement measures. Results: A total of 103 patients had matched MRD and PET/CT assessment around day 100 (+/-9 days) and were included in the analysis. Median age at diagnosis was 62 years (range, 54-66 years), 71 patients (68.9%) were men. CyR was standard risk in 49 (47.6%), high-risk in 39 (37.9%) and unknown in 15 (14.6%) patients. Most 75 (72.8%) patients were MRD positive, 16 (15.5%) were MRD negative, and 12 (11.7%) borderline. The median main MRD clone detected was 64 (range 0-91,874). 70 patients (68%) and 33 (32%) had a negative and positive PET/CT respectively. The median follow-up time was 18 months (range, 13-31 months). At the time of data analysis, 10 patients (9.7%) had relapsed and only 4 (3.9%) had died. There was a high-correlation between MRD status and PET/CT, 31 patients (93.9%) with positive PET/CT were also MRD positive (p=0.0027). There were no statistical differences between PET/CT and CyR (p=0.95). We analyzed the correlation using the FREQ procedure (McNemars's test); there was a strong association between positive PET/CT and positive MRD in 31/33 patients (93.9%, high sensitivity), and low association for negative PET/CT the negative/borderline MRD in 26/70 (37.1%, low specificity; p<0.001). The agreement measure between the PET/CT and MRD using negative/borderline combined had a kappa of 0.23 (95% CI 0.11, 0.35) indicating a fair agreement beyond chance (Figure 1). PET/CT-CT was a statistically significant predictor of worse RFS (HR 3.53, 95%CI: 1.02-12.24, p<0.0337) and OS (HR 11.38, 95%CI: 1.18-109.56, p<0.0078) (Figure 2-3, respectively). MRD was not predictive of neither RFS (HR 1.72, 95%CI: 0.36-8.14, p<0.49) or OS (p<0.16). Conclusions: In conclusion, we demonstrate that the combination of MRD by NGS (clonoSEQ ®) and PET/CT at day 100 are complementary and have a high sensitivity (true positive rate) and fair correlation of agreement but low specificity (true negative rate). PET/CT was the best most sensitive technique to prognosticate RFS and OS. We did not find prognostic correlation of MRD with RFS and OS. However, our findings might be confounded by the low risk of relapse and death, a longer follow-up may demonstrate clinically important differences. Our results add evidence that MRD plus PET/CT improve the definition of CR in MM patients post ASCT. Prospective studies are needed to elucidate the optimal timing and role of combined MRD, PET/CT with other prognostic markers of clinical outcomes. Disclosures Larsen: Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen Oncology: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Fonseca:Juno: Consultancy; Kite: Consultancy; Aduro: Consultancy; OncoTracker: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Merck: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; GSK: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy.

Background: Financial distress from medical treatment is an increasing concern. Healthcare organizations may have different levels of organizational commitment, existing programs, and expected outcomes of screening and management of patient financial distress. Patients and Methods: In November 2018, representatives from 17 (63%) of the 27 existing NCCN Member Institutions completed an online survey. The survey focused on screening and management practices for patient financial distress, perceived barriers in implementation, and leadership attitudes about such practices. Due to the lack of a validated questionnaire in this area, survey questions were generated after a comprehensive literature search and discussions among the study team, including NCCN Best Practices Committee representatives. Results: Responses showed that 76% of centers routinely screened for financial distress, mostly with social worker assessment (94%), and that 56% screened patients multiple times. All centers offered programs to help with drug costs, meal or gas vouchers, and payment plans. Charity care was provided by 100% of the large centers (≥10,000 unique annual patients) but none of the small centers that responded (<10,000 unique annual patients; P =.008). Metrics to evaluate the impact of financial advocacy services included number of patients assisted, bad debt/charity write-offs, or patient satisfaction surveys. The effectiveness of institutional practices for screening and management of financial distress was reported as poor/very poor by 6% of respondents. Inadequate staffing and resources, limited budget, and lack of reimbursement were potential barriers in the provision of these services. A total of 94% agreed with the need for better integration of financial advocacy into oncology practice. Conclusions: Three-fourths of NCCN Member Institutions reported screening and management programs for financial distress, although the actual practices and range of services vary. Information from this study can help centers benchmark their performance relative to similar programs and identify best practices in this area.

11615 Background: Deficiencies and barriers exist to delivering comprehensive and affordable cancer care. Understanding the variation in organizational commitment, existing programs, and expected outcomes for screening and management of financial distress is needed. Methods: Representatives from 17 of 27 NCCN Member Institutions (63%) completed an online survey in November 2018 conducted by the NCCN Best Practices Committee. Centers were classified based on number of unique patients seen per year, as large ( > 10,000) (76%), or small ( < 10,000) (34%). The survey focused on institutions’ screening and management practices for patient financial distress, perceived barriers in implementation, and leadership attitudes. Results: Routine screening for financial distress was reported by 77% of centers, and most used social worker assessments (94%). 56% screened patients throughout the cancer journey. Help with drug costs, meal or gas vouchers and payment plans were offered by 100% of centers. Formal pre-authorization programs and assistance with claims and denials was offered by 81%. Charity care for medical costs was provided by 100% of the large centers compared to only 33% of small centers (p = 0.03). Median number of social workers (24 vs. 3; p = 0.01) and pharmacy representatives (6 vs. 2; p = 0.02) was also different between large and small centers. 76% evaluated the impact of financial advocacy services through number of patients assisted (85%), bad debt and charity write-offs (85%) or patient satisfaction surveys (54%). 6% and 12% reported overall effectiveness of institutional practice for screening and management of financial distress as poor/ very poor respectively. Inadequate staffing and real time resources (69%), limited institutional budget (50%), lack of reimbursement (50%), and clinical time constraints (50%) were reported as potential barriers in provision of these services. 94% agreed about stronger integration of financial advocacy services into oncology practice and 84% felt that success of these services should be a quality metric. 31% of large centers vs. 100% of small centers plan to increase staffing in this area in the next 5 years. Conclusions: Majority of NCCN Member Institutions report screening and management programs for financial distress, though the actual practices and range of services vary widely. Information from this study can help centers benchmark their performance relative to similar cancer programs and identify best practices in this area.