Citations

8057 Background: The NCI Adjuvant Lung Cancer Enrichment Marker Identification and Sequencing Trials (ALCHEMIST) study tested resected stage II-IIIB(N2) NSCLC for targetable EGFR and ALK alterations and PD-L1 expression to screen patients for biomarker-driven adjuvant therapy trials (NCT02194738). Local lab results were requested when available for comparison to central lab results. Methods: We identified patients with both central and local PD-L1 results in the ALCHEMIST adjuvant immunotherapy study screening population. Discrepancies in tumor proportion score (TPS) between central and local PD-L1 were defined using prespecified cut-points (granular: <1%, 1-<5%, 5-<10%, 10-<20%, 20-<30%, 30-<40%, 40-<50%, 50-60%, 60-<70%, 70-<80%, 80-<90%, 90-<100%; clinical: <1%, 1-<50%, 50-100%). Large discrepancies were defined as ≥ 50 percentage point differences; for these cases, local PD-L1 and hematoxylin & eosin-stained slides were requested. These and all central slides were digitally scanned at 40X. Three expert pathologists reviewed the scanned slides in a blinded fashion. Differences between patient or tumor characteristics were assessed by Chi-square and Wilcoxon rank sum tests. Percent agreement was computed within and between the reviewers. Results: Central and local PD-L1 results were available for 497 patients. 177 cases (36%) had discrepancies that placed patients in different clinical TPS categories (<1%, 1-<50%, 50-100%). Among these, 43 cases had large TPS discrepancies; 14 had available local testing slides. 46 of the 320 cases without discrepancy were randomly selected as controls. No patient or tumor characteristics were associated with discrepancy, including tumor location, histology, grade or cancer stage (p > 0.05). Pairwise comparisons of TPS according to three pathologists re-reading the same scanned PD-L1 slides showed similar levels of disagreement in clinical TPS category whether there was initial discrepancy between central and local results (24%, 34%, and 23%; mean 27%) or not (33%, 30%, and 20%; mean 28%). Among the 14 cases with large initial discrepancies and local slides available, there was agreement in clinical TPS category when the anonymized central and local scanned slides were re-read by the pathologists in 54%, 38%, and 43% of cases, despite 100% non-agreement in initial reads. There were higher rates of agreement when the tested slides both originated from the same (100%) versus different (35%) blocks, when the same (48%) versus different (40%) PD-L1 antibodies were used, and when the cases were of non-squamous (52%) versus squamous (14%) cell carcinoma. Conclusions: There are substantial differences in PD-L1 TPS read by pathologists that can result in placement of patients in different categories commonly used for clinical management. These differences have clear implications in clinical trials and routine patient care.

8001 Background: The ALCHEMIST clinical trial platform, launched by the National Clinical Trials Network (NCTN) in 2014, screened patients with resected non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) for molecular markers and tailored post-operative adjuvant therapy trials. A081105 evaluated whether adjuvant erlotinib improved overall survival (OS) following complete resection in patients with early stage EGFR mutated lung adenocarcinoma. Methods: A081105 was a randomized phase III trial enrolling patients with completely resected stage IB (≥4 cm), II, or IIIA non-squamous NSCLC (per the 7 th TNM staging classification) harboring EGFR exon 19 deletion or L858R mutations. Patients were randomized 1:1 to erlotinib 150 mg daily for up to 2 years or placebo/observation, stratified by stage, prior chemotherapy, EGFR mutation subtype, and ECOG performance status. The primary endpoint was OS in the per-protocol (PP) population with centrally confirmed EGFR mutations, designed to detect a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.67 in favor of erlotinib with a power of 86% and one sided type I error rate of 5%. Secondary endpoints included OS and disease free survival (DFS) in a modified intent-to-treat (mITT) population with local or centrally confirmed EGFR mutations, and safety. A prespecified backstop analysis was conducted after a minimum of 5 years of follow-up on all patients. Results: Trial enrollment was discontinued when 390 of the intended 450 patients had been enrolled due to the proven benefit of adjuvant osimertinib. Among 390 enrolled patients, the arms were balanced for age (median: 67.0 years), sex (70% female), race (70% white), stage (II: 51%, IIIA: 37%), prior chemotherapy (82%), ECOG PS 0 (60%), and exon 19 deletion (57%). Adjuvant erlotinib did not significantly improve OS compared with placebo/observation in the overall PP population (364 patients, 108 events, HR 0.89; 95% CI, 0.59–1.34; 1-sided P = 0.29) or within exon 19 deletion (HR: 0.94) or L858R mutation (HR: 0.82) subgroups. Five-year OS rates were 78.6% versus 77.9%, respectively. Results were consistent in the mITT analysis (379 patients, 113 events, HR 0.86; 95% CI, 0.58–1.28). Erlotinib improved DFS (mITT: 181 events, median: 68 vs 50 months, HR 0.74; 95% CI, 0.55–1.01). Across both arms, 11% of patients started non-protocol treatment (Osimertinib: 9%) prior to disease progression, and 9% withdrew consent for all follow-up prior to recurrence. In the erlotinib arm, 3 deaths on study were reported; grade 3 or higher adverse events were reported on 39% of patients. Median duration of treatment on Erlotinib arm was 16 months; only 37% of patients completed the planned treatment. Conclusions: In resected EGFR -mutant NSCLC, adjuvant erlotinib did not improve overall survival but improved DFS. Additional studies are exploring efficacy in selected subsets of patients using genomics and proteomic analyses. Clinical trial information: NCT02193282 .

Abstract Objective To test the effectiveness of a surgical web‐based decision aid (DA) in improving knowledge. Summary of Background Data DAs support decision making by providing information about the options. Methods A stepped wedge trial was conducted in 10 National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program clinics (Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology). Clinics were randomized to time of transition from usual care (UC) to delivery of a web‐based DA. Patients with stage 0 through 3 breast cancer being considered for surgery were enrolled. Knowledge (primary outcome) was measured using the Breast Cancer Surgery Decision Quality Instrument and patients were asked, “How informed do you feel?” Intervention effects were tested with linear mixed‐effects models, accounting for surgeon and clinic‐level clustering, time, and enrollment after COVID. Additional models controlled for demographics. Results A total of 44% of DA arm patients reviewed the DA and 58% in UC arm reported reviewing “any information.” Being in the DA arm versus UC was not associated with knowledge. However, “review of information” was associated with higher knowledge. In addition, non‐White race and lower education were associated with lower knowledge. The DA arm was associated with higher perceptions of feeling informed (parameter estimate 1.36; 95% CI, 0.18–2.55; p = .02); this persisted even when controlling for review of information or demographics. Conclusion Improved knowledge was not demonstrate with a web‐based DA versus UC. Interestingly, the DA was associated with a higher likelihood of feeling informed. Future research will explore the discrepancy between patients feeling informed but having low knowledge, especially for disadvantaged patients. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT0376600

Abstract The intracluster correlation coefficient (ICC) measures the correlation of observations within clusters and is a key parameter for power and sample size calculations for cluster randomized trials (CRTs). To facilitate the design of future CRTs within the National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP), all studies from the NCORP website were reviewed to identify completed CRTs. ICCs for primary and secondary outcomes (when available) were ascertained from these trials and summarized in this article as a resource for future trial development. Although ICCs are relatively small for many outcome cluster combinations, that is not always the case, so consideration should always be given to the specific outcome of interest, trial design, and type of cluster when estimating an ICC to facilitate trial development.

Objective: To assess the effect of a practice-level preoperative frailty screening and optimization toolkit (OPTI-Surg) on postoperative functional recovery and complications in elderly cancer patients undergoing major surgery. Background: Frailty is common in older adults. It increases the risk of poor postoperative functional recovery and complications. The potential for a practice-level screening/optimization intervention to improve outcomes is unknown. Methods: Thoracic, gastrointestinal, and urologic oncological surgery practices within the National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP) were randomized 1:1:1 to usual care (UC), OPTI-Surg, or OPTI-Surg with an implementation coach. OPTI-Surg consisted of the Edmonton Frail Scale and guided recommendations for referral interventions. Patients 70 years old or above undergoing curative intent surgery were eligible. The primary outcome was 8 weeks postoperative function (kcal/wk). The key secondary outcome was complications within 90 days. Mixed models were used to compare UC to the 2 OPTI-Surg arms combined. Results: From July 2019 to September 2022, 325 patients were enrolled in 29 practices. One hundred ninety-nine (64 UC, 135 OPTI-Surg) and 279 (78 UC, 201 OPTI-Surg) were evaluable for primary and secondary analysis, respectively. UC and OPTI-Surg patients did not significantly differ in total caloric expenditure (2.2 UC, 2.0 OPTI-Surg) after adjusting for baseline function (P=0.53). UC and OPTI-Surg patients did not significantly differ in postoperative complications (25.6% UC, 35.3% OPTI-Surg, P=0.5). Conclusions: Frailty assessment was successfully performed, but the OPTI-Surg intervention did not improve postoperative function nor reduce postoperative complications compared with UC. Future analysis will explore practice-level factors associated with toolkit implementation and the differences between the coaching and noncoaching arms.

370 Background: Mounting evidence suggests tailored preparation targeting geriatric vulnerabilities can improve functional outcomes after major surgery in older adults. Although many surgeons express interest in surgical optimization of older patients, few practices have the time or expertise to deliver geriatric prehabilitation before surgery. This study investigated the effectiveness of OPTI-Surg, a frailty prehabilitation toolkit, for improving surgical outcomes. In this abstract, we report adherence to the OPTI-Surg toolkit in the intervention arm. Methods: Thoracic (T), gastrointestinal (GI), and urologic (GU) oncological surgery practices affiliated with NCI’s Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP) were randomized 1:1:1, stratified by practice type, to usual care (control), OPTI-Surg toolkit, or OPTI-Surg with an implementation coach. The toolkit was implemented at the practice level and consisted of the 12-item Edmonton Frail Scale (EFS) and guided recommendations for interventions including referrals directed at identified vulnerabilities. Eligible patients were ≥70 years old and undergoing curative intent surgery for T, Gl, or GU cancers. Results: From July 2019 to October 2021, 155 patients were enrolled in the OPTI-Surg intervention arm. The EFS was administered to 153 (98.7%) of the enrolled patients, 143 of whom went on to have surgery. Overall, 134 (93.7%) surgical patients had at least one deficit identified on the EFS assessment and 55 (41.0%) of these patients received a recommended referral intended to optimize surgical outcomes. Among the 55 patients who received referrals, 44 (80.0%) followed through on the referral. Individual deficit rates were highest for medication use, general health status, and functional performance, and referrals were most frequently made for deficits in continence and functional independence (Table). Conclusions: In the OPTI-Surg geriatric surgical optimization trial, implementation of the frailty screening with the EFS assessment was successful. Rates of recommended referrals for patients with identified deficits, however, were low. When referred, most patients followed through for targeted prehabilitation. Clinical trial information: NCT03857620 .[Table: see text]

314 Background: In a recent trial, we observed no statistically significant increase in engagement after a web-based decision aid (DA) was delivered to breast cancer patients prior to a surgical consult. However, a minority of the intervention group (44%) reviewed the DA. The objective is to assess the effect of the DA on engagement for the cohort of patients who reviewed it. Methods: A stepped wedge trial was conducted with 10 NCI Community Oncology Research Program clinics that care for a high proportion of socioeconomically disadvantaged patients (6/2019-12/2021). Clinics were randomized to time of transition from usual care (UC) to delivery of a DA. Patients with stage 0-3 breast cancer eligible for surgery provided consent prior to a surgical consult. Engagement was measured from audio-recorded surgical consults (Active Patient Behaviors, Street protocol). For this analysis, we identified a cohort of treatment compliant (TC) patients who reviewed the DA. Intervention effects comparing TC and UC groups were tested with linear mixed-effects models, accounting for time, enrollment post-COVID, and patient age, race, education, and socioeconomic disadvantage (assessed with Area Deprivation Index and dichotomized). Exploratory models were generated using Active Patient Behavior subcomponents (asking questions, assertive responses, expressions of concern) as the outcome. Results: The cohort includes 407 patients (UC 264; TC 143). TC patients were more likely to be white (TC 73%, UC 64%, p=0.03), have a college degree (TC 65%, UC 55%, p=0.05), and not be disadvantaged (TC 89%, UC 72%, p=0.001). TC was associated with increased engagement (8.2 [0.08, 16.2], p=0.048, Table). A college degree was associated with higher, while black race and socioeconomic disadvantage lower, engagement. On exploratory analyses, TC had a stronger association with higher levels of assertive responses (2.9 [-0.3, 6.1], p=0.07) compared with asking questions (5.2 [-1.4, 11.9], p=0.12) or expressions of concern (0.08 [-0.60, 0.76], p=0.82). Conclusions: We observed increased engagement in breast cancer patients who reviewed a DA prior to a surgical consult. However, we also observed differences based on race, education, and socioeconomic disadvantage. Further research will identify adjunct interventions to combine with the DA to improve cancer care delivery for diverse populations. Support: UG1 CA189823; AHRQ R01HS025194; https://acknowledgments.alliancefound.org. Clinical trial information: NCT03766009 .[Table: see text]

6520 Background: Increased patient engagement in decision making may mitigate disparities in breast cancer surgical care. Socioeconomically disadvantaged patients disproportionately experience barriers to engagement. Decision aids (DA) increase engagement by providing information, establishing role expectations during the consult, and increasing confidence in surgeon interactions. The objective was to test the effectiveness of a surgical web-based DA in increasing engagement among breast cancer patients in clinics that care for a high proportion of socioeconomically disadvantaged patients. Methods: A stepped wedge trial was conducted with 10 NCI Community Oncology Research Program clinics (Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology Research Base, 6/19-12/21). Clinics were randomized to time of transition from usual care (UC) to delivery of a web-based DA. Patients with stage 0-3 breast cancer eligible for surgery provided consent prior to a surgical consult. Socioeconomic disadvantage was assessed with the Area Deprivation Index measured at the zip+4 level and dichotomized. Patient engagement was measured by Patient’s Self-Efficacy in Patient-Physician Interactions (PEPPI-5, follow-up survey) and count of Active Patient Behaviors (Street protocol, audio recorded consult). Intervention effects were tested with linear mixed-effects models, accounting for surgeon and clinic-level clustering, time, and enrollment post-COVID. Heterogeneity of treatment effect by socioeconomic disadvantage was assessed with an interaction term. Results: 573 patients enrolled. 44% (136/309) reviewed the DA. No significant difference in engagement was observed comparing DA and UC for PEPPI-5 (-0.80 [95% CI -2.13, 0.54], p = 0.24) or Active Patient Behaviors (2.52 [CI -4.11, 9.15], p = 0.46). Enrollment post-COVID was associated with increased Active Patient Behaviors (9.59 [CI 1.76, 17.43], p = 0.02) but no change in PEPPI-5 (-1.31 [CI -2.88, 0.26], p = 0.10). No heterogeneity of treatment effect was observed. Conclusions: In this trial conducted in clinics that serve diverse populations, no significant relationship was observed between a web-based DA and patient engagement. Conducting this stepped wedge trial during the pandemic was challenging. Future analyses will explore the impact of COVID on outcomes and effect of the decision aid for patients who reviewed it. UG1 CA189823; AHRQ R01HS025194; https://acknowledgments.alliancefound.org . Clinical trial information: NCT03766009 . [Table: see text]

1541 Background: Frailty is common in older adults undergoing major cancer surgery. Mounting evidence indicates multimodal interventions to optimize patient functional status by addressing vulnerabilities associated with frailty before surgery result in decreased complications and enhanced functional recovery. This study tested the effectiveness of OPTI-Surg, a surgical prehabilitation toolkit for improving surgical care and outcomes in older patients undergoing major cancer surgery. Here, we report results from the planned futility interim analysis (IA). Methods: Thoracic (T), gastrointestinal (GI), and urologic (GU) oncological surgery practices affiliated with NCI’s Community Oncology Research Program were randomized 1:1:1, stratified by practice type, to usual care (control), OPTI-Surg toolkit, or OPTI-Surg with an implementation coach. The toolkit was implemented at the practice level. It consisted of the 12-item Edmonton Frail Scale and guided recommendations for interventions directed at identified vulnerabilities. Eligible patients were adults ≥70 years old undergoing curative intent surgery for lung, gastrointestinal, or urologic cancers. Primary outcome was 8-week post-operative function (weekly caloric expenditure) derived from the validated Community Healthy Activities Model Program for Seniors (CHAMPS) questionnaire. A linear mixed model was used to compare usual care to the 2 OPTI-Surg arms combined, controlling for baseline function. Results: From July 2019 to October 2021, 225 patients, 50% of the total accrual goal, were enrolled from 29 practices, triggering the IA. Study was suspended to new patient accrual March to June 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic. There were no differences in demographics by arm (mean age 76.2 years; 46.4% women; 79.6% white; 20.4% lung resection, 69.8% major GI surgery, 9.8% total cystectomy). Of the 225 patients, 140 (47 Usual Care, 93 OPTI-Surg) were evaluable for the IA. There was no significant difference in post-operative function between OPTI-Surg and usual care (mean decrease of 0.59 kCal/week for OPTI-Surg patients and 0.19 kCal/week for usual care patients, p = 0.762, intraclass correlation = 0.033). Based on the futility analysis, the DSMB recommended closure of recruitment on September 16, 2022. Conclusions: Implementation of the OPTI-Surg toolkit did not significantly improve functional outcomes 8 weeks after surgery for patients aged 70 and older undergoing major cancer surgery compared to usual care. Future analysis of implementation and ethnographic data may identify reasons why significant differences between the intervention and usual care arms were not observed, potentially including disruptions due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Clinical trial information: NCT03857620 .