Citations

10 Background: Our objective was to evaluate the cost-utility of 3 lymphadenectomy (LND) strategies in the treatment of low-risk endometrial cancer (EC). Methods: A decision analysis model compared 3 LND strategies in women undergoing minimally invasive surgery (MIS) for EC: 1) routine LND in all pts; 2) selective LND based on intraoperative frozen section, in which 60% of pts undergo LND; and 3) sentinel lymph node mapping (SLN) based on a published algorithm, in which 15% of pts map unilaterally (requiring a contralateral LND) and 5% don’t map (requiring bilateral LND). Costs and outcomes were obtained from published literature and Medicare reimbursement rates. Costs categories consisted of hospital, physician, operating room, pathology, and lymphedema treatment. Effectiveness was defined as 3-year disease-specific survival adjusted for the impact of lymphedema (utility = 0.8) on quality of life. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) per quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained were calculated. QALYs and costs were discounted at an annual 3% rate. Results: For the estimated 40,000 women undergoing surgery for low-risk EC each year in the US, the annual cost of routine LND, selective LND, and SLN is $722 million, $681 million, and $656 million respectively. In the base case scenario, routine LND had a cost of $18,041 and an effectiveness of 2.79 QALYs. Selective LND had a cost of $17,036 and an effectiveness of 2.81 QALYs, while SLN had a cost of $16,401 and an effectiveness of 2.87 QALYs. With a difference of $1,005 and 0.02 QALYs, selective LND was both less costly and more effective than routine LND, dominating it. However, with the lowest cost and highest effectiveness, SLN dominated the other modalities and was the most cost-effective strategy. No ICER could be determined. These findings were robust to multiple one- and two-way sensitivity analyses varying the rates of lymphedema and LND, surgical approach (open or MIS), lymphedema utility, and costs. Conclusions: Compared to routine and selective LND, SLN had the lowest cost and highest quality-adjusted survival, making it the most cost-effective strategy in the management of low-risk EC.

Poly(GP) proteins are a promising pharmacodynamic marker for developing and testing therapeutics for treating C9ORF72 -associated amyotrophic lateral sclerosis.

BACKGROUNDPublished studies have suggested that most patients with early stage breast cancer are willing, for modest survival benefits, to receive 6 months of adjuvant cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and 5‐fluorouracil, an older regimen that is used infrequently today. We examined preferences regarding the survival benefit needed to justify 6 months of a contemporary chemotherapy regimen.METHODSThe Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Protocol 5103 was a phase 3 trial that randomized breast cancer patients to receive standard adjuvant doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, and paclitaxel with either bevacizumab or placebo. Serial surveys to assess quality of life were administered to patients enrolled between January 1, 2010, and June 8, 2010. Survival benefit needed to justify 6 months of chemotherapy by patients was collected at the 18‐month assessment. A parallel survey was sent to physicians who had enrolled patients in the study.RESULTSOf 519 patients who had not withdrawn at a time point earlier than 18 months, 87.8% responded to this survey. A total of 175 physicians participated. We found considerable variation in patient preferences, particularly for modest survival benefits: for 2 months of benefit, 57% would consider 6 months of chemotherapy, whereas 96% of patients would consider 6 months of chemotherapy for 24 months. Race and education were associated with the choices. Physicians who responded were less likely to accept chemotherapy for modest benefit.CONCLUSIONSAmong patients who received contemporary adjuvant chemotherapy in a randomized controlled trial, we found substantial variation in preferences regarding benefits that justified undergoing chemotherapy. Differences between patients' and physicians' choices were also apparent. Eliciting preferences regarding risks and benefits of adjuvant chemotherapy is critical. Cancer 2017;123:2821–28. © 2017 American Cancer Society.

104 Background: Lymphedema (LE), a side effect of BC treatment, affects 8%–56% of women. The study tested the effectiveness of an education only vs education + exercise intervention on LE incidence in a group randomized trial (NCT00376597) of 38 cooperative group sites. Methods: Newly diagnosed women with stage I-III BC were consented and arm circumference and range of motion were measured pre-surgery. After surgery, patients (pts) were enrolled based on the randomization assignment of their treating institution, stratified by their type of node dissection (sentinel or axillary), and received either: education only: its causes, signs, symptoms and risk reduction strategies, or education + personalized exercise instruction from a physical therapist, with elastic compression garments to wear during heavy arm use and air travel. Pts completed surveys and arm measurements at baseline (BL), 12 and 18 months with the LE endpoint defined as ≥ 10% difference in limb volume at any time from BL to 18 months or physician diagnosis of LE. Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) tests were used to compare the LE-free rate between arms, adjusted for type of biopsy. Logistic regression assessed predictors of LE. Results: 568 pts were enrolled, 45% in education only, and 55% in education + exercise, with 554 (98%) included in the analyses. Pts were on average 57.7 years, White (83%), non-Hispanic (92%) and married (62%). 47% only had sentinel node dissection, 35% had mastectomy, and 37% had chemotherapy. The LE-free rate was 58% in education only vs 55% in education + exercise (CMH p = 0.73). Predictors of LE included surgery type (lumpectomy vs mastectomy, OR = 2.22, p < 0.001) and chemotherapy (no vs yes, OR = 1.73, p = 0.02), after adjusting for BMI and type of node dissection. Only one-third wore the sleeve at least 75% of the time and only 50% did LE exercises at least weekly. Conclusions: There was no difference by intervention arm in LE incidence by 18 months. Poor adherence in the education + exercise arm may have been a factor. Additional analyses will assess quality of life, body image and knowledge about LE by arm. Further research is needed to effectively prevent LE in pts after BC surgery. Research Support: UL1TR001409; U10CA037447, UG1CA189823 Clinical trial information: NCT00376597.

TPS511 Background: Despite decades of basic and clinical research, effective therapy for the treatment of patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) remains one of the greatest unmet clinical needs in oncology today. Albumin-bound paclitaxel (AP) and gemcitabine (G) reported on an improvement in overall survival in metastatic (m) PDAC [NEJM 2013; 369:1691-1703]. The addition of cisplatin (C) has shown promising clinical data in previously reported studies [Cancer Res 2015; 75(15 Suppl):Abstract nr LB-003]. Through further preclinical work, vitamin D analog therapy decreases myeloid derived suppressor cell (MDSC) and regulating T cells (Tregs) thus turning PDAC into a more immune friendly microenvironment. This trial combines AP/C/G with the vitamin D analog paricalcitol (P) and the antibody-PD-1 drug Nivolumab (N) as a combination therapy for individuals with previously untreated metastatic PDAC. This trial evaluates the efficacy and safety of NAPPCG in patients in that population (NCT02754726). Methods: Key eligibility criteria include Stage IV PDAC, no prior chemotherapy for systemic disease, KPS ≥ 70; life expectancy ≥ 12 weeks and measurable disease. Key exclusion criteria include prior PD-1 or PD-L1 therapy. Doses are AP 125 mg/m2 undiluted, G 1000 mg/m2 in 500 ml of normal saline (NS), each infused over 30 minutes with C 25mg/ m2 in 500 ml of NS infused over 60 minutes on days 1, 8, 22, and 29 of a 42 day cycle. N is given at a fixed dose of 240 mg as a 60 minute infusion on days 1, 15, and 29. P is given at a fixed dose of 25 µg IV on days 1,4,8,12,15,22,26,29,32,36,and 39. Primary objective is to determine the efficacy of the combination NAPPCG for patients with previously untreated metastatic PDAC through determining CR, ORR, PFS, and OS. The secondary objective is to evaluate the safety of NAPPCG in patients with previously untreated metastatic PDAC. The study initiated accrual in April of 2016. If 4 of the first 10 patients are determined to have a PR the trial will expand to a total of 25 patients. Clinical trial information: NCT02754726.

341 Background: Genomes of metastatic pancreatic cancers frequently contain intrachromosomal aberrations indicating DNA repair abnormalities associated with sensitivity to DNA damaging agents such as the platinums. Cisplatin was added to a nab-paclitaxel + gemcitabine regimen, which has been determined to improve survival over gemcitabine alone (NEJM 2013; 369:1691-1703). The objectives are to determine the efficacy and safety of nab-paclitaxel and gemcitabine plus cisplatin in patients with Stage IV pancreatic cancer. Methods: Eligibility criteria included Stage IV adenocarcinoma of the pancreas, no prior chemotherapy for systemic disease, KPS ≥ 70; life expectancy ≥ 12 weeks and measurable disease. Doses are nab-paclitaxel 125 mg/m2 undiluted, gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2 in 500 ml of normal saline (NS), each infused over 30 minutes on days 1 and 8 of a 21 day cycle, along with 3 different dose levels of cisplatin (25, 37.5 or 50 mg/m2) in 500 ml of NS infused over 60 minutes, after the nab-paclitaxel infusion. Pre and post cisplatin hydration was given. The maximum tolerated dose and phase II dose of cisplatin is 25 mg/m2. Results: 25 pts were treated; 24 were evaluable (baseline and ≥ 1 follow up CT scan). The most common drug related grade (gr) 3 - 4 adverse events (AEs), n = 25, were thrombocytopenia 76% (gr 3 = 36%, gr 4 = 40%) with no serious bleeding events, anemia 32% (gr 3 = 32%, gr 4 = 0%), neutropenia 24% (gr 3 = 20%, gr 4 = 4%), infection 20% (gr 3 = 16%, gr 4 = 4%), and diarrhea 16% (gr 3 = 16%, gr 4 = 0%). Peripheral neuropathy ≥ gr 3 was seen in only 1 pt (gr 3 = 4%). Grade 5 AEs were infection (1), cardiac arrest (1), and stroke (1). Median time on therapy was 5.5 months, range (1 – 9.5). By RECIST 1.1 criteria, 2 pts had complete response (8.3%), 15 partial response (62.5%), 4 stable disease (16.7%), and 3 progressive disease (12.5%). Median overall survival to date as of 11/10/16 is 16.5 months. Conclusions: Although a small study, the high response rate and landmark evolving median survival are very encouraging. This regimen is being expanded in patients with stage IV pancreatic cancer, neoadjuvant and adjuvant settings. Clinical trial information: NCT01893801.