Citations

11514 Background: Cancer pain is a significant problem that impairs patient quality of life and increases healthcare utilization. ePAL is a smartphone application that utilizes patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and artificial intelligence (AI) to optimize cancer pain management. This randomized controlled trial examined the impact of ePAL on cancer pain severity, attitudes toward cancer pain, and healthcare utilization. Methods: Patients with pain from metastatic solid tumors (n = 112) undergoing treatment in a palliative care clinic were randomized to either a control group (n = 56) that received usual care or an intervention group (n = 56) that received ePAL in addition to usual care for 8 weeks. Measures of pain severity (Brief Pain Inventory), attitudes towards cancer treatment (Barriers Questionnaire II) and anxiety (General Anxiety Disorder-7) were assessed. We used repeated measures mixed modeling to assess change in outcome measures over time. We also conducted a chart review to identify pain-related hospital admissions and emergency department (ED) visits and compared risk between study groups. Results: Pain severity (BPI) and negative attitudes toward cancer treatment (BQ-II) decreased significantly for those assigned to ePAL compared to controls (ß = -0.09, p = 0.034 and ß = -0.037, p = 0.042, respectively). Patients assigned to ePAL reported higher anxiety scores compared to controls (ß = 0.21, p = 0.015). Patients assigned to ePAL had significantly fewer pain-related hospital admissions (n = 4 vs. n = 20, per patient risk ratio 0.31, p = 0.018) and fewer pain-related admissions through the ED (n = 2 vs. n = 14, per patient risk ratio 0.18, p = 0.008) compared to control group. Conclusions: To our knowledge, this is the first mobile app to utilize patient reported outcomes and artificial intelligence to significantly decrease pain scores and pain-related hospitalizations in patients with cancer-related pain. Future directions include examining the efficacy of ePAL in settings with limited access to palliative care.

TPS8118 Background: Effective DLBCL adjuvant therapy after first-line chemotherapy is needed as high-risk DLBCL is associated with a poor 4-year overall survival (OS) rate (Sehn et al, Blood 2007;109:1857-61). In a phase II study of the oral mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitor everolimus in relapsed, aggressive non-Hodgkin lymphoma, DLBCL patients (n=47) had a 30% overall response rate (Witzig et al, Leukemia 2011;25:341-7). Methods: PILLAR-2 is an ongoing international, randomized, double-blind, phase 3 study designed to compare everolimus efficacy and safety with that of placebo in poor-risk DLBCL patients who achieved complete response (CR) with first-line rituximab-based chemotherapy (R-chemo) (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00790036; sponsor: Novartis Pharmaceuticals). Eligibility criteria include age ≥18 years; confirmed stage II bulky, III, or IV DLBCL and International Prognostic Index 3-5 at diagnosis; confirmed CR per revised International Workshop Response Criteria for malignant lymphoma (Cheson et al, J Clin Oncol 2007;25:579-86) after first-line R-chemo regimen completed 6-14 weeks before study drug start; Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status ≤2; no ongoing or post–R-chemo radiation; and no myelosuppressive chemotherapy or biologic therapy within 3 weeks. Patients are randomized 1:1 to everolimus 10 mg once daily or matching placebo and treated for 12 months or until disease relapse, unacceptable toxicity, or death. Radiologic tumor assessment is performed at baseline, every 12 weeks during years 1 and 2, every 24 weeks during years 3 and 4, and annually thereafter until start of new anticancer therapy or 5 years after last patient randomization. The primary endpoint is disease-free survival (DFS). Secondary endpoints are OS, lymphoma-specific survival, and safety. Expected enrollment is 687 patients. Final analysis will be performed when 279 DFS events occur; survival follow-up will continue until 338 deaths occur and the last randomized patient has been followed for ≥5 years. Currently, 422 patients are enrolled. The data monitoring committee last reviewed the trial in July 2011 and recommended that it continue as planned.

576 Background: In node-negative, ER + breast cancer, gene expression profiling can identify level of risk and, in the case of ODX, may also identify pts with a higher chance of benefiting from adjuvant chemotherapy. Because the gene profile in ODX includes an assessment of ER, HER2, and proliferation, we hypothesized that clinicians using standardized criteria could discriminate risk (high versus low/intermediate) as specified by ODX. Methods: We identified Mayo Clinic patients with node-negative, ER + breast cancer, for whom ODX scores were available. Tumor slides were reviewed by an expert breast pathologist to confirm tumor size, histology, and tumor grade. Both ER and PR were quantitated; HER-2 was determined by IHC (FISH, if 2+). These clinical cases were presented to six academic oncologists, blinded to the ODX score, to predict ODX risk (low, intermediate, or high) and give their recommendation for chemotherapy (CTX) (yes/no). Afterwards, they were presented with the same cases with the actual ODX score, to give recommendations regarding CTX. Results: ODX scores in tumors from 31 patients were low in 18 pts, intermediate in 10 pts, and high in 3 pts. Concordance between predicted and actual ODX scores being low/intermediate vs high exceeded 87% for each oncologist. The most frequent discrepancies were actual low scores predicted as intermediate (31/80 discordant) and actual intermediate scores predicted as low (29/80 discordant). Overall agreement of predicted scores (high vs low/intermediate) among the oncologists was substantial (kappa=0.75, p<0.0001). CTX recommendations following provision of the ODX scores changed on average 18.2% (range 12.9%-25.8%) of the time, with slightly fewer changing for, versus against, a CTX recommendation. Conclusions: Our findings suggest that the proper evaluation and interpretation of traditional prognostic criteria will identify most node negative, ER + patients at high risk of recurrence (as predicted by ODX) but poorly discriminate low versus intermediate risk. The provision of ODX data changed the recommendation for CTX in approximately 20% of cases. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

Introduction: Anti-PD-1 monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) are highly active in relapsed/refractory classical Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL), but most patients (pts) will still relapse. Given this, allogeneic stem cell transplantation (alloHSCT) remains an important option for pts after PD-1 blockade, as it offers the possibility of cure. Prior reports have suggested that alloHSCT after PD-1 mAbs may be associated with severe immune-related complications including acute graft-versus-host disease (GVHD), veno-occlusive disease (VOD) and cytokine release/febrile non-infectious syndrome (CRS). Prior studies of alloHSCT after PD-1 blockade in cHL have been limited by the small number of pts and short follow-up, preventing an accurate assessment of long-term outcomes and complications, risk factors for early toxicity, and the impact of transplant strategies such as choice of GVHD prophylaxis. We therefore assembled a large retrospective international cohort of cHL pts who underwent alloHSCT after PD-(L)1 blockade to better answer these questions, including an assessment of the impact of post-transplant cyclophosphamide (PTCy) on efficacy and toxicity. Methods: Medical records and databases were reviewed at 26 European and United States transplant centers to identify pts with cHL who underwent an alloHSCT any time after receiving a PD-1 or PD-L1 mAb. Response assessment was performed by local investigators according to Lugano 2014 criteria. Overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), cumulative incidence (CumInc) of relapse (CIR), non-relapse mortality (NRM), acute (a) and chronic (c) GVHD were estimated, as was the association between baseline variables and these outcomes. Results: Between 2014 and 2019, 150 pts were identified who underwent alloHSCT after a median of 10 (range, 1-74) doses of nivolumab (n=118), pembrolizumab (n=31), or avelumab (n=1). The median age was 31 (range 17-68) and pts had received a median of 4 (range, 2-11) lines of therapy prior to PD-(L)1 blockade. 138 pts (92%) had failed BV and 111 (74%) autologous HSCT. The best overall response to PD-(L)1 mAbs was CR for 62 pts (41%), PR for 55 (37%), SD for 17 (11%), PD for 15 (10%) and unknown for 1 (1%). Median time from last dose of PD-(L)1 mAb to alloHSCT was 80 days (range, 17-756) with 70 pts (47%) receiving intervening systemic therapy. At alloHSCT, 90 pts were in CR (60%), 45 in PR (30%), 5 in SD (3%), and 10 in PD (7%). Donors were haploidentical (n=71, 47%), matched sibling (n=29, 19%), matched unrelated (n=39, 26%), mismatched unrelated (n=7, 5%), cord blood (n=2, 1%), or unknown (n=2, 1%). Stem cell source was bone marrow (n=38, 25%), peripheral blood (n=110, 73%), or cord blood (n=2, 1%). GVHD prophylaxis included PTCy in 88 pts (59%) (69/71 (97%) with haploidentical donors; 19/79 (24%) with other donors). With a median post-alloHSCT follow-up for survivors of 23.8 months (range, 1-67), the 2y OS and PFS were 79% (95CI 71-86%) and 65% (95CI 55-73%), respectively, while the 2y CumIncs of relapse and NRM were 21% (95CI 13-29%) and 14%, (95CI, 8-22%), respectively (Fig. 1A-B). 27 pts have died, 3 due to disease and 24 to NRM, including aGVHD (n=7) and VOD (n=2). Veno-occlusive disease (VOD) occurred in 5 pts (day 100 CumInc 4%) and 29 pts (19%) developed CRS (grade 1 n=16; grade 2 n=7; grade 3 n=4; grade 4 n=2). The 6-month CumIncs of grade 2-4, grade 3-4 and grade 4 aGVHD were 39%, 16% and 8%, respectively. Hyperacute GVHD (onset ≤ 14 days after alloHSCT) occurred in 4% of pts and was fatal in 2 pts. The 2y CumInc of cGVHD was 45%. Neither receipt of &gt; 10 doses (median) of anti-PD-(L)1 mAb nor undergoing alloHSCT ≤80 days (median) after last dose of PD-(L)1 mAb were associated with PFS or OS. However, pts with a shorter time to transplant (≤80 days) appeared to have a higher risk of severe (grade 3-4) aGVHD (6m CumInc 24% vs 9%, p=0.006). Recipients of PTCy in this cohort had lower 2y CumIncs of cGVHD (34% vs 58%, p=0.01) and relapse (12% vs 31%, p=0.02), superior 2y PFS (76% vs 54%, p=0.015), and similar rates of severe aGVHD (15% vs 18%, p=0.5), 2y NRM (12% vs 16%, p=0.5), and 2y OS (82% vs 78%, p=0.6). Conclusions: With extended follow-up of a large international cohort, our results argue that alloSCT performed after PD-(L)1 mAbs is a feasible strategy associated with an excellent PFS and a very low CIR for this disease. The use of PT-Cy appears to be associated with improved outcomes and may at present represent the optimal transplant strategy in this pt population. Figure Disclosures Corradini: kite: Honoraria; Abbvie: Honoraria; Servier: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; KiowaKirin: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria; Daiichi Sankyo: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria. Ho:Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Omeros Corporation: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Jaglowski:Kite: Consultancy, Other: advisory board, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Other: advisory board, Research Funding; Juno: Consultancy, Other: advisory board; Unum Therapeutics Inc.: Research Funding. Herrera:Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Gilead Sciences: Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Research Funding; Merck: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech, Inc.: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Immune Design: Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding. Blaise:Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; Pierre Fabre medicaments: Honoraria; Molmed: Consultancy, Honoraria. Hamadani:Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Sanofi Genzyme: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Merck: Research Funding; Otsuka: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy; Medimmune: Consultancy, Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy. Ansell:LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Affimed: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Regeneron: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding. Nieto:Astra-Zeneca: Research Funding; Affimed: Consultancy; Affimed: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding. Feldman:Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel expenses, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Research Funding; AbbVie: Honoraria, Other: Travel expenses, Speakers Bureau; Portola Pharma: Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Honoraria, Other: Travel expenses, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Other: Travel expenses, Speakers Bureau; Kyowa Hakko Kirin: Research Funding; Eisai: Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Research Funding; Cell Medica: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Corvus: Research Funding; Viracta: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. McGuirk:ArticulateScience LLC: Other: Assistance with manuscript preparation; Bellicum Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Kite Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Gamida Cell: Research Funding; Pluristem Ltd: Research Funding; Juno Therapeutics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Astellas: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Fresenius Biotech: Research Funding. Mohty:Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Research Funding. Stamatoulas Bastard:Celgene: Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy. Houot:Bristol Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Merck Sharp Dohme: Honoraria. Manson:Bristol Myers Squibb: Honoraria. Orvain:Incyte: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Other: Travel & accommodations; Pfizer: Other: Travel & accommodations. Bouabdallah:Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Frigault:Novartis: Consultancy; Kite/Gilead: Honoraria; Nkarta: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy; Juno/Celgene: Consultancy; Foundation Medicine: Consultancy; Xenetic: Consultancy. Chen:Takeda: Consultancy; Kiadis: Consultancy; Magenta: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy. Lynch:T.G. Therapeutics: Research Funding; Rhizen Pharmaceuticals S.A: Research Funding; Takeda Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Juno Therapeutics: Research Funding; Incyte Corporation: Research Funding; Johnson Graffe Keay Moniz & Wick LLP: Consultancy. Smith:AstraZeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp: Consultancy, Research Funding; Acerta Pharma BV: Research Funding; Portola Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb (spouse): Research Funding; Denovo Biopharma: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Ignyta (spouse): Research Funding; Incyte Corporation: Research Funding; Ayala (spouse): Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding. Byrne:Karyopharm: Research Funding. Cohen:Hutchison: Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Research Funding; Janssen Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bristol-Meyers Squibb Company: Research Funding; Takeda Pharmaceuticals North America, Inc.: Research Funding; Gilead/Kite: Consultancy; Genentech, Inc.: Consultancy, Research Funding; UNUM: Research Funding; ASH: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Lymphoma Research Foundation: Research Funding. Svoboda:AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Celgene: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kyowa: Consultancy; Merck: Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding. Santoro:Bayer: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; MSD: Speakers Bureau; Arqule: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; AstraZeneca: Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Servier: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Speakers Bureau; BMS: Speakers Bureau; Roche: Speakers Bureau; Abb-Vie: Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Speakers Bureau; BMS: Consultancy; Lilly: Speakers Bureau; Sandoz: Speakers Bureau; Eisai: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Armand:Sigma Tau: Research Funding; Otsuka: Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; Tensha: Research Funding; Affimed: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Adaptive: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Merck: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Infinity: Consultancy; Genentech: Research Funding. Zinzani:Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Portola: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Immune Design: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Sandoz: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Servier: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celltrion: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Consultancy; Eusapharma: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Verastem: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; MSD: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Kyowa Kirin: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; TG Therapeutics: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Carlo-Stella:Servier: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, accommodations; Genenta Science srl: Consultancy; Boehringer Ingelheim: Consultancy; F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Honoraria, Other: Travel, accommodations, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy, Other: Travel, accommodations, Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Research Funding; Rhizen Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria; AstraZeneca: Honoraria; Janssen Oncology: Honoraria; MSD: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria; Janssen: Other: Travel, accommodations; Takeda: Other: Travel, accommodations.

Background: Question prompt lists (QPLs) are structured sets of disease-specific questions intended for patient use, encouraging patients to ask questions to facilitate their consultation with their physician. Aim: The aim of this study was to develop a QPL specific to adults with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), created by esophageal experts. Methods: The QPL content (78 questions) was derived through a modified Delphi method consisting of 2 rounds. In round 1, 18 esophageal experts provided 5 answers to the prompt “What you wish your patients would ask” and “What questions do patients often not ask, that I wish they would ask?” In round 2, the experts rated each question on a 5-point Likert scale, and responses rated as “essential” or “important,” determined by an a priori threshold of ≥4.0, were accepted for the QPL. Results: Twelve esophageal experts participated. Of 143 questions from round 1, 110 (76.9%) were accepted for inclusion in the QPL, meeting a median value of ≥4.0, and, subsequently, it reduced to 78, minimizing redundancy. Median values ranged between 4.0 and 5.0, with the highest agreement median (5.0) for questions asking dosing and timing of proton pump inhibitor therapy, and surveillance in Barrett’s. Questions were categorized into the following categories: “What does this illness mean,” “lifestyle modifications,” “general treatment,” “treatment with proton pump inhibitors,” “What I should expect for my future,” and “Barrett’s.” The largest number of questions covered lifestyle modifications (21.8%), with the highest agreement median (5.0) for “How helpful are lifestyle modifications in GERD?” Conclusions: A preliminary GERD-specific QPL, the first of its kind, was developed by esophageal experts. Modification after more patient consultation and feedback is planned in subsequent versions to create a GERD-QPL for eventual use in clinical gastroenterology.