Citations

During the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) pandemic, providers and patients must engage in shared decision making regarding the pros and cons of early versus delayed interventions for localized skin cancer. Patients at highest risk of COVID‐19 complications are older; are immunosuppressed; and have diabetes, cancer, or cardiopulmonary disease, with multiple comorbidities associated with worse outcomes. Physicians must weigh the patient's risk of COVID‐19 complications in the event of exposure against the risk of worse oncologic outcomes from delaying cancer therapy. Herein, the authors have summarized current data regarding the risk of COVID‐19 complications and mortality based on age and comorbidities and have reviewed the literature assessing how treatment delays affect oncologic outcomes. They also have provided multidisciplinary recommendations regarding the timing of local therapy for early‐stage skin cancers during this pandemic with input from experts at 11 different institutions. For patients with Merkel cell carcinoma, the authors recommend prioritizing treatment, but a short delay can be considered for patients with favorable T1 disease who are at higher risk of COVID‐19 complications. For patients with melanoma, the authors recommend delaying the treatment of patients with T0 to T1 disease for 3 months if there is no macroscopic residual disease at the time of biopsy. Treatment of tumors ≥T2 can be delayed for 3 months if the biopsy margins are negative. For patients with cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma, those with Brigham and Women's Hospital T1 to T2a disease can have their treatment delayed for 2 to 3 months unless there is rapid growth, symptomatic lesions, or the patient is immunocompromised. The treatment of tumors ≥T2b should be prioritized, but a 1‐month to 2‐month delay is unlikely to worsen disease‐specific mortality. For patients with squamous cell carcinoma in situ and basal cell carcinoma, treatment can be deferred for 3 months unless the individual is highly symptomatic.

e24176 Background: Decision aids for prostate cancer treatment can improve knowledge, but the relative effect of pre-consultation and within-consultation DAs is not known. Methods: We conducted a parallel design, 2-by-2 factorial, 4-arm, cluster-RCT in urology practices affiliated with the NCI’s Alliance research base. We compared patient knowledge immediately after consultation (%12-item% correct) intervention arms compared to usual care. We used mixed effects regression modeling to assess effect of interventions on knowledge adjusting for site-clustering, race/ethnicity (non-Hispanic White; Other), age (years), clinical stage (T1-3), PSA, and Gleason score. Results: 15 of 21 randomized centers accrued 158 pts from Nov 2017 to June 2019. The arm delivering both DAs (n = 3 sites) recruited 25 pts. The pre-consultation DA arm (n = 4 sites) recruited 39 pts. The within-consultation DA arm (n = 4 sites) recruited 44 pts. The no DA arm (n = 4 sites) accrued 50 pts. Overall, mean age was 64; 54% were AA; 73% had T1 stage; median Gleason = 7; and median PSA = 7. The combined DAs group, followed by pre-consultation reported higher median knowledge (75% and 67%, respectively). The within-consultation and no DA arms both reported median knowledge scores (58%). Within arm, inter-site standard deviations in mean knowledge scores ranged from 0.164 in in the pre-consultation arm to 0.232 in the usual care arm. Neither pre-consultation nor within-consultation DAs had statistically significant effects (p = .15 and p = .99, respectively). Pre-specified adjusted difference [97.5% CIs], comparing the pre-consultation DA and the within-consultation DA with the control was 9.4% [-7.3%, 26.2%] and -0.4% [-16.9%, 16.1%], respectively. Intra-cluster correlation (ICC) coefficient was high (.24). No interaction effects were identified (p = .98). A post-hoc analysis comparing any DA vs usual care found a mean adjusted difference [95% CI] of 5.6% [-8.5%, 19.8%] (p = 0.40), 63.9% for any DA and 58.3% for usual care. Conclusions: Possible knowledge gains associated with some DAs for early prostate cancer were obscured by larger-than-expected intra-cluster correlation effects associated with the primary outcome. How interventions were used was not measured. Support:UG1CA189823; https://acknowledgments.alliancefound.org ; R01 MD008934-06. Clinical trial information: NCT03103321 .

12007 Background: Up to 96% of patients with high grade glioma (HGG) report moderate to severe fatigue. Armodafinil, the R-enantiomer of modafinil, is a psychostimulant with low potential for abuse that has shown potential for improving severe fatigue in HGG patients. Methods: In this phase III double blinded placebo-controlled study, adults with HGG and moderate to severe fatigue, > 4 weeks after completing radiotherapy, were randomized to receive armodafinil daily (150 mg or 250 mg) or placebo for a total of 8 weeks. The primary outcome was efficacy in treating severe fatigue. Secondary outcomes included evaluation of tolerability, neurocognitive function, and quality of life. Patients were evaluated at baseline, 4 and 8 weeks. Results: A total of 328 patients were enrolled between 6/3/13-3/1/19. There were 103 (150 mg arm), 97 (250 mg arm) and 97 (placebo arm) evaluable patients with primary endpoint data available. The median age was 60 years (20-85) with a median Brief Fatigue Inventory (BFI) worst fatigue score of 8 (6-10). 60.3% were male, 80.5% received concomitant chemotherapy, and 39.7% were on corticosteroids. The global fatigue score at end of weeks 4 and 8 were lower than at baseline (p<0.0001) and in the 250 mg arm than placebo (p=0.0356) and was higher for corticosteroid users than non-users (p=0.0002). There was no statistically significant difference for clinically meaningful improvement in BFI usual fatigue score from baseline to end of week 8 between the three arms (p=0.9601). Patients reported an improvement in concentration at week 4 from baseline on the 150 mg arm(P=0.0311). There was no statistically significant difference on neurocognitive tests from baseline to end of week 4 (p>0.05) or week 8 (p>0.05) between arms. More patients reported insomnia on the 250 mg arm (p=0.0083). Conclusions: There is no meaningful benefit of the use of armodafinil to reduce moderate to severe fatigue in patients with HGG. In certain cases there may be benefit of armodafinil 150 mg to aid concentration without the risk of insomnia.Support: UG1CA189823;U10CA180868 (NRG). Clinical trial information: NCT01781468 .

8046 Background: Patients (pts) with relapsed iNHL have limited standard treatment options. The immunomodulatory agent lenalidomide shows enhanced activity with rituximab (ie, R2), which recently reported 39.4-mo median PFS in R/R iNHL pts (AUGMENT; J Clin Oncol. 2019;37:1188). Methods: MAGNIFY is a multicenter, phase IIIb trial in pts with R/R FL gr1-3a, MZL, or MCL (NCT01996865) exploring optimal lenalidomide duration. Lenalidomide 20 mg/d, d1-21/28 + rituximab 375 mg/m2/wk c1 and then q8wk c3+ (R2) are given for 12c followed by 1:1 randomization in pts with SD, PR, or CR to R2 vs rituximab maintenance for 18 mo. Data presented here focus on induction R2 in efficacy-evaluable FL and MZL pts (MCL not included) receiving ≥ 1 treatment with baseline/post-baseline assessments to analyze the primary end point of ORR by 1999 IWG criteria. Results: As of June 16, 2019, 393 pts (81% FL gr1-3a; 19% MZL) were enrolled with a median follow up of 23.7 mo (range, 0.6-57.8) for censored pts (n = 335). Median age was 66 y (range, 35-91), 83% had stage III/IV disease, with a median of 2 prior therapies (95% prior rituximab-containing). ORR was 69% with 40% CR/CRu (Table). Median DOR was 39.0 mo, and median PFS was 40.1 mo. 199 pts (51%) have completed 12c of R2, and 188 (48%) have been randomized and entered maintenance. 139 pts (35%) prematurely discontinued both lenalidomide and rituximab, primarily due to AEs (n = 52, 13%) or PD (n = 45, 11%). Most common all-grade AEs were 48% fatigue, 43% neutropenia, 36% diarrhea, 31% nausea, and 30% constipation. Grade 3/4 AE neutropenia was 36% (9 pts [2%] had febrile neutropenia); all other grade 3/4 AEs occurred in < 7% of pts. Conclusions: R2 is active with a tolerable safety profile in pts with R/R FL and MZL, including rituximab-refractory, double-refractory, and early relapse pts. Clinical trial information: NCT01996865 . [Table: see text]

7018 Background: Standard reporting of symptomatic adverse events (AEs) in oncology relies on clinicians to rate patient (pt) experience using CTCAE; each symptom is represented by a single graded item. To capture direct pt experience, NCI developed PRO-CTCAE to supplement CTCAE. In PRO-CTCAE, the pt answers up to 3 questions per AE about a symptom’s frequency, severity and interference with daily activities. To align PRO-CTCAE with CTCAE, we developed an algorithm for mapping sets of questions for an AE to a single composite numerical grade. Methods: We used a 5-step process. (1) All 187 possible PRO-CTCAE score permutations were presented to clinical investigators to subjectively map permutations to single numerical grades (range 0-3). (2) Permutations with < 75% agreement were presented to investigator committees at a National Clinical Trials Network meeting to gain majority consensus via anonymous voting. (3) The resulting algorithm was refined via graphical and tabular approaches to assure directional consistency. (4) Validity, reliability and sensitivity were assessed in a national study dataset. (5) Accuracy for delineating AEs between study arms was measured in 2 phase III clinical trials (Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology A091105 and Exelixis COMET-2). Results: (1) 12/187 score permutations had < 75% initial agreement. (2) Majority consensus was reached for all permutations. (3) 5 mappings were adjusted to assure directional consistency. (4) Composite grades for 46/59 (78%) AEs were higher in pts with ECOG performance status 2-4 vs 0-1 (median effect size 0.23 [range -0.49-0.73]; 32/59 effect size ≥0.2; 25/59 p< 0.05), similar to when conducting analysis on individual unmapped items. The test-retest reliability for 24 selected composite grades ranged from 0.57-0.96 (median intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] 0.77) with 18/24 (75%) grades having ICC ≥0.7. Median (range) standardized response means in pts reporting worsening, no change, and improvement were 0.20 (0.03-0.34), -0.06 (-0.20-0.03) and -0.12 (-0.32-0.06). (5) Pattern, directionality and statistical significance of between-arm differences in both trials were preserved with composite grades as compared to individual unmapped items. Conclusions: A composite grading algorithm for PRO-CTCAE was rigorously developed and validated. PRO-CTCAE composite grades may be useful in analyses to provide a single metric for each pt-reported AE for trial and real-world reporting. Support: UG1CA189823; U01CA233046; HHSN261200800043C; Bayer (A091105); https://acknowledgments.alliancefound.org .

5584 Background: The timing of systemic therapy in relation to radiotherapy (RT) is important in most malignancies. In contrast, androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) has largely been investigated in relation to its duration rather than its sequencing with RT. Herein, we conduct the first combined individual patient analysis of two phase III randomized trials to determine the optimal timing of ADT with RT in localized prostate cancer (PCa). Methods: Individual patient data was obtained from the Malone et al trial (JCO 2019), which randomized patients to receive neoadjuvant/concurrent or concurrent/adjuvant ADT for 6 months with prostate only RT. This was combined with the prostate only RT arms of RTOG 9413 that randomized patients to 4 months of neoadjuvant/concurrent or adjuvant ADT. The neoadjuvant/concurrent arms of both trials were combined into the “neoadjuvant” group, and the concurrent/adjuvant (Malone) and adjuvant arm (RTOG 9413) were combined in the “adjuvant” group. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). Cumulative incidence of distant metastasis (DM), PCa-specific mortality (PCSM) and biochemical failure (BF) were calculated using the Fine-Gray method with non-PCa deaths as competing events. Late genitourinary (GU) and gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity are also reported. Results: The median follow-up was 14.9 years (yrs) and 1065 patients were included (n=531 neoadjuvant, 534 adjuvant). Groups were well balanced for all baseline characteristics. Adjuvant ADT was superior to neoadjuvant ADT in terms of BF (15yr: 33% vs 43%, HR: 1.37 (95%CI: 1.12-1.68), p=0.002), DM (15yr: 12% vs 18%, HR: 1.40 (95%CI: 1.00-1.95), p=0.04), and PFS (15yr: 36% vs 29%, HR: 1.25 (95%CI: 1.07-1.47), p=0.01). Adjuvant ADT yielded lower PCSM (15yr: 15% vs 20%, HR: 1.29 (95%CI: 0.95-1.75), p=0.10), but did not reach statistical significance. This approached statistical significance in high risk PCa (HR 1.39 (95%CI 1.00-1.93), p=0.053). OS was not significantly different between arms (15yr: 39% vs 34%, HR: 1.11 (95%CI: 0.95-1.30), p=0.20). There was no significant difference in either late grade ≥3 GI (p=0.21) or GU (p=0.98) toxicity. Conclusions: We demonstrate for the first time that sequencing of ADT with RT significantly impacts long-term oncologic outcomes in localized PCa, favoring an adjuvant rather than neoadjuvant approach, without increasing late toxicity. This data has important implications to ongoing and future clinical trial design. Clinical trial information: NCT00769548 .

Abstract Background: Current dogma for the management of patients with PV dictates controlling erythrocytosis (to goal hematocrit levels of &lt;45% (males) or &lt;42%(females)) to decrease risks of thrombohemorrhagic complications. Control is achieved by either phlebotomy (through induction of iatrogenic iron deficiency), and/or direct myelosuppression (through hydroxyurea, interferon-alpha, or anagrelide). Although phlebotomy is clinically considered a very benign therapy, we hypothesize that PV associated fatigue is exacerbated by iron deficiency induced fatigue (Qual Life Res2000;9:5(491–7)), and evaluated the impact of therapeutic control of erythrocytosis on PV patients. Methods: A detailed analysis of patients with PV whom responded to an international web based survey of MPD patients which registered responses regarding diagnosis, disease course, current medications, current blood counts, frequency of phlebotomy, constitutional symptoms, and fatigue (FACT-An and Brief Fatigue Inventory). Results: A total of 405 self reported PV patients (median age 56; 48% female) from a wide geographic international distribution responded. Individuals were a median of 4 years from their initial diagnosis of PV (range 0–36). Prior PV associated complications were reported as thrombotic (n=98; 24%), hemorrhagic (n=101; 25%), or both events (n=37; 9%). When these latter values were combined with age (i.e. &gt;60 years) 61% of patients (n=246) would be considered high risk. Therapy for their PV was reported by 96% (n=388) patients, with 89% (361) having been phlebotomized, 72% (n = 291) received aspirin, 64% (n = 261) having received 1 or more myelosuppressive agent (hydroxyurea 53% (n = 216), anagrelide 22% (n = 88), interferon-alpha 16% (n = 63)). Amongst patients whom were phlebotomized over the past year (43%; n =174: median 4 units (range 1–18)), 53% (n = 92) received concurrent myelosuppressive therapy. Amongst patients whom originally, but no longer required phlebotomy 35% (n = 142), 94% (n = 134) were receiving myelosuppressive treatments. QOL assessments indicated fatigue as measured by both instruments is clearly increased across the PV respondents compared to published controls for those instruments (p&lt;0.001). Additionally, although the burden of fatigue was not significantly higher in “high-risk” PV, fatigue levels were higher amongst those with prior thrombo-hemorrhagic events (p=0.03, or both types of events p&lt;0.01). In regards to the impact of PV therapy upon fatigue, the burden of this symptom was not significantly diminished for those individuals on phlebotomy alone compared to those on cytoreductive therapy. Neither did fatigue levels correlate with the frequency or intensity of phlebotomy. Additionally, although fatigue burden was high (compared to controls) amongst patients on cytoreductive therapy, no agent had a clear advantage in alleviating (or disadvantage in exacerbating) fatigue. Conclusions: Fatigue amongst patients with PV is significantly increased compared to controls, and no therapeutic option seems to have a significant advantage with regards to fatigue. Given the multifactorial and subjective nature of fatigue it is impossible to separate the individual contributions of disease activity and therapy to the burden of fatigue in these patients. Hopefully, targeted therapy against the molecular origins of myeloproliferation in these patients will lead to better improvements in fatigue than current options offer.

Abstract While there are certain common clinical features in myeloma, the disease shows significant heterogeneity with regard to disease progression, and responses to therapy, affecting both survival and toxicities. Heritable variations in a wide variety of genes and pathways affecting cellular functions and drug responses likely impact patient outcomes. In the Bank On A Cure (BOAC) program we have developed a custom chip that assesses 3,404 SNPs representing variations in cellular functions and pathways that may be involved in myeloma progression and response. The chip has gone through rigorous quality controls checks for high call rates, accuracy, and reproducibility that will be presented. Using the BOAC chip, we have conducted studies to look for SNPs that may identify biologic variations that are associated with good or poor response across a variety of treatments. In this study we looked for SNPs that may distinguish short term and long term survivors in two phase III clinical trials: ECOG E9486 and intergroup trial S9321. E9487 patients were treated with VBMCP followed by randomization to no further treatment, IFN-alpha, or cylcophosphamide; and, although there was variation in survival, no significant differences in survival were noted among the 3 arms of the trial. Patients included in this SNP study from S9321 received VAD induction followed by randomization to VBMCP or high dose melphalan + TBI. SNP profiles were obtained for patients with less than 1 year EFS (n=20 in E9487; n=50 in S9321) and patients showing greater than 3 years EFS (n=32 in E9486; n=41 in S9321). Statistical approaches were performed to identify single and groups of SNPs that best discriminated the survival groups. Previous studies have suggested genetic variations in drug metabolism genes, p-glycoprotein transport, and DNA repair genes may influence survival outcomes. Our results show significant survival associations of genetic variations in genes within these functional categories (eg. GST, XRCC, ABCB, and CYP genes). Although genetic variations were found that were uniquely associated with each clinical trial, several of these genetic variations show survival associations that increase in significance when the two trials were examined as a conglomerate data set. Grouping genetic variations through common pathway approaches using gene set enrichment analysis, as well as clustering or partitioning algorithms, further improve the value of the SNPs as potential prognostic markers of survival outcomes. These results and statistical approaches will be presented, and represent steps toward identifying patient variations in biologic mechanisms important in predicting therapeutic outcomes.