Citations

e23078 Background: There are limited patient (pt) reported outcome data regarding CDDP neurotoxicity. Methods: CDDP-induced peripheral neuropathy was evaluated in pts with testicular cancer planning to receive CDDP (20 mg/m2/d for 5 days) for ≥ 3 cycles. Neurotoxicity was assessed with the EORTC QLQ-CIPN20 tool before each CDDP cycle and every 2-4 months after, out to 18 months. We compared these data to our studies evaluating pts receiving doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide (AC), paclitaxel and oxaliplatin. The total score of the EORTC QLQ-CIPN20, each of the three subscale scores and each individual item was computed following the standard scoring algorithm and converted to a 0-100 scale. Descriptive statistics and graphical plots were utilized. Results: 54 pts receiving CDDP (mean age 33 years) and 18 pts receiving AC were evaluated. Following completion of CDDP, neuropathy symptoms (sensory neuropathy score and numbness/tingling in toes/feet) worsened for about 6 months (consistent with the so-called “coasting phenomena”), similar to what had previously been seen with oxaliplatin (but different than what had been seen with paclitaxel). For CDDP pts, during therapy, numbness and tingling in fingers/hands were more prominent, than the same symptoms in the toes/feet. After therapy was completed, numbness, and tingling became more prominent in toes/feet, but improved in the fingers/hands. After stopping therapy, shooting/burning pain did not worsen in upper or lower extremities. During therapy, CDDP pts had less problems than had previously been seen with oxaliplatin or paclitaxel, maybe because of the younger ages of the CDDP pts. With AC, all of the CIPN-20 sensory neuropathy scores were better than was seen in the pts receiving CDDP and also in pts receiving paclitaxel and oxaliplatin in previous evaluations. Conclusions: CDDP-induced neuropathy is more similar to oxaliplatin-induced neuropathy than paclitaxel-induced neuropathy. AC chemotherapy pts do not have substantial changes in CIPN 20 scores, consistent with the CIPN 20 instrument being a measure of chemotherapy-induced neuropathy, as opposed to more general chemotherapy-induced toxicities. Clinical trial information: NCT02677727.

TPS3155 Background: Genomic signatures are revolutionizing the definition, identification, and treatment of breast cancer. To precisely stratify breast cancers into actionable subgroups, full genome expression data and matching clinical data must be aggregated into a large data set. Such a data set will accelerate research and discovery, especially for smaller patient subsets who are not as widely represented within the current body of literature. Methods: FLEX is a multicenter, prospective, population-based, observational trial for patients with Stage I, II, and III breast cancer. All patients with stage I to III breast cancer who receive MammaPrint, with or without BluePrint on a primary breast tumor are eligible for enrollment. The study’s primary aim is to create a large scale, population-based registry of full genome expression data matched with clinical data to investigate new gene associations with prognostic and/or predictive value. Secondary objectives include utilizing the shared study infrastructure to examine and generate hypotheses for targeted subset analyses and/or trials based on full genome expression data. The design of FLEX allows targeted sub-studies and sub-analyses to be added as appendices after the initial baseline study is opened. Patients enrolled in the initial study are also eligible for inclusion in sub-studies where they meet all criteria and additional consent is not required. Additional clinical data will be collected as specified in the appendix protocols. The FLEX collaborative platform allows participating investigators the opportunity to author their own sub-study protocols, as approved by the FLEX Steering Committee of their peers. 13 sub-studies have already been identified and are under development. Eligibility: The study will enroll a minimum of 10000 patients aged ≥18 years with histologically proven invasive stage I-III breast cancer who signed informed consent. Enrollment began April 2017 and 1506 patients have been enrolled. Clinical trial information: NCT03053193.

PURPOSE Alliance/CALGB 50303 (NCT00118209), an intergroup, phase III study, compared dose-adjusted etoposide, prednisone, vincristine, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and rituximab (DA-EPOCH-R) with standard rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (R-CHOP) as frontline therapy for diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients received six cycles of DA-EPOCH-R or R-CHOP. The primary objective was progression-free survival (PFS); secondary clinical objectives included response rate, overall survival (OS), and safety. RESULTS Between 2005 and 2013, 524 patients were registered; 491 eligible patients were included in the final analysis. Most patients (74%) had stage III or IV disease; International Prognostic Index (IPI) risk groups included 26% IPI 0 to 1, 37% IPI 2, 25% IPI 3, and 12% IPI 4 to 5. At a median follow-up of 5 years, PFS was not statistically different between the arms (hazard ratio, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.68 to 1.27; P = .65), with a 2-year PFS rate of 78.9% (95% CI, 73.8% to 84.2%) for DA-EPOCH-R and 75.5% (95% CI, 70.2% to 81.1%) for R-CHOP. OS was not different (hazard ratio, 1.09; 95% CI, 0.75 to 1.59; P = .64), with a 2-year OS rate of 86.5% (95% CI, 82.3% to 91%) for DA-EPOCH-R and 85.7% (95% CI, 81.4% to 90.2%) for R-CHOP. Grade 3 and 4 adverse events were more common ( P < .001) in the DA-EPOCH-R arm than the R-CHOP arm, including infection (16.9% v 10.7%, respectively), febrile neutropenia (35.0% v 17.7%, respectively), mucositis (8.4% v 2.1%, respectively), and neuropathy (18.6% v 3.3%, respectively). Five treatment-related deaths (2.1%) occurred in each arm. CONCLUSION In the 50303 study population, the more intensive, infusional DA-EPOCH-R was more toxic and did not improve PFS or OS compared with R-CHOP. The more favorable results with R-CHOP compared with historical controls suggest a potential patient selection bias and may preclude generalizability of results to specific risk subgroups.

Study Design. Secondary analysis of a large administrative database. Objective. The objectives of this study are to: 1) identify the incidence and cause of 90-day readmissions following primary elective lumbar spine surgery, 2) offer insight into potential risk factors that contribute to these readmissions, and 3) quantify the cost associated with these readmissions. Summary of Background Data. As bundled-payment models for the reimbursement of surgical services become more popular in spine, the focus is shifting toward long-term patient outcomes in the context of 90-day episodes of care. With limited data available on national 90-day readmission statistics available, we hope to provide evidence that will aid in the development of more cost-effective perioperative care models. Methods. Using ICD-9 coding, we identified all patients 18 years of age and older in the 2014 Nationwide Readmissions Database (NRD) who underwent an elective, inpatient, primary lumbar spine surgery. Using multivariate logistic regression, we identified independent predictors of 90-day readmission while controlling for a multitude of confounding variables and completed a comparative cost analysis. Results. We identified 169,788 patients who underwent a primary lumbar spine procedure. In total 4268 (2.5%) were readmitted within 90 days. There was no difference in comorbidity burden between cohorts (readmitted vs. not readmitted) as quantified by the Elixhauser Comorbidity index. Independent predictors of increased odds of 90-day readmission were: anemia, uncomplicated diabetes and diabetes with chronic complications, surgical wound disruption and acute myocardial infarction at the time of the index admission, self-pay status, and an anterior surgical approach. Implant complications were identified as the primary related cause of readmission. These readmissions were associated with a significant cost increase. Conclusion. There are clearly identifiable risk factors that increase the odds of hospital readmission within 90 days of primary lumbar spine surgery. An overall 90-day readmission rate of 2.5%, while relatively low, carries significantly increased cost to both the patient and hospital. Level of Evidence: 3