Citations

e21681 Background: Maintaining quality of life with minimal symptoms is an important goal of cancer treatment. We surveyed patients undergoing cancer treatment about their preferences for information about the long-term symptom burden associated with their current treatment. Methods: Patients undergoing active cancer treatment were enrolled at two large cancer centers from 1/2014 to 7/2015. At the time of enrollment patients reported their household income, employment, performance status and their agreement with the statement, “It would be useful to know the percentage of patients having persistent symptoms more than a year after getting the same treatment I am getting.” Treatment intention (curative vs. palliative) was reported by the treating oncologist. Results: 196 patients completed the survey. The mean age was 55.7 (range 20-80); 54% were female, 69% were white, and 60% were receiving palliative treatment. The majority (83%) of patients either strongly agreed or somewhat agreed that it would be helpful to have information about future symptoms. In univariable analyses, this preference did not significantly differ based on patient-reported performance status, sex, age, treatment intent, race, or household income. Using a more stringent criterion to dichotomize the outcome, 59% of participants strongly agreed that it would be helpful to have information about future symptoms. Patients undergoing treatment with curative intent were significantly more likely to strongly agree (72% vs. 51%, p = 0.0035). In a multivariable analysis adjusting for age, sex, income level, employment status, and patient-reported performance status, participants undergoing curative versus palliative treatment had 3.1 times the odds (95% CI 1.47-6.65) of strongly agreeing. Conclusions: The majority of patients undergoing cancer treatment wanted to know what symptoms to expect in the future, and this was independent of patient demographics. Patients undergoing treatment with curative intent are significantly more likely to want this information than patients undergoing palliative treatment. Symptom data collected through research studies and registries should be summarized by treatment and other key predictors and made available to patients.

7512 Background: Outcomes in activated B cell subtype diffuse large B cell lymphoma (ABC-DLBCL) and r-NHL are poor (Sehn Blood 2015, Crump ASCO 2016). ZUMA-1 is the first, multicenter trial of anti-CD19 chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cells, axi-cel, in r-NHL. Methods: Dosing and eligibility were per Neelapu ASH 2016. The primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR); secondary endpoints were duration of response (DOR), overall survival (OS), and safety. Cell of origin (COO) and CD19 status were assessed centrally using Lymphoma Subtyping Test NanoString (Wallden JCO 2015) and a validated immunohistochemistry assay, respectively. Results: As of Jan 27, 2017, 111 patients (pts) were enrolled; the manufacturing success rate was 99% with an average 17-d turnaround time; 101 pts (modified intent-to-treat [mITT] population) received axi-cel. In the mITT population, the ORR was 82% (complete response [CR], 54%). With 8.7 m median follow-up, 44% remain in response and 39% in CR. The median DOR was 8.1 m and not reached (NR) for pts with CR. Median OS was NR. Results for clinical and biologic covariates are listed in the table. In pts who received tocilizumab (n = 43) and/or steroids (n = 27) for cytokine release syndrome (CRS) and/or neurologic events (NE), ORR was 84% and 78%, respectively. Most common grade ≥3 adverse events (AEs) were neutropenia (66%), leukopenia (44%), anemia (43%), febrile neutropenia (31%), thrombocytopenia (24%), and encephalopathy (21%). Rates of grade ≥3 CRS and NE were 13% and 28%, respectively. There were 3 grade 5 AEs (Neelapu ASH 2016). Conclusions: Axi-cel induced an ORR of 82% in pts with r-NHL, response is ongoing in 44% of pts at 8.7 m. Similar clinical responses were observed in pts with r-ABC-DLBCL. AEs were manageable and the use of tocilizumab/steroids did not appear to impact ORR. Drs Locke and Neelapu contributed equally. Funding source: Kite Pharma and Leukemia & Lymphoma Society Therapy Acceleration Program Clinical trial information: NCT02348216. [Table: see text]

7056 Background: No therapies are approved for MDS after HMA failure. 04-24 was a single-arm study to evaluate best BMBL response as a potential surrogate for OS in higher-risk (HR) MDS pts who progressed on or after an HMA. Rigo is a Ras-mimetic that inhibits the RAS-RAF-MEK pathway, which is frequently activated in HR MDS (Athuluri-Divakar Cell 2016; Gil-Bazo Cancer Biol Ther 2016). Methods: Eligible MDS pts had 5-30% BMBL confirmed within 6 wks pre-study and progression per International Working Group (IWG) 2006 criteria on or after HMAs within 2 yrs. Rigo 1800 mg/24 hrs was continuously infused over 72 hrs q 2 wks × 8 cycles, then q 4 wks until progression or unacceptable toxicity. Primary endpoint was relationship of best BMBL IWG response to OS by Kaplan Meier method. Results: 64 pts were treated (median 5 cycles, range 1-32+), with 61% male, median age 73 (range 47-87), median prior HMA duration 10.8 mos (range 1.2-70.2). Revised International Prognostic Scoring System scores were low 2%, intermediate 11%, high 27%, very high 53%, and unknown 8%. ≥Grade 3 adverse events in ≥10% of pts were anemia 19%, thrombocytopenia 19%, and febrile neutropenia 16%. At the analysis time 40 pts (63%) had died. Best BMBL IWG response was marrow complete response (mCR) 14 pts (22%), stable disease (SD) 30 (47%), progressive disease (PD) 15 (23%), and failure (early death/withdrawal) 5 (8%); 2 mCR pts had transplant. Median OS was 7.0 mos (95% confidence interval 4.8-10.8). Landmark median OS (from day of best BMBL response) was mCR not reached; SD 6.3 mos; PD 3.3 mos. Median OS of mCR+SD was 8.5 mos, with log-rank p = 0.011 (mCR+SD OS to PD OS). Conclusions: BMBL response is a predictor of survival for MDS pts receiving Rigo after HMA failure, confirming findings in earlier Phase 1/2 studies (Silverman ASCO 2015 Abstr 7017). Based on earlier results identifying an MDS subset benefitting from Rigo (Garcia-Manero Lancet Oncol 2016; ASCO 2016 Abstr 165681), a randomized Phase 3 trial of Rigo vs physician’s choice (INSPIRE) is ongoing to determine if Rigo improves survival after HMA failure within 9 cycles. Clinical trial information: NCTO 1928537.

6572 Background: Cancer patients (pts) receive complex care that may cause physical, emotional, & financial sequelae. Current practice limits clinician time to address patient concerns. The Patient Reported Outcome Quality Of Life (PROQOL) system was developed as a self-reported electronic questionnaire to assess symptoms, QOL and provide data about bothersome issues. Our aim was to determine if the PROQOL system improves QOL without negatively impacting routine clinic workflow. Methods: Eligible pts had multiple myeloma, amyloidosis, head & neck or gynecologic cancer seen in Hematology/Oncology clinics at Mayo Clinic, and were stratified by stem cell transplant and active treatment status. Pts were randomized 2:1 to PROQOL system or usual care. PROQOL system was offered prior to every visit. Pts select from various categories about their single biggest concern, and receive a printed list of actionable resources based on selected concern. Clinicians also receive the PROQOL results to review with pts. Providers and pts randomized to PROQOL completed a “was it worth it survey” (WIWI). An 8 item Linear Analogue Self-Assessment was used to assess QOL. The study was powered to detect a 0.5 standard deviation difference in QOL between groups. Herein we report the planned results of first 6 months. Results: Among the first 118 pts accrued, 55% were female, median age was 63 (32-86), & 93% were on therapy. Median time from diagnosis to PROQOL was 26 months. The PROQOL system took 3.6 minutes to complete. Baseline median QOL (range) was 7 (3-10) for both groups. The most common PROQOL issue selected was “cancer & diagnosis” (36.5%) followed by “physical health” (35.3%). Specific concerns were related to treatment plan, prognosis, fatigue, sleep, and neuropathy. WIWI showed: 71% of pts thought it was worthwhile, 83% would participate again, 80% would recommend it, & 65% used resources provided. 80% of providers reported the PROQOL did not interfere with care & 75% believed the pt wellbeing may improve. Conclusions: Notably treatment plan & prognosis remain pts' greatest concern despite being over 2 year from diagnosis.The PROQOL system demonstrates integrated PRO reporting in clinic is quick & worthwhile to pts & providers.

6523 Background: Treatment for most types of cancer results in work disruptions. The aim of this study is to identify risk factors for not working during cancer therapy using a patient-reported outcome tool. Methods: Patients of all cancer types, who were undergoing treatment with curative or palliative intent, were enrolled in a survey-based study at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center and the North Carolina Cancer Hospital from 1/2014 to 7/2015. All patients working full- or part- time at the time of cancer diagnosis were included in this analysis. Patient reported outcomes were collected using a survey tool at any time during active cancer treatment. The primary outcome of this analysis was self-reported work status at the time of survey completion. Results: Of 119 patients who were working before their cancer diagnosis, 68% were working at the time of survey completion. The mean age was 52.9 (range 20-80). Younger age was associated with working: 82% of patients age < 40 were working during treatment vs. 31% of patients age > 65 (p=0.01). The number of days patients reported being completely unable to work in the past month was significantly associated with work status; only 26% of patients who missed > 10 days continued to work compared to 69% who missed ≤ 10 days (p<0.01). Patients who report having a flexible work schedule were 23% more likely to continue to work during treatment (69% vs. 46%, p=0.01). In a multivariable model controlling for having an employer contingent health plan, and household income > 200% of the federal poverty level (fpl), only age, having a flexible work schedule, and inability to work > 10 days were independently associated with work status during treatment (Table). Conclusions: Having a flexible work schedule allowed for more work interruptions without job loss. Patients who are likely to miss more than 10 days of work and who have inflexible work schedules are at high risk of unemployment and should be targeted for employment retention initiatives. [Table: see text]

9517 Background: Although PD-1/L1 axis directed therapies induce durable responses in some mm patients (pts), biomarkers of response remain elusive. We hypothesized that quantifying key immune suppression mechanisms within the tumor microenvironment would provide superior predictors of response to anti-PD-1 compared with single marker assessment. Methods: Pre-treatment tumor biopsies from 124 mm pts treated with anti-PD-1 at 7 academic centers were fluorescently stained with multiple immune markers in discovery (n = 24) and validation (n = 100) cohorts. Selected biomarker signatures, PD-1/PD-L1 interaction score (proportion of PD-1+ cells co-localized with PD-L1) and IDO1/HLA-DR co-expression were evaluated for anti-PD-1 treatment response and survival. Slides were imaged using Vectra; biomarker positive cells and their co-localization were objectively quantified in pathologist-selected regions using novel Automated Quantitative Analysis (AQUA) algorithms. Results: In the discovery cohort, high levels of PD-1/PD-L1 interaction score and/or IDO1/HLA-DR coexpression was strongly positively associated with response to anti-PD-1 (p = 0.0005). In contrast, other individual biomarkers (PD-1, PD-L1, CD8) were not associated with response or survival (p > 0.10). This finding was replicated in the validation cohort: pts with high PD-1/PD-L1 and/or IDO1/HLA-DR were more likely to respond to treatment (p = 0.009). These pts also experienced a three-fold increase in progression free survival (hazards ratio (HR) = 0.33; p = 0.003) and overall survival (HR = 0.34; p = 0.004). Multivariate analyses revealed that these findings were independent of BRAF mutation, stage, LDH and prior therapy. In the combined cohort (n = 124), 80% of responding pts had higher levels of PD-1/PD-L1 interaction scores and/or IDO1/HLA-DR. In contrast, PD-L1 expression alone (≥1% or ≥50%) was not predictive of PFS or OS (p > 0.1). Conclusions: This novel multiplexed method profiling key tumor-immune suppression pathways identified mm pts likely to respond to anti-PD-1 therapy. This method could help stratify patients for PD-1 monotherapy and be useful in guiding future clinical trials.

Background There is currently a lack of consensus on how health-related quality of life and other patient-reported outcome measures in cancer randomized clinical trials are analyzed and interpreted. This makes it difficult to compare results across randomized controlled trials (RCTs) synthesize scientific research, and use that evidence to inform product labeling, clinical guidelines, and health policy. The Setting International Standards in Analyzing Patient-Reported Outcomes and Quality of Life Endpoints Data for Cancer Clinical Trials (SISAQOL) Consortium aims to develop guidelines and recommendations to standardize analyses of patient-reported outcome data in cancer RCTs. Methods and Results Members from the SISAQOL Consortium met in January 2017 to discuss relevant issues. Data from systematic reviews of the current state of published research in patient-reported outcomes in cancer RCTs indicated a lack of clear reporting of research hypothesis and analytic strategies, and inconsistency in definitions of terms, including “missing data,”“health-related quality of life,” and “patient-reported outcome.” Based on the meeting proceedings, the Consortium will focus on three key priorities in the coming year: developing a taxonomy of research objectives, identifying appropriate statistical methods to analyze patient-reported outcome data, and determining best practices to evaluate and deal with missing data. Conclusion The quality of the Consortium guidelines and recommendations are informed and enhanced by the broad Consortium membership which includes regulators, patients, clinicians, and academics.