Citations

Background: Cancer distress management is an evidence-based component of comprehensive cancer care. Group-delivered cognitive behavioral therapy for cancer distress (CBT-C) is the first distress treatment associated with replicated survival advantages in randomized clinical trials. Despite research supporting patient satisfaction, improved outcomes, and reduced costs, CBT-C has not been tested sufficiently within billable clinical settings, profoundly reducing patient access to best-evidence care. This study aimed to adapt and implement manualized CBT-C as a billable clinical service. Patients and Methods: A stakeholder-engaged, mixed-methods, hybrid implementation study design was used, and the study was conducted in 3 phases: (1) stakeholder engagement and adaptation of CBT-C delivery, (2) patient and therapist user testing and adaptation of CBT-C content, and (3) implementation of practice-adapted CBT-C as a billable clinical service focused on evaluation of reach, acceptability, and feasibility across stakeholder perspectives. Results: A total of 40 individuals and 7 interdisciplinary group stakeholders collectively identified 7 primary barriers (eg, number of sessions, workflow concerns, patient geographic distance from center) and 9 facilitators (eg, favorable financial model, emergence of oncology champions). CBT-C adaptations made before implementation included expanding eligibility criteria beyond breast cancer, reducing number of sessions to 5 (10 total hours), eliminating and adding content, and revising language and images. During implementation, 252 patients were eligible; 100 (40%) enrolled in CBT-C (99% covered by insurance). The primary reason for declining enrollment was geographic distance. Of enrollees, 60 (60%) consented to research participation (75% women; 92% white). All research participants completed at least 60% of content (6 of 10 hours), with 98% reporting they would recommend CBT-C to family and friends. Conclusions: CBT-C implementation as a billable clinical service was acceptable and feasible across cancer care stakeholder measures. Future research is needed to replicate acceptability and feasibility results in more diverse patient groups, test effectiveness in clinical settings, and reduce barriers to access via remote delivery platforms.

Abstract Purpose A protocol was developed to evaluate the value of an NK-1 receptor antagonist for preventing nausea and vomiting resulting from highly emetogenic chemotherapy when an olanzapine-based antiemetogenic regimen was used. Materials and Methods A221602, a prospective double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial, was developed to compare 2 ­olanzapine-containing antiemetic regimens, one with an NK-1 receptor antagonist (aprepitant or fosaprepitant) and one without. Trial patients had a malignant disease for which they received intravenous highly emetogenic chemotherapy (single day cisplatin ≥ 70 mg/m2 or doxorubicin plus cyclophosphamide on 1 day). Patients on both arms received commonly administered doses of a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist, dexamethasone, and olanzapine. Additionally, patients were randomized to receive an NK-1 receptor antagonist (fosaprepitant 150 mg IV or aprepitant 130 mg IV) or a corresponding placebo. The primary objective was to compare the proportion of patients with no nausea for 5 days following chemotherapy between the 2 study arms. This trial was designed to test for the noninferiority of deleting the NK-1 receptor antagonist, with noninferiority defined as a decrease in freedom from nausea by less than 10%. Results A total of 690 patients were entered on this trial, 50% on each arm. The proportion of patients without nausea for the complete 5-day study period was 7.4% lower (upper limit of the one-sided 95% confidence interval was 13.5%) in the arm without an NK-1 receptor antagonist compared with the arm with an NK-1 receptor antagonist. Conclusion This trial did not provide sufficient evidence to support that deletion of the NK-1 receptor antagonist was as good as keeping it, as a part of a 4-drug antiemetic regimen for highly emetogenic chemotherapy (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03578081).

10503 Background: Prior data suggests that the risk of second primary breast cancer (SPBC) is higher among women diagnosed with primary breast cancer (BC) before age 40. There is evidence that risk differs by primary tumor characteristics, cancer treatments, and genetic predisposition. However, studies investigating risk of SPBC by clinical risk factors are often limited by low numbers of young women and lack of complete patient data, particularly regarding germline genetic risk. Methods: Using the Young Women’s BC Study (YWS), a prospective cohort of 1,302 women ≤40 years diagnosed with BC from 2006-2016, we sought to compare clinical and treatment characteristics among women who developed an SPBC vs. those who did not. The analytic cohort included women diagnosed with Stage 0-III BC who did not undergo bilateral mastectomy (N = 685). Demographics, genetic testing and results, clinical events, and treatment data were collected through self-report on baseline and follow-up surveys (every 6 months for 3 years, then annually). Detailed tumor and treatment information, confirmation of genetic testing results, and new and recurrent cancer events were obtained through regular and triggered medical record review. Univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazards models were used to examine associations of age, race, genetic testing results, hormone receptor status, stage, and grade of primary tumor, and cancer treatments with SPBC. Participants were censored at the time of local recurrence, metastasis, death, or loss of follow-up. Results: At a median follow-up time of 9.9 years [inter-quartile range (IQR) = 6.6-12.0 y], 17 patients developed an SPBC (2.5%), in whom 3 occurred in the ipsilateral breast after lumpectomy as primary BC surgery. Median time from primary BC diagnosis to SPBC diagnosis was 4.2 years (IQR = 3.3-5.6 y). Compared to those who did not develop an SPBC, a greater percentage of women who developed an SPBC had in situ disease as their primary BC (24% v. 6%) and were of Ashkenazi descent (12% v. 5%). In the 577 women who had had genetic testing, 544 (94%) were non-carriers of pathogenic variants. Risk of SPBC was 2.2% (N = 12) in non-carriers and 9.1% (N = 3) in the 33 carriers. In Cox univariate analyses, carriers had a 4.1 times higher risk of SPBC compared to non-carriers (HR = 4.14, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.67-14.66, p = 0.03), and primary diagnosis with in situ BC was associated with a 5-fold increased risk of SPBC (HR = 5.02, 95% CI = 1.63-15.41, p = 0.005). Both factors remained strongly associated with SPBC when tested together in a multivariate model. Conclusions: This prospective study demonstrated a low risk of SPBC in the first 10 years after diagnosis of early BC in young women who are not germline pathogenic variant carriers. The finding that risk of SPBC was higher after in situ primary BC at a young age warrants further investigation. These findings have important implications for the treatment and follow-up care of young women with BC.

TPS8602 Background: Sarcomatoid mesothelioma is the most aggressive form of pleural mesothelioma and is associated with the worst prognosis of the histologic variants of this disease. In the Checkmate 743 clinical trial the patients with sarcomatoid mesothelioma who received ipilimumab and nivolumab had survival outcomes that were similar to those of patients with epithelioid mesothelioma. In comparison, the patients with sarcomatoid mesothelioma who received chemotherapy had the worst outcomes in this trial, highlighting the known limited efficacy of chemotherapy against this histologic variant. Checkmate 743 demonstrated that ipilimumab and nivolumab is a new standard of care for non-epithelioid mesothelioma. Surgery typically has not been offered to this group of patients given their historically poor outcomes. With the significant survival gains seen patients with sarcomatoid mesothelioma treated with immunotherapy, we hypothesized that surgery may extend the benefits seen with immunotherapy. Methods: Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology A082101 is a prospective, phase 2 nonrandomized clinical trial for patients with sarcomatoid mesothelioma. The co-primary objectives are to determine the percentage of patients with potentially resectable sarcomatoid mesothelioma able to proceed with surgery after neoadjuvant ipilimumab and nivolumab, and the progression-free survival (PFS) at 12 months (12-month PFS). For sample size determination, we assumed that if the true rate of surgery is 75% or greater, it would indicate that neoadjuvant immunotherapy is feasible to be given prior to surgery. On the other hand, if the true rate of surgery is 50% or less it would indicate that neoadjuvant immunotherapy is not worthy of further investigation. Twenty-six (26) eligible patients will be needed to receive neoadjuvant immunotherapy. If 16 or fewer of the 26 eligible patients proceed to surgery, it will be concluded that the experimental therapy is not worthy of further investigation. Otherwise, it will be concluded that the experimental therapy is worthy of further investigation. Safety monitoring will be done through a 6-week run-in for the first 10 patients to assess for pre-operative and post-operative toxicities and complications. Sequential boundaries will be used to monitor severe toxicity and complication rates. Accrual will be halted if excessive numbers of severe toxicity and complications in pre-operative and post-operative phases are seen. Tumor and blood-based biomarkers will be included as exploratory biomarkers. Clinical trial information: NCT05647265 .

e19517 Background: Anthracycline-induced cardiotoxicity (AIC) is a well-known phenomenon, but event rates and predictors may not be as robust as commonly perceived. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to elucidate AIC definitions, incidence rates and predictors. Methods: 5323 reports were identified via searching Medline, Embase, and Scopus. Inclusion criteria for full text review included minimum of 100 lymphoma patients receiving ACs; median/mean follow up of at least 12 months; and specified evaluation of left ventricular ejection fraction. We investigated the definition, reported incidence, and predictors of AIC including subclinical AIC as detected by decrease in left ventricular systolic dysfunction. Meta-analysis was performed with Meta-analyst software with random effects model. Results: A total of 19 studies were included in the analysis. The overall incidence of AIC in 13926 patients was 13.8% (95% CI 4.8-22.8, I2 99.6% p < 0.001) at a mean/median follow-up ranging from 1 to 8 years. Subclinical AIC was seen in 8.2% of 5464 patients (95% CI 6.4 to 10%, I2 78.9%, p < 0.001) at a mean/median follow-up ranging from 1 to 20 years. Subclinical AIC is defined in most studies as asymptomatic decrease in LVEF by 10-15% from baseline of 50-55%. Older age, increasing AC dose or number of cycles, GLS (global longitudinal strain), and prior comorbidities such as CAD, HTN, DM and dyslipidemia were found to predict AIC. However, Heterogeneity was seen in definition of AIC, risk factor assessment and follow-up protocol, which limited the extent of correlative analyses for cardiotoxicity predictors. Conclusions: The overall incidence of clinical HF and subclinical AIC among lymphoma patients was 13.8% and 8.2% respectively. Older age, increasing AC dose or number of cycles, GLS, and prior comorbidities such as CAD, HTN, DM and dyslipidemia were found to predict AIC.

6548 Background: National organizations (ASCO, ACS, ACCR) have advocated for routine collection of sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI) in cancer clinics to advance cancer health equity. In 2017, only 24% of NCI Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP) practices collected sexual orientation (SO) data, while 10% collected gender identity (GI) data; recent progress in collection is unknown. Methods: In 2022, NCORP practices again completed a Landscape Assessment to assess research capacity (funding support from 2UG1CA189824) and were asked whether they routinely collect SOGI data in the electronic health record (EHR). The proportions of practices reporting collection of SO and/or GI data and population level differences over time were calculated using Fisher’s exact tests. Univariate associations between SOGI data collection and site-related variables were evaluated using logistic regression; significant associations were then tested in separate multivariate logistic regression models. Results: 271 practices responded to the Landscape Assessment; 42% (114) reported that they routinely collect SO data, 58% (157) reported that they collect GI data; both were significantly higher than 2017 (p<0.001). Compared to other regions, practices in Northeastern states were significantly more likely to report collecting GI, but not SO. Practices with higher proportions of White patients were also more likely to collect GI (p < 0.001). Practices with community outreach staff were more likely to collect SO (Table 1). There were no significant differences in SOGI collection by Medicaid/Medicare patients, new cancer cases per year, or practice ownership. In both 2017 and 2022, sites in Southern states were less likely to collect GI than sites in other regions. Conclusions: Progress was made in SOGI collection between 2017 and 2022, but fewer than half of NCORP sites routinely collect SOGI data, in spite of national guidelines. Further examination of the cultural context of SOGI collection could inform efforts to improve data collection in the South and other regions. The lack of data on sexual and gender minority patients in the EHR contributes to health inequity and deficiencies in patient-centric care. [Table: see text]

6539 Background: HER2-enriched breast cancer (estrogen and progesterone receptors negative and HER2-positive) has no worse prognosis than other breast cancers if it is treated with HER2-targeted therapy. Medicaid expansion under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) has been shown to be associated with improved access to care and outcomes for many cancers, but its impact on care for HER2-enriched breast cancer is unknown. To fill this gap, we examined the association of Medicaid expansion with receipt of guideline-concordant treatment, time to treatment, and survival among newly diagnosed nonelderly women with HER2-enriched breast cancer. Methods: Women aged 18-62 years newly diagnosed with HER2-enriched breast cancer between 2010 and 2018 were identified from the National Cancer Database. Our primary outcomes included receipt of stage-based guideline-concordant treatment, initiation of treatment <60 days, and stage-specific 2-year overall survival. A difference-in-differences (DD) approach compared outcome changes following the expansion in Medicaid expansion vs. non-expansion states. A linear probability model estimated treatment outcome, and a flexible parametric survival model evaluated survival. All models were clustered at the state level and adjusted for age group, race/ethnicity, rurality of residence, zip code-level income, comorbidity, and diagnosis year. Results: A total of 31,354 patients with HER2-enriched breast cancer were included, including 19,255 in expansion states and 12,099 in non-expansion states. Compared to patients in expansion states, patients in non-expansion states were more likely to be racial/ethnic minorities, uninsured, and diagnosed at late-stage. Medicaid expansion was not significantly associated with changes in receipt of surgery for stage I-III disease but was associated with an increase of 4.42 percentage points (ppt, 95% CI: 0.09, 8.74) in receipt of chemotherapy/targeted therapy for stage IV disease, with an increase from 90.4% pre-expansion to 92.8% post-expansion in expansion states and a decrease from 93.7% to 91.9% in non-expansion states. Medicaid expansion was also significantly associated with a 2.41 ppt increase in initiating guideline-concordant treatment within 60 days (95% CI: 0.66, 4.17; 83.5% to 82.5% in expansion states vs. 86.6% to 83.7% in non-expansion states), and a 1.18 ppt increase in two-year survival rate (95% CI: 0.03, 2.33; 94.0% to 94.9% in expansion states vs. 94.3% to 94.1% in non-expansion states). The increase in two-year survival associated with Medicaid expansion was most prominent for stage III patients (DD=3.63 ppt; 95% CI: 0.64, 6.62). Conclusions: Medicaid expansion was associated with increased receipt of timely treatment and improved 2-year survival among nonelderly women newly diagnosed with HER2-enriched breast cancer.

TPS3629 Background: For patients with oligometastatic colorectal cancer (CRC), aggressive local therapy of isolated metastases, particularly in the liver, has been associated with long-term progression-free survival and overall survival (OS) primarily based on retrospective evidence. However, in patients with limited metastatic CRC that is deemed inoperable or those with additional disease outside of the liver or lungs, the role of local ablative therapies, including microwave ablation (MWA) and stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT), to render patients disease free is less clear. Further, despite the long history of treating oligometastatic CRC with local therapy, which is provider biased and not evidence based, questions remain regarding the benefit of extending the paradigm of metastatic directed therapy to patients with more extensive disease. This trial seeks to use a pragmatic multimodality approach that mirrors the current clinical dilemma. This study is designed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of adding total ablative therapy (TAT) of all sites of disease to standard of care systemic treatment in those with limited metastatic CRC. Methods: A022101 is a National Clinical Trials Network randomized phase III study planned to enroll 364 patients with newly diagnosed metastatic CRC (BRAF wild-type, microsatellite stable) with ≤4 sites of metastatic disease on baseline imaging. Liver-only metastatic disease is not permitted, and lesions must be amenable to any combination of surgical resection, MWA, and/or SBRT with SBRT required for at least one lesion. Patients receive first-line systemic therapy for 4-6 months and are then randomized 1:1, stratified by number of metastatic organ sites (1-2 vs. 3-4), timing of metastatic disease diagnosis (de novo vs. secondary), and presence of metastatic disease outside the liver and lungs in at least one site. Patients in Arm 1 will receive TAT which consists of treatment of all metastatic sites with SBRT ± MWA ± surgical resection followed by standard of care systemic therapy. Patients in Arm 2 will continue with standard of care systemic therapy alone. The primary endpoint is OS. Secondary endpoints include event-free survival, treatment-related toxicities, and local recurrence with exploratory biomarker analyses. The study needs 346 evaluable patients combined in the 2 arms to demonstrate an improvement in OS with a hazard ratio of 0.7 to provide 80% power with a one-sided alpha of 5%. The trial utilizes a group sequential design with two interim analyses (25% and 50% of events) for futility. The trial activated in January 2023 and recruitment is ongoing. Support: U10CA180821, U10CA180882; https://acknowledgments.alliancefound.org. U10CA180820 (ECOG-ACRIN); U10CA180868 (NRG); U10CA180888 (SWOG); Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT05673148 Clinical trial information: NCT05673148 .

e13552 Background: Real-world data from Electronic Health Records (EHR) have been widely used for patient identification to build study cohorts for clinical research. Traditionally, diagnosis codes in the EHR, such International Classification of Diseases (ICD), are used to identify the target patients. However, the accuracy of this approach is dependent on the accuracy of ICD coding, with potential errors especially for tumor types that are frequent locations for metastases (which may contribute to mis-coding). In this study, we attempted to develop a Machine Learning (ML) based approach on EHR data to improve the accuracy of identification of patients with lung cancer. Methods: We used survey respondents in the Enhanced, EHR-facilitated Cancer Symptom Control (E2C2, NCT03892967) cluster-randomized trial at Mayo Clinic as our initial pan-cancer cohort. E2C2 includes adults receiving Medical Hematology/Oncology care for a solid or liquid tumor at Mayo Clinic. We collected cancer diagnoses from the individually abstracted Mayo Clinic Cancer Registry to annotate the cancer type for the patients. Lung cancer related ICD-9 (162.X) and ICD-10 (C34.X) codes were used to build a search query on the Mayo’s EHR to find target patients from the E2C2 cohort, and to investigate the ICD-based lung cancer patient identification performance. Diagnosis, radiation oncology treatment (CPT 77261 - 77799), and antineoplastic drug administration data were collected from EHR as variables. Logistic Regression (LR), Support vector machine (SVM), Random Forest (RF), and eXtreme Gradient Boosting (XGB) were selected to build models for lung cancer patient identification. 10-fold cross-validation was implemented to assess the models. Precision, Recall, F1 Score, and area under the curve (AUC) were selected to measure the performance. Results: We collected 13,893 patients with a specific cancer diagnosis, and 1,394 were identified as having lung cancer. The identification performance across different methods is shown. The ICD-based method only had 0.65 precision. It means we collected a lot of false positive cases (other cancer but no lung cancer patient), as we mentioned in the background. SVM gets the best precision results, but its recall and F1 score are not good enough. XGB shows the best F1 Score and AUC, which also means this method achieved the best and most balanced performance. Conclusions: In this study, we found that XGB-based methods achieved the best identification performance for lung cancer. In the future, we will investigate if this is also true for the identification of other cancer types. [Table: see text]

1592 Background: While ongoing efforts to decrease opioid use have dramatically altered the prescribing landscape, the impact on patients with cancer is not well understood. We examined trends in new and persistent opioid use in opioid-naïve older patients with and without cancer in the United States. Methods: This retrospective cohort study used SEER-Medicare linked data for patients with solid tumors malignancies diagnosed from 2012 through 2017, and a random sample of patients without cancer. We included patients who did not receive opioids for 3 months prior to the diagnosis or randomly assigned index date. We identified new opioid use (claim in 0-90 days after diagnosis/index date), early persistent opioid use (claims in days 0-90 and 91-180), and long-term persistent opioid use (claims in days 0-90 and 91-180 and months 13-15). Further analysis focused on 4 clinical strata: non-cancer, metastatic cancer, cancer treated with surgery alone, and cancer treated with surgery plus chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy ("surgery+"). We calculated relative changes in the predicted probability of opioid use from 2012 to 2017 based on a logit model adjusted for patient demographics. Results: We identified 238,470 eligible patients with cancer (mean age 76.3 years). Among patients with cancer, 46.4% had new opioid use; use was higher among those receiving surgery+ (70.6%), those treated with surgery alone (58.8%) and those with metastatic cancer (50.0%), compared to patients without cancer (6.9%). From 2012 to 2017, the predicted probability of new opioid use declined in all groups, with lower relative decline in the cancer subgroups (6.8% surgery+; 9.5% surgery alone; 10.2% metastatic cancer) compared to the non-cancer comparator (24.7%). For instance, in patients with metastatic cancer, predicted probability of new use decreased from 52.4 to 47.1% (10.2%) vs. 8.0 to 6.0% (24.7%) in patients without cancer. Relative decline in predicted probability of long-term persistent opioid use was lower in the surgical cancer strata (44.2% surgery+; 46.1% surgery alone) vs. the non-cancer comparator (54.0%). Conclusions: While opioid use remains common in patients with cancer, new and persistent opioid use declined over time in all patients, though with steeper relative declines in non-cancer compared to cancer populations. Our study suggests important but tempered effects of the changing opioid climate on patients with cancer.[Table: see text]