Citations

3597 Background: Colon cancer (CC) incidence and mortality have decreased since the 1970s, but the incidence in young adults (20-49 years) is increasing. There are limited data suggesting that, as a group, patients with early onset CRC (eoCC) may have different phenotypic characteristics compared to those with late onset CRC (loCC, age ≥ 50 years). Methods: Individual patient data on 35,713 subjects with stage III CC from 25 randomized studies (recruiting between 1987 and 2009) in the ACCENT database were pooled. The distributions of demographics, clinicopathological features, biomarkers, and outcome data were summarized by age group. Overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS), recurrence free rate (RFR), and survival after recurrence (SAR) were assessed by Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox models stratified by treatment arms within studies, adjusting for gender, race, body mass index, performance status, disease stage, grade, risk group, number of lymph nodes examined, disease sidedness and molecular markers. Results: Using a 5% difference between age groups as the clinically meaningful cutoff, patients with stage III eoCC (n = 6246) had similar distributions according to gender, race, PS, risk group, tumor sidedness and T/N stage compared to those with loCC (n = 29467). Patients with eoCC were significantly less likely to be overweight (30.2% vs 36.2%) but more commonly had ≥ 12 lymph nodes resected (69.5% vs 58.7%). The eoCC tumors were more frequently mismatch repair deficient (16.4% vs 11.5%), and less likely to have BRAFV600E (5.6% vs 14.0%), suggesting a higher frequency of Lynch syndrome in eoCC. In univariate analysis, patients with stage III eoCC had significantly better OS, DFS, and SAR; the difference between 3-year DFS and RFR strongly suggests the OS/DFS difference between these the eoCC and loCC may be due to increased competing risks and comorbidities in patients with loCC. In multivariate analysis, age at onset lost its prognostic value when outcome was adjusted for molecular markers. The clear relation between age of onset and KRAS/BRAF status was confirmed in the interaction analysis. Conclusions: Tumor biology was an important determinant of prognosis regardless of patient age. In multivariate analysis age of onset was not a statistically significant determinant of outcome.[Table: see text]

Purpose The purpose of the present study was to investigate body mass index, multi-morbidity, and COVID-19 Risk Score as predictors of severe COVID-19 outcomes. Patients Patients from this study are from a well-characterized patient cohort collected at Mayo Clinic between January 1, 2020 and May 23, 2020; with confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis defined as a positive result on reverse-transcriptase-polymerase-chain-reaction (RT-PCR) assays from nasopharyngeal swab specimens. Measures Demographic and clinical data were extracted from the electronic medical record. The data included: date of birth, gender, ethnicity, race, marital status, medications (active COVID-19 agents), weight and height (from which the Body Mass Index (BMI) was calculated, history of smoking, and comorbid conditions to calculate the Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) and the U.S Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) multi-morbidity score. An additional COVID-19 Risk Score was also included. Outcomes included hospital admission, ICU admission, and death. Results Cox proportional hazards models were used to determine the impact on mortality or hospital admission. Age, sex, and race (white/Latino, white/non-Latino, other, did not disclose) were adjusted for in the model. Patients with higher COVID-19 Risk Scores had a significantly higher likelihood of being at least admitted to the hospital (HR = 1.80; 95% CI = 1.30, 2.50; P < .001), or experiencing death or inpatient admission (includes ICU admissions) (HR = 1.20; 95% CI = 1.02, 1.42; P = .028). Age was the only statistically significant demographic predictor, but obesity was not a significant predictor of any of the outcomes. Conclusion Age and COVID-19 Risk Scores were significant predictors of severe COVID-19 outcomes. Further work should examine the properties of the COVID-19 Risk Factors Scale.

Objective To describe the process and outcome of creating a patient cohort in the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic in order to better understand the process of and predict the outcomes of COVID-19. Patients and Methods A total of 1169 adults aged 18 years of age or older who tested positive in Mayo Clinic Rochester or the Mayo Clinic Midwest Health System between January 1 and May 23 of 2020. Results Patients were on average 43.9 years of age and 50.7% were female. Most patients were white (69.0%), and Blacks (23.4%) and Asians (5.8%) were also represented in larger numbers. Hispanics represented 16.3% of the sample. Just under half of patients were married (48.4%). Common comorbid conditions included: cardiovascular diseases (25.1%), dyslipidemia (16.0%), diabetes mellitus (11.2%), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (6.6%), asthma (7.5%), and cancer (5.1%). All other comorbid conditions were less the 5% in prevalence. Data on 3 comorbidity indices are also available including the: DHHS multi-morbidity score, Charlson Comorbidity Index, and Mayo Clinic COVID-19 Risk Factor Score. Conclusion In addition to managing the ever raging pandemic and growing death rates, it is equally important that we develop adequate resources for the investigation and understanding of COVID-19-related predictors and outcomes.

AbstractOne of the many challenges that has befallen the Infectious Diseases and Graduate Medical Education communities during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is the maintenance of continued effective education and training of the future leaders of our field. With the remarkable speed and innovation that has characterized the responses to this pandemic, educators everywhere have adapted existing robust and safe learning environments to meet the needs of our learners. This paper will review distinct aspects of education and training of the Infectious Diseases fellows we believe the COVID-19 pandemic has impacted most, including mentoring, didactics, and wellness. We anticipate that several strategies developed in this context and described herein will help to inform training and best practices during the pandemic and beyond.

ABSTRACTBackgroundRapid eye movement (REM) sleep behavior disorder (RBD) occurs occasionally in essential tremor (ET), but polysomnographic REM sleep without atonia (RSWA) analyses have been sparse.ObjectiveTo characterize the amount and distribution of polysomnographic RSWA, the electrophysiologic substrate of RBD, in patients with Parkinson's disease (PD) and ET.MethodsWe analyzed quantitative RSWA in 73 patients: PD (23), ET (23), and age‐sex‐matched controls (27). None had dream‐enactment behavior history or received antidepressants. Phasic, tonic, “any,” and phasic‐burst duration RSWA measures were calculated in the submentalis (SM) and anterior tibialis (AT) muscles. The automated REM atonia index (RAI) was also determined. Statistical analysis was performed by Kruskal‐Wallis rank‐sum and Mann‐Whitney tests.ResultsSM phasic RSWA was significantly greater for PD than ET patients and controls (12.5% ± 12.8% vs. 4.9% ± 6.7%, 3.9% ± 2.6%), as was SM “any” (13.54% ± 14.30% vs. 5.2% ± 7.6%, 4.2% ± 2.6%). RAI was significantly lower in PD than in ET and controls (0.78 ± 0.23 vs. 0.92 ± 0.09 vs. 0.90 ± 0.17, P ≤ 0.005), but no different between ET and controls. AT phasic and “any” RSWA was similar between the 3 groups. ET and control RSWA was similar in all measures. Two ET patients (8.7%) had SM RSWA similar to PD patients.ConclusionsElevated SM RSWA distinguished PD from ET in patients without dream‐enactment symptoms and occurs frequently in PD patients, and in isolated tremor suggests underlying synucleinopathy. Prospective studies will further validate these findings.

Background Childhood obesity represents a public health crisis in the United States. Thus, focusing on early childhood is crucial to modify the consequences associated with obesity. The Food and Fitness Initiative (FFI) is a community-based wellness program implemented in Northeast Iowa since 2009. FFI focuses on healthy eating and physical activity. Our aim is to describe the impact on body mass index (BMI) after implementing FFI in a Northeast Iowa Community Action Head Start (HS) population. Methods Retrospective BMI data was collected from all children attending 14 HS sites from 2012 to 2018. Children with BMI measurements during July to December of the first year in HS were included in the study. Follow-up data the second year in HS was obtained. Overweight and obesity prevalence, as well as, BMI changes between year 1 and 2 in HS were analyzed. Results Data from 1013 children were collected, 850 (84%) had qualifying BMI measurements during their first year in HS and 352 of those children (41%) had follow-up data in their second year. There was a decrease in BMI between years 1 and 2 in HS that approached statistical significance ( t = 1.83, P = .07, d = .10). There were no statistically significant changes in the percent of overweight (Wald χ 2 = .50, P = .48) or obese (Wald χ 2 = 1.71, P = .19) children between the first and second year. Conclusion The FFI wellness program can be feasibly integrated into the HS curriculum and shows promising short-term results in improving BMI, but not to a statistically significant level when evaluated over 1 year.

7009 Background: Survival outcomes of 2nd line mCRC therapy for OA are poorly understood. We evaluated the rates and survival outcomes of 2nd line therapy among OA age 70+ compared to younger adults (YA) age < 70 following progression on 1st line clinical trials. Methods: Associations between clinical characteristics of pts with available treatment data after progression on 10 of 23 1st line ARCAD trials, time to initial progression (TTiP) and 2nd line therapy were evaluated. Time to progression (TTP) and overall survival (OS) were compared between OA and YA enrolled on 2nd line trials by Cox regression, adjusting for age, sex, ECOG PS, number of metastatic sites, presence of metastasis in lung/liver/peritoneum. Results: Sixteen percent of 1st line ARCAD trial participants were age 70+ (n = 870). Data for 2nd line therapy was available for 60.6% pts (3206/5289). Each additional decade of life was associated with 11% lower odds of receiving 2nd line therapy in multivariate analysis (p = 0.0117). OA participating in 2nd line trials (7.9% age 75+ of 7921) experience similar TTP and OS to YA (mTTP: 5.1 vs. 5.2mos; mOS 11.6 vs 12.4mos, respectively). Conclusions: We did not observe a statistical difference in survival outcomes by age following 2nd line mCRC therapy. Further study is needed to examine unmeasured comorbidity and use of geriatric assessment to select OA likely to benefit from 2nd line therapy. [Table: see text]

4029 Background: The clearance of 5-FU differs significantly between men (M) and women (W). Adjuvant chemotherapy (CT) for CRC has a higher toxicity in W. The impact of sex on efficacy and toxicity in first-line trials of metastatic CRC (mCRC) is unknown. Methods: We analyzed patient (pt) and tumor characteristics, toxicities (nausea (AE1), vomiting (AE2), diarrhea, neutropenia (AE3)) and efficacy (overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS)) according to sex in the following treatment groups: A: CT alone, B: CT + bevacizumab, C: CT + EGFR-antibodies, with subgroup analyses in the CT alone group for single-agent, doublets and triplets, as well as irinotecan- and oxaliplatin-based regimens. Pts from trials with treatments still used today and all relevant data available were eligible. OS and PFS were assessed using Kaplan-Meier and Cox models adjusted for primary tumor location and performance status (PS). Results: We included 28 trials with 18.399 pts (11.352 M and 7.047 W). W were younger (61 vs. 63 years), had more often a PS of 1 (49 vs 45%), BRAF mutations (10 vs. 7%), right-sided tumors (42 vs. 35%) and less often rectal tumors (26 vs. 32%). Significant differences in toxicity are reported in table. Rates of diarrhea were similar. There was no sex disparity in OS in the predefined subgroups except for pts receiving triplets where OS was better in M (HRadj=1.39 (1.05 - 1.85)). Median (interquartile range) OS in months for M and W was 16.7 (9.2-27.4) and 16.2 (8.9-27.2) in group 1, 21.9 (12.7-37.5) and 22.3 (12.9 – 39.0) in group 2, and 26.8 (14.6-45.3) and 24.8 (12.3-49.2) in group 3. HRsadj (W vs M) (95% CI), p values for OS were 1.02 (0.96-1.09), .557, 0.92 (0.83-1.03), .142, 0.99 (0.85-1.14), .866. Conclusions: M and W with mCRC differ significantly regarding patient and tumor characteristics. The significant higher toxicity in W does not translate in a higher treatment efficacy. Apart from known sex differences in pharmacokinetics of 5-FU, differences in pharmacodynamics must be postulated. [Table: see text]