Citations

3535 Background: CRC is known to be a heterogeneous disease. This study quantifies within pt heterogeneity in early lesion change rate (LCR) in the era of targeted agents compared to chemo alone and its potential impact on survival. Methods: Pts with 2-10 lesions measured at baseline were included. For each lesion, the early LCR was defined as the change in size (shrinking or growing) from baseline to 12 weeks on treatment. Within pt heterogeneity in early LCR among lesions was estimated by standard deviation (STD). A larger value of STD indicates larger variation of LCR per pt. Stratified multivariate Cox models were used to assess the associations between LCR STD with overall survival (OS). Adjusted hazard ratios (HRadj) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) are reported. Results: Data were available on 9,092 mCRC pts (median age 61; 60% male, 55% ECOG PS 0; 61% 2+ metastatic sites) enrolled in 16 1st-line randomized trials, with 44%, 42%, and 10% of pts received chemo alone, + a VEGF inhibitor (VEGFi) or an EGFR inhibitor (EGFRi), respectively. LCR heterogeneity is the highest among pts received EGFRi but lowest among pts received VEGFi (Table). Overall, higher heterogeneity is associated with worst OS (HRadj1.22, 95% CI (1.16, 1.27)). The effect is most pronounced in pts received VEGFi (interaction p=0.0012). Conclusions: There was heterogeneity observed in lesion size changes within pts. Its magnitude varies across treatment approaches, and was associated with poor survival. This preliminary result reveals the great potentials to define novel response endpoint and refine treatment decision-making by incorporating heterogeneities in lesion changes. [Table: see text]

Abstract Background Erectile dysfunction (ED) is a common condition that may affect men of all ages; in 1999, a Process of Care Model was developed to provide clinicians with recommendations regarding the evaluation and management of ED. Aim To reflect the evolution of the study of ED since 1999, this update to the process of care model presents health care providers with a tool kit to facilitate patient interactions, comprehensive evaluation, and counseling for ED. Methods A cross-disciplinary panel of international experts met to propose updates to the 1999 process of care model from a global perspective. The updated model was designed to be evidence-based, data-driven, and accessible to a wide range of health care providers. Outcomes This article summarizes the resulting discussion of the expert meeting and focuses on ED evaluation. The management of ED is discussed in an article by Muhall et al (J Sex Med 2018;15:1280-1292). Results A comprehensive approach to the evaluation of ED is warranted because ED may involve both psychological and organic components. The updated process of care model for evaluation was divided into core and optional components and now focuses on the combination of first-line pharmacotherapy and counseling in consideration of patient sexual dynamics. Clinical Implications Patient evaluation for ED should encompass a variety of aspects, including medical history, sexual history, physical examination, psychological evaluation, laboratory testing, and possibly adjunctive testing. Strengths & Limitations This update draws on author expertise and experience to provide multi-faceted guidance for the evaluation of ED in a modern context. Although a limited number of contributors provided input on the update, these experts represent diverse fields that encounter patients with ED. Additionally, no meta-analyses were performed to further support the ED evaluation guidelines presented. Conclusion Comprehensive evaluation of ED affords health care providers an opportunity to address medical, psychological/psycho-social, and sexual issues associated with ED, with the ultimate goal being effective management and possibly resolution of ED. While some or all techniques described in the updated model may be needed for each patient, evaluation should in all cases be thorough.

Abstract Introduction Erectile dysfunction (ED) is a common condition the treatment of which over the years has expanded from specialty care settings to various other clinical settings. A Process of Care Model was developed in 1999 to provide primary care physicians with guidance in the diagnosis and management of ED. Aim This update to the Process of Care Model aims to reflect current ED management practices, because the study of ED has changed since 1999. Methods Updates to the Process of Care Model were developed during a meeting of international experts from diverse disciplines. The updated model is data-driven, evidence-based, and relevant to a wide range of healthcare providers. Main Outcome Measures This article summarizes the results of the expert meeting and focuses on ED management. The evaluation of ED is discussed in a separate article. Results The updated model presents modification of risk factors and correction of comorbidities frequently associated with ED as critical parts of patient management. Patients should be encouraged to make positive lifestyle changes such as improving diet and increasing physical exercise. Lifestyle changes may be accompanied by the first-line medical therapies of sexual counseling and therapy, which takes into consideration patient sexual dynamics and pharmacotherapy with phosphodiesterase 5 inhibitors (PDE5Is). Clinical Implications The updated model provides guidance regarding risk factors associated with ED, their modification, sexual counseling, and PDE5I selection, dosing, and patient education. Strengths and Limitations This update leverages the extensive clinical expertise and experience of the authors to provide updated, comprehensive guidance for ED management. The model reflects the views and experiences of a limited number of contributors; however, these authors draw upon a diverse array of clinical specialties and are regarded as experts in their fields. Additionally, no meta-analyses were performed to further support the ED evaluation guidelines presented. Conclusion Effective management of ED may be achieved through a combination of patient risk factor modification and first-line therapy, taking into consideration any patient comorbidities known to be associated with ED. Treatment goals should be individualized to restore sexual satisfaction to the patient and/or couple and improve quality of life based on the patient’s expressed needs and desires.

SummaryBackgroundCoeliac disease is a substantially underdiagnosed disorder, with clinical testing currently guided by case finding.AimTo determine the presence of indications for diagnostic testing and frequency of clinical testing in undiagnosed coeliac disease.MethodsThis was a case‐control study of adults without prior diagnosis of coeliac disease. Undiagnosed cases were identified through sequential serology, and unaffected age‐ and gender‐matched controls were selected. Medical records were systematically reviewed for indications for and evidence of clinical testing.ResultsOf 47 557 adults, 408 cases of undiagnosed coeliac disease were identified. 408 serology negative matched controls were selected. Eight‐matched pairs were excluded, leading to 800 included individuals (61% female; median age 44.2 years). The odds of any indication for clinical testing were similar among undiagnosed coeliac disease and controls (odds ratio (OR) 1.18; 95% CI: 0.85‐1.63, P = 0.32). Most individual indications were not associated with serologic status. Exceptions to this include hypothyroidism, which was more likely in cases of undiagnosed coeliac disease, and dyspepsia and chronic diarrhoea, which were less likely. Cases of undiagnosed coeliac disease were more likely to develop osteoporosis (P = 0.005), dermatitis herpetiformis (P = 0.006), chronic fatigue (P = 0.033), thyroiditis (P = 0.003), autoimmune diseases (P = 0.008), and have a family member diagnosed with coeliac disease (P = 0.001).ConclusionThis study strongly suggests that current case finding is not effective in detecting undiagnosed coeliac disease. Individuals with undiagnosed coeliac disease were more likely than controls to develop indications for testing overtime. A more effective method for detection of coeliac disease is needed.

Abstract Introduction. Male breast cancer (male BC) is a rare disease for which disease management is extrapolated from females. IMBC, an international consortium, which previously reported on clinico-pathological aspects, now reports on molecular subgroups revealed by RNA sequencing and their relation to patient outcome. Methods. Tumor samples from the retrospective MALE BC registry diagnosed between 1990-2010 and with pathology and outcome data (relapse-free- (RFS) and overall survival (OS)) were included (n=699). To allow the discovery of prognostic features, we selected, stratified for known risk factors (TN stage, grade, age at diagnose and adjuvant endocrine treatment), from the cohort 152 cases with poor (RFS <= 4 yrs) and good outcome (RFS > 7yrs) evenly distributed. Here, we report RNA sequencing results of the first 73 cases, 38 with poor and 35 with good outcome. RNA sequencing reads were used to generate gene expression values and to report transcripts carrying driver mutations. Unsupervised clustering identified subgroups and within subgroups differentially expressed genes were identified. The reported prognostic male BC subgroups M1 and M2 (Johansson BCR 2012(14):R31) were also annotated. All identified subgroups were related to outcome using logistic regression (p-value using Wald test). Results. Unsupervised clustering revealed 2 main subgroups of which group 1 was enriched for expression of ER target genes, WNT3 and genes from amplicons known for female BC, e.g. 19p13 (CCNE1), 8q24 (MYC), and 11q13 (CCND1). The biology of the smaller group 2 was less defined but TGFβ2 expression was high as were various kallikreins (KLK) including interestingly KLK3 (prostate specific antigen). Other known amplified regions [(8p11 (FGFR1), 20q13 (ZNF217) and 12q15 (MDM2)] and mutated transcripts [PIK3CA (H1047R/L/Q; E542K, E545K, N345K; 16% of cases), TP53 and SF3B1 (K700E) (2% of cases)] were identified. Profound tumor infiltrate gene expression was present in 5% of cases and one third of cases expressed proliferation markers. Except for TP53, none of these latter characteristics were unevenly distributed among the 2 main subgroups. ER and AR were highly correlated, particularly in group 1. The two main groups could be further subdivided. Group 1 comprised 3 subgroups of which subgroup 1a expressed TFF1/3 and NAT1, well-known ER targets, while subgroups 1b and 1c expressed other ER targets,respectively BEX1 and PITX1. HOXC cluster expression differentiated subgroup 1b from 1a and 1c. None of these intrinsic subgroups were, however, related to RFS. The previously reported M2 subgroup, which largely segregated with subclusters 1a and 1b, was associated with a better RFS than the M1 subgroup (OR=2.9; 95%CI 1.1-7.5; p-value=0.03). Conclusions. 1) Intrinsic subtypes of male BC were revealed and their subgrouping is defined by ER associated subsets of genes. 2) The association of the reported M2 subgroup of male BC with longer RFS was validated; 3) Currently identified biological characteristics of male BC may improve future treatments. The full report on 152 cases including a comparison to female BC will be presented at the conference. This research was funded by Breast Cancer Research Foundation Citation Format: Martens JWM, Sieuwerts A, Ponchet C, Smid M, de Weerd V, Slaets L, Piper T, van Deurzen CHM, Schroder CP, Stangle C, Kloosterman W, van Leeuwen-Stok E, Nilsson C, Vermeij J, Peeters S, Goulioti T, Nowaczyk M, Aebi S, Rubio IT, Kelly C, Bayani J, Porter P, Murray M, Hudis C, Middleton L, Korde L, Ruddy K, Winer E, Bogler O, van den Weyngaert D, dal Lago L, Fraser J, Benstead K, van Asperen C, Linderholm B, Hedenfalk I, Tryfonidis K, Giordano S, Bartlett J, Cardoso F. Molecular subtyping of male breast cancer by the International male breast cancer program (IMBC): EORTC 10085/TBCRC 0-29/BIG 2-07/NABCG/BOOG 2009-04 [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2017 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2017 Dec 5-9; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2018;78(4 Suppl):Abstract nr PD7-12.

Purpose Factors contributing to early mortality after initiation of treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer are poorly understood. Materials and Methods Data from 22,654 patients enrolled in 28 randomized phase III trials contained in the ARCAD (Aide et Recherche en Cancérologie Digestive) database were pooled. Multivariable logistic regression models for 30-, 60-, and 90-day mortality were constructed, including clinically and statistically significant patient and disease factors and interaction terms. A calculator (nomogram) for 90-day mortality was developed and validated internally using bootstrapping methods and externally using a 10% random holdout sample from each trial. The impact of early progression on the likelihood of survival to 90 days was examined with time-dependent Cox proportional hazards models. Results Mortality rates were 1.4% at 30 days, 3.4% at 60 days, and 5.5% at 90 days. Among baseline factors, advanced age, lower body mass index, poorer performance status, increased number of metastatic sites, BRAF mutant status, and several laboratory parameters were associated with increased likelihood of early mortality. A multivariable model for 90-day mortality showed strong internal discrimination (C-index, 0.77) and good calibration across risk groups as well as accurate predictions in the external validation set, both overall and within patient subgroups. Conclusion A validated clinical nomogram has been developed to quantify the risk of early death for individual patients during initial treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer. This tool may be used for patient eligibility assessment or risk stratification in future clinical trials and to identify patients requiring more or less aggressive therapy and additional supportive measures during and after treatment.

675 Background: Recent retrospective analysis of CALGB/SWOG 80405 showed that left-sided colon cancers (LCC) respond differently to biological therapy compared with right-sided tumors. However, differences between rectal cancers (RC) and LCC remain undefined. Herein, we report our exploration of differences between these two groups. Methods: Individual patient data from 4182 patients (pts) with metastatic colorectal cancers, enrolled onto 8 first-line randomized trials, were pooled. Only pts with tumor locations that were clearly defined as LCC (splenic flexure to sigmoid) or RC were included in this analysis. Differences in pt characteristics and disease factors according to LCC vs. RC were identified. The prognostic effect of primary tumor location on OS and PFS was quantified via multivariable Cox proportional hazards modeling stratified by treatment arm within each study and adjusting for age, sex, performance status, and prior surgery. Results: In total, 2,479 (59%) pts with LCC and 1,703 (41%) pts with RC were identified. Pts with RC, compared with LCC, were more likely to be male (68% vs. 62%, p < 0.001), have lung metastases (mets) (56% vs. 37%, p < 0.001), and have 2 or more metastatic sites (64% vs. 60%, p < 0.02), whereas pts with LCC were more likely to have liver mets (84% vs. 76%, p < 0.001). RC had a greater frequency of KRAS mutations (41% vs. 37%, p = 0.04) than LCC but there were no differences in the frequency of BRAF mutations (5% vs. 4%, p = 0.2). In multivariable analysis, no differences in OS or PFS were observed between pts with LCC vs. RC. While risk of death did not differ by primary tumor location, across all pts with LCC or RC, those with liver mets had a 17% increased risk of death compared to those with lung mets (HR = 1.17, p = 0.03) after adjusting for effects of other variables. Forthcoming prognostic analysis of LCC vs. RC within grouped backbone treatments (e.g., FOLFOX and FOLFIRI) is underway. Conclusions: Tumors arising in the rectum may carry clinical and molecular features that are distinct from LCC. Further investigations are warranted to determine whether RC should be treated with the same chemo backbone and biological therapy as LCC.

658 Background: In patients (pts) with mCRC with an asymptomatic primary tumor, there is limited evidence regarding the indication for primary tumor resection. The primary objective was to evaluate the prognostic value of primary tumor resection in synchronous mCRC pts. Methods: In this IPD analysis, a total of 3,423 pts from 8 first-line randomized trials (RCTs) with systemic therapy in the ARCAD (Aide et Recherche en Cancérologie Digestive) database were analyzed. Five RCTs included targeted (anti-VEGF and/or anti-EGFR) agents. Synchronous mCRC was defined as distant metastases occurring ≤ 6 months of the initial CRC diagnosis. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were compared by stratified multivariate Cox models. Results: There were 710 (21%), 1,705 (50%) and 1,008 (29%) pts with non-resected and resected synchronous mCRC and metachronous mCRC, respectively. Compared to the non-resection group, pts in the synchronous resection group were associated with female gender, colon tumor, isolated liver/lung involvement, single metastatic site, and lower LDH (all p<.001). Adjusted for age, gender, performance status and prior chemotherapy, the non-resection group had a significantly worse median OS (16.4m) compared to the resection (22.2m; HR 1.60, 95% CI 1.43-1.78) and metachronous (22.4m; HR 1.81, 95% CI 1.58-2.07) groups. Similarly, PFS was significantly worse for the non-resection group (7.9m) compared to the resection (9.7m; HR 1.31, 95% CI 1.19-1.44) and metachronous group (8.9m; HR 1.47, 95% CI 1.30-1.66). Similar trends were observed in pts treated with non-targeted vs targeted agents, and anti-VEGF vs anti-EGFR therapy. In a subset analysis (n= 526), the observed associations remained after additional adjustment for primary tumor location, liver/lung involvement, number of metastatic sites, BMI and LDH. Conclusions: In this largest IPD analysis of mCRC trials to date, primary tumor resection is associated with better OS and PFS in synchronous mCRC pts. These results may be subject to bias since reasons for (non)resection were not available. Prospective RCTs on this topic are ongoing.