Citations

Purpose: Socioeconomic status (SES) influences health care outcomes, but the influence of primary payer on cancer-associated wasting is unknown. We hypothesized that primary payer as an indicator of SES would influence pretreatment cancer-associated weight loss and treatment outcomes. Materials and Methods: Retrospective review of medical records identified 1,366 patients with non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) consecutively treated at a tertiary care health system between January 1, 2006 and December 31, 2013. Insurance status was obtained from an institutional tumor registry. Cancer-associated weight loss was based on the validated international consensus definition of cachexia. Multivariable regression analyses were used to identify prognostic factors of pretreatment cancer-associated weight loss and survival. Results: The cohort included a representative group of patients with a median age at diagnosis of 64 years, 47% females, and 33% patients of nonwhite race. Pretreatment cancer-associated weight loss was present at the time of NSCLC diagnosis in 17%, 14%, 32%, and 38% of patients with stage I, II, III, and IV disease, respectively. Pretreatment cancer-associated weight loss was associated with increasing age at diagnosis, black race, single marital status, tobacco use, and disease stage. Compared with private insurance, Medicaid insurance (odds ratio, 2.17; 95% CI, 1.42 to 3.30) and lack of insurance (odds ratio, 2.32; 95% CI, 1.50 to 3.58) were associated with pretreatment cancer-associated weight loss. Among cachectic patients, comorbidity, histology, tumor grade, and disease stage were prognostic of survival on multivariable analysis; however, primary payer was not. Conclusion: Pretreatment cancer-associated weight loss is common in patients with NSCLC, and its presence is significantly associated with lower SES. However, among patients with pretreatment cancer-associated weight loss, SES was not predictive of survival. Early use of cancer cachexia–directed therapies may improve outcomes, and further study on the biologic mechanisms of cancer cachexia will provide novel therapeutic avenues.

Purpose: Cancer-associated weight loss is associated with poor prognosis in advanced malignancy; however, its pretreatment prevalence and survival impact are inadequately described in large cohorts. Such data, stratified by tumor type and stage, may facilitate the optimal and timely allocation of complementary care, leading to improvements in patient survival and quality of life. Methods: We performed a retrospective cohort study of 3,180 consecutively treated adult patients with lung or GI (including colorectal, liver, and pancreatic) cancer. Pretreatment cancer-associated weight loss was based on the international consensus definition of cachexia. Prevalence and survival impact of pretreatment cancer-associated weight loss were evaluated using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared using log-rank test. Results: Cancer-associated weight loss was observed at the time of cancer diagnosis in 34.1% of patients. Pretreatment weight loss was documented in 17.6%, 25.8%, 36.6%, and 43.3% of stage I, II, III, and IV cancers, respectively. Wasting was common regardless of tumor type, with prevalence at diagnosis ranging from 27.3% in patients with colorectal cancer to 53.4% in patients with gastroesophageal cancer. Pretreatment weight loss was associated with reduced overall survival after adjusting for stage, size, grade, comorbidity, age, sex, and tobacco history (hazard ratio, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.13 to 1.39). Conclusion: Pretreatment cancer-associated weight loss is common, even in early-stage disease, and is independently associated with reduced survival. Minimal weight loss represents a clinically distinct entity with an associated overall survival intermediate to that of no weight loss and overt wasting. Early diagnosis and treatment of cancer-associated wasting offers a novel therapeutic avenue for reducing cancer mortality.

Abstract Background: Abemaciclib is an orally administered, selective inhibitor of cyclin-dependent kinases 4 & 6 that is dosed on a twice daily continuous schedule. Abemaciclib has demonstrated clinical efficacy with a generally tolerable safety profile in patients with hormone receptor-positive (HR+), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2-) advanced breast cancer in combination with fulvestrant in MONARCH 2 (NCT02107703) and in combination with non-steroidal aromatase inhibitors (NSAI) in MONARCH 3 (NCT02246621). These analyses were conducted to evaluate if patient and disease characteristics may better inform in whom and when abemaciclib should be initiated to define optimal treatment strategies. Methods: MONARCH 2 and 3 enrolled patients with HR+, HER2- advanced breast cancer. In MONARCH 2, patients whose disease had progressed while receiving endocrine therapy were treated with abemaciclib/placebo plus fulvestrant. In MONARCH 3, patients were treated with abemaciclib/placebo plus NSAI as initial therapy for advanced disease. An exploratory pooled analysis of the two studies was performed to determine significant prognostic factors. Efficacy results (progression-free survival [PFS] and objective response rate [ORR] in patients with measurable disease) were examined for patient subgroups corresponding to each of the identified significant prognostic factors. Subpopulation treatment effect pattern plot (STEPP) methodology was performed to examine the association between treatment-free interval (TFI) following adjuvant endocrine therapy and outcomes of endocrine therapy alone or in combination with abemaciclib in MONARCH 3. Results: Analyses of clinical factors in over 1000 patients confirmed the following to have prognostic value: bone-only disease, liver metastases, tumor grade, progesterone receptor (PgR) status, and ECOG performance status. Prognosis was poor in patients with liver metastases, PgR-negative tumors, and high-grade tumors. While all subpopulations benefited from the addition of abemaciclib to endocrine therapy regardless of prognosis, substantial benefit of abemaciclib was observed in poor prognosis subgroups, characterized by large increases in PFS (hazard ratios = 0.4 to 0.5) and ORR (over 30%). In addition, STEPP analysis of TFI on a subset of the MONARCH 3 population showed that patients with the shortest TFI appeared to have a poorer prognosis and received more benefit from the addition of abemaciclib compared to patients with longer TFI. Conclusions: This exploratory analysis has provided data that could help optimize treatment strategies by identifying that patients with poor prognostic factors may receive greater benefit from the addition of abemaciclib to endocrine therapy. Citation Format: Goetz MP, O'Shaughnessy J, Sledge Jr. GW, Martin M, Lin Y, Forrester T, Mockbee C, Smith IC, Di Leo A, Johnston S. The benefit of abemaciclib in prognostic subgroups: An exploratory analysis of combined data from the MONARCH 2 and 3 studies [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 GS6-02.

Abstract The Alzheimer's Association's Research Roundtable met in November 2016 to explore how best to measure changes in cognition and function in the preclinical stage of Alzheimer's disease. This review will cover the tools and instruments currently available to identify populations for prevention trials, and measure subtle disease progression in the earliest stages of Alzheimer's disease, and will include discussions of suitable cognitive, behavioral, functional, composite, and biological endpoints for prevention trials. Current prevention trials are reviewed including TOMMOROW, Alzheimer's Prevention Initiative Autosomal Dominant Alzheimer's Disease Trial, the Alzheimer's Prevention Initiative Generation Study, and the Anti‐Amyloid Treatment in Asymptomatic Alzheimer's to compare current approaches and tools that are being developed.

The North American Consortium for the Study of End‐Stage Liver Disease's definition of acute‐on‐chronic liver failure (NACSELD‐ACLF) as two or more extrahepatic organ failures has been proposed as a simple bedside tool to assess the risk of mortality in hospitalized patients with cirrhosis. We validated the NACSELD‐ACLF's ability to predict 30‐day survival (defined as in‐hospital death or hospice discharge) in a separate multicenter prospectively enrolled cohort of both infected and uninfected hospitalized patients with cirrhosis. We used the NACSELD database of 14 tertiary care hepatology centers that prospectively enrolled nonelective hospitalized patients with cirrhosis (n = 2,675). The cohort was randomly split 60%/40% into training (n = 1,605) and testing (n = 1,070) groups. Organ failures assessed were (1) shock, (2) hepatic encephalopathy (grade III/IV), (3) renal (need for dialysis), and (4) respiratory (mechanical ventilation). Patients were most commonly Caucasian (79%) men (62%) with a mean age of 57 years and a diagnosis of alcohol‐induced cirrhosis (45%), and 1,079 patients had an infection during hospitalization. The mean Model for End‐Stage Liver Disease score was 19, and the median Child score was 10. No demographic differences were present between the two split groups. Multivariable modeling revealed that the NACSELD‐ACLF score, as determined by number of organ failures, was the strongest predictor of decreased survival after controlling for admission age, white blood cell count, serum albumin, Model for End‐Stage Liver Disease score, and presence of infection. The c‐statistics were 0.8073 for the training set and 0.8532 for the validation set. Conclusion: Although infection status remains an important predictor of death, NACSELD‐ACLF was independently validated in a separate large multinational prospective cohort as a simple, reliable bedside tool to predict 30‐day survival in both infected and uninfected patients hospitalized with a diagnosis of cirrhosis. (H epatology 2018;67:2367‐2374).

The objective of this study is to understand the resolution of discordance between adolescent–parent dyads about participation in research. Adolescent (14-17 years) and parent dyads were recruited from NYC pediatric clinics to assess attitudes toward research participation. A subset of dyads participated in videotaped discussions about participation in a hypothetical study. Videos from dyads that held strongly discordant opinions about participation ( n = 30) were content-coded and analyzed using a thematic framework approach. Strategies used to resolve discordance included asserting authority, granting autonomy, or recognizing inaccurate assumptions using a variety of communication behaviors. Missed opportunities to enroll initially discordant dyads may be avoided by allowing time for adolescents and parents to elicit information, clarify a situation, or convince the other.