Citations

Abstract The treatment of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients with cancer is challenging because these patients have increased risks of both recurrent VTE and major bleeding, along with patient-specific and cancer-related factors that influence the approach to treatment. Historically, anticoagulant therapy with low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH), given for both initial and long-term treatment, has been the preferred approach recommended by practice guidelines. Most recently, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines indicate that the direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) apixaban, edoxaban, or rivaroxaban are preferred for patients without gastric or gastroesophageal lesions. DOACs have been associated with an increased risk of major bleeding in patients with gastrointestinal and possibly genitourinary cancers, and DOACs should either not be used (especially in those with intact intraluminal tumors) or be used with caution in patients with these cancers. Fatal or life-threatening bleeding occurs with similar frequency with DOACs or LMWH, and most major bleeding with DOACs can be managed with transfusion and standard measures. The patient's willingness and ability to comply with LMWH injections, and their treatment preference, should also be considered. Patients with cancer who have VTE should be treated with anticoagulation for a minimum of 6 months. Anticoagulation should be continued indefinitely while cancer is active or under treatment or if there are persistent risk factors for recurrent VTE. This article summarizes the evidence from clinical trials of LMWH and DOACs that underpins the NCCN guideline recommendations, addresses several controversies and caveats regarding anticoagulant treatment, and offers evidence-based, practical suggestions on patient selection for treatment with DOACs. Implications for Practice Several randomized trials support the addition of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) to the therapeutic armamentarium for cancer-associated venous thromboembolism (VTE). These agents come with unique risks and patient- and cancer-specific variables that must be evaluated during the course of a patient's cancer care. This narrative review discusses findings from clinical trials of low-molecular-weight heparin and DOACs for the treatment of cancer-associated VTE, evidence that supports the recent National Comprehensive Cancer Network guideline recommendations. A personalized approach to treatment is proposed that addresses patient selection for treatment with DOACs, factors that influence efficacy and safety, controversies and caveats, and suggestions for their resolution in clinical practice.

Introduction: Hypomethylating agents (HMAs) or DNA methyltransferase inhibitors (DNMTi) such as decitabine or azacitidine are established standard of care for the treatment of MDS and CMML. The oral bioavailability of these agents has been limited due to rapid degradation by cytidine deaminase (CDA) in the gut and liver, hence requiring intravenous infusion or subcutaneous injections daily for 5-7 days every month (m). This parenteral administration requirement adds significant burden to older cancer patients due to daily time commitment and travel to treatment centers. It also increases exposure to and infection risk with SARS-CoV-2 during the COVID-19 pandemic. Oral decitabine 35 mg/cedazuridine 100 mg (ASTX727) is an oral fixed dose combination drug of decitabine and the CDA inhibitor cedazuridine that have shown 99% (90% CI 93% to 106%) equivalent exposure to standard dose IV decitabine 20 mg/m2 in a randomized cross-over study (Garcia-Manero et al, ASH 2019). Here, we present the clinical efficacy and safety results of oral decitabine/cedazuridine from 133 patient study in MDS and CMML (ASTX727-02 ASCERTAIN study). Methods: We used a randomized cross over design where patients were randomized in the first 2 cycles 1:1 to either Sequence A: decitabine 35 mg/ cedazuridine 100 mg in Cycle 1 followed by IV decitabine at 20 mg/m2 in Cycle 2, or Sequence B: IV decitabine in Cycle 1 followed by oral decitabine/cedazuridine in Cycle 2 to do an intra-patient comparison of decitabine PK (primary PK endpoint: decitabine AUC equivalence over 5 days of dosing). Cycles were repeated every 28 days. All patients received oral decitabine/cedazuridine in all subsequent cycles from Cycle 3 onwards until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Patients were eligible as per the FDA-approved label of IV decitabine (MDS patients by FAB classification including CMML, or MDS IPSS Intermediate-1, 2 or high-risk patients). Clinical endpoints were best response as assessed by an independent expert panel according to International Working Group (IWG) 2006 response criteria, transfusion independence for at least 8 or 16 consecutive weeks, overall survival, and safety. Adverse events (AEs) were graded by Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) v 4.03. Results: 138 subjects were randomized, of whom 133 were treated on study. The median age was 71.0 years (range 44-88), 65% were male, 88% MDS and 12% CMML, 43% were either red blood cells (RBCs) or platelets transfusion-dependent at baseline, 25% had poor-risk cytogenetics, and 42% had baseline bone marrow blasts >5%. At the data cutoff for the response analysis, the median duration of follow up was 12.6 m (range 9.3 to 20.5 m) with median number of treatment cycles of 8 (range 1 to 18). Of the 133 treated patients the best response was complete response (CR) in 28 patients (21%; 95% CI 15-29%), marrow (m)CR with hematological improvement (HI) in 20 patients (15%), mCR without HI in 23 patients (17.3%), and HI in 10 patients (7.5%) for an overall objective response (CR+mCR+HI) in 81 patients (61%; 95% CI 52-69%). Median duration of CR was 7.5 m (range 1.6 to 17.5 m), and median time to CR was 4.3 m (range 2.1 to 15.2 m). Of the 133 treated patients 27 (20%) went on to receive allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant. Of the 57 patients who were either RBCs or platelets transfusion-dependent at baseline, 30 (53%) became transfusion independent for both RBCs and platelets for at least 8 consecutive weeks, and 19 (33%) were both RBCs and platelets transfusion independent for at least 16 consecutive weeks. Median survival has not been reached. Most common Treatment-Emergent AEs of Grade ≥3 regardless of causality were neutropenia in 51.5%, thrombocytopenia in 50%, anemia in 40%, febrile neutropenia in 26%, leukopenia in 21%, pneumonia in 12%, and sepsis in 7% of patients treated with oral decitabine/cedazuridine (excluding the IV decitabine cycle). Summary/Conclusions: Efficacy and safety from oral decitabine 35 mg/ cedazuridine 100 mg daily for 5 days every 28 days are consistent with clinical data from standard IV decitabine 20 mg/m2 daily for 5 days. Oral decitabine/cedazuridine is the only oral HMA with systemic exposure equivalent to its injectable drug. Further investigation of oral decitabine/cedazuridine in all-oral combination studies is warranted and underway. Disclosures Savona: BMS: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Ryvu: Consultancy; Boehringer Ingelheim: Patents & Royalties; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy, Research Funding; Astex: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sunesis: Consultancy, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding. Griffiths:Celgene/BMS: Honoraria, Research Funding; Genentech Inc: Research Funding; Boston Biomedical: Honoraria; AbbVie Inc: Honoraria; Persimmune: Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Alexion Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Research Funding; Astex Pharmceuticals: Research Funding. Zeidan:CCITLA: Other; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria; BeyondSpring: Consultancy, Honoraria; Taiho: Consultancy, Honoraria; Cardinal Health: Consultancy, Honoraria; Epizyme: Consultancy, Honoraria; Leukemia and Lymphoma Society: Other; Jazz: Consultancy, Honoraria; Trovagene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Ionis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Astex: Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Honoraria; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Otsuka: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Acceleron: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Boehringer-Ingelheim: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene / BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Agios: Consultancy, Honoraria; ADC Therapeutics: Research Funding; Aprea: Research Funding; MedImmune/Astrazeneca: Research Funding; Cardiff Oncology: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other; Incyte: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Astellas: Consultancy, Honoraria. Patel:DAVA Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria; France Foundation: Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Agios: Consultancy. Keating:Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Hoffman La Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Merck: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Servier: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Shire: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Taiho: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Dao:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Current Employment. Fazal:Jansen: Speakers Bureau; Gilead/Kite: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Jazz Pharma: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Karyopham: Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Speakers Bureau; Glaxosmith Kline: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Incyte Corporation: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Agios: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Stemline: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Odenike:Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Astex Pharmaceuticals, NS Pharma, Gilead Sciences, Janssen Oncology, Oncotherapy, Agios, CTI/Baxalta, Aprea: Other: Institutional research funding; Astra Zeneca: Research Funding; Incyte: Other: Institutional research funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Impact Biomedicines: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Kantarjian:Abbvie: Honoraria, Research Funding; BioAscend: Honoraria; Delta Fly: Honoraria; Ascentage: Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria, Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; Actinium: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Immunogen: Research Funding; Aptitute Health: Honoraria; BMS: Research Funding; Daiichi-Sankyo: Honoraria, Research Funding; Jazz: Research Funding; Oxford Biomedical: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Adaptive biotechnologies: Honoraria. DeZern:MEI: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Astex: Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy. Roboz:Novartis: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Astex: Consultancy; Amphivena: Consultancy; Agios: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy; Array BioPharma: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy; Celltrion: Consultancy; Eisai: Consultancy; Jazz: Consultancy; Roche/Genentech: Consultancy; Sandoz: Consultancy; Actinium: Consultancy; Argenx: Consultancy; Astellas: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Orsenix: Consultancy; Otsuka: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; Trovagene: Consultancy; Cellectis: Research Funding; Jasper Therapeutics: Consultancy; Epizyme: Consultancy; Helsinn: Consultancy; MEI Pharma: Consultancy. Busque:Pfizer: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria. Wells:Alexion: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Leber:Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Otsuka Pharmaceutical: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda/Palladin: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Treadwell: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Lundbeck: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Alexion: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; BMS/Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Hao:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Current Employment. Keer:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Current Employment. Azab:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Current Employment. Garcia-Manero:Acceleron Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria; AbbVie: Honoraria, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; H3 Biomedicine: Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Astex Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Amphivena Therapeutics: Research Funding; Helsinn Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Onconova: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding.

Modern medical care produces large volumes of multimodal patient data, which many clinicians struggle to process and synthesize into actionable knowledge. In recent years, artificial intelligence (AI) has emerged as an effective tool in this regard. The field of hepatology is no exception, with a growing number of studies published that apply AI techniques to the diagnosis and treatment of liver diseases. These have included machine‐learning algorithms (such as regression models, Bayesian networks, and support vector machines) to predict disease progression, the presence of complications, and mortality; deep‐learning algorithms to enable rapid, automated interpretation of radiologic and pathologic images; and natural‐language processing to extract clinically meaningful concepts from vast quantities of unstructured data in electronic health records. This review article will provide a comprehensive overview of hepatology‐focused AI research, discuss some of the barriers to clinical implementation and adoption, and suggest future directions for the field.

ObjectiveTo ascertain the prevalence of and associations with distress and professional burnout among academic otolaryngology attending physicians.Study DesignCross‐sectional survey.SettingTwelve US academic otolaryngology programs.MethodsA questionnaire was administered that encompassed sociodemographic and professional features, the Expanded Physician Well‐being Index for distress, the 2‐item Maslach Burnout Inventory for professional burnout, the Patient Health Questionnaire–2 screen for major depressive disorder, and the Generalized Anxiety Disorder–2 screen for generalized anxiety disorder.ResultsThe survey response rate was 56% and included 186 attending physicians. The average respondent age was 47 years; 72% were men; 93% were married or partnered; and 86% had children. Distress was present in 40%, professional burnout in 26%, positive depression screening in 8%, and positive anxiety screening in 11%. In a univariable setting, age, hours worked in a typical week, nights on call in a typical week, and years of practice were significantly associated with distress, although in a multivariable setting, only hours worked in a typical week remained significantly associated with a positive Expanded Physician Well‐being Index screen (odds ratio for each 10‐hour increase, 2.61; 95% CI, 1.73‐3.93; P <. 001). In a univariable setting, hours worked in a typical week was significantly associated with a positive Maslach Burnout Inventory screen.ConclusionDistress or professional burnout occurs in more than a quarter of academic otolaryngology attending physicians, whereas the prevalence of depression or anxiety is approximately 10%. The number of hours worked per week had the strongest association with distress and burnout. These findings may be used to develop and implement programs to promote physician well‐being and mitigate professional burnout.

ObjectiveTo assess the prevalence of distress and burnout in otolaryngology trainees, including associations with relevant sociodemographic and professional factors, and to compare these results with those of attending otolaryngologists.Study DesignA cross‐sectional survey of trainees and attending physicians.SettingTwelve academic otolaryngology programs.MethodsDistress and burnout were measured with the Expanded Physician Well‐being Index and the 2‐item Maslach Burnout Inventory. The Patient Health Questionnaire–2 and Generalized Anxiety Disorder–2 were used to screen for depressive disorders and anxiety disorders, respectively. Associations with sociodemographic and professional characteristics were assessed.ResultsOf the 613 surveys administered to trainees and attending physicians, 340 were completed (56%). Among 154 trainees, distress was present in 49%, professional burnout in 35%, positive depressive disorder screening in 5%, and positive anxiety disorder screening in 16%. In univariable analysis, female gender, hours worked in a typical week (HW), and nights on call in a typical week (NOC) were significantly associated with distress. In multivariable analysis, female gender (odds ratio, 3.91; P =. 001) and HW (odds ratio for each 10 HW, 1.89; P =. 003) remained significantly associated with distress. Female gender, HW, and NOC were significantly associated with burnout univariably, although only HW (odds ratio for each 10 HW, 1.92; P =. 003) remained significantly associated with burnout in a multivariable setting. Attending physicians had less distress than trainees (P =. 02) and felt less callous and less emotionally hardened than trainees (P <. 001).ConclusionOtolaryngology trainees experience significant work‐place distress (49%) and burnout (35%). Gender, HW, and NOC had the strongest associations with distress and burnout.

Abstract Momelotinib (MMB) is a JAK1/2 and ACVR1 inhibitor with demonstrated clinical activity in all 3 hallmarks of myelofibrosis (MF): anemia, constitutional symptoms, and splenomegaly. In this phase 2 open-label translational biology study (NCT02515630) of 41 transfusion-dependent patients with MF, we explored mechanisms underlying the favorable activity of MMB on MF-associated iron-restricted anemia, including its impact on serum hepcidin levels, and markers of iron storage and availability, erythropoiesis, and inflammation. A transfusion-independent response (TI-R), defined as red blood cell transfusion independence (TI) ≥12 weeks at any time on study, occurred in 17 patients (41%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 26%-58%), including 14 patients (34%; 95% CI, 20%-51%) who achieved TI-R by week 24. In addition, 78% of TI nonresponse (TI-NR) patients achieved a ≥50% decrease in transfusion requirement for ≥8 weeks. Adverse events (AEs) were consistent with previous studies of MMB in MF, with cough, diarrhea, and nausea as the most common. Twenty-one patients experienced grade ≥3 AEs, most commonly anemia and neutropenia. Consistent with preclinical data, daily MMB treatment led to an acute and persistent decrease in blood hepcidin associated with increased iron availability and markers of erythropoiesis. Baseline characteristics associated with TI-R were lower inflammation and hepcidin as well as increased markers of erythropoiesis and bone marrow function. Overall, the study demonstrates that MMB treatment decreases hepcidin in conjunction with improving iron metabolism and erythropoiesis, suggesting a mechanistic explanation for the reduced transfusion dependency observed in transfusion-dependent MF patients treated with MMB, thereby addressing the key unmet medical need in the MF population.

4010 Background: Prior studies suggested that older and younger pts with colon cancer receive similar benefit from IV fluoropyrimidine (FU) adjuvant (adj) therapy (rx). Combination and/or oral FU rx are increasingly given as adj rx. We sought to determine the impact of pts age <70 v ≥70 yrs on colon cancer recurrence and mortality from adj rx with these newer options. Methods: We used data from 10,499 pts <70 yrs and 2,170 pts ≥70 yrs in 6 phase III adj rx trials comparing IV FU to combinations with irinotecan, oxaliplatin or oral FU (capecitabine and UFT/LV) in stage II/III colon cancer from the ACCENT database. Endpoints were overall survival (OS; time to death), disease-free survival (DFS; time to recurrence or death), and time to recurrence (TTR; censoring at last follow-up). Cox models were stratified by age and adjusted for gender and stage; interaction testing was used to explore the differential benefit by age. Results: Approximately 75% of pts had stage III disease (74% age<70, 77% age≥70). OS, DFS, and TTR were statistically significantly improved for those in the experimental v control arms among pts <70 but not those >70 ( table ); the interaction between age and rx was statistically significant for all endpoints (p=0.01 for OS, DFS, and TTR). These results were consistent whether experimental rx was oxaliplatin-based, irinotecan-based or oral FU. Deaths in first 6 month of adj rx were not statistically significantly different between experimental and control arm. Conclusions: Our results show conclusively that pts >70 do not receive the same benefit from combination and/or oral FU as those <70. Any benefit, if present, compared to IV FU/LV would not be clinically meaningful. Outcomes of experimental (combination or oral FU) vs control (IV 5-FU) by treatment and age [Table: see text] [Table: see text]

Abstract Background Adjuvant chemotherapy is a standard treatment option for patients with stage III and high-risk stage II colon cancer. Sex is one of several factors responsible for the wide inter-patient variability in drug responses. Amalgamated data on the effect of sex on the toxicity of current standard adjuvant treatment for colorectal cancer are missing. Methods The objective of our study was to compare incidence and severity of major toxicities of fluoropyrimidine- (5FU or capecitabine) based adjuvant chemotherapy, with or without oxaliplatin, between male and female patients after curative surgery for colon cancer. Adult patients enrolled in 27 relevant randomized trials included in the ACCENT (Adjuvant Colon Cancer End Points) database, a large, multi-group, international data repository containing individual patient data, were included. Comparisons were conducted using logistic regression models (stratified by study and treatment arm) within each type of adjuvant chemotherapy (5FU, FOLFOX, capecitabine, CAPOX, and FOLFIRI). The following major toxicities were compared (grade III or IV and grade I-IV, according to National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria [NCI-CTC] criteria, regardless of attribution): nausea, vomiting, nausea or vomiting, stomatitis, diarrhea, leukopenia, neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, anemia, and neuropathy (in patients treated with oxaliplatin). Results Data from 34 640 patients were analyzed. Statistically significant and clinically relevant differences in the occurrence of grade III or IV nonhematological {especially nausea (5FU: odds ratio [OR] = 2.33, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.90 to 2.87, P &lt; .001; FOLFOX: OR = 2.34, 95% CI = 1.76 to 3.11, P &lt; .001), vomiting (5FU: OR = 2.38, 95% CI = 1.86 to 3.04, P &lt; .001; FOLFOX: OR = 2.00, 95% CI = 1.50 to 2.66, P &lt; .001; CAPOX: OR = 2.32, 95% CI = 1.55 to 3.46, P &lt; .001), and diarrhea (5FU: OR = 1.35, 95% CI = 1.21 to 1.51, P &lt; .001; FOLFOX: OR = 1.60, 95% CI = 1.35 to 1.90, P &lt; .001; FOLFIRI: OR = 1.57, 95% CI = 1.25 to 1.97, P &lt; .001)} as well as hematological toxicities (neutropenia [5FU: OR = 1.55, 95% CI = 1.37 to 1.76, P &lt; .001; FOLFOX: OR = 1.96, 95% CI = 1.71 to 2.25, P &lt; .001; FOLFIRI: OR = 2.01, 95% CI = 1.66 to 2.43, P &lt; .001; capecitabine: OR = 4.07, 95% CI = 1.84 to 8.99, P &lt; .001] and leukopenia [5FU: OR = 1.74, 95% CI = 1.40 to 2.17, P &lt; .001; FOLFIRI: OR = 1.75, 95% CI = 1.28 to 2.40, P &lt; .001]) were observed, with women being consistently at increased risk. Conclusions Our analysis confirms that women with colon cancer receiving adjuvant fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy are at increased risk of toxicity. Given the known sex differences in fluoropyrimidine pharmacokinetics, sex-specific dosing of fluoropyrimidines warrants further investigation.

e19136 Background: Patient reported side effect bother is needed to understand tolerability of cancer drugs. We examined whether increase in side effect bother from baseline to cycle 7 as measured by a single item (GP5) from the FACT-G, “I am bothered by side effects of treatment”, was associated with early treatment discontinuation (ETD) in a multiple myeloma (MM) trial. Methods: Data were drawn from the induction phase of ECOG ACRIN E1A06, a two arm, phase 3 trial conducted in patients with untreated MM. The induction phase occurred over twelve, 28-day cycles. GP5 was assessed at registration and cycle 7. ETD was defined as completion of less than 12 cycles of treatment. We tested whether increase in side effect bother on the GP5 from baseline to cycle 7 was associated with months to ETD in two ways. At each timepoint, GP5 was rated with these response options: “Not at all”, “A little bit”, “Somewhat”, “Quite a bit”, “Very Much”. First, we stratified Kaplan Meier curves by patients with versus without substantially increased side effect burden from registration to cycle 7 on the GP5, defined as an increase of > 2 response categories; Cox regression was used to calculate a hazard ratio. Second, we fit a joint model of the GP5 change trajectory on months to ETD that substituted the estimated slope of a longitudinal logistic regression model into the hazard function of a Cox model. In this model, GP5 was dichotomized as 0 = “Not at all/”A little bit”; 1 = “Somewhat”/ “Quite a bit”/ “Very Much”. Results: 159 patients were followed during induction for a median of 11 months (range: 0.2-16.0). 10 patients (6%) reported a substantial increase on GP5 from registration to cycle 7. After 16 months, these patients had a significantly higher hazard of ETD as estimated by Kaplan Meier methods: 40% experienced ETD vs. 24% of patients without substantial GP5 increase [hazard ratio (HR): 3.08 (95% CI: 1.18-8.02)]. In the joint model, the effect of GP5 on hazard of ETD was larger [HR: 9.56 (95% CI: 2.41-37.82)]. Conclusions: This study found initial evidence that increase in side effect bother as measured by the GP5 predicts ETD and may therefore reflect treatment intolerability in cancer drug trials. The effects found in this study will be tested for replication in additional ECOG-ACRIN trials with diverse designs, treatments, and cancer types. Clinical trial information: NCT00602641 .

e19132 Background: The Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy–General has an item about patient tolerability of treatment: “I am bothered by side effects of treatment” (GP5). We examined the predictive value of this single item for early treatment discontinuation in clinical trials. Methods: GP5 level prior to protocol therapy (rated using a 5-point Likert scale) and treatment start/end dates and off treatment reason data at each treatment phase were drawn from five phase III clinical trials conducted by ECOG-ACRIN. In the present analysis, GP5 was dichotomized as 0 = “Not at all”/“A little bit” and 1 = “Somewhat”/“Quite a bit”/“Very Much”. Early treatment discontinuation was defined either as receiving less than protocol specified cycles of treatment when maximum cycles specified in the protocol (E1A06 induction, E1912 induction, E1609 induction, E1105 induction, E5103 adjuvant), analyzed using logistic regression via odds ratio [OR]), or treatment cessation for reasons other than progressive disease or death when treatment continued until progression or intolerability (E1A06 maintenance, E1912 maintenance, E1609 maintenance, E1105 maintenance), analyzed using Cox proportional hazard model via hazard ratio [HR]. Results: GP5 prior to treatment was significantly associated with early discontinuation of E1A06 maintenance, E1609 maintenance, E1912 maintenance, and E1912 induction. No significant association was found for other therapies examined in the study. Conclusions: High GP5 level prior to treatment is associated with higher likelihood of early treatment discontinuation in patients who have received previous treatment. The limited predictive value of GP5 for treatment naïve patients is more limited, serial on-treatment assessment should be considered in this setting. Clinical trial information: NCT00602641 . [Table: see text]