Citations

365 Background: Automated scalp cooling (ASC) is utilized in breast cancer patients to reduce chemotherapy-induced alopecia. Nursing staff and patient perspectives on ASC are limited regarding impact on care delivery and outcomes. Methods: A survey-based study of patient and chemotherapy nurse perspectives of ASC was conducted at three multi-regional Mayo Clinic sites. One-time surveys were sent to breast cancer patients and nurses for self-reporting of the ASC experience. Patients were identified via ICD-10 codes for breast cancer with subsequent chart review to confirm relevant chemotherapy regimen and ASC use. Chemotherapy nurses were identified by their respective chemotherapy unit nurse managers. Patient survey responses were compared between groups that did or did not use ASC by use of Pearson chi-square test for frequency data and the Kruskal-Wallis rank sum test for continuous measures. P values <0.05 were considered statistically significant. Results: Surveys were sent to 181 nurses with 61 (33.7%) completing them. Nurses reported ASC administration to 10-50 patients (n=43, 63.9%) or ≥50 patients (n=18, 29.5%). Most felt they had little or no technical support available (67.2%), witnessed scheduling difficulties (52.5%), were distressed by workload intensity (52.5%), and did not receive adequate training (67.2%). Most felt that ASC demanded greater nursing time compared to other duties (57.4%). Most would not recommend ASC to a friend or family member (88.6%). Surveys were sent to chemotherapy patients with 93 of 465 (20.0%) ASC patients and 56 of 341 (16.4%) without ASC (control) completing them. Controls were significantly more likely to experience hair loss, shave their head, and wear a wig (all p<0.001). There was no significant difference between groups for the EORTC QLQC30, EORTC BR23, and Body Image Scale results or frequency of headaches. Patients who used ASC for less than half of their chemotherapy sessions reported significantly more cold discomfort ( p=0.040) and dizziness ( p=0.003). Time investment (33.3%) and side effects (31.2%) were the most frequent burdens cited. Conclusions: Most nurses indicated that ASC increased nursing workload compared with other duties, and they lacked adequate training and technical support. Increasing formal nurse education and access to technical support documents and live technical support may be options for improving nursing satisfaction with ASC. Patient responses suggest qualitative effectiveness of ASC in reducing hair loss. While those with ASC were less likely to shave or use a wig, this did not translate to significant differences in quality of life or psychosocial body image compared to controls. Cold discomfort and dizziness were the most frequent side effects among those with lower utilization of ASC.

AbstractBackgroundPARP (poly(ADP‐ribose) polymerase) inhibitors (PARPi) are now standard of care in metastatic castrate‐resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) patients with select mutations in DNA damage repair (DDR) pathways, but patients with ATM‐ and BRCA2 mutations may respond differently to PARPi. We hypothesized that differences may also exist in response to taxanes, which may inform treatment sequencing decisions.MethodsmCRPC patients (N = 158) with deleterious ATM or BRCA2 mutations who received taxanes, PARPi, or both were retrospectively identified from 11 US academic centers. Demographic, treatment, and survival data were collected. Kaplan−Meier analyses were performed and Cox hazard ratios (HR) were calculated for progression‐free survival (PFS) as well as overall survival (OS), from time of first taxane or PARPi therapy.ResultsFifty‐eight patients with ATM mutations and 100 with BRCA2 mutations were identified. Fourty‐four (76%) patients with ATM mutations received taxane only or taxane before PARPi, while 14 (24%) received PARPi only or PARPi before taxane. Patients with ATM mutations had longer PFS when taxane was given first versus PARPi given first (HR: 0.74 [95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.37−1.50]; p = 0.40). Similarly, OS was longer in patients with ATM mutations who received taxane first (HR: 0.56 [CI: 0.20−1.54]; p = 0.26). Among patients with BRCA2 mutations, 51 (51%) received taxane first and 49 (49%) received PARPi first. In contrast, patients with BRCA2 mutations had longer PFS when PARPi was given first versus taxane given first (HR: 0.85 [CI: 0.54−1.35]; p = 0.49). Similarly, OS was longer in patients with BRCA2 mutations who received PARPi first (HR: 0.75 [CI: 0.41−1.37]; p = 0.35).ConclusionsOur retrospective data suggest differential response between ATM and BRCA2 mutated prostate cancers in terms of response to PARPi and to taxane chemotherapy. When considering the sequence of PARPi versus taxane chemotherapy for mCRPC with DDR mutations, ATM, and BRCA2 mutation status may be helpful in guiding choice of initial therapy.

132 Background: Enhancing equitable oncologic care is an increasingly emphasized priority. Our study aims to identify aspects of breast cancer (BC) care in which differences exist based on insurance coverage. Methods: We performed a retrospective, case control study, (from 2014-2020); 39 Hispanic ethnicity uninsured patients (UP) from underserved communities with newly diagnosed BC and 119 insured patients (IP) diagnosed at Mayo Clinic Arizona (MCA). Patients were matched 3:1 for age, stage, year of diagnosis, estrogen receptors and HER-2 status. Demographic information, clinical variables, and zip code level specific socioeconomic information were compared. Continuous variables were compared by Wilcoxon rank-sum test and categorical variables by chi-square test. All patients were treated at MCA. Results: Similar treatment patterns with radiotherapy, chemotherapy and surgery were observed between groups. Primary language was Spanish for 94% of UP and English for 97.5% of IP. The majority of UP were of Hispanic ethnicity (97.4%); IP were 83.2% non-Hispanic White, 9.2% Hispanic, 3.4% African American. Zip code level information reflected more unemployment with a median of 10.6% versus 6.9% p < 0.001, percent of high school or lower (53.0 % v 23.2 %, p < 0.001), and lower income for UP (33733.5 v 64728.0 p values < 0.001).BMI was significantly higher for UP (30.6 V 24.7, p = 0.005), with presence of more co-morbidities; diabetes (28.2% v 5.0%, p < 0.001), hypertension (35.9 % v 20.2%, p = 0.046), dyslipidemia (28.2% v 12.6%, p = 0.023), metabolic syndrome (p 23.7% v 8.5, p = 0.013), and tobacco use (17.9% v 2.5%, p < 0.001). Genetics consultation was performed for 62.2% IP versus 35.9% UP (p = 0.004), lower acceptance of nutrition consultation for UP (29.4% vs 7.4%, p = 0.024). Median time from mammogram to biopsy (25.5 days vs. 14 days, p = 0.056), and interval from diagnosis to treatment (62 days vs. 39 days) (p = 0.001) were less favorable for UP compared to IP. Conclusions: In comparing the status of UP and IP with newly diagnosed BC, we identified greater prevalence of co-morbidities and adverse social determinants of health in the former group. We identified access to genetic counseling, nutrition consultation, and timeliness of diagnostic biopsy and initiation of treatment as disparate features in the care pathway. These observations allowed development of tailored interventions to achieve greater equity in delivery of BC care at Mayo Clinic.

PURPOSE Two poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors (olaparib and rucaparib) are US Food and Drug Administration–approved for patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) harboring BRCA1/ 2 mutations, but the relative efficacy of PARP inhibition in BRCA1- versus BRCA2-altered mCRPC is understudied. METHODS We conducted a multicenter retrospective analysis involving 12 sites. We collected genomic and clinical data from 123 patients with BRCA1/ 2-altered mCRPC who were treated with PARP inhibitors. The primary efficacy end point was the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) response (≥ 50% PSA decline) rate. Secondary end points were PSA progression-free survival (PSA-PFS), clinical or radiographic PFS, and overall survival. We compared clinical outcomes, and other genomic characteristics, among BRCA1- versus BRCA2-altered mCRPC. RESULTS A total of 123 patients (13 BRCA1 and 110 BRCA2) were included. PARP inhibitors used were olaparib (n = 116), rucaparib (n = 3), talazoparib (n = 2), and veliparib (n = 2). At diagnosis, 72% of patients had Gleason 8-10 disease. BRCA1 patients were more likely to have metastatic disease at presentation (69% v 37%; P = .04). Age, baseline PSA, metastatic distribution, and types of previous systemic therapies were similar between groups. There were equal proportions of germline mutations (51% v 46%; P = .78) in both groups. BRCA1 patients had more monoallelic (56% v 41%; P = .49) and concurrent TP53 (55% v 36%; P = .32) mutations. PSA 50 responses in BRCA1- versus BRCA2-altered patients were 23% versus 63%, respectively ( P = .01). BRCA2 patients achieved longer PSA-PFS (HR, 1.94; 95% CI, 0.92 to 4.09; P = .08), PFS (HR, 2.08; 95% CI, 0.99 to 4.40; P = .05), and overall survival (HR, 3.01; 95% CI, 1.32 to 6.83; P = .008). Biallelic (compared with monoallelic) mutations, truncating (compared with missense) mutations, and absence of a concurrent TP53 mutation were associated with PARP inhibitor sensitivity. CONCLUSION PARP inhibitor efficacy is diminished in BRCA1- versus BRCA2-altered mCRPC. This is not due to an imbalance in germline mutations but might be related to more monoallelic mutations and/or concurrent TP53 alterations in the BRCA1 group.

e18518 Background: Initiatives enhancing equitable oncologic care are an increasingly emphasized priority. Our study aims to identify aspects of breast cancer (BC) care in which differences exist based on insurance coverage status. Methods: We performed a retrospective, case control study consisting of 39 Hispanic ethnicity uninsured patients (UP) with newly diagnosed BC at federally qualified health centers and 119 insured patients (IP) diagnosed at Mayo Clinic Arizona (MCA). Patients were matched 3:1 for age, stage, year of diagnosis, ER and HER2 status. Demographic information, clinical variables, and zip code level specific socioeconomic information were compared. Continuous variables were compared by Wilcoxon rank-sum test and categorical variables by chi-square test. All patients ultimately received their cancer treatment at MCA. Results: Similar treatment patterns with chemotherapy, surgery, and radiation treatment were observed between groups. Primary language was Spanish for 94% of UP and English for 97.5% of IP. The majority of UP were of Hispanic ethnicity (97.4%); IP were 83.2% non-Hispanic White, 9.2% Hispanic, 3.4% African American. Zip code level information reflected more unemployment with a median of 10.6% versus 6.9% p ˂ 0.001, percent of high school or lower (53.0 % v 23.2 %, p ˂ 0.001), and lower income for UP (33733.5 v 64728.0 p values ˂ 0.001). UP BMI was significantly higher (30.6 V 24.7, p=0.005), with presence of more co-morbidities; diabetes (28.2% v 5.0%, p ˂ 0.001), hypertension (35.9 % v 20.2%, p= 0.046), dyslipidemia (28.2% v 12.6%, p = 0.023), metabolic syndrome (p 23.7% v 8.5, p= 0.013), and tobacco use (17.9% v 2.5%, p ˂ 0.001). IP had higher alcohol use (52.9% v 5.3%, p ˂ 0.001). Genetics consultation was performed for 62.2% IP versus 35.9% UP (p=0.004), lower acceptance of oncology nutrition consultation for UP (29.4% vs 7.4%, p= 0.024) Median time from abnormal mammogram to biopsy (25.5 days vs. 14 days, p=0.056), and interval from diagnosis to treatment (62 days vs. 39 days) (p=0.001) were less favorable for UP compared to IP. Conclusions: In comparing the status of UP (primarily Hispanic, Spanish-speaking) and IP (primarily non-Hispanic White, English-speaking) with newly diagnosed BC we identified greater prevalence of co-morbidities and adverse social determinants of health in the former group. We identified access to genetic counseling services, access to oncology nutrition consultation, and timeliness of diagnostic biopsy and initiation of treatment as disparate features in the care pathway. These observations can allow development of tailored interventions to achieve greater equity in delivery of BC care.

5040 Background: PARPi have shown promise in mCRPC pts with mutations in DNA repair, but ATM- and BRCA2-altered pts may respond differently to PARPi. We hypothesized that differences may also exist for taxane therapy, aiding in treatment sequencing decisions. Methods: mCRPC pts (N = 137) with deleterious ATM or BRCA2 mutations who received taxanes, PARPi, or both were identified from 8 US academic centers. Demographic, treatment, and survival data were collected. Kaplan-Meier analyses were performed for time-to-treatment-discontinuation (TTD), as well as overall survival (OS), from time of first taxane or PARPi therapy. Cox hazard ratio (HR) regression analyses were performed, adjusting for Gleason sum (≤7 vs. 8-10). For OS, receipt of subsequent therapies following first taxane or PARPi was also included as a covariate. Results: 50 ATM- and 87 BRCA2-mutated pts were identified. 40/50 (80%) of ATM-mutated pts received taxane only or taxane prior to PARPi, while 10/50 (20%) received PARPi only or PARPi prior to taxane. ATM-mutated pts showed a trend towards longer TTD when taxane was given first vs PARPi given first (P = 0.08, adjusted HR for taxane treatment 0.50 [95% CI: 0.24–1.08]). Considering all pts who received taxane first, ATM-mutated pts had longer TTD than BRCA2-mutated pts who received taxane first ( P= 0.04, adjusted HR for ATM 0.61 [CI: 0.37–0.99]). Among ATM-mutated pts, OS was longer in those receiving taxane first ( P= 0.06, adjusted HR for taxane treatment 0.33 [CI: 0.10–1.05]). Among BRCA2-mutated pts, 43/87 (49%) received taxane first and 44/87 (51%) received PARPi first. BRCA2-mutated pts had longer TTD when PARPi was given first vs taxane given first ( P< 0.0001, adjusted HR for PARPi treatment 0.32 [CI: 0.19–0.56]). Considering all pts who received PARPi first, BRCA2-mutated pts also had longer TTD than ATM-mutated pts who received PARPi first ( P= 0.0031, adjusted HR for BRCA2 0.29 [CI: 0.12–0.66]). There was no significant OS difference in BRCA2-mutated pts regarding which treatment was given first ( P= 0.63, adjusted HR for PARPi treatment 1.18 [CI: 0.59–2.35]). Conclusions: Our data in ATM- and BRCA2-mutated mCRPC pts suggests a trend towards improved clinical outcomes when taxanes are used prior to PARPi in ATM-mutated pts, while the reverse sequence appears to be better for BRCA2-mutated pts.[Table: see text]

AbstractBackgroundThe goal of this study is to evaluate germline genetic variants in African American men with metastatic prostate cancer as compared to those in Caucasian men with metastatic prostate cancer in an effort to understand the role of genetic factors in these populations.MethodsAfrican American and Caucasian men with metastatic prostate cancer who had germline testing using multigene panels were used to generate comparisons. Germline genetic results, clinical parameters, and family histories between the two populations were analyzed.ResultsA total of 867 patients were included in this retrospective study, including 188 African American and 669 Caucasian patients. There was no significant difference in the likelihood of a pathogenic or likely‐pathogenic variants (PV/LPVs) between African American and Caucasian patients (p = .09). African American patients were more likely to have a variant of unknown significance than Caucasians (odds ratio [OR] = 1.95; p < .0001). BRCA1 PV/LPVs were higher in African Americans (OR = 4.86; p = .04). African American patients were less likely to have a PV/LPV in non‐BRCA DNA repair genes (OR = 0.30; p = .008). Family history of breast (OR = 2.09; p = .002) or ovarian cancer (OR = 2.33; p = .04) predicted PV/LPVs in Caucasians but not African‐Americans. This underscores the limitations of family history in AA men and the importance of personal history to guide germline testing in AA men.ConclusionsIn metastatic prostate cancer patients, PV/LPVs of tested genes did not vary by race, BRCA1 PV/LPVs were more common in the African American subset. However, PV/LPVs in non‐BRCA DNA repair genes were less likely to be encountered in African Americans. Family history associated with genetic testing results in Caucasians only.

100 Background: Two PARP inhibitors (olaparib, rucaparib) are now FDA approved for mCRPC patients with mutations in BRCA1/2, but the relative efficacy of PARP inhibition in BRCA1- vs BRCA2-altered mCRPC is understudied. Methods: We conducted a multi-center retrospective analysis involving 11 academic sites. We collected genomic and clinical data from 123 BRCA1/2-altered mCRPC patients receiving PARP inhibitor treatment. The primary efficacy endpoint was PSA50 response rate (≥50% decline in PSA level). Secondary endpoints were PFS (clinical, radiographic or PSA progression, whichever occurred first) and overall survival (OS). We also captured information on other concurrent genomic alterations. We compared genomic characteristics and clinical outcomes among BRCA1- vs BRCA2-altered mCRPC. Results: A total of 123 patients (13 BRCA1, 110 BRCA2) were included. PARP inhibitors used were olaparib (n = 116), rucaparib (n = 3), talazoparib (n = 2) and veliparib (n = 2). All BRCA1 and 71% of BRCA2 patients had Gleason 8-10 disease. Compared to BRCA2 patients, BRCA1 patients were more likely to have received prior taxane chemotherapy (77% vs 62%). Age, baseline PSA, and prior enzalutamide/abiraterone treatment were similar between groups. PSA50 responses in BRCA1- vs BRCA2-altered patients were 38% vs 65% respectively ( P= 0.06). Median PFS in BRCA1 vs BRCA2 patients was 3.0 mo (95%CI, 0.9–5.1) vs 8.0 mo (95%CI, 5.3–10.6) respectively (HR 0.42, P= 0.01). Similarly, median OS in BRCA1 vs BRCA2 patients was 11.0 mo (95%CI, 9.9–12.1) vs 24.0 mo (95%CI, 18.2–29.8) respectively (HR 0.33, P= 0.005). There were roughly equal proportions of germline mutations (50% vs 45%) and biallelic mutations (31% vs 25%) in the BRCA2 and BRCA1 groups, respectively. There were numerically more TP53 mutations in the BRCA1 vs BRCA2 group (40% vs 29%, P= 0.45), but an equal number of mutations in other key genes ( PTEN, RB1 and AR). Conclusions: PARP inhibitor activity is diminished in BRCA1- vs BRCA2-altered mCRPC. In our cohort, this differential activity was not explained by mutation origin (germline vs somatic) or allelic status (mono- vs biallelic). These findings warrant validation.

A 71-year-old female was diagnosed with localized renal cell carcinoma in July 2008 with subsequent metastasis in 2012 to the right adrenal gland, lungs, and brain. Due to disease progression, she was started on pazopanib 800 mg daily in October 2012. In November 2016, the patient developed an ill-defined, red, 10 × 15 cm indurated plaque on the left lateral upper thigh with a discrete 3 cm firm tender tumor without ulceration. An incisional biopsy was performed and showed panniculitis with features resembling sclerosing lipogranuloma. Alternative causes including rheumatologic disease and trauma were ruled out. We report the first case of pazopanib-induced panniculitis. Key clinical and histopathological features include tender subcutaneous nodules, exclusion of other causes, and fatty microcysts within a densely sclerotic background on pathology. As targeted therapies are becoming increasingly common in the field of oncology, prompt identification and reporting of adverse reactions is critical for proper management.

5063 Background: The systemic therapies available to patients with metastatic prostate cancer (mPC) have improved dramatically over the past decade. Prior to 2010, the only agents with a proven survival benefit for patients with metastatic disease were androgen deprivation therapy and docetaxel. Since then, five new agents have been FDA approved and have proven survival benefit in phase III trials. Anecdotal experience suggests that the increased available lines of therapy have changed the profile of mPC to include a higher prevalence of visceral metastases. Methods: A retrospective review of 474 patients with prostate cancer who died in 2009 and in 2016 was performed. Patients with metastatic disease who had imaging within 6 months of death were included. A total of 164 patients were eligible for analysis. Results: Mean age at death overall was 77.4 years (SD 9.5) and did not differ signifiantly by cohort. Overall rates of visceral and distant metastases to include lung, liver, adrenal, brain, renal, spleen, and thyroid, were higher in patients who died in 2016 as compared to those who died in 2009 (40.0% and 26.1%, respectively, p = 0.07). Lung metastases were more prevalent in patients who died in 2016 versus in 2009 at 26.3% and 13.0%, respectively (p = 0.05). Patients who died in 2009 received a median of 3 (range 1-10) systemic treatments versus 4 (range 0-13) in those who died in 2016 (p = 0.005). Forty-four percent of patients who died in 2016 used five or more lines of systemic treatments compared to 26.1% of patients in 2009. Conclusions: The emergence of new systemic therapies for mPC is changing the natural history of the disease. Forty percent of patients now develop visceral metastases compared to 26% in the past. These changes will drive the need for new treatment approaches targeting visceral metastases. [Table: see text]