Citations

LBA10509 Background: The MCED test (Galleri) detects a shared cancer signal from cell-free DNA in blood and predicts a cancer signal origin (CSO) to guide diagnostic (dx) workup. PF2 (NCT05155605) is a large, prospective, multicenter, interventional study of the MCED test’s performance and safety in a diverse US intended-use population. Methods: PF2 enrolled participants aged ≥50y without clinical suspicion of cancer or cancer diagnosis/treatment within 3y of enrollment. Primary objectives were MCED performance and safety in terms of dx testing triggered by a positive (cancer signal detected) MCED test result. Participants with a positive MCED test underwent targeted dx workup guided by the predicted CSO(s). Participant-reported anxiety was assessed with the State Trait Anxiety Inventory. Results: PF2 enrolled 35,878 participants; 32,007 with a 12m cancer assessment were analyzable for performance. Of 287 (0.9%) with a positive MCED test, 173 were diagnosed with cancer within 12m, for a cancer detection rate of 0.5% (95% CI 0.5-0.6%) and positive predictive value of 60.3% (54.5-65.8%). Specificity was 99.6% (99.6-99.7%). 12m episode sensitivity was 69.8% (62.8-76.0%) in a prespecified subgroup of 12 cancers responsible for ⅔ of US cancer deaths, 66.2% (55.1-75.8%) in a subgroup of 6 aggressive cancers with low 5y survival, and 39.3% (34.9-44.0%) across all cancers. Overall CSO prediction accuracy was 91.3% (86.2-94.7%) across all cancers. The MCED test detected 151 new primary and 22 recurrent cancers; additional cancers detected by screening were those with USPSTF A/B (n=31) and C (n=60) recommended screening. Of 151 MCED-detected new primaries, 80 (53.0%) were clinical stage I-II; 107 (70.9%) were stage I-III. Of 80 MCED-detected stage I-II cancers, 71.2% had no USPSTF A/B screening recommendation. Of 35,335 participants analyzable for safety, 213 (0.6%) had invasive procedure(s) to evaluate a positive MCED test result, of which 90% were nonsurgical and 1.8x more likely for participants with vs without cancer diagnosis. Most (87.6%) had a CSO-guided dx evaluation. There were 5 study-related adverse events during the time of dx workup; none were serious. Anxiety temporarily increased for participants with a positive MCED test and cancer diagnosed, and returned to baseline by 12m. Of participants with a positive MCED test, median time from test result to dx resolution was 48d (95% CI 43-56). Few participants (7/63 [11.1%]) had cancer found by dx PET/CT after a targeted dx workup that did not reveal cancer. Conclusion: The MCED test demonstrated robust performance with a favorable safety profile. When MCED testing was added to USPSTF A/B screening, 6.5x more cancers were detected by screening, most at early stages. The diverse, representative PF2 participant population supports the generalizability of these findings to the US intended-use population. Clinical trial information: NCT05155605 .

10026 Background: Childhood cancer survivors are at high risk for developing subsequent breast cancer with higher mortality than females in the general population with primary breast cancer. Whether therapeutic tradeoffs in treating primary versus subsequent breast cancer alter survival is unknown. Methods: Breast cancer treatment data were abstracted from medical records for female survivors from the CCSS and a multi-institutional sample of females with primary breast cancer matched one-to-one by demographics, diagnosis age/year, and breast cancer characteristics. Survivors’ excess mortality risk was evaluated as hazard ratios (HRs), adjusting for receipt of historically-appropriate guideline-concordant treatment established for primary breast cancer. Results: Subsequent breast cancers were diagnosed between 1981-2016 among 431 survivors, with a median diagnosis age of 40 years (IQR: 35-44). Most subsequent breast cancers were invasive (77%), with hormone receptor profiles similar to the general population (78% ER-positive; 26% HER2-positive). Guideline-concordant breast cancer treatment did not differ between survivors and controls (N = 688; 94% versus 93%), but treatment selection differed, reflecting survivors’ complex clinical history and guidelines’ multiple treatment options. Anthracyclines were used in 47% of survivors (controls 66%), mastectomy in 81% of survivors (controls 60%), and radiotherapy in 18% of survivors (controls 61%). In the subgroup treated with surgery and chemotherapy (survivors 31%, controls 26%), survivors did not have greater likelihood of dose reductions or omissions, treatment delays, or hospitalization for fever and neutropenia, but they were more likely to experience hematological toxicities (21% vs. 9%, p = 0.033) and other organ system-specific toxicities (36% vs. 11%, p < 0.001). Over one-third (38%) of survivors died during follow-up (median follow-up 9 years, IQR 6-14) after breast cancer. Strikingly higher all-cause mortality was observed among survivors than controls (HR = 3.5, 95% CI 2.2-5.6), especially after in situ disease (HR = 9.9, 95% CI 2.2-44.2). Among survivors with invasive disease, breast cancer accounted for most deaths (51%), followed by other subsequent malignancies (15%) and cardiovascular diseases (15%). Other health conditions accounted for 67% of deaths following in situ disease. Conclusions: Childhood cancer survivors with subsequent breast cancer generally receive guideline-concordant breast cancer treatment. While the treatments survivors receive differ from females with primary breast cancer, they do not experience higher rates of on-therapy treatment modifications. Despite this, they face excess mortality, primarily driven by other health conditions. Managing comorbidities is critical to enhancing long-term survival for this high-risk population.

This selection from the NCCN Guidelines for Adolescent and Young Adult (AYA) Oncology focuses on considerations for the comprehensive care of AYA patients with cancer. Compared with older adults with cancer, AYA patients have unique needs regarding treatment, fertility counseling, psychosocial and behavioral issues, and supportive care services. The complete version of the NCCN Guidelines for Adolescent and Young Adult (AYA) Oncology addresses additional aspects of caring for AYA patients, including risk factors, screening, diagnosis, and survivorship.

PURPOSE Radiation-associated cardiac disease is a major cause of morbidity/mortality among childhood cancer survivors. Radiation dose-response relationships for cardiac substructures and cardiac diseases remain unestablished. METHODS Using the 25,481 5-year survivors of childhood cancer treated from 1970 to 1999 in the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study, we evaluated coronary artery disease (CAD), heart failure (HF), valvular disease (VD), and arrhythmia. We reconstructed radiation doses for each survivor to the coronary arteries, chambers, valves, and whole heart. Excess relative rate (ERR) models and piecewise exponential models evaluated dose-response relationships. RESULTS The cumulative incidence 35 years from diagnosis was 3.9% (95% CI, 3.4 to 4.3) for CAD, 3.8% (95% CI, 3.4 to 4.2) for HF, 1.2% (95% CI, 1.0 to 1.5) for VD, and 1.4% (95% CI, 1.1 to 1.6) for arrhythmia. A total of 12,288 survivors (48.2%) were exposed to radiotherapy. Quadratic ERR models improved fit compared with linear ERR models for the dose-response relationship between mean whole heart and CAD, HF, and arrhythmia, suggesting a potential threshold dose; however, such departure from linearity was not observed for most cardiac substructure end point dose-response relationships. Mean doses of 5-9.9 Gy to the whole heart did not increase the risk of any cardiac diseases. Mean doses of 5-9.9 Gy to the right coronary artery (rate ratio [RR], 2.6 [95% CI, 1.6 to 4.1]) and left ventricle (RR, 2.2 [95% CI, 1.3 to 3.7]) increased risk of CAD, and to the tricuspid valve (RR, 5.5 [95% CI, 2.0 to 15.1]) and right ventricle (RR, 8.4 [95% CI, 3.7 to 19.0]) increased risk of VD. CONCLUSION Among children with cancer, there may be no threshold dose below which radiation to the cardiac substructures does not increase the risk of cardiac diseases. This emphasizes their importance in modern treatment planning.

10027 Background: Thoracic radiotherapy (RT) is a risk factor for cardiac disease among survivors of childhood cancer based on studies considering RT doses to the entire heart. Dose to specific cardiac substructures may provide more precise dose-response associations to guide RT planning. We report associations between RT dose to cardiac substructures and risk of specific cardiac outcomes. Methods: We determined the cumulative incidences of CTCAE grade 3 – 5 coronary artery disease (CAD), heart failure (HF), and valvular disease (VD) among 25,481 5-year childhood cancer survivors diagnosed 1970 – 1999 in the CCSS. Median age at diagnosis was 6.1 years (0 – 20 years) and at last follow-up 29.8 years (5.6 – 65.9 years). For the 12,228 individuals receiving RT, fields were reconstructed on an age scaled computational phantom. Mean doses to the entire heart, cardiac chambers, valves, and left main, anterior descending (LAD), circumflex, and right coronary (RCA) arteries were estimated. Adjusted piecewise exponential models (including cumulative anthracycline dose) evaluated associations between mean RT dose to each structure and outcomes. Results: At 30 years from diagnosis, the cumulative incidences of grades 3 – 5 CAD, HF, and VD were 2.3% (95% CI 2.0 – 2.5), 2.6% (95% CI 2.4 – 2.9), and 0.6% (95% CI 0.5 – 0.8) respectively. Low dose RT (mean 5 – 9.9 Gy) to the RCA (relative rate [RR] = 2.6, 95% CI 1.6 – 4.1, p < 0.001), LAD (RR = 1.9, 95% CI 1.1 – 3.3, p = 0.019), and left ventricle (RR = 2.2, 95% CI 1.3 – 3.7, p = 0.002) was associated with increased risk of CAD relative to those not exposed; mean dose of 5 – 9.9 Gy to the entire heart was not (RR = 1.1, 95% CI = 0.8 – 1.6, p = 0.59). Table shows the associated cumulative incidences of CAD for these structures. Mean RT doses of 5 – 9.9 Gy to the aortic valve (RR = 4.6, 95% CI 1.5 – 14.0, p = 0.008) and tricuspid valve (RR = 5.5, 95% CI 2.0 – 15.1, p = 0.001) were associated with risk of VD compared to those with no RT; mean heart dose 5 – 9.9 Gy was not (RR = 0.6, 95% CI = 0.2 – 1.3, p = 0.16). No cardiac structure was significantly associated with an increased risk of HF at a mean dose of 5 – 9.9 Gy. Mean RT doses below 5 Gy were not associated with increased risks of CAD, HF, or VD; doses ≥10 Gy to nearly all substructures and the entire heart were. Conclusions: Low dose RT to the coronary arteries and cardiac valves (5 – 9.9 Gy) from RT is associated with increased risk of CAD and VD, respectively. Sensitivity to low dose RT may vary across the heart and doses to specific structures may be more predictive of late cardiac disease than whole heart dose. These data can guide RT planning to prioritize substructures for avoidance.[Table: see text]

11570 Background: Intergroup Rhabdomyosarcoma Study Group (IRSG) protocols included treatment modifications, which may have ameliorated late health outcomes for rhabdomyosarcoma (RMS) survivors treated in more recent era. Methods: We evaluated chronic health conditions (CHCs) and late mortality ( > 5 years from diagnosis) among survivors treated 1970-1990 (IRSG I-III) and 1991-1999 (IRSG IV), and associations with specific treatments to identify treatment-related factors for adverse outcomes. Associations between treatments and CHCs and mortality were evaluated using Fine and Gray’s proportional hazards method accounting for competing risks. Results: 856 survivors treated 1970-90 (median diagnosis age 5.4 years [0- 20]) and 306 treated 1991-99 (median diagnosis age 5.5 years [0-20]) were included. Significant exposure differences between eras included higher percentage (53% vs. 17%, p < 0.01) receiving ≥ 20gm/m2 cumulative alkylators in 1991-99, but more receiving platinums (13% vs 5%, p < 0.01) and abdomen/ pelvis radiation (29% vs. 23%, p = 0.04) in 1970-90. 20-year cumulative incidence for any (40% vs. 28%, p < 0.01), ≥2 (16% vs. 7%, p < 0.01), and endocrine (8% vs. 2.5%, p < 0.01) grade 3-5 CHCs was higher in 1970-90 compared to 1991-99. The hazard ratio (HR) for any (HR 0.7, 95% Confidence Interval [CI] 0.55-0.9), ≥2 (HR 0.38, 95% CI 0.22-0.66) and endocrine (HR 0.25, 95% CI 0.09-0.67) grade 3-5 CHC was lower for 1991-99 survivors than 1970-90. The effect of era (1991-99 vs 1970-90, HR 0.73; 95% CI 0.59-0.91) on CHC was not attenuated when treatment variables were added to multivariable model. Exposures with increased risk of grade 3-5 CHC included platinums (hearing, HR 2, 95% CI 1.07-3.8), anthracycline ≥250mg/m2 (cardiovascular, HR 2.7, 95% CI 1.2-6) and abdomen/ pelvis radiation (second malignant neoplasms, HR 2.1, 95% CI 1.1-4, gastrointestinal, HR 7.4, 95% CI 3.5-16 and endocrine, HR 2.5, 95% CI 1.4-4.4). Gonadal dysfunction was the most common endocrine CHC. There was no difference in all cause or cause-specific mortality between the two cohorts. Conclusions: RMS survivors from the IRSG IV era are at reduced risk for late onset chronic health conditions compared to previous era.

PURPOSE: Obesity and related factors have been linked to cancer risk and outcomes, but little information exists with regard to oncologists’ attention to these issues as a part of clinical care. METHODS: Oncology providers actively caring for patients with cancer in the United States and internationally were asked to complete an online survey about practice patterns and perceptions with regard to obesity and weight management during and after active cancer treatment. RESULTS: Nine hundred seventy-one practicing oncology providers completed the survey. The majority of respondents indicated a belief that the evidence linking obesity to cancer outcomes was strong and that weight and related factors should be addressed as a part of cancer treatment. The majority of respondents also reported that they frequently assessed body weight and related factors as well as counsel their patients to exercise, consume a healthy diet, and lose weight, if applicable. However, referral to providers and programs to support weight loss and increased physical activity occurred less frequently, and a number of barriers were identified for the incorporation of weight management and physical activity programs in the treatment of patients with cancer. CONCLUSION: In a survey of oncology providers, attention to weight management, physical activity, and diet in patients with cancer was high during and after cancer treatment but often did not result in referrals to support lifestyle change. Future work is needed to support education and training of oncology providers to facilitate referrals and overcome barriers to implementation of weight management and physical activity programs for patients with cancer.

BACKGROUNDHealth complications related to childhood cancer may be influenced by risky health behaviors (RHBs), particularly when RHBs co‐occur. To the authors' knowledge, only limited information is available describing how RHBs cluster among survivors of childhood cancer and their siblings and the risk factors for co‐occurring RHBs.METHODSLatent class analysis was used to identify RHB clusters using longitudinal survey data regarding smoking, alcohol use, and physical activity from adult survivors (4184 survivors) and siblings (1598 siblings) in the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study. Generalized logistic regression was used to evaluate associations between demographic characteristics, treatment exposures, psychological distress, health conditions, and cluster membership.RESULTSThree RHB clusters were identified: a low‐risk cluster, an insufficiently active cluster, and a high‐risk cluster (tobacco and risky alcohol use and insufficient activity). Compared with siblings, survivors were more likely to be in the insufficiently active cluster (adjusted odds ratio [ORadj], 1.17; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 1.06‐1.27) and were less likely to be in the high‐risk cluster (ORadj, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.69‐0.88). Risk factors for membership in the high‐risk cluster included psychological distress (ORadj, 2.76; 95% CI, 1.98‐3.86), low educational attainment (ORadj, 7.49; 95% CI, 5.15‐10.88), income <$20,000 (ORadj, 2.62; 95% CI, 1.93‐3.57), being divorced/separated or widowed (ORadj, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.03‐1.79), and limb amputation (ORadj, 1.52; 95% CI, 1.03‐2.24). Risk factors for the insufficiently active cluster included chronic health conditions, psychological distress, low education or income, being obese or overweight, female sex, nonwhite race/ethnicity, single marital status, cranial radiation, and cisplatin exposure.CONCLUSIONSRHBs co‐occur in survivors of childhood cancer and their siblings. Economic and educational disadvantages and psychological distress should be considered in screening and interventions to reduce RHBs. Cancer 2016. © 2016 American Cancer Society. Cancer 2016;122:2747–2756. © 2016 American Cancer Society.