Fares, Aline Fusco

Abstract Background: Somatic EGFR mutations define a subset of non–small cell lung cancers (NSCLC) that have clinical impact on NSCLC risk and outcome. However, EGFR-mutation-status is often missing in epidemiologic datasets. We developed and tested pragmatic approaches to account for EGFR-mutation-status based on variables commonly included in epidemiologic datasets and evaluated the clinical utility of these approaches. Methods: Through analysis of the International Lung Cancer Consortium (ILCCO) epidemiologic datasets, we developed a regression model for EGFR-status; we then applied a clinical-restriction approach using the optimal cut-point, and a second epidemiologic, multiple imputation approach to ILCCO survival analyses that did and did not account for EGFR-status. Results: Of 35,356 ILCCO patients with NSCLC, EGFR-mutation-status was available in 4,231 patients. A model regressing known EGFR-mutation-status on clinical and demographic variables achieved a concordance index of 0.75 (95% CI, 0.74–0.77) in the training and 0.77 (95% CI, 0.74–0.79) in the testing dataset. At an optimal cut-point of probability-score = 0.335, sensitivity = 69% and specificity = 72.5% for determining EGFR-wildtype status. In both restriction-based and imputation-based regression analyses of the individual roles of BMI on overall survival of patients with NSCLC, similar results were observed between overall and EGFR-mutation-negative cohort analyses of patients of all ancestries. However, our approach identified some differences: EGFR-mutated Asian patients did not incur a survival benefit from being obese, as observed in EGFR-wildtype Asian patients. Conclusions: We introduce a pragmatic method to evaluate the potential impact of EGFR-status on epidemiological analyses of NSCLC. Impact: The proposed method is generalizable in the common occurrence in which EGFR-status data are missing.

1512 Background: Tobacco smoking profoundly impacts LC risk; however, data are limited as to what extent SC prior to diagnosis impacts LC overall survival (OS) and lung cancer specific survival (LCSS). LC screening offers a possible teachable moment, but there is uncertainty of SC benefits after a lifetime of smoking. We use the ILCCO database to answer if SC prior to LC dx is associated with better OS and LCSS, considering time since smoking cessation (TSSC). Methods: Using individual data, analysis was performed on 17 ILCCO studies with available TSSC to estimate survival using univariable analysis and models of stage-adjusted and cumulative smoking-adjusted multivariable analysis. Adjusted Hazard Ratios (aHR) from Cox models, cubic spline smooth curves and Kaplan-Meier curves were created. Sensitivity analysis was performed for TSSC and LCSS on 13 studies. Results: Of 34649 patients, 14322 (41%) were current smokers 14273 (41%) ex-smokers and 6054 (18%) never smokers at diagnosis. We confirmed that ex-smokers (aHR 0.88 CI 0.86-0.91) and never smokers (aHR 0.76 CI 0.73-0.8) improved OS compared to current smokers. Amongst ex-smokers, < 2y TSSC (aHR 0.88 CI 0.82-0.94), 2-5y TSSC (aHR 0.83 CI 0.77-0.90) and > 5y TSSC (aHR 0.8 CI 0.76-0.84) had improved OS compared to CS. Sensitivity analysis showed a trend towards improved LCSS survival for < 2y TSSC (aHR 0.95 CI 0.86-1.05) and 2-5y TSSC (aHR 0.93 CI 0.83-1.04), whereas > 5y TSSC significantly improved LCSS by 15% (aHR 0.85 CI 0.78-0.92). To mimic the LC screening participants, in analysis of > 30 pack-years individuals, associations were strikingly strong: < 2y TSSC had improved OS by 14% (aHR 0.86 CI 0.80-0.93); 2-5y TSSC by 17% (aHR 0.83 CI 0.76-0.90); and > 5 TSSC by 22% (aHR 0.78 CI 0.74-0.83), compared to current smokers; for < 30 packs-years, a trend towards better OS was observed for < 2y TSSC (aHR 0.95 CI 0.92-1.02) and 2-5y TSSC (aHR 0.86 CI 0.74-1.01), whereas > 5y TSSC improved OS by 23% (aHR 0.77 CI 0.72-0.82). Conclusions: Among ex-smokers, the risk of overall death was reduced by 12% on < 2y TSSC, 17% on 2-5y TSSC and 20% > 5y TSSC, whereas for LCSS, the benefit was significant only for > 5y TSCC, compared to current smokers at time of diagnosis. Here we demonstrate that convincing screening participants to quit smoking at any point of their trajectory, even just prior to dx such as < 2y TSSC, improved OS, and LCSS benefit was present beyond 5y of quitting. These relationships are independent of pack-years, age, across all stages and other prognostic variables.

1562 Background: In Caucasian-predominant populations, overweight or obese NSCLC pts (BMI≥25-kg/m2) have better prognosis while underweight (BMI≤18.5-kg/m2) pts have a worse prognosis. A large pooled sample allowed us to evaluate the role of ethnicity in this BMI-NSCLC OS relationship. Methods: Using individual data, survival analysis was performed on 15 ILCCO studies, assessing the interactions between ethnicity and BMI on overall survival (OS). Adjusted Hazard Ratios (aHR) from Cox models and adjusted penalized smoothing spline plots were generated. Results: Among 13416 (77%) Caucasian, 2975 (17%) Asian, and 935 (5%) Black NSCLC pts analyzed, we confirmed that for all pts, being underweight at NSCLC diagnosis was associated with worse OS (aHR=1.68, CI 1.5-1.8, p<0.001), while overweight/obese pts had improved survival (aHR 0.89, CI 0.8-0.9, p<0.001), when compared to pts with normal BMI. In general, Black pts had poorer OS than Caucasian pts (aHR 1.26 CI 1.1-1.4, p<0.001). However, the BMI-OS relationship differed according to ethnicity (BMI-ethnicity interaction, p=0.009): Caucasian underweight pts had poorer OS (aHR 1.67, CI 1.5-1.8, P<0.001) while overweight/obese pts had improved OS (aHR 0.89, CI 0.8-0.9, P<0.001). In Asian pts, these two associations were aHR 1.15, CI 0.8-1.5, P=0.33, and aHR 0.91, CI 0.7-1.1, P=0.32, respectively. In Black pts, these two associations were aHR 1.06, CI 0.7-1.5, p=0.73 and 0.75, CI 0.6-0.8 p<0.001, respectively. For overweight/obese patients, as BMI rises from 25-kg/m2 through 45-kg/m2, the prognosis worsens for Caucasian pts, remains stable for Asian pts, but improves for Black pts. Conclusions: InCaucasian pts, being underweight had a greater negative impact on OS than for Asian or Black pts, while being obese had a greater beneficial impact in Blacks than in other ethnic groups. These ethnic differences likely reflect genetically-informed muscle/adipose tissue distributions, where Black pts may have less sarcopenic obesity than other ethnicities. In future prognostic studies, BMI relationships must account for ethnic differences.