Dueck, Amylou C.

6594 Background: Given the significant short-term adverse effects of CAR-T cell therapy, it is important to evaluate its impact on QOL of patients in addition to efficacy, compared with established forms of cellular therapy like SCT. Methods: QOL was evaluated prospectively in patients undergoing CAR-T therapy, autoSCT & alloSCT for hematologic malignancies. QOL was assessed with FACT-G at baseline, 2 weeks and monthly for 6 months thereafter. Functional well-being (FWB), physical WB (PWB) emotional WB (EWB) & social WB (SWB) and change over time were compared across groups. Results: 45 patients were recruited (CAR-T: 10; Auto SCT: 22; Allo SCT: 13) with follow up for 2 weeks & 1 month available for 23 &15 patients, respectively (Table). There was no statistically significant difference in baseline total QOL scores (p=0.13), though scores were lower in the alloSCT group (85,84,68). EWB &FWB were numerically higher in the CAR-T group, followed by autoSCT group. At 2 weeks, overall QOL decreased by only 2 points in CAR-T group vs. 22 & 18 points in auto & alloSCT groups (p=0.09). Change in PWB vs. baseline was less pronounced in the CAR-T group (-1, -9, -13, p=0.03). At 1 month, overall QOL was 6 points lower than baseline in CAR-T group vs. 3 and 14 points lower in auto & alloSCT groups, respectively (p=0.34). Importantly, PWB had at least returned to baseline in the CAR-T group. Conclusions: Preliminary data show that patients undergoing CAR-T cell therapy do not experience a more significant decline in QOL compared with auto & allo SCT, and may experience fewer physical side effects in the short-term. Accrual & follow-up are ongoing. [Table: see text]

6531 Background: This survey of Targeted Agent and Profiling Utilization Registry (TAPUR) Study physicians examined use, attitudes, and perception of tumor genomic testing (TGT), defined as any DNA test performed on tumor specimen/plasma. TAPUR is a multibasket study of marketed agents targeting tumor genomics. Methods: 333 physicians at 54 TAPUR sites were surveyed (2016-2017). Survey domains included use of TGT, barriers to ordering TGT, and genomic confidence. Surveys included 3 scenarios for TGT ordering 1) pretreated advanced cancer patients (pts) without options, 2) newly diagnosed, untreated, metastatic pts and 3) early stage/potentially curable pts with standard options. Data were analyzed with descriptive statistics. Results: 112 physicians responded (33%). The table displays demographics and genomic confidence. Respondents reported a median of 25% of their pts had TGT in past 12 months for trials/routine care (range 0-85%). Barriers to testing included access to tumor specimen (86%), insurance coverage (67%), concerns that results will not be actionable (55%), and test issues (wait time, unsure which test/lab to use, test accuracy) (54%). TGT was ordered most often for scenario 1 (96%) and 2 pts (70%). Few respondents (32%) would order testing in scenario 3. Of those who reported testing for scenarios 1 & 2, most told pts that results could inform treatment/prognosis/trials (97%) or may be uninformative (84%). In all scenarios, pt expectations of TGT results were discussed prior to testing. A minority reported frequently telling pts in advance that results could inform heritable cancer susceptibility (37%). Conclusions: Confidence in using TGT was high. TGT was performed most for pts with advanced cancer and few options. Availability of specimens was largest barrier reported, indicating the importance of blood-based tests. Few respondents discussed implications of germline findings in advance, despite growing evidence of germline findings in somatic testing. [Table: see text]

6511 Background: Conventional adverse event (AE) analysis (ToxC) focuses on incidence of grade (gr) 3+ toxicities, and fails to capture AE time profile. Novel metrics that reflect chronic low gr and overall AE burden are needed. We applied the Toxicity over Time (ToxT) approach to ECOG-ACRIN 2408 to depict time-dependent toxicity of lenalidomide (L) with rituximab maintenance (MR) in follicular lymphoma (FL), and we developed a novel summary metric of symptomatic AE burden, the maximum gr over time (MGOT). Methods: In E2408, high risk FL patients (pts) were randomized (1:2:2) to: A) bendamustine-rituxumab (BR) x 6 then MR x 2 years (yrs) vs B) BR-bortezomib x 6 then MR x 2 yrs vs C) BR x 6 then MR x 2 yrs + L x 1 yr (MRL). Analysis included 3 laboratory and 5 symptomatic AEs of highest incidence during maintenance on arms A and C. Treatment-related AEs of any gr were analyzed by ToxC and ToxT. Repeated measures, time-to-event (TTE) and area under the curve (AUC) analyses capture trends over time in ToxT. MGOT combines the 5 symptomatic AEs. Results: 104 randomized pts (30 MR, 74 MRL) were included. For the laboratory AEs, by ToxC, neutropenia incidence was significantly higher in MRL (84%) than MR (47%, p < .001). ToxT additionally shows neutropenia does not worsen over time (10/14/20% gr 1/2/3+ at c1, 6/21/12% gr 1/2/3+ at c12). For the symptomatic AEs, ToxC indicates 2% gr 3+ GI AEs. However, gr 1-2 GI AEs are more common on MRL (59%) than MR (26%, p < .001). ToxT AUC captures a higher burden of GI AEs over time on MRL(2.8) vs MR(1.4, p = .002). TTE depicts sooner GI AE onset in MRL (10% vs 0% gr 2+ GI by day 50, p = 0.03). Bar charts of incidence and grade by cycle illustrate this improves over time (34/7/4% gr 1/2/3+ at c1, 13/0/0% gr 1/2/3+ at c12). ToxT MGOT analyses demonstrate earlier time to gr 2+ symptomatic AE on MRL vs MR (63% vs 31% by day 50, p < .001) and suggest that overall AE burden over time is higher for patients on MRL(AUC 18.2) than MR(11.8, p < .001). Conclusions: ToxT depicts AE time profile and can guide AE interventions. Summary metrics suggest that symptomatic AEs occur earlier and their burden over time is higher on MRL. We are implementing ToxT in patient-reported AE data to better characterize pt tolerability.

e15169 Background: In metastatic colorectal cancer with deficient DNA mismatch repair (dMMR), anti-PD-1 antibody monotherapy produced high tumor response rates and extended progression-free survival compared to lack of benefit for cancers with proficient MMR. In an ongoing phase III randomized trial, we will determine if the addition of the anti-PD-L1 antibody, atezolizumab (Genentech), to adjuvant FOLFOX can improve patient disease-free survival (DFS) vs FOLFOX alone in patients with stage III colon cancers with dMMR. By blocking the PD-1/PD-L1 interaction, atezolizumab may activate T cells, thereby, restoring their ability to detect and attack tumor cells. Limited data suggest that FOLFOX may increase intratumoral cytotoxic CD8+ T cells that could serve as ‘immune priming'. Methods: Patients with curatively resected stage III colon carcinomas with evidence of dMMR are randomized to modified FOLFOX6 for 6 months (12 cycles) alone (control arm) or combined with atezolizumab (840 mg IV q2 wk) with continuation of the antibody as monotherapy for an additional 6 months (total duration of 12 months) [experimental arm]. Patients will be stratified by T, N stage and tumor sidedness. Local testing for MMR proteins is allowed. Atezolizumab must begin by/with cycle 2. One cycle of FOLFOX is allowed pre-registration. The targeted accrual goal of 700 patients and 165 disease-free survival (DFS) events will provide 90% power to detect an effect size expressed as hazard ratio of 0.6 for the primary endpoint of DFS at two-sided alpha of 0.05. Interim analyses are planned at 50% and 75% of events. Secondary endpoints include overall survival, treatment tolerability, and quality of life. Results: This study is being conducted by the Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology, was approved by NCI CTEP and activated in 09/2017. The study is actively accruing and, as of 02/11/2019, 152 patients are enrolled. We are actively exploring an international collaboration. Conclusions: This is a current clinical trial in progress. Clinical trial information: NCT02912559.

Background: Patient-reported outcome (PRO) data may be used at 2 levels: to evaluate impacts of disease and treatment aggregated across individuals (group-level) and to screen/monitor individual patients to inform their management (individual-level). For PRO data to be useful at either level, we need to understand their clinical relevance. Purpose: To provide clarity on whether and how methods historically developed to interpret group-based PRO research results might be applied in clinical settings to enable PRO data from individual patients to inform their clinical management and decision-making. Methods: We first differentiate PRO-based decision-making required at group versus individual levels. We then summarize established group-based approaches to interpretation (anchor-based and distribution based), and more recent methods that draw on item calibrations and qualitative research methods. We then assess the applicability of these methods to individual patient data and individual-level decision-making. Findings: Group-based methods provide a range of thresholds that are useful in clinical care: some provide screening thresholds for patients who need additional clinical assessment and/or intervention, some provide thresholds for classifying an individual’s level of severity of symptoms or problems with function, and others provide thresholds for meaningful change when monitoring symptoms and functioning over time during or after interventions. Availability of established cut-points for screening and symptom severity, and normative/reference values, may play into choice of PRO measures for use in clinical care. Translatability of thresholds for meaningful change is more problematic because of the greater reliability needed at the individual-level versus group-level, but group-based methods may provide lower bound estimates. Caution is needed to set thresholds above bounds of measurement error to avoid “false-positive changes” triggering unwarranted alerts and action in clinic. Conclusions: While there are some challenges in applying available methods for interpreting group-based PRO results to individual patient data and clinical care—including myriad contextual factors that may influence an individual patient’s management and decision-making—they provide a useful starting point, and should be used pragmatically.