Padrnos, Leslie

8542 Background: Clonal hematopoiesis of indeterminate potential (CHIP) is defined by the presence of leukemia-associated somatic mutations in clonally expanded hematopoietic stem cells with a VAF of ≥2%. CHIP has been associated with myeloid malignancies and increased all cause mortality largely from atherovascular disease. The prevalence and impact of CHIP in patients with myeloma (MM) is yet to be defined. Aims: Evaluate the prevalence and significance of CHIP in 101 lenalidomide exposed patients with multiple myeloma. Methods: 101 MM patients, the majority exposed to > 2 years of lenalidomide (Len), with stored mononuclear blood samples were identified for Next Generation Sequencing (NGS) using a panel encompassing 42 gene mutations associated with CHIP. Electronic medical records were reviewed and outcomes of secondary malignancy, macrocytosis, thrombosis and mortality were extracted. Results: Thirty of 101patients were found to have CHIP with the most frequent mutations: DNMT3A (12%), TET2 (5%), and TP53 (4%). One third of patients with CHIP had > 1 mutation (37%). At 68 months median follow up over a quarter of patients experienced thrombosis (31%) and 13% developed subsequent malignancy/premalignant condition including myelodysplastic syndrome (3%). There was no significant difference in age, gender, duration of Len prior to NGS testing, thrombosis complication, or survival in those with versus without a CHIP mutation. At last F/U 30% had died, 25% remained on therapy, 27% were on maintenance therapy and 11% were on observation alone. Conclusions: CHIP mutations are common in plasma cell neoplasms, with 30% of patients in this study retrospectively found to have CHIP mutations by NGS testing. CHIP mutations have been associated with cardiovascular events and malignancy development, however no associations were identified in this small study. Limitations to this study include small sample size, retrospective nature and duration of follow up. Further study of this very common finding in MM patients regarding timing of development and subsequent impact of these mutations could help risk stratify and inform therapy selection. [Table: see text]

AbstractObjectiveTo determine the presence of racial/ethnic differences in patients with anemia and serum folate deficiency.MethodsWe performed a retrospective analysis of data from patient samples collected from January 2010 to October 2018. Reference laboratory ranges were determined by Mayo Clinic Reference Laboratories. Race and ethnicity were classified according to National Institutes of Health categories.ResultsThe analysis comprised 197 974 samples. Hemoglobin, hematocrit, and SF results were available for 173 337, 173 056, and 129 760 samples, respectively. Of the samples, 46 505 (26.8%) showed anemia, with a higher prevalence among American Indian/Alaskan Natives (AI/AN) 42.9% and African Americans (AA) 47.2% (P < .001). SF deficiency was present in 897 (0.7%), with a higher prevalence among AI/AN (9, [1.4%]) and AA (78, [1.2%]) and a lower prevalence in non‐Hispanic whites (NHW) (758, [0.7%]), Hispanics (40, [0.6%]), and Asians (8, [0.3%]). In multivariable analysis, the prevalence of anemia was higher in all non‐NHW racial/ethnic groups: AA (OR, 3.67, [95%CI: 3.47‐3.88, P < .001]), AI/AN (OR, 3.25, [95%CI: 2.71‐3.90, P < .001]), Asians (OR, 1.62, [95%CI: 1.47‐1.77, P < .001]), and Hispanics (OR, 1.41, [95%CI: 1.32‐1.50, P < .001]). SF deficiency was more common in AA (OR, 1.48, [95%CI: 1.17‐1.88, P.001]) and less common in Asians (OR, 0.35, [95%CI: 0.17‐0.70, P = .003]), compared with NHW.ConclusionsWe showed significant racial/ethnic differences in anemia and SF deficiency. Differences were observed especially among NHW, AA, and Asians. We believe that these differences may be explained by social determinants of health. More research is needed regarding the causes of these differences and their clinical implications at a population level.

Cutaneous melanoma metastases can contribute to visual disturbances through a variety of factors, including metastasis to the vitreal fluid. The optimum management of metastatic cutaneous melanoma to the vitreal fluid is unknown, but can include radiation therapy or systemic therapy including immunotherapy. A high degree of suspicion is necessary to consider this complication while working with patients with cutaneous melanoma.

Background: Serum folate (SF), vitamin B12 (B12), and iron deficiencies (def) are common causes of nutritional anemias. These deficiencies are usually multifactorial, with nutritional and non-nutritional factors playing a role. SF, B12, and iron levels are usually ordered in the setting of anemia, and malnutrition with or without neurologic symptoms. Since folic acid fortification, the prevalence of SF def in the United States (US) is <1% in the general population. B12 def and iron def range between 6-12%, and 1-11% respectively depending on the population studied. The prevalence of nutritional anemias secondary to SF, B12, and/or iron def by racial groups in the US is poorly studied, and most data available focuses on non-Hispanic whites (NHW). We aimed to determine the prevalence of anemia secondary to nutritional deficiencies by racial groups in the US. Methods: We performed a retrospective analysis of patients with SF, B12 and iron levels at Mayo Clinic Arizona between 01/2010 and 10/2018. Race was classified according to the NIH criteria. Normal laboratory values were determined according to our lab reference and the US National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) III. SF levels (mcg/Lt) were defined as deficient <4, normal ≥4.0, and excess ≥20. B12 levels (ng/L) as deficient <150, borderline 150-400, normal >400-900, and excess ≥900. Iron def was determined by ferritin levels (mcg/L) as low <24, normal 24-336, elevated ≥336 for men, low <11, normal 11-307, elevated ≥307 for women. Demographics and clinical variables were compared between groups by chi-square test for frequency data or Kruskal Wallis rank-sum test for continuous variables. Multivariable logistic regression was used for a sample-level analysis adjusting for age and gender and using NHW as a reference group. Results: A total of 79,926 SF, 107,731 B12, and 39,827 ferritin samples from 67,683 patients were analyzed. Demographics and sample analysis are presented in Table 1. In the sample-level analysis, 23,008 (25%) had anemia with higher prevalence in the American Indian/Alaskan Native (AI/AN) 49% and African Americans (AA) 43% (p<0.001). The prevalence of SF def was 446/79,926 (0.6%), B12 def 1,548/107,731 (1.4%), and iron def 5,212/39,827 (13.1%). 23 had concomitant SF and B12 deficiency, 25 SF and iron def, and 144 B12 and iron def. The SF def prevalence by racial groups was: AI/AN 11 (1.9%), AA 19 (1.1%), NHW 378 (0.6%), Hispanic 28 (0.5%), Asian 4 (0.2%). The B12 def prevalence by racial groups was: Asian 89 (3.4%), NHW 1,274 (1.4%), Hispanic 87 (1.3%), AA 30 (1.3%), AI/AN 10 (1.3%). Iron def prevalence by racial groups: AI/AN 71 (20.5%), Asian 198 (17.6%), AA 180 (16.9%), Hispanic 432 (15.6%), NHW 4,161 (12.4%). In the multivariate sample-level analysis, the presence of anemia was higher in the AI/AN (OR: 4.51, 95%CI: 3.70-5.49, p<0.0001), AA (OR 3.34, 95%CI: 2.99-3.74, p<0.0001), Asian (OR 1.52, 95%CI: 1.35-1.73, p<0.0001) and Hispanic racial group (OR 1.41, 95%CI: 1.30-1.52, p<0.0001). SF def was more common in the AI/AN (OR: 2.94, 95%CI: 1.60-5.39, p<0.001) and AA (OR 1.71, 95%CI: 1.08-1.53, p=0.02). B12 def was more common in the Asian racial group (OR: 2.535, 95%CI: 20.03-3.16, p<0.0001). Iron def was more common in the AI/AN (OR: 1.62, 95%CI: 1.21-2.17, p<0.001), Asian (OR 1.31, 95%CI: 1.0-1.57, p=0.003), and AA racial group (OR 1.26, 95%CI: 1.05-1.52, p=0.001). Conclusions: In our cohort, we show that despite the low prevalence of nutritional anemias in the US, racial disparities exist. Major differences were observed in the prevalence of anemia, SF def and iron def especially among AI/AN and AA. These differences may be linked to medical causes, nutritional practices and other social determinants of health. More research regarding the causes of these disparities and its clinical implications on a population level are needed. Targeted strategies to improve folate, B12 and iron intake in at higher risk populations could decrease adverse outcomes and decrease healthcare disparities caused by nutritional anemias. T able 1. Sample-level comparison by race Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Abstract Introduction: Myeloproliferative Neoplasm (MPN) patients encounter debilitating pain syndromes as a result of their disorder. Opioids are frequently employed in cancer-related pain but have been increasingly recognized for their risk profiles including accidental overdose, addiction and death. With many MPN patients facing near-normal life expectancies, chronicity of opioid use may increase the risk of adverse events. In this survey, we evaluated the prevalence of MPN opioid use, risk factors for negative outcomes and compared the features of this population to MPN patients not receiving opioid therapy. Methods: This study was performed by the MPN Quality of Life Study Group. A survey was designed by a team of MPN investigators experienced with MPN symptomatology. Patients completed the MPN-10, a 10 item survey of MPN symptoms completed on a 0 (absent) to 10 (worst imaginable) scale (Blood. 2011 Jul 14;118(2):401-8). Other surveyed tools included the Opioid Risk Tool (ORT) as well as DSMV criteria for Opioid Use Disorder (OUD). The survey was posted on high-traffic MPN-related webpages focused on patient education and advocacy (MPN Forum, MPN Net, MPN Research Foundation, MPN Voice)for a total of 28 days. Patients currently receiving opioids were compared to patients not receiving opioids and statistical significance was defined as p<0.05. Results Demographics A total of 416 patients completed the survey and were compared by active opioids use (n=69) vs. no active opioid use (n=347). Patients described a history of myelofibrosis (MF, 28.8%), polycythemia vera (PV, 44.2%) and essential thrombocythemia (ET, 26.9%). Most MPNs were diagnosed between 1-3 years ago (22.2%), 3-10 years ago (35.0%) or >10 years ago (30.4%). Patients were furthermore of expected mean age (60.7), primarily female (75.0%) and from the United States (66.6%). Few patients had a history of transformation to acute leukemia (0.5%), severe bleeding (12.3%) or blood clot (26.5%). Mean individual symptom scores and prevalences were 3.0 and 65.6% for abdominal discomfort and 3.3 and 59.4% for bone pain, respectively, indicating a low to moderate symptom burden. Patients Receiving Opioid Therapy Patients on opioid therapy (n=69) displayed a number of high risk features for adverse outcomes including a personal history of substance abuse (20.2%), respiratory disease (33%) and mental health disorders (60.1%). By DSMV criteria, 5.9% of opioid patients scored 'mild' and 2.9% scored 'moderate' for OUD (total 8.8%), consistent with prevalence in the general population. Approximately 24.6% of opioid-using patients scored moderate to high risk on the ORT but despite this, did not appear more likely to meet criteria for OUD (p=0.81). Palliative care and pain management were involved in only 34.3% of patients and side effects of opioids were discussed in only 70.1% of all cases. Opioid vs. Non-Opioid Patients Compared to patients not receiving opioid therapy, patients currently on opioid treatment were more likely to describe more frequent and/or more severe abdominal discomfort (88.4% vs. 61.0%, p<0.001; mean 5.0 vs. 2.6, p<0.001), bone pain (87.0% vs. 53.9%, p<0.001; mean 5.6 vs. 2.4, p<0.001), unintentional weight loss (41.2% vs. 21.4%, p=0.001), inactivity (94.2% vs. 71.5%, p<0.001), early satiety (84.1% vs. 58.2%, p<0.001), and impaired quality of life (mean 4.9 vs. 6.6, p<0.001). They were also more likely to describe regularly taking pain medications (85.5% vs. 34.5%, p<0.001) as well as attempt non-pharmacological treatments to manage symptoms (Figure 1). Despite more aggressive pain treatment approaches, only 42% of opioid patients reported satisfaction with their current pain plan vs. 62.2% of patients not receiving opioid therapy. Conclusions: MPN patients face significant symptom burden despite often limited reduction in life expectancy. Patients furthermore demonstrate a high prevalence of risk factors for opioid-related complications including overdose and substance misuse. Despite aggressive pain regimens, opioid patients are less likely to voice adequate symptom control or satisfaction with their pain treatment plans. Providers should be cognizant of opioid-related complications and consider subspecialty pain management referrals or adaptation of the JCO Clinical Practice Guidelines for Management of Chronic Pain in Survivors of Adult Cancers (J Clin Oncol. 2016 Sep 20;34(27):3325-45). Disclosures Scherber: Orphan Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria; Incyte: Consultancy. Palmer:Novartis: Research Funding. Dueck:Phytogine: Employment; Pfizer: Honoraria; Bayer: Employment. Mesa:Gilead: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy; CTI: Research Funding; Galena: Consultancy; Incyte: Research Funding; Promedior: Research Funding; Ariad: Consultancy; Celgene: Research Funding.

Abstract Introduction: MPN-related pain, including abdominal discomfort (53.2%), and bone pain (48.5%), is a prevalent complaint within the disorder and is associated with impaired patient quality of life, reduction in most functional domains and overall poor prognosis. Non-targeted treatments for MPN disorders have been previously shown to provide little symptomatic relief for MPN pain. To date, little is known about patient viewpoints on MPN pain, its relationship to other chronic pain syndromes and the impact of pharmacologic and non-pharmacologic pain therapies. In this study, we performed an international survey of MPN patients to better understand the prevalence and management of MPN pain. Methods: This study was performed by the MPN Quality of Life Study Group. A survey was designed by a team of MPN investigators experienced with MPN symptomatology. Survey content included the Barriers Questionnaire II (BQII), a 27-item survey validated to assess patient belief barriers to optimal management of cancer pain measured on a 0 (do not agree at all) to 5 (agree very much) scale (Pain. 2002 Oct;99(3):385-96.). Patients also completed the MPN-10, a 10-item survey of MPN symptoms completed on a 0 (absent) to 10 (worst imaginable) scale (Blood. 2011 Jul 14;118(2):401-8). The survey was posted on high-traffic MPN-related webpages focused on patient education and advocacy (MPN Forum, MPN Net, MPN Research Foundation, MPN Voice) for a total of 28 days. Survey questions evaluated patient demographics, pain histories, current and prior treatment strategies, as well as satisfaction with and barriers to available treatment options. Results: Demographics A total of 502 MPN patients (MF 26.9%, PV 44.2%, ET 28.9%) completed the survey. Patients were of expected mean age (60.5 years) and primarily female (74.9%). Most were from the United States (66.7%) and primarily English speaking (92.2%). Patients described being diagnosed with their MPN 3 to 10 years (35.4%) or >10 years ago (30.8%). Splenic enlargement was vocalized by 36.5% of patients and few patients had had a known history of blood clots (25.4%), severe bleeding (13.3%), conversion to acute leukemia (0.4%) or prior bone marrow transplant (1.4%). Patients described a treatment history of a variety of MPN therapies including aspirin (82.7%), hydroxyurea (60.6%), phlebotomy (40.6%), ruxolitinib (25.9%), interferon (18.5%), anagrelide (17.3%), active clinical trial (5.0%) and radiation treatment (0.4%). Pain Severity, Prevalence and Treatments Among surveyed patients, the MPN-10 mean was 28.3. Mean individual symptom scores and prevalence were 3.1 and 65.6% for abdominal discomfort and 3.0 and 60.4% for bone pain, respectively indicating a low to moderate symptom burden. Most patients had no prior history of chronic pain prior to their MPN diagnosis (47.1%), with chronic abdominal pain and chronic bone/muscle pain noted prior to MPN development in 5.6% and 20.8% of patients, respectively. Most patients felt that their chronic pain has either stayed the same (26.2%), worsened (28.3%) or significantly worsened (14.5%) since their MPN diagnosis. Many patients found pharmacologic and non-pharmacological therapies efficacious for individual pain symptoms, and 42.1% described regularly taking medication to control their pain (Table 1). Barriers to Pain Management Overall, 42.3% of MPN patients reported being unsatisfied with their current pain management plan. Despite this, only 43.5% of patients stated that their MPN providers discussed pain during office visits. Palliative Care (3.1%) and Pain Management (7.3%) were infrequently engaged. On the BQII, patients described being confident that cancer can cause pain (mean 4.2, SD 1.1) but did not necessarily expect to have pain following their MPN diagnosis (mean 2.2, SD 1.8). Conclusion Chronic pain (abdominal, bone) is a prevalent and undermanaged feature of MPN disorders. Chronic non-MPN pain is further complicated by the development of the disorder. Many MPN patients lack understanding on its prevalence and furthermore feel ill-equipped to manage it. Patients have, however, found symptomatic benefit from various pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatment modalities that require further exploration. Results from this study suggest MPN patients should be assessed regularly for pain and offered early referral to specialized services for evaluation, source identification and treatment. Table 1. Table 1. Disclosures Scherber: Incyte: Consultancy; Orphan Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria. Mesa:Ariad: Consultancy; Galena: Consultancy; CTI: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Promedior: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy; Celgene: Research Funding. Dueck:Bayer: Employment; Pfizer: Honoraria; Phytogine: Employment. Palmer:Novartis: Research Funding.

Abstract Background Patients with cancer may face a significant knowledge deficit as they battle their illness. We developed a first of its kind comprehensive patient symposia (Living with Cancer (LWC): A Mayo Clinic Symposia for Patients and Loved Ones) with 8 hours of general sessions (covering nutrition, exercise, cancer inheritance, financial and legal challenges, communication, survivorship, and cancer therapy) and a 4-hour disease specific breakout (myeloid diseases, myeloma, lymphoma, chronic lymphocytic leukemia, breast cancer, lung cancer, cutaneous malignancy, colorectal cancer, and prostate cancer). Through voluntary questionnaires, we studied the impact of this cancer symposium on quality of life, cancer specific knowledge, and symptom management among cancer patients. Methods LWC meeting attendees were provided surveys prior to and 3 months following the convention. Surveys included 1) EORTC-QLQ-C30; 2) new disease understanding tool developed specifically for this conference; 3) distress thermometer and problems checklist; 4) validated disease-specific questionnaires. Changes over time were assessed using McNemar’s tests and paired t-tests for categorical and continuous variables, respectively. Results Patients:158 attendees completed the pre-convention survey. The median age was 67.5 (range 30-86), 49% males, 76% over 1 year from diagnosis. Cancer type included 37% hematologic malignancies, 23% breast cancer, 23% prostate cancer, and 17% other. The hematologic malignancies were comprised of 34% leukemia, 31% CLL/lymphoma, 25% amyloid/multiple myeloma, and 9.3% myeloproliferative neoplasms. Baseline Disease Understanding, Symptoms, QOL: Most attendees endorsed understanding their disease quite a bit (54%) or very much (29%). Most respondents reported at least “quite a bit” of understanding regarding treatment options (84%), screening modalities (83%), symptomatology (74%), and cancer-related side effects (71%). Attendees endorsed the least understanding of disease-related stress (49%), risk factors (49%), management of disease related fatigue (41%), and legal issues related to disease/treatment (27%) Mean QLQ-C30 scores were 84.4 for physical functioning, 83 for role functioning, 80.7 for social functioning, and 72.7 for global health status. The symptoms with highest mean scores were insomnia, fatigue, and pain. Knowledge Improvement Durable at 3 Months: 115 (73%) patients completed the post-symposium survey. There was improvement in 12 of 14 areas of self-reported knowledge (Table 1) especially in areas of nutrition, and management of disease related stress and fatigue (all p<0.001). Symptomatic Changes at 3 Months: There was no significant change in QLQ-C30 physical/role/emotional functioning, fatigue, pain, or insomnia. Conclusions This first evaluation of a patient centered cancer symposium as an education intervention suggests patients selecting to participate in such an event seek to improve an already solid knowledge base regarding their malignant disease. Participating in the event improved disease specific knowledge in numerous areas. However, as a single intervention, function and symptoms tended not to improve with participation. Future efforts on 1) improving participation with disease knowledge “naïve” patients and 2) targeted efforts aimed at specific symptom management (i.e. insomnia, stress) are planned. This study serves as an avenue to empower patients and inform physicians to improve the experience of living with cancer. Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Abstract Background: Smoking increases the risk of Philadelphia-chromosome negative myeloproliferative neoplasm (MPN) development as well as increases the risk of thrombotic complications, the major cause of mortality in this population (Blood 2017 130:4199). Guidelines suggest that management of more indolent forms of MPNs include the assessment and mitigation of cardiovascular risk, which includes the management of smoking-related risks (NCCN Guidelines. 2017). In this analysis we sought to examine smoking outcomes and opinions from the perspective of the MPN patient, with the goal of helping to guide MPN patient care. Methods: The internet-based survey was developed by a team of MPN investigators and administered via Mayo Clinic's REDCap. Online recruitment was facilitated via multiple MPN-related webpages including the MPN Forum, MPN Net, MPN Research Foundation, and MPN Voice during June of 2018. Surveyed data included disease demographics such as thrombosis, medications, and smoking history. MPN-specific symptoms were assessed utilizing the MPN-10 (Blood. 2011 Jul 14;118(2):401-8). Data: Participant Demographics: Of the 607 patients who clicked the survey link, 435 patients were eligible for the survey and completed the questions regarding smoking history. Of these, 254 (58%) reported no history of tobacco use, 161 (37%) reported being ex-tobacco users, and 20 (5%) reported being current users. Among those who reported current tobacco use, 50% used premade cigarettes, 27% used self-rolled cigarettes, 20% reported vaping, and 3% reported chewing tobacco or snuff use. Respondents were most often from the US (67%), Australia (12%), the UK (6%) or Canada (6%). The distribution of respondents included 28% with myelofibrosis, 44% with polycythemia vera and 27% with essential thrombocythemia. Over one quarter (26%) of patients had experienced a prior thrombosis, with the most frequent thrombosis types being DVT (9%), stroke or transient ischemic attack (8%), abdominal vein thrombosis (5%), myocardial infarction (2%) and cerebral vein thrombosis (2%). When comparing current/former smokers to never smokers, no significant difference in thrombotic frequency was observed. Smoking Correlates: When evaluating MPN symptoms, current/former smokers reported higher severity of fatigue (mean 5.6 vs 5.0, p=0.02) and inactivity (mean 4.0 vs 3.1, p=0.03) compared to nonsmokers. Additionally, current/former smokers were more likely to experience early satiety (69% vs 58%, p=0.03), inactivity (80% vs 71%, p=0.04), concentration difficulties (82% vs 73%, p=0.04), and reduced quality of life (mean 6.1 vs 6.5, p=0.03) compared to nonsmokers. Although not significant, a trend of higher symptomatology was observed for former/current smokers compared to nonsmokers (MPN-10 total symptom score [TSS] mean 30.4 vs 27.0, p=0.07). Former/current smokers were also more likely than nonsmokers to report heavy alcohol consumption (>7 drinks per week in 9.6% vs 4.0%, p=0.03) and using opioids for pain management (24% vs 11%, p=0.001). Smoking Opinions and Care: As shown in Table 1, less than half of current/former smokers (43%) reported having their physician discuss tobacco use with them. Less than 40% of MPN current or previous smokers were aware of the risk of MPN development due to smoking, although the majority (83%) were aware of the increased thrombotic risk. Less than one quarter (43/181) of current/former smokers reported having utilized pharmacologic therapy to aid cessation. Conclusions MPN patients with current or previous tobacco use demonstrate significantly higher symptom burden than non-smoking counterparts. In terms of patient care, less than half of patients who are current or previous smokers recall having a physician discuss their smoking habits with them. These results highlight the need for enhanced MPN patient counseling by health care providers, both regarding the risks of smoking and available methods to aid cessation. Disclosures Scherber: Orphan Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria; Incyte: Consultancy. Dueck:Phytogine: Employment; Pfizer: Honoraria; Bayer: Employment. Palmer:Novartis: Research Funding. Mesa:Incyte: Research Funding; Galena: Consultancy; Gilead: Research Funding; Ariad: Consultancy; Celgene: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy; CTI: Research Funding; Promedior: Research Funding.

Abstract Background: Patients diagnosed with cancer experience a significant influx of health care information while continuing to demonstrate understanding deficit regarding their disease and health. This knowledge deficit can negatively impact a patient’s acute and long term health care experience. By identifying patient information deficits and needs, health care providers may be better able to provide targeted education to patients and families. Aims: The aim of this study is to evaluate the impact of a patient centered cancer symposium on knowledge level, reported symptom burden, and desired information from a broad population of cancer patients. Methods: Surveys were distributed to the attendees of the third annual Mayo Clinic “Living with Cancer” patient symposium in January 2014. While 700 individuals registered for the event, only individuals with a past or present cancer diagnosis were asked to participate. Surveys included demographic data in addition to a questionnaire evaluating disease comprehension, symptom burden, desired information and desired role in the health care decision making process. Results: 75 patients completed the pre-intervention and post-intervention survey. There were slightly more female participants (60.2%). Disease types included 40% hematologic malignancies, 27% breast cancer, 20% prostate cancer and 13% other. The majority of patients were greater than 3 years from cancer diagnosis (62%). Baseline Patient Understanding: Most respondents reported understanding their disease quite a bit (54%) or very much (30%). Respondents reported the majority of their knowledge regarding their disease came from their oncologist (56%), oncology nurse (24%), previous symposiums (22%), or the internet (15%). Most respondents reported “quite a bit” or greater comprehension of screening tests (75%), monitoring disease response to treatment (70%), monitoring disease recurrence (70%), treatment options (67%) and treatment side effects (73%). There was no consensus among participants regarding understanding or limiting risk factors, symptoms associated with disease relapse, fatigue and pain management, navigating the health care system, financial considerations, or confidence in their primary care physician’s involvement in their cancer or post-cancer care. A large proportion of attendees reported “quite a bit” or greater desire for increased information/understanding regarding their disease (83%), risk factors (83%), nutrition (80%), screening tests (69%), and management of fatigue (69%) and stress (68%). Knowledge Improvement Durable at 3 months: There was improvement in 18 of 20 areas of self-reported knowledge. This was noted in increased percentage of respondents reporting “quite a bit” or greater comprehension, especially in areas of disease risk factors(55%pre vs 63%post), disease side effects(55%pre vs 63%post), and health care navigation(53%pre vs 69%post). The reported desire for “quite a bit” or more increased understanding on various topics did decrease post symposium regarding their disease(87.9% pre vs 68.9%post), disease risk factors(86.3%pre vs 64.0%post), screening tests(74.7%pre vs 63.3%post), and nutrition(78.4%pre vs 64.9%post)(all p<0.05). There was no significant decrease in the desire for increased understanding managing stress and fatigue. Summary: Demonstrated in this study, individuals choosing to attend a patient-centered cancer symposium, seek to improve an already solid knowledge base. Study participants indicate a significant desire for increased information on all topics, even those with sufficient level of knowledge reported. This indicates that some cancer patients’ thirst for knowledge is difficult to quench, and may benefit from recurrent education opportunities. The improvement in almost all topics assessed indicates a patient centered symposium is an effective method to provide information to patients regarding the spectrum of cancer health management. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.