Ruddy, Kathryn J.

74 Background: U.S. National Antiemetic Guidelines recommend upfront triple prophylaxis (NK1 receptor antagonist (RA) + 5HT3 RA + dexamethasone) for patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC), including carboplatin AUC ≥ 4 per 2017 guidelines. While existing data show gaps in guideline compliance, variation between individual physicians is less studied, and a realistic target compliance rate remains unknown. Methods: In a large electronic health record database (IBM Explorys), we identified HEC courses of therapy initiated from 2012 to 2017. Guideline compliance was defined as triple prophylaxis at chemotherapy initiation. Patient courses for ≥ 7 day cycles of cisplatin or anthracycline + cyclophosphamide (AC), or carboplatin (≥ 14 day cycles as a proxy for AUC ≥ 4) were ascribed to oncologists based on encounter frequency. We then ranked physicians treating ≥ 5 HEC courses and evaluated guideline compliance and individual physician variation. Results: In total, 10,074 HEC courses were identified and attributed to 451 unique physicians. Overall antiemetic guideline compliance with cisplatin and AC averaged 68% and 81% respectively. When ranked by compliance, the top 20% of physicians were 2.5 - 1.5 times as compliant as the bottom 20% (cisplatin 100% vs 40%; AC 100% vs 67%). For cisplatin, 32% of physicians had > 90% compliance; the remaining 68% were evenly distributed from 0 - 90%. For AC, 56% of physicians had > 90% compliance, and another 14% had 80 - 90%; the remaining 30% were evenly distributed. For carboplatin, 62% of physicians had ≤ 10% compliance, and another 17% had 11 - 20%; however, the majority of these data preceded guideline inclusion of carboplatin AUC ≥ 4 as HEC. Rates were independent of course volume per physician. Conclusions: Considerable physician-level variation exists in triple antiemetic prophylaxis guideline adherence for HEC. Hundreds of physicians had > 90% compliance with guidelines, suggesting 90% is a realistic target. However, the majority exhibited substantial gaps in NK1 RA use in HEC, placing patients unnecessarily at risk for CINV. Interventions are needed to bolster triple antiemetic prophylaxis in HEC, perhaps especially for carboplatin.

112 Background: Reducing hospitalizations for chemotherapy-related toxicities represents an opportunity to improve both the quality and cost of cancer treatment. Nausea and vomiting (NV) account for almost 10% of “avoidable” toxicity-related post-chemotherapy hospitalizations (2016 Medicare data). We sought to evaluate the event cost of NV-related hospitalizations among patients with cancer from a US payer perspective. Methods: From a large US claims database (Truven MarketScan), we identified hospitalizations with NV as the primary diagnosis and cancer as a secondary diagnosis (01/2011-06/2017). This method increases specificity for NV as the principal hospitalization factor, while underreporting the prevalence of NV as a contributory factor. To determine event costs, we evaluated hospital and other reimbursement during the hospitalization. To explore subgroup differences, we stratified results by tumor type, payer type, admission route, receipt of highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC; 2017 definition includes carboplatin AUC ≥4) and antiemetic prophylaxis. We adjusted all costs to 2017 US dollars. Results: Among 918,192 hospitalizations involving cancer, we identified 80,995 with both NV and a cancer diagnosis code. Of these, 5,293 had NV as the primary diagnosis and 62 lacked cost data. Patients (mean age = 57.7±16.2) were 67% female. Median hospital length of stay was 4 days and mean cost per hospitalization was $15,085. Non-Medicare admissions (82%) had a higher mean cost vs. Medicare ($15,737 vs. $12,111, p < 0.01). We found < $1,000 difference between the highest and lowest cost per hospitalization among the 6 most common tumor types. We found the 65% of patients with a chemotherapy claim ≤30 days prior to hospitalization had costs of $13,882 per event. Among the 45% of chemotherapies that were HEC, > 50% lacked an NK1 receptor antagonist as prophylaxis. Conclusions: The average cost of NV-related hospitalizations among patients with cancer exceeds $15,000 per event, highlighting the need to effectively address this symptom. Roughly half the hospitalizations involved HEC, with over half of those patients not receiving guideline-based antiemetic prophylaxis.

For the hundreds of thousands of premenopausal women who are diagnosed annually with endocrine-sensitive breast cancer, treatment strategies are complex. For many, chemotherapy may not be necessary, and endocrine therapy decision making is paramount. Options for adjuvant endocrine regimens include tamoxifen for 5 years, tamoxifen for 10 years, ovarian function suppression (OFS) plus tamoxifen for 5 years, and OFS plus an aromatase inhibitor for 5 years. There are modest differences in efficacy between these regimens, with a benefit from OFS most obvious among patients with higher-risk disease; therefore, choosing which should be used for a given patient requires consideration of expected toxicities and patient preferences. An aromatase inhibitor cannot be safely prescribed without OFS in this setting. Additional research is needed to determine whether genomic tests such as Prosigna and Endopredict can help with decision making about optimal duration of endocrine therapy for premenopausal patients. Endocrine therapy side effects can include hot flashes, sexual dysfunction, osteoporosis, and infertility, all of which may impair quality of life and can encourage nonadherence with treatment. Ovarian function suppression worsens menopausal side effects. Hot flashes tend to be worse with tamoxifen/OFS, whereas sexual dysfunction and osteoporosis tend to be worse with aromatase inhibitors/OFS. Pregnancy is safe after endocrine therapy, and some survivors can conceive naturally. Still, embryo or oocyte cryopreservation should be considered at the time of diagnosis for patients with endocrine-sensitive disease who desire future childbearing, particularly if they will undergo chemotherapy.

Background Trastuzumab is life‐extending therapy for breast cancer patients overexpressing the human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 ( HER 2+), but has known cardiotoxic risk. We sought to determine if trastuzumab can be administered to patients with reduced baseline cardiac function at no higher cardiotoxicity risk than in those with normal cardiac function at baseline. Methods and Results We performed a retrospective study of women treated with trastuzumab for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 breast cancer at Mayo Clinic Rochester between January 1, 2000 and August 31, 2015 with pre‐ and on‐therapy echocardiograms available for review. A left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) <53% was considered abnormal, and a ≥10% decline in LVEF as evidence of cardiotoxicity based on the criteria of the American Society of Echocardiography. A total of 428 women were identified; 408 had a normal cardiac function ( LVEF 63.4±5%) and 20 had an impaired cardiac function ( LVEF 45.4±7%) before trastuzumab. Seven women (35%) with reduced LVEF at baseline had a ≥10% reduction in LVEF , compared with 179 (43.9%) of those with normal LVEF before trastuzumab initiation ( P = NS ). Symptomatic heart failure developed more often in patients with reduced versus normal baseline LVEF (25% versus 4.2%, P <0.05). After adjusting for patient age and breast cancer disease stage, survival rates over 5 years from time of diagnosis were found to be lower for patients with reduced baseline LVEF compared with patients with normal baseline LVEF ( P <0.001); the adjusted proportion of patients surviving at 5 years for those with low LVEF at baseline was 79% and for those with normal LVEF was 93%. Conclusions Women undergoing trastuzumab therapy for breast cancer with impaired baseline cardiac function experience no higher risk of LVEF decline, but more frequently develop symptomatic heart failure. While trastuzumab could be considered, these patients should be co‐managed by a cardiologist.