Leventakos, Konstantinos

Abstract Abstract Importance: The benefit of routine screening for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infections in patients with cancer before cancer-directed therapies is unclear. Herein, we characterize the outcomes of a cohort of cancer patients diagnosed with Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) by routine screening in comparison with those diagnosed based on clinical suspicion or exposure history (non-routine screening). Objective: To describe and compare the outcomes of cancer patients diagnosed with COVID-19 on routine screening vs. non-routine screening at a multi-site tertiary cancer center. To identify risk factors for COVID-19-related hospital admission. Design: A multi-site prospective observational study was conducted between March 18 and July 31, 2020. Setting: Three major and 5 satellite campuses of the Mayo Clinic Cancer Center. Participants: Adult patients diagnosed with active cancer within the past five years and confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection were included. Primary Outcomes and Measures: Clinical and laboratory data were assessed as independent variables. The primary outcome was COVID-19-related hospital admission. Secondary outcomes included intensive care unit (ICU) admissions and all-cause mortality. Results: Between March 18 and July 31, 2020, 5452 patients underwent routine screening in the outpatient setting, 44 (0.81%) were diagnosed with COVID-19. Routine screening detected additional 19 patients from inpatient and pre-procedural settings; 161 patients were diagnosed with COVID-19 based on non-routine screening. The median age of the entire cohort at diagnosis was 54 years, and 95 patients (42.2%) were female. COVID-19 related-hospitalization rate (17.5% vs. 26.7%, p=0.14), ICU admission (1.6% vs. 5.6%, p=0.19), and mortality (4.8% vs. 3.7%, p=0.72) were not significantly different between routine screening and non-routine screening groups. In the multivariable analysis, age ≥ 60 years (odds ratio: 4.4, p=0.023) and an absolute lymphocyte count ≤1.4 × 109/L (odds ratio: 9.2, p=0.002) were independent predictors of COVID-19-related hospital admission. Conclusions and Relevance: The COVID-19 positivity rate was low based on routine screening. Comparing the outcome with the non-routine screening cohort, there was no significant difference. These results led to an important practice change at our cancer center. We currently follow a testing strategy based on symptoms, exposure, risk factors, and clinical judgment. Citation Format: Zhuoer Xie, Antoine N. Saliba, Jithma Abeykoon, Umair Majeed, Daniel Almquist, Julia Wiedmeier-Nutor, Evandro Bezerra, Xavier Andrade-Gonzalez, Ashley Hickman, Karl Sorenson, Sagar Rakshit, Christopher Wee, Sri Tella, Anuhya Kommalapati, Nadine Abdallah, Joshua Pritchett, Mariza De Andrade, Dipesh Uprety, Andrew Badley, Joleen Hubbard, Naseema Gangat, Carrie A. Thompson, Thomas Witzig, Robert R. McWilliams, Konstantinos Leventakos, Thorvardur R. Halfdanarson. Outcomes of COVID-19 in patients with cancer: Results of a prospective observational comparison of routine screening strategy versus testing based on clinical suspicion [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the AACR Virtual Meeting: COVID-19 and Cancer; 2021 Feb 3-5. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Clin Cancer Res 2021;27(6_Suppl):Abstract nr S06-03.

Abstract Objectives: Cognitive computing has the potential to improve efficiency and accuracy of clinical trial enrollment using artificial intelligence. The cognitive computing clinical trial matching (CTM) system used for this study utilizes natural language processing to derive patient and tumor attributes from structured and unstructured electronic medical record (EMR) data. The attributes are matched to complex eligibility criteria in trial protocols. This CTM system has been implemented in our gynecologic oncology practice, for which there is lower representation of ethnic minorities, elderly, and uninsured in National Cancer Institute-sponsored trials. Methods: A clinical research coordinator (CRC) used the CTM system to screen patients for potential clinical trials one day prior to their clinic visit. Trial matches were shared with gynecologic oncology clinicians to raise awareness for study opportunities and assist in treatment decisions. Clinicians were surveyed regarding their experience with the CTM system prepared matches. The identical patients were evaluated by a clinician using the traditional manual screening method. Results: Seventeen patients with new diagnosis, recent resection, or restaging scans were screened for 41 potential gynecologic, phase I, and supportive care clinical trials. Trial screening by the CRC using the CTM system resulted in a total of 119 matched trials (mean: 7 trials/patient) compared to the clinician-generated list of 271 matched trials (mean: 16 trials/patient). The CRC using the CTM system spent an average of 18 minutes/patient (range: 7 to 40 minutes) compared to the clinician average of 22 minutes/patient (range: 7 to 37 minutes). A survey of 8 gynecologic oncology clinicians reported they were willing to spend an average of 8 minutes/patient (range: 1 to 15 minutes) to screen patients for trial eligibility. On independent review, discrepancies occurred when the clinician identified trials that the CRC excluded due to inclusion/exclusion criteria or were unknowingly closed to accrual. In addition, the CRC identified trials that were inadvertently missing from the clinician’s list of active protocols. Consistent with these observations, 100% of surveyed clinicians (8 of 8) agreed that “The CTM system has helped to include and exclude trials prior to discussion with patients.” Conclusions: Use of the CTM system by a CRC was superior to a clinician alone for the accuracy and efficiency of screening clinical trial eligibility. This process improved the identification of trials that a clinician might otherwise miss and the exclusion of trials that were not available or appropriate for patients. The CTM system can reduce the burden of clinicians and research staff to screen patients. Additional research is needed to determine if the process can improve clinical trial enrollment in gynecologic cancers. Citation Format: Thanh P. Ho, Jane M. Helgeson, Angela L. Andring, Jennifer C. Reed, Venessa L. Boyle, Nigar Sofiyeva, Konstantinos Leventakos, Tufia C. Haddad, Andrea E. Wahner Hendrickson, Saravut (John) Weroha. Implementation of cognitive computing to match clinical trials in gynecologic cancers: A single-institution experience [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the AACR Special Conference on Advancing Precision Medicine Drug Development: Incorporation of Real-World Data and Other Novel Strategies; Jan 9-12, 2020; San Diego, CA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Clin Cancer Res 2020;26(12_Suppl_1):Abstract nr 01.

e21631 Background: The efficacy of osimertinib in previously EGFR-TKI treated NSCLC patients without T790M mutation remains unclear in real-world practice. We investigated whether osimertinib can provide survival benefit in EGFR-mutant patients without T790M mutation after 1st/2nd generation TKI treatment. Methods: Between January 1, 2009, and March 31, 2019, 417 patients had stage III-IV NSCLC harboring EGFR mutation and 154 out of 417 patients receiving osimertinib as≥2nd-line EGFR-TKI treatment were identified at Mayo Clinic. The time to treatment failure of osimertinib was analyzed by the Kaplan-Meier (KM) estimates. The risk of death post diagnosis was analyzed by Cox proportional hazard models. Results: Among 417 EGFR-mutant patients, higher risk of death was found in patients with age above 65 years, non-adenocarcinoma, no surgery treatment, no radiation treatment, non-exon 19 deletion/exon 21 L858R mutation, higher ECOG PS (2-4), PD-L1 expression of 50% or more, bone metastasis, live metastasis, and adrenal metastasis (all p < 0.05). Moreover, osimertinib as ≥2nd-line TKI treatment in patients with or without T790M revealed lower risk of death compared to 1st/2nd generation TKI treatment without subsequent osimertinib (HR = 0.33; 0.46, and p = 0.0002; 0.0232, respectively). However, among patients receiving osimertinib as ≥2nd-line TKI treatment, patients with T790M did not have superior survival than those without (p = 0.2803). Among 154 patients receiving osimertinib, a higher risk of treatment failure for osimertinib was found in male (HR = 1.72; p = 0.0327), patients with 1st-line TKI duration ≤12 months (HR = 2.16; p = 0.0019), BMI drop > 10% (HR = 1.85; p = 0.0207), PD-L1 levels of 50% or more (HR = 4.28; p = 0.0008), and 1st-line TKI with afatinib (HR = 2.19; p = 0.0136). Nonetheless, osimertinib as ≥2nd-line TKI in patients without 790M mutation did not have higher risk of treatment failure than those with T790M (p = 0.1236). Conclusions: This is the first study to demonstrate that osimertinib can provide similar survival benefit in previously EGFR-TKI treated NSCLC patients without T790M mutation as those with T790M in real-world practice. Additionally, EGFR-mutant patients with PD-L1 expression ≥50% had a higher risk of treatment failure for osimertinib and worse overall survival than those with PD-L1 expression < 50% and may potentially gain benefit from optimizing treatment strategies including immunotherapy.

e21575 Background: The clinical significance of brain metastases in patients with bronchopulmonary neuroendocrine (NE) tumors is unknown; we therefore conducted a population based analysis to evaluate the implications of brain metastases in these patients. Methods: The NCDB database was queried to identify patients with stage IV bronchopulmonary NE tumors treated between the years of 2004-2012. Patients were split into two groups based on the presence of brain metastases at diagnosis and survival probabilities with multivariate models were performed. Results: A total of 7,725 patients with Stage IV bronchopulmonary NE tumors were identified. The histological subtypes studied in this cohort were NE carcinoma (65.4%), large cell NE carcinoma (30.5%), typical carcinoid (2.8%) and atypical carcinoid (1.3%) . The patients included in this study were mainly white (86.4%) men (56.8%) with a median age of 67 years who had liver (9.5%), bone (6.2%) and brain (5.9%) metastases at diagnosis. The median overall survival (OS) of the cohort was 5.59 (95% CI: 5.4-5.8) months, but when OS was stratified by histological subtype it was significantly better in patients with typical carcinoid (table). In the whole cohort, the median OS did not differ between patients with and without brain metastases (5.55 vs. 5.68; p = 0.24). However, a sensitivity analysis by histology showed that the presence of brain metastases worsen the median OS of patients with typical carcinoid only (15.1 vs 4.6, p = 0.04). An adjusted multivariate analysis restricted to patients with brain metastases showed that administration of systemic chemotherapy (HR:0.5; 95% CI:0.35-0.72, p < 0.001) and resection of distant metastases (HR:0.5; 95% CI:0.29-0.88, p = 0.017) were the two most powerful independent prognostic factors. Conclusions: The presence of brain metastases negatively impact survival of patients with typical carcinoids but not in those with the other histological subtypes included in this study. Staging MRI should be strongly considered at diagnosis in patients with bronchopulmonary NE tumors, due to the sizable proportion of these patients presenting with brain metastases and also due to its prognostic value in a subset of this population. [Table: see text]

e21007 Background: There is a lack of data to guide the management of resectable bronchopulmonary carcinoid tumors (BCTs). Methods: The NCDB database was retrospectively reviewed to analyze the roles of surgery, chemotherapy and radiation. Patients with a diagnosis of clinically staged T1-2/N0-1 typical carcinoid (TC) and atypical carcinoid (AC) between 2004-2012 were included. Kaplan-Meier methods and multivariable analysis were performed. Results: A total of 2148 patients (TC 1874 & AC 274; T1/1648 & T2/500) were identified. The median age was 59 (range 18-89). There was a female (69.7%) and right lung (56.9%) predominance. Fifty-three patients received pneumonectomy, 68 chemotherapy, and 84 radiation therapy. The impact of age, histology (TC vs. AC), medical comorbidities (Charlson/Deyo score 0 vs. ≥1) and type of surgery [sublobar resection (SR) vs. lobectomy vs. lobectomy with mediastinal lymph node dissection (L/MLND)] were subsequently examined. AC, older age, and comorbidities were associated with shorter overall survival (OS) by both univariate and multivariable analysis. Patients who underwent lobectomy had longer OS (119 months) than those with SR (109 months) or L/MLND (115 months). However, this association was not significant by multivariable analysis with age incorporated as either a categorical ( < 60 vs. ≥60) or a continuous variable (Table). In the subgroup analysis of patients with T1, T2, TC and AC respectively, type of surgical resection was not significantly associated with OS by multivariable analysis. Conclusions: Patients with resectable BCTs have excellent OS. Atypical histology, older age, and comorbidities predicted inferior OS. There were insufficient data to support the use of perioperative chemotherapy or radiation therapy. Lobectomy was associated with prolonged OS by univariate analysis but this was not significant in the multivariable model, suggesting that SR is a reasonable approach for patients who cannot tolerate lobectomy. MLND did not seem to provide additional survival benefits. [Table: see text]

Background. Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) have changed the landscape in the treatment of a number of cancers. Immune-related adverse events (irAEs) have emerged as a serious clinical problem with the use of ICI. Methods. All oncology patients diagnosed with pulmonary complications secondary to ICI at Mayo Clinic Rochester from January 1, 2012 to December 31, 2018 were reviewed. Demographics, comorbidities, smoking, and oncologic history were analyzed. Results. A total of 10 patients developed pulmonary complications secondary to ICI. Seven patients were men (70%), and the median age at diagnosis was 61.5 (IQR 55.8-69.3) years. All patients had stage IV disease. Melanoma was the most common malignancy. Seven (70%) patients had a positive smoking history, and 6 (60%) were obese (BMI>30). Most cases were grade 2 pneumonitis (70%). One patient with grade 4 pneumonitis required endotracheal intubation and a prolonged course of systemic corticosteroids (>30 days). Eight (80%) patients received prior radiation therapy. The median time from initiation of ICI to pneumonitis diagnosis was 3.5 months. Conclusion. Melanoma was the most common malignancy, the majority of patients had grade 2 pneumonitis and required treatment with steroids, and all patients affected by ICI-related pneumonitis had stage IV malignancy. Potential risk factors included smoking history, prior radiotherapy, obesity, and advance stage at the time of ICI initiation. Extrapulmonary irAEs are common in patients with pneumonitis.

Objectives A platinum/etoposide doublet is standard first-line therapy for poorly differentiated neuroendocrine carcinoma (PD NEC); however, evidence to guide treatment beyond first-line regimens is lacking. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of second-line regimens in PD NEC. Methods We performed a retrospective analysis of patients treated with second-line chemotherapy for PD NEC. Inclusion criteria were previous first-line therapy with platinum/etoposide, extrapulmonary PD NEC, and follow-up data. The primary end points were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) after second-line therapy. Secondary end points included OS and PFS from first-line therapy. Results Sixty-four patients were included. The median OS from initiation of second-line therapy was 6.2 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 4.9–8.9). The median PFS was 2.3 months (95% CI, 2.0–3.2). No second-line regimen showed a statistically significant difference in OS or PFS. There was a significant increase in OS for cisplatin first-line regimens compared with carboplatin (17.0 months [95% CI, 12.5–22.6] vs 11.7 months [95% CI, 8.0–14.0]). Conclusions The efficacy of current second-line therapy in PD NEC is poor. No second-line regimen showed statistically significant superiority. Cisplatin was associated with longer OS regardless of second-line regimen or age. However, unmeasured confounders such as performance status or comorbidities may explain this effect.

Objective: This study sought to understand the patients’ perspective of what contributes to an absence of discussions of sexual orientation (SO), gender identity (GI), and sexual health in cancer care. Methods: Patients were recruited from oncology, gynecology, and a gender transition clinic to participate in semistructured interviews, which were analyzed with qualitative methods. Results: A total of 25 patients were interviewed, shedding light on 2 themes. The first was that these conversations are important but infrequent. One patient explained, “…. we know people who have had sex changes…[they] would have appreciated that question.” In response to whether sexual health was ever brought up, one patient responded, “No doctor ever has.” Patients described unaddressed issues: “There have been times, you know, we’ve wondered if it was okay to make love.” The second theme consisted of 4 pragmatic, patient-provided points to facilitate discussions: (1) implementation of a scale of 1 to 10 (with 10 being comfortable) to first gauge patients’ comfort in talking about SO, GI, and sexual health; (2) having the health-care provider explore the topic again over-time; (3) making sure the health-care provider is comfortable, as such comfort appears to enhance the patient’s comfort (“I have a doctor here, a female doctor, who just matter of fact will ask if I get erections and so on because of the medication she’s giving me);” and (4) eliminating euphemisms (one patient stated, “I don’t know what you mean by ‘sexual health’.”). Conclusion: Oncology health-care providers have a unique opportunity and responsibility to address SO, GI, and sexual health.

Background The objective of this case cohort study was to describe our experience in the care of patients with immune checkpoint inhibitor–related acute interstitial nephritis (ICI-AIN) including rechallenge. Methods A descriptive case series of patients that received an ICI and had an AKI (defined as a ≥1.5-fold increase in serum creatinine) as an immune-related adverse event (irAE), with biopsy-proven or clinically suspected ICI-AIN from January 1, 2014 to December 1, 2018 at Mayo Clinic, Rochester. We studied details regarding diagnosis, clinical course, management, and outcomes of rechallenge of immunotherapy. Complete response (CR) was defined as return of kidney function back to baseline or <0.3 mg/dl above baseline creatinine; partial response (PR) was defined as creatinine >0.3 mg/dl from baseline, but less than twofold above the baseline by the end of steroid course. Results A total of 14 cases of biopsy-proven (35%) or clinically suspected (65%) ICI-AIN was identified. All patients had their ICI withheld and 12 patients received steroids. Steroid regimens were highly variable. The starting equivalent dose of prednisone was higher in those that had a CR versus a PR (median 0.77 mg/kg versus 0.66 mg/kg). Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) were used in 11 patients and were stopped in eight (73%) patients at the time of the AKI event. A CR was seen in five (63%) of the eight patients who discontinued PPIs. Rechallenge was attempted in four of the 14 patients: three were successful with no recurrence of AKI, but one patient had recurrent AKI and fatal pneumonitis. Conclusions Careful review, withholding ICI and concomitant known AIN-inducing medications, along with prompt initial steroid management were the key in complete renal kidney recovery. A kidney biopsy should be strongly considered. Rechallenge of immunotherapy after a kidney irAE, although challenging, is possible and would need careful evaluation on an individual basis. Podcast This article contains a podcast at https://www.asn-online.org/media/podcast/K360/2020_01_30_KID0000152019.mp3

Background: Although national organizations advocate that health-care providers ask patients about sexual health and sexual and gender minority status—to learn, for example, about side effects of treatment and to understand patients’ social support—these conversations often do not occur. This study explored health-care providers’ reasons for having/not having these conversations. Methods: This single-institution study recruited health-care providers from medical oncology, hematology, radiation oncology, and gynecology. Face-to-face interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed qualitatively. Results: Three main themes emerged: (1) patient-centric reasons for discussing/not discussing sexual health and sexual and gender minority status (“So I think just the holistic viewpoint is important”); (2) health-care provider–centric reasons for discussing/not discussing these issues (“That’s going to take more time to talk about and to deal with…” or “I was raised orthodox, so this is not something we talk about…”; and (3) reasons that appeared to straddle both of the above themes (eg, acknowledgment of the sometimes taboo nature of these topics). Conclusion: Although many health-care providers favor talking with patients with cancer about sexual health and sexual and gender minority status, limited time, personal reluctance, and the taboo nature of these topics appear at times to hamper the initiation of these conversations.