Citations

Abstract Introduction: Although Hispanic White (HW) females have a lower incidence of breast cancer than non-Hispanic White (NHW) females, breast cancer risk is unclear for HW females after benign breast disease (BBD). Methods: We compared BBD characteristics and subsequent breast cancer risk among HW and NHW females in New Mexico using a population-based collection of benign breast biopsies (1996–2007). BBD was categorized as nonproliferative disease (NPD), proliferative disease without atypia (PDWA), or atypical hyperplasia (AH). Breast cancer risk was assessed as absolute risk (AR) using cumulative incidence and RR by comparing the number of breast cancer events in BBDs to non-BBD. Results: This study included 3,684 HW and 6,587 NHW females with BBD. HW females had similar proportions of NPD (58.6% vs. 54.3%), PDWA (21.4% vs. 23.5%), and AH (3.6% vs. 3.3%) as NHW females. Breast cancer risk among all females with BBD was higher than population-based expected rates (RR, 1.87) and was similar for HW and NHW subgroups (RR = 1.99 vs. 1.84). As expected, breast cancer risk increased with increasing BBD severity, both overall [RR, 1.81 (NPD), 1.85 (PDWA), and 3.10 (AH)] and in the HW and NHW subgroups. Adjusted AR of breast cancer at 5 years also increased with the severity of BBD (HW vs. NHW; NPD: 1.4% vs. 2.1%; PDWA: 1.5% vs. 2.7%; AH: 6% vs. 4.8%). Conclusions: We found similar breast cancer RRs and ARs in HW and NHW. Risk counseling should ensure that HW females receive breast cancer clinical management warranted by their similar absolute risks. Impact: The present population-based provides evidence for the clinical management of HW females with BBD for the prevention of breast cancer.

AbstractIn response to the evolving treatment landscape for new‐onset refractory status epilepticus (NORSE) and the publication of consensus recommendations in 2022, we conducted a comparative analysis of NORSE management over time. Seventy‐seven patients were enrolled by 32 centers, from July 2016 to August 2023, in the NORSE/FIRES biorepository at Yale. Immunotherapy was administered to 88% of patients after a median of 3 days, with 52% receiving second‐line immunotherapy after a median of 12 days (anakinra 29%, rituximab 25%, and tocilizumab 19%). There was an increase in the use of second‐line immunotherapies (odds ratio [OR] = 1.4, 95% CI = 1.1–1.8) and ketogenic diet (OR = 1.8, 95% CI = 1.3–2.6) over time. Specifically, patients from 2022 to 2023 more frequently received second‐line immunotherapy (69% vs 40%; OR = 3.3; 95% CI = 1.3–8.9)—particularly anakinra (50% vs 13%; OR = 6.5; 95% CI = 2.3–21.0), and the ketogenic diet (OR = 6.8; 95% CI = 2.5–20.1)—than those before 2022. Among the 27 patients who received anakinra and/or tocilizumab, earlier administration after status epilepticus onset correlated with a shorter duration of status epilepticus (ρ = .519, p = .005). Our findings indicate an evolution in NORSE management, emphasizing the increasing use of second‐line immunotherapies and the ketogenic diet. Future research will clarify the impact of these treatments and their timing on patient outcomes.

LBA7005 Background: Despite recent advances, there remains a need for novel therapies for pts with R/R DLBCL. BV, an anti-CD30 antibody-drug conjugate, has shown efficacy and safety when combined with lenalidomide (len) and with rituximab (R) in heavily pretreated populations (Bartlett 2022; Ward 2022). The double-blind, global phase 3 ECHELON-3 study (NCT04404283) compared BV with R+len (R2) vs R2 in pts with R/R DLBCL who are ineligible for HSCT or CAR T-cell therapy. Here, we present results from the interim analysis (IA) for overall survival (OS). Methods: Pts with R/R DLBCL received BV+R2 or placebo+R2 (randomized 1:1). Pts received BV (1.2 mg/kg) or placebo q3w, R (375 mg/m2) q3w, and len (20 mg) qd. The primary endpoint was OS in the intent-to-treat population. Secondary endpoints were investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), and complete response (CR) rate. The preplanned IA was performed at 134 OS events with a prespecified efficacy boundary of 2-sided P=0.0232. Results: 230 pts were randomized: 112 to BV+R2 and 118 to R2; all but 2 pts (both in R2 arm) received ≥1 dose of study drug. Median age was 71 yrs (range, 21-89), 56.5% were male, and 10.9% had an ECOG of 2. Median prior lines of therapy was 3 (range, 2-8); 29% had prior CAR T-cell therapy and 68% were CD30- (<1% CD30 tumor expression). At median follow-up of 16.4 months (mos) (range, 0.1-31.5) (cut-off: January 22, 2024), median OS was 13.8 mos (95% CI: 10.3-18.8) with BV+R2 vs 8.5 mos (95% CI: 5.4-11.7) with R2 (HR 0.629; 95% CI: 0.445-0.891; P=0.0085); OS benefit was consistent across key subgroups. Median PFS was 4.2 mos (95% CI: 2.9-7.1) with BV+R2 vs 2.6 mos (95% CI: 1.4-3.1) with R2 (HR 0.527; 95% CI: 0.380-0.729; P<0.0001). ORR was 64.3% (95% CI: 54.7-73.1) with BV+R2 vs 41.5% with R2 (95% CI: 32.5-51.0; P=0.0006); CR rate was 40.2% vs 18.6%, respectively. In CD30+ vs CD30- subgroups, ORR/CR was 72.2%/38.9% vs 60.5%/40.8% with BV+R2, respectively, and 50.0%/26.3% vs 37.5%/15.0% with R2, respectively. Efficacy analysis including cell of origin will be presented. The safety profile of BV+R2 was tolerable vs R2: Grade (Gr) ≥3 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were 88% vs 77%, serious TEAEs were 60% vs 50%, and Gr 5 TEAEs were 12% vs 8%, respectively. Most common TEAEs were neutropenia (46% vs 32%), anemia (29% vs 27%), and diarrhea (31% vs 23%). Rates of peripheral neuropathy for BV+R2 vs R2 were 31% vs 24% (all Gr) and 6% vs 2% (Gr 3). Median treatment duration was 3.6 mos with BV+R2 vs 2.0 mos with R2. Conclusions: Treatment with BV+R2 triplet, compared to R2, demonstrated statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvements in all key efficacy outcomes including OS in high-risk subgroups, with manageable safety. This triplet regimen represents a novel treatment option for pts with heavily pretreated R/R DLBCL. Clinical trial information: NCT04404283 .

LBA509 Background: I-SPY2.2 is a multicenter phase 2 platform sequential multiple assignment randomized trial (SMART) evaluating novel experimental regimens in the neoadjuvant breast cancer setting. The novel therapy is given as first in a sequence (Block A), followed by standard chemo/targeted therapies (Block B/C) if indicated. The goal is to identify agents that lead to pCR after novel targeted agents alone, or in sequence with optimal therapy assigned based on the tumor response predictive subtype (RPS). RPS incorporates expression-based immune, DNA repair deficiency (DRD), and luminal signatures with hormone receptor (HR) and HER2 status to classify patients by subtype: S1: HR+HER2-Immune-DRD-; S2: HR-HER2-Immune-DRD-; S3: HER2-Immune+; S4: HER2-Immune-DRD+; S5: HER2+/non-Luminal; S6: HER2+/Luminal. Methods: RPS S1, S2, S3 and S4 were eligible for assignment to Dato in Block A. Patients (pts) were followed by MRI during treatment (at 3, 6 and 12 weeks after start of Blocks A and B). Predicted responders by MRI and biopsy at the end of Block A or B have the option of going to surgery early, otherwise they proceed to next treatment Block (B +/- C). Randomization to Block B includes a taxane-based regimen specific to the RPS, and options include S1: paclitaxel; S2 and S3: paclitaxel + carboplatin + pembrolizumab; S4: paclitaxel + carboplatin vs. paclitaxel + carboplatin + pembrolizumab. Patients who did not go to surgery after Block B proceeded to Block C (AC or AC + Pembrolizumab if HR-HER2-). The primary endpoint is pCR. Efficacy is evaluated within each RPS and HR+HER2- and HR-HER2- signatures. To estimate the arm's efficacy as a stand-alone therapy, we use a Bayesian covariate-adjusted model to estimate the pCR rate and compare the posterior distribution to a subtype-specific fixed threshold. This model uses pCR data when available and MRI data when pCR is not. To estimate pCR rate in the context of a multi-decision treatment regimen, we use a Bayesian model based on if and when a pCR occurred in the trial. The posterior is compared to a subtype-specific dynamic control generated from historical I-SPY data. Results: 103 pts were randomly assigned to the Dato arm between August 2022 and August 2023. All patients have proceeded beyond Block A; 33 went to surgery after Dato alone. The efficacy results for Dato as a stand-alone therapy are summarized in Table. Conclusions: Dato monotherapy was active, particularly in the HR-HER2- signature, but did not meet the pre-specified threshold for graduation in I-SPY 2.2. Clinical trial information: NCT01042379 . [Table: see text]

LBA507 Background: In monarchE (NCT03155997), 2 years of adjuvant abemaciclib + ET resulted in sustained improvement in invasive disease-free survival (IDFS; HR=0.680, 7.6% absolute benefit at 5 years) in patients (pts) with HR+, HER2-, node-positive, high-risk EBC. Here, we investigate the prognostic value of ctDNA detection and dynamics in pts from monarchE. Methods: Samples were analyzed from a selected pt subset (n=1397; abemaciclib + ET arm, n=685; ET arm, n=712), enriched for overall IDFS events compared to the total monarchE study population (IDFS event rate: 31% [433/1397] vs 18% [992/5637]). Pts had blood collected pre-study treatment (baseline) and at 3, 6, or 24 months. ctDNA detection was performed using the personalized, tumor informed Signatera ctDNA assay (Natera, Inc) and whole exome sequencing (WES) of matched primary tumor and normal required for assay design was performed. Results: Among 1397 pts, 65% (n=910) had sufficient plasma samples and WES performed, and all 910 had successful ctDNA assay testing. Among these 910 pts, the IDFS event rate was 27% (abemaciclib + ET, 23% [101/438]; ET alone, 31% [146/472]). Rates of ctDNA positivity (at baseline and any change from baseline) and associated IDFS events are shown in Table. Among pts with ctDNA positivity, 87% had an IDFS event in comparison to 15% with persistent ctDNA negative (-) status during the study. Conclusions: In a pt subset from monarchE enriched for IDFS events, ctDNA detection was relatively infrequent (<20%); however, its detection at any time during the 24 months of study therapy was adversely prognostic. As compared to pts who had remaining ctDNA positive (+), pts who had clearance of ctDNA on therapy had lower risk of IDFS events, but the event risk still remained clinically meaningful in these pts. Clinical trial information: NCT03155997 . [Table: see text]

LBA3 Background: National guidelines recommend the early integration of palliative and oncology care for patients with advanced cancer, given robust evidence showing that this care model improves quality of life (QOL) and other important outcomes. However, most patients do not receive early palliative care (EPC) in the outpatient setting due to limited access and resources. To overcome these barriers, we conducted a large-scale comparative effectiveness trial of EPC delivered via secure video versus in person among patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and their caregivers. Methods: Between 6/14/2018 and 5/4/2023, we enrolled 1250 patients with advanced NSCLC, diagnosed in the past 12 weeks, into a randomized trial of telehealth versus in-person EPC across 22 cancer centers in the US. Patients were randomly assigned to meet with a palliative care clinician every four weeks from enrollment through the course of disease either via video or in the outpatient clinic. Participants completed self-report measures at baseline and weeks 12 and 24. The primary aim was to evaluate the equivalence of the effect of telehealth versus in-person EPC on QOL at week 24, using regression modeling with an equivalence margin of ±4 points on the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Lung (FACT-L, range = 0-136). We also compared rates of caregiver participation in EPC visits and patient-reported depression and anxiety symptoms (Patient Health Questionnaire-9; Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale), coping (Brief COPE), and perceptions of prognosis (Perceptions of Treatment and Prognosis Questionnaire) between groups. Study recruitment ceased for two months at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Results: Participants (mean age = 65.5 years; 54.0% female; 82.1% White) had a mean of 4.75 and 4.92 palliative care encounters by week 24 in the telehealth and in-person groups, respectively. Due to the pandemic, the in-person group had 3.9% of visits occur via video. QOL scores at week 24 for patients assigned to the telehealth group were equivalent to those receiving in-person EPC (adjusted means: 99.67 versus 97.67, p < 0.043 for equivalence). The rate of caregiver participation in EPC visits was lower in the telehealth versus in-person group (36.6% versus 49.7%, p < 0.0001). Study groups did not differ in depression and anxiety symptoms, use of coping skills, or perceptions of the goal of treatment and curability of their cancer. Conclusions: The delivery of EPC via video versus in-person visits demonstrated equivalent effects on QOL in patients with advanced NSCLC. The two modalities also did not differ across a range of patient-reported outcomes, though caregivers attended more in-person versus video visits. The findings underscore the considerable potential for improving access to and broader dissemination of this evidence-based care model through telehealth delivery. Clinical trial information: NCT03375489 .

LBA12006 Background: Symptom burden and functional decline are prevalent, inconsistently treated, and associated with adverse health outcomes in patients with cancer. Symptom monitoring with electronic patient-reported outcome measures (ePROMs) has yielded mixed results due, in part, to care teams’ variable bandwidth and resourcing for symptom management. The collaborative care model (CCM) offers a validated means to address these issues and potentially improve clinical and health services outcomes. Capturing ePROMS through the electronic health record (EHR) for use in CCM delivery provides a potentially scalable approach to manage symptoms at the population level. Methods: E2C2 is a cluster-randomized, population-level, stepped wedge pragmatic trial that compares a bundled, EHR-facilitated, CCM-based intervention to improve control of SPPADE symptoms (Sleep interference, Pain, impaired Physical function, Anxiety, Depression, and Energy deficit/fatigue) with usual care. All patients, regardless of cancer type or stage, treated in the medical oncology clinics of a multi-state health system, were assigned to one of fifteen clusters. Control and intervention conditions monitored SPPADE symptoms with Epic EHR administered 11-point numerical rating scales (NRSs). Moderate and severe symptoms were defined as 4-6/10 and >7/10, respectively. The intervention added EHR clinician decision support; automated delivery of symptom self-management information; and options to address severe symptoms with a dedicated symptom care manager. The primary outcome was post-baseline SPPADE scores assessed using multivariate regression of six cluster-period mean SPPADE symptom scores against E2C2 exposure, fixed cluster and secular time effects. Results: From March 2019 to January 2023, 50,559 patients were assigned to E2C2 clusters and 40,295 completed at least one ePROM. At first assessment, participants’ mean age was 63.3 years; 58% were female; 26% were rural, and the prevalences of moderate or worse symptoms were fatigue 42%, impaired function 34%, sleep disturbance 34%, anxiety 27%, pain 26%, and depression 23%. The intervention significantly reduced mean composite SPPADE symptom scores, p <0.001, among all patients, as well as those with >1 moderate or worse symptom. All mean symptom scores were lower in the intervention group, with the largest effects detected among patients with fatigue -0.2 (-0.4, -0.07), anxiety -0.14 (-0.2, -0.03), and depression -0.1 (-0.2, -0.002). Conclusions: In this large cluster-randomized trial, an EHR-facilitated, bundled intervention that scaled CCM-based surveillance and management of SPPADE symptoms significantly reduced population-level symptom burden, particularly for fatigue, anxiety, and depression. This study provides real world evidence and the foundation for future national efforts aimed at controlling symptoms in patients with cancer. Clinical trial information: NCT03892967 .

LBA12004 Background: Hot flashes are among the most common adverse events impacting quality of life reported by patients receiving androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) for the treatment of prostate cancer. Oxybutynin is an effective therapy for reducing frequency and severity of hot flashes in women. Pilot information supports that this drug may also benefit men with hot flashes related to ADT. Methods: Patients with prostate cancer receiving a stable regimen of ADT with at least 28 hot flashes per week were randomized to receive either oral oxybutynin 2.5 mg twice a day, oxybutynin 5 mg twice a day, or matching placebo doses for 6 weeks. The primary endpoint was the change in patient-reported hot flash scores (determined by multiplying the number of hot flashes by the mean hot flash severity [grade 0: none, 1: mild, 2: moderate, 3: severe, and 4: very severe]) from baseline to 6 weeks, as measured by a daily hot flash diary. A total of 87 patients provided 76% power to reject the null hypothesis of no between-arm mean difference in hot flash score reduction from baseline to 6 weeks, when comparing each oxybutynin arm to the combined placebo arms. This was based on a two-sided contrast estimated from a generalized linear mixed model, α= 0.10, intraclass correlation of 0.50, population standardized mean difference of 0.50, and 10% missing data rate. Results: 88 patients were accrued between 10/28/21 and 12/02/23. Six patients cancelled before starting treatment and one was ineligible, leaving 81 analyzed patients with a median age of 68. Baseline characteristics were balanced between arms with patients reporting an average of 10.15 (SD = 5.55) hot flashes per day and an average daily hot flash score of 18.23 (SD = 13.48) at enrollment. On average, patients on the placebo arm, low dose oxybutynin arm, and high dose oxybutynin arm had reductions of 2.15, 4.77, and 6.89 hot flashes/day, respectively. Compared to placebo arm patients, high dose oxybutynin arm patients had a greater reduction in hot flashes/day (p < 0.001), as did low dose oxybutynin arm patients (p = 0.02). Daily hot flash scores for the same three protocol arms reduced by an average of 4.85, 9.94, and 13.95 points, respectively. Compared to placebo arm patients, high dose oxybutynin arm patients had a greater reduction in daily hot flash scores (p = 0.002), as did low dose oxybutynin arm patients (p = 0.07). No treatment-related grade 3+ adverse events occurred. The most commonly reported oxybutynin-related grade 2 adverse event was dry mouth. Conclusions: Oxybutynin is superior to a placebo for the management of hot flashes in men associated with androgen deprivation therapy and appears to be well tolerated. Support: UG1CA189823; https://acknowledgments.alliancefound.org . Clinical trial information: NCT04600336 .