Citations

AbstractObjectivesTo identify and characterize distinct trajectories of change in young women's sexual functioning over the first 5 years following breast cancer diagnosis.MethodsGroup‐based trajectory modeling was applied to the sexual functioning of 896 women diagnosed with stage I‐IV breast cancer at age 40 or younger. The Cancer Rehabilitation Evaluation System was used to evaluate women's symptoms of sexual dysfunction annually for 5 years.ResultsFive distinct trajectories of sexual functioning were identified: one asymptomatic, one minimally symptomatic, two moderately symptomatic, and one severely symptomatic trajectory. Twelve percent of women were asymptomatic throughout follow‐up. The plurality of women experienced stable mild symptoms (42%). Among those with moderate symptoms, some experienced improvement over time (22%) while others experienced deterioration (13%); 11% experienced stable severe symptoms that did not remit over time. Independent predictors of experiencing a symptomatic rather than asymptomatic trajectory (P < 0.05, two‐sided) included diagnosis with stage 2 versus 1 disease, ER positive disease treated with oophorectomy or ovarian suppression, being partnered, having anxiety, poorer body image, and greater musculoskeletal pain.ConclusionsWe identified distinct trajectories that describe the reported sexual symptoms in this cohort of young breast cancer survivors. The majority of women reported various degrees of sexual dysfunction that remained stable over the study period. There is, however, potential for improvement of moderate and severe symptoms of sexual dysfunction in early survivorship.

Background The authors conducted a cluster randomized study to determine the effect of an exportable educational intervention for young women with breast cancer (YWI) on improving care. Methods Sites were randomized 1:1 to the YWI or a contact time control physical activity intervention (PAI) stratified by academic or community site. Up to 15 women aged ≤45 years with newly diagnosed breast cancer were enrolled at each of 14 academic sites and 10 were enrolled at each of 40 community sites. The primary endpoint, attention to fertility, was ascertained by medical record review. Statistical inferences concerning the effect of the intervention used general estimating equations for clustered data. Results A total of 467 patients across 54 sites were enrolled between July 2012 and December 2013. The median age of the patients at the time of diagnosis was 40 years (range, 22‐45 years). Attention to fertility by 3 months was observed in 55% of patients in the YWI and 58% of patients in the PAI ( P = .88). Rates were found to be strongly correlated with age ( P < .0001), and were highest in patients aged <30 years. Attention to genetics was similar (80% in the YWI and 81% in the PAI), whereas attention to emotional health was higher in patients in the YWI (87% vs 76%; estimated odds ratio, 2.63 [95% confidence interval, 1.20‐5.76; P = .016]). Patients rated both interventions as valuable in providing education (64% in the YWI and 63% in the PAI). Conclusions The current study failed to demonstrate differences in attention to fertility with an intervention to improve care for women with breast cancer, although attention to fertility was found to be higher than expected in both groups and emotional health was improved in the YWI group. Greater attention to young women with breast cancer in general may promote more comprehensive care for this population.

651 Background: Oxaliplatin (OX), used primarily in gastrointestinal cancers, is considered moderately emetogenic while multiple guidelines classify carboplatin and cisplatin as highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC). The new oncology outcome measure (OP-35) from the US Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) deems 30-day post-chemotherapy inpatient (IP) and emergency room (ED) events “potentially avoidable” if involving nausea or emesis (NV) or any of eight other toxicities. We lack data comparing avoidable IP/ED and NV events for OX relative to platinums classified as HEC. Methods: We assessed OX, cisplatin, and carboplatin courses of therapy from 4Q 2012 to 1Q 2018 using the IBM Watson Explorys database. We identified IP/ED and OP-35 toxicities (anemia, dehydration, diarrhea, fever, NV, neutropenia, pain, pneumonia, or sepsis) by diagnosis and procedure codes, and stratified results by sex and age < 70 (median age at diagnosis for colorectal cancer). An IP/ED event could involve ≥ 1 OP-35 toxicity. We also evaluated a FOLFIRINOX subgroup (receiving irinotecan ≤ 3 days after OX). Results: In sum, we identified 4,231 OX courses (382 FOLFIRINOX) (Table). OP-35 toxicities occurred in 75% of IP/ED events; of these, 34% OX and 42% FOLFIRINOX involved NV. Rates of IP/ED, IP/ED OP-35-defined toxicity, and NV after OX were consistent with cisplatin and carboplatin. Among patients receiving OX, women age < 70 (n = 1388) had higher NV rates vs. others (p < 0.001). Conclusions: Roughly one-third of patients receiving OX experienced IP/ED events ≤ 30 days post chemotherapy. Most involved ≥ 1 of 10 OP-35 toxicities, meeting CMS’ criteria as potentially avoidable acute care. OX IP/ED rates and NV rates were similar to other platinums and were worse among women age < 70, suggesting more aggressive antiemetic prophylaxis should be evaluated. [Table: see text]

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.