Citations

PURPOSE Polycythemia vera (PV) is characterized by JAK/STAT activation, thrombotic/hemorrhagic events, systemic symptoms, and disease transformation. In high-risk PV, ruxolitinib controls blood counts and improves symptoms. PATIENTS AND METHODS MAJIC-PV is a randomized phase II trial of ruxolitinib versus best available therapy (BAT) in patients resistant/intolerant to hydroxycarbamide (HC-INT/RES). Primary outcome was complete response (CR) within 1 year. Secondary outcomes included duration of response, event-free survival (EFS), symptom, and molecular response. RESULTS One hundred eighty patients were randomly assigned. CR was achieved in 40 (43%) patients on ruxolitinib versus 23 (26%) on BAT (odds ratio, 2.12; 90% CI, 1.25 to 3.60; P = .02). Duration of CR was superior for ruxolitinib (hazard ratio [HR], 0.38; 95% CI, 0.24 to 0.61; P < .001). Symptom responses were better with ruxolitinib and durable. EFS (major thrombosis, hemorrhage, transformation, and death) was superior for patients attaining CR within 1 year (HR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.21 to 0.78; P = .01); and those on ruxolitinib (HR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.35 to 0.94; P = .03). Serial analysis of JAK2V617F variant allele fraction revealed molecular response was more frequent with ruxolitinib and was associated with improved outcomes (progression-free survival [PFS] P = .001, EFS P = .001, overall survival P = .01) and clearance of JAK2V617F stem/progenitor cells. ASXL1 mutations predicted for adverse EFS (HR, 3.02; 95% CI, 1.47 to 6.17; P = .003). The safety profile of ruxolitinib was as previously reported. CONCLUSION The MAJIC-PV study demonstrates ruxolitinib treatment benefits HC-INT/RES PV patients with superior CR, and EFS as well as molecular response; importantly also demonstrating for the first time, to our knowledge, that molecular response is linked to EFS, PFS, and OS.

Introduction: Eculizumab is a monoclonal antibody that binds to complement protein C5, inhibiting complement-mediated thrombotic microangiopathy. It is approved for several indications including atypical hemolytic uremic syndrome. Additionally, eculizumab is used off-label for antibody-mediated rejection and C3 glomerulopathy in renal transplant recipients. Due to limited data available, the purpose of this study was to describe the use of eculizumab treatment in renal transplant recipients. Design: This retrospective single-center study evaluated the safety and efficacy of eculizumab for on- and off-label indications in renal transplant recipients. Adult renal transplant recipients receiving at least 1 dose of eculizumab posttransplant between October 2018 and September 2021 were included. The primary outcome evaluated was graft failure in patients treated with eculizumab. Results: Forty-seven patients were included in analysis. The median age at eculizumab initiation was 51 years [IQR 38-60], with 55% being female. Indications for eculizumab included atypical hemolytic uremic syndrome/thrombotic microangiopathy (63.8%), antibody-mediated rejection (27.7%), C3 glomerulopathy (4.3%), and other (4.3%). Graft failure occurred in 10 patients (21.3%) with a median of 2.4 weeks [IQR 0.5-23.3] from transplant to graft failure. At last follow-up (median 56.1 weeks), 44 (93.6%) patients were alive. After eculizumab initiation, renal function improved at 1 week, 1 month, and last follow-up. Conclusion: Eculizumab treatment demonstrated a benefit on graft and patient survival compared to reported incidence in thrombotic microangiopathy and antibody-mediated rejection. Due to the small sample size and retrospective design, further research is warranted to confirm these results.

Abstract Background: Historically, less than 10% of adult patients with cancer enroll in clinical trials, however, enrollment dropped further at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Barriers to trial participation during the pandemic have not been reported. As part of the TBCRC 057 survey on the impact of the pandemic on willingness to participate in breast cancer trials, we assessed reasons for reluctance to participate in trials during the pandemic. Methods: US residents who self-reported a breast cancer diagnosis were eligible to complete the online survey 8/6/21-9/30/21. Respondents indicated whether they were current trial participants and, if not, their willingness to consider participating in a trial during the pandemic using a 5-point scale (0-not at all willing to 4-definitely willing). Respondents who were not current trial participants and who were not “definitely willing” to consider participation during the pandemic were characterized as “reluctant” and asked to select reasons for their reluctance from a checklist. Pandemic-related anxiety was assessed on an 11-point scale (0-no anxiety to 10-worst anxiety possible). Respondents indicated how the option to conduct trial activities online would affect their decision to participate in a trial (much less likely, somewhat less likely, would not affect my decision, somewhat more likely, or much more likely). In exploratory analyses, we evaluated whether pandemic-related anxiety and favorable reactions towards opportunities to conduct trial activities online were associated with reluctance to consider trial participation during the pandemic due to fear of SARS-CoV-2 exposure. Means were compared with two sample t-tests and proportions with Fisher’s exact tests. Results: Of 385 survey respondents, 185 (48%) were characterized as reluctant to consider trial participation during the pandemic. Among these 185, median age was 55 (range 25-80), 85.7% were non-Hispanic White, 48.1% had metastatic disease and 44.2% received care at academic centers. Reasons for reluctance to consider trial participation during the pandemic cited by ≥15% of the 185 reluctant respondents are shown in the Table. Respondents who selected fear of exposure to SARS-CoV-2 as a reason for their reluctance to consider participating in a trial during the pandemic had higher mean pandemic-related anxiety (7.0 vs 5.2, p&lt; 0.001). These respondents were more likely to indicate telemedicine doctor visits (p=0.01), virtual consents (p=0.001) and online study questionnaires (p=0.001) would make them somewhat or much more likely to participate in trials than respondents who did not select fear of exposure to SARS-CoV-2 as a reason for their reluctance. Conclusions: Reasons for reluctance of patients with breast cancer to consider participation in clinical trials during the pandemic are multifactorial. Although concerns about safety and efficacy remain prominent, fear of exposure to SARS-CoV-2 drives unwillingness to participate in &gt;25% of reluctant patients. Trial accrual may benefit from incorporation of electronic activities when possible. Table Citation Format: Karen L. Smith, Carolyn Mead-Harvey, Gina L. Mazza, Albert E. Holler, Eileen Shinn, Elizabeth Frank, Michelle Melisko, Cyd Eaton, Jeannine M. Salamone, Teri Pollastro, Patricia Spears, Antonio C. Wolff, Gabrielle B. Rocque. Reasons for Reduced Willingness to Participate in Clinical Trials During the COVID-19 Pandemic: The Translational Breast Cancer Research Consortium (TBCRC) 057 Survey [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2022 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2022 Dec 6-10; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2023;83(5 Suppl):Abstract nr P6-08-07.

97 Background: In order to maintain safety, clinical trial activities have been modified during the COVID-19 pandemic. As part of the TBCRC 057 survey, we assessed how pandemic-related modifications to trial activities affect breast cancer patients’ willingness to participate in clinical trials. Methods: US residents with breast cancer were eligible to complete the online survey 8/6/21 – 9/30/21. Respondents rated whether each of 11 modifications to clinical trial activities would affect their decision to participate in a trial during or after the pandemic. Items evaluated modifications that involved changing the location of trial activities to closer to home, switching trial activities to telemedicine and making the trial schedule more flexible and convenient. Response options were “much less likely to participate”, “somewhat less likely to participate”, “would not affect my decision whether or not to participate”, “somewhat more likely to participate” and “much more likely to participate”. Current trial participants were asked to consider how modifications would affect their decision to participate in another trial. Results are reported descriptively. Results: Among 385 respondents, median age was 52 (range 25-85), 88.6% were non-Hispanic White, 52.5% had metastatic disease, 93% were receiving active treatment, 48.6% received care at an academic center and 9.6% were current trial participants. Changing location of trial activities was viewed favorably, with 70.2%, 64.6% and 54.1% of respondents indicating they would be much or somewhat more likely to participate if they could complete trial blood tests, x-ray tests or doctor visits closer to home, respectively. Similarly, the option to complete trial activities electronically was viewed favorably, with 59.6%, 58.6% and 60.9% of respondents indicating they would be much or somewhat more likely to participate if they could complete trial doctor visits, consent and questionnaires via telemedicine, respectively. With regard to modifications to make the trial schedule more flexible and convenient, respondent feedback was also favorable. 71.4%, 67.7% and 82.4% of respondents indicated that requiring study site visits no more than once per 3 weeks, widening windows for trial activities and offering home delivery of oral study medications, respectively, would make them much or somewhat more likely to participate. Finally, 30.4% and 51.7% indicated that the flexibility to opt-out of research-only blood tests and biopsies, respectively, would make them much or somewhat more likely to participate. Conclusions: Patients view modifications to trial activities implemented during the pandemic favorably. Trials should be flexible and the option to conduct study activities close to home or electronically when possible should be maintained during the pandemic and beyond.

PURPOSE: Financial hardship (FH) in cancer care is a growing challenge for patients, their caregivers, and health care providers with impact on morbidity and mortality. In this study, we report on a standardized approach to describe the prevalence and predictors for FH as part of routine clinical workflow. We also report on the association of FH with survival in our cancer patient population. METHODS: This study includes patients who completed a FH screen at least once between 2018 and 2020. Demographics, disease state, and mortality data were extracted from the medical records. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to examine association of sociodemographic and disease variables with FH. By using propensity score weighting to account for differences in demographic and clinical factors between patients with and without FH, we then fit Cox proportional hazards models to examine the relationship between FH and survival. RESULTS: The study cohort included 31,154 patients. FH was reported by 14% (n = 4,250) of the patients. A significantly higher likelihood of having FH ( P < .001 for all) was reported by racial/ethnic minority patients; those who were unemployed/disabled, single, or divorced; patients from disadvantaged neighborhoods; and those who were self-pay or had government insurance. Older age, being retired, and living farther from the cancer center were associated with significantly less likelihood of endorsing FH. Patients who endorsed FH had a lower survival (hazard ratio for mortality 1.46). CONCLUSION: Our study identified key groups more likely to report FH in a relatively affluent population at a large cancer center and showed an adverse association between FH and survival. Further research is needed to develop clinical care pathways for patients at high risk for worse financial and clinical outcomes.