Citations

Abstract Objective Image-guided breast biopsies are safe, efficient, and reliable. However, patients are often anxious about these procedures, particularly those who have never undergone a prior biopsy. Methods This prospective IRB-approved study surveyed 163 patients undergoing their first breast biopsy. Participants provided informed consent and completed a short written survey prior to and immediately after their procedure. Level of anxiety as well as anticipated and actual levels of pain prior to and following the procedure were assessed using a 0–10-point Likert scale. Correlation, bivariate, and regression analyses were performed. Results Regarding the biopsy experience, 133/163 (81.6%) of patients reported it as better than expected. Anxiety decreased significantly from a prebiopsy mean score of 5.52 to a postbiopsy mean score of 2.25 (P < 0.001). Average and greatest pain experienced during the procedure had mean scores of 2.03 and 2.77, respectively, both significantly lower compared to preprocedural expectation (mean 4.53) (P < 0.001). Lower pain scores were reported in US-guided procedures compared to stereotactic- and MRI-guided biopsies (P < 0.001). No significant differences in pain scores were seen in those undergoing single versus multiple biopsies, or when benign, elevated-risk, or malignant lesions were sampled. Positive correlations were seen with prebiopsy anxiety levels and procedural pain as well as with anticipated pain and actual procedural pain. Conclusion Image-guided biopsies are often better tolerated by patients than anticipated. We stress the benefit of conveying this information to patients prior to biopsy, as decreased anxiety correlates with lower levels of pain experienced during the procedure.

e14507 Background: Regorafenib, an oral multikinase inhibitor of VEGFR2/3, PDGFRb, KIT, FGFR, RET, RAF and TIE2, is efficacious in refractory mCRC but its mechanism of action is unclear and predictive biomarkers are lacking. Methods: We assessed tumor and circulatory biomarkers in a phase 2 study of regorafenib in refractory mCRC patients. Regorafenib was administered orally at 160mg/d for 3 out of 4 weeks. Post cycle 2 response was assessed by RECIST 1.1. Subjects were scheduled for FDG PET-CT scans (pre + D15) and paired core needle tumor biopsies for IHC analysis (pre + D21) in cycle 1. Archival tumor mutations were evaluated using Sequenom MassARRAY OncoCarta Panel V1.0 assay. Results: 35 patients were treated; 49% received > 4 prior therapies and 43% had prior bevacizumab. Median PFS was 3.45 mths (95% CI: 3.40-3.49), ORR was 3% and disease control rate [DCR] (PR + SD at 8 wks) was 57%. Early PET responses (EORTC criteria) were seen in 49%, but did not predict for DCR (p=1.0). Fatigue, hand foot skin reaction (HFSR), voice change and diarrhea occurred in > 30% of subjects. Grade 3-5 toxicities occurred in 46%, the commonest being HFSR and rash (17% each). Median relative dose intensity was 92%; 43% required > 1 dose reduction, 60% required > 1 dose interruption. KRAS (29%), BRAF (9%), EGFR (9%), NRAS (6%) KIT (3%), PIK3CA (3%), PDGFRA (3%) and CDK (3%) mutations were detected in archival tumors. None predicted for ORR or DCR; PFS was identical in KRAS mutant vs wt patients (3.45 mths, p=0.39) and similar in BRAF mutant vs wt patients (3.48 vs 3.45 mths, p=0.10). The patient with the longest PFS (12.6 mths) had a BRAF mutation. Amongst the 10 paired tumor samples available, IHC markers upregulated in >50% cases were pMEK, pERK, pJun and pJNK, whilst those downregulated/ unchanged in >50% were pKIT, pVEGFR2, CD31 [vascular endothelial cells (ECs)] and podoplanin (lymphatic ECs). The greatest change was observed in podoplanin expression, corresponding to a 60% reduction in lymphatic vessel density. Conclusions: FDG-PET responses in cycle 1 did not predict for regorafenib clinical benefit in mCRC patients. Targeting lymphatic/vascular ECs in the tumor microenvironment may be a more significant antitumor mechanism of regorafenib than MAP kinase pathway inhibition. Clinical trial information: NCT01189903.

Spontaneous bacterial peritonitis is a life-threatening complication of cirrhotic ascites. Optimal patient management depends on the isolation of the causal organism from ascitic fluid. To evaluate culture techniques for the diagnosis of spontaneous bacterial peritonitis, we prospectively compared three blood culture system, the Isolator system, a lysis-centrifugation system, the Septi-Chek system, a biphasic culture system, and a nonvented tryptic soy broth system, all inoculated at the bedside, and our standard method of direct inoculation of specimens after transport to the laboratory onto agar plates and into thioglycolate broth. The results showed that the Septi-Chek and nonvented tryptic soy broth systems each recovered statistically significantly more pathogens than either the Isolator system (P = 0.0084) or the standard method (P = 0.00098). The Isolator system recovered more pathogens than the standard plate method, but this difference was not statistically significant. Both the Isolator system and the standard plate method recovered more contaminating microorganisms than the Septi-Chek or nonvented tryptic soy broth system. The Isolator system required the most processing time compared with the processing times required by any other method.

Background: CMML is a heterogeneous disease with overlapping features of MDS and MPN. Several risk scores have been proposed in CMML, including CPSS (Such Blood 2013) that identifies 4 risk groups (low, intermediate-1 [int-1], int-2 and high risk) with median overall survival (OS) ranging from 12 months to > 5 years. HSCT is the only curative treatment in CMML, with an expected 20-40% post-transplantation OS. Current guidelines, common to MDS and CMML recommend rapidly transplanting higher-risk CMML and delaying transplant in lower-risk disease (de Witte Blood 2017). Retrospective transplant studies have shown better outcome in lower-risk CMML (Liu et al BBMT 2017). Whether this translates into a survival benefit compared to a delayed transplant strategy requires prospective studies. Multistate models based on retrospective data from transplant and non-transplant patients (pts) have addressed similar issues in MDS (Koreth JCO 2013, Della Porta Leukemia 2017). Through a large collaborative study, we address the question of optimal timing for HSCT in CMML patients through a similar large international collaborative study. Method: We retrospectively selected pts from 2 registries: International MDS/MPN Working Group (IWG cohort, Padron Blood Cancer J 2015) and EBMT with the following criteria: WHO-defined CMML, age ≤ 70y, ECOG 0-2, diagnosis after 2000, available CPSS at the time of diagnosis. Different states were considered in higher- (CPSS int-2 and high) and lower- risk (CPSS low/int-1) pts: diagnosis, AML transformation, transplantation and death. IWG data was used to estimate transition probabilities from diagnosis to AML, transplantation and death and from AML to transplantation and death. EBMT data was used for transplantation to death transitions (Figure 1). Results: 719 and 403 pts were identified in the IWG and EMBT registry, respectively (resp). Median age was 64 (range 16-70) in IWG and 58 (19-70) years in EBMT cohort. Patients were male in 69% and 67% of IWG and EBMT cohorts, respectively (resp). CPSS was low in 22% and 13%, int-1 in 31% and 31%, int-2 in 40% and 45% and high in 8% and 11% of the IWG and EBMT pts, resp. In the IWG cohort, the 1 year cumulative incidence of transformation into AML were 7.3% and 18.2% in lower and higher risk patients, resp. Among the 719 pts from IWG, 102 received HSCT. At the time of diagnosis the expected life time of higher risk (int-2 and high) patients was 25.2 months while it was 44.1 months in lower risk (int-1 and low) patients. Table 1 reports gain or loss in expected life time (until 60 months after diagnosis) for transplantation at different intervals from diagnosis (within 6, 12, 18 and 24 months) for patients who have survived and not transformed to AML until the prediction time point, taking into account CPSS at diagnosis. Expected life time is also given separately for higher risk pts after transformation into AML. There was a modest gain of life expectancy with transplantation in higher risk patients (CPSS int-2 and high) while it was not the case in lower risk patients. The survival gain in higher risk pts with HSCT rose from 1.11 at 6 months to 3.4 months at 24 months. There was also a survival benefit of HSCT in higher risk pts who were transformed to AML during their follow-up which was even higher in terms of gain of months: from 9.89 month if HSCT performed within 6 months to 14.25 months if performed within 18 months. Of note, the loss of survival in lower risk patients who underwent HSCT decreased over time: 11.1 months if HSCT is performed within 6 months and 3.7 months if HSCT is performed within 24 months, probably owing to transition to higher-risk CMML at this stage in some pts, a transition that could not be captured in the present dataset. Conclusion: For the first time, using a multistate model, we could provide evidence that the transplant benefit in CMML is restricted to higher-risk pts, in line with findings in MDS and current guidelines. More analyses will be performed to analyze other subgroups of patients, especially regarding their risk (other classification than CPSS, the role of somatic mutation…). More studies are needed to analyze the role of pre HSCT treatment and its potential impact on post-transplant outcome. Disclosures Robin: Novartis Neovii: Research Funding. Beelen:Medac GmbH Wedel Germany: Consultancy, Honoraria. Fenaux:Celgene Corporation: Honoraria, Research Funding; Astex: Honoraria, Research Funding; Jazz: Honoraria, Research Funding; Aprea: Research Funding. Kroeger:Riemser: Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Medac: Honoraria; DKMS: Research Funding; Neovii: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; JAZZ: Honoraria; Sanofi-Aventis: Honoraria. Nazha:Tolero, Karyopharma: Honoraria; MEI: Other: Data monitoring Committee; Novartis: Speakers Bureau; Jazz Pharmacutical: Research Funding; Incyte: Speakers Bureau; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy. Rampal:Agios, Apexx, Blueprint Medicines, Celgene, Constellation, and Jazz: Consultancy; Constellation, Incyte, and Stemline Therapeutics: Research Funding. Finke:Riemser: Honoraria, Other: research support, Speakers Bureau; Neovii: Honoraria, Other: research support, Speakers Bureau; Medac: Honoraria, Other: research support, Speakers Bureau. Komrokji:Agios: Consultancy; DSI: Consultancy; pfizer: Consultancy; celgene: Consultancy; JAZZ: Consultancy; Novartis: Speakers Bureau; JAZZ: Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Consultancy. Killick:JAZZ: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; NOVARTIS: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; ALEXION: Honoraria. Blaise:Molmed: Consultancy, Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; Pierre Fabre medicaments: Honoraria; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria. Garcia-Manero:Amphivena: Consultancy, Research Funding; Helsinn: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Astex: Consultancy, Research Funding; Onconova: Research Funding; H3 Biomedicine: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding. Patnaik:Stem Line Pharmaceuticals.: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Abstract Rigosertib, a novel orally bioavailable small molecule inhibitor of PI3-Kinase and PLK1 pathways, was tested in a phase II study in lower risk (intermediate-1 or low risk per IPSS classification) transfusion-dependent MDS patients. This randomized, two-arm study administered rigosertib (560 mg bid) either intermittently (2 out of 3 weeks) or continuously to transfusion-dependent patients (4 units RBC transfusions over 8 weeks). Erythrocyte stimulating agents (ESAs) were allowed on study. Forty eight patients have been enrolled as of August 2nd, 2013 and another 12 patients will be enrolled. Continuous dosing was stopped after 9 patients due to a higher urinary toxicity resulting in 39 patients receiving intermittent dosing. Overall the drug was well tolerated, except for reversible grade 3 urinary toxicity (dysuria, hematuria, cystitis, and urinary urgency) in 6/48 (12%) patients while 17/48 (35%) experienced grade 2 urinary toxicity. Notably, no significant treatment emergent myelosuppression was evident in these patients. Dosing has been modified to a total daily dose of 840 mg (560 mg am/280 mg afternoon) to improve urinary tolerability. Other measures to manage urinary symptoms include hydration, sodium bicarbonate and dose reduction or interruption. Of 33 patients (3 with del5q) on intermittent dosing treated for at least 8 consecutive weeks, 15 (45%) achieved transfusion independence (TI or no RBC transfusion for at least 8 consecutive weeks) lasting 8 to 53+ weeks (median=17 weeks). Intent-to-treat analysis showed 17/48 (35%) patients achieved TI. Twelve of 15 responding patients were refractory to prior treatment with ESAs. Fourteen of 15 responding patients (11 out of 12 ESA refractory) received concomitant ESAs, suggesting an effect of rigosertib on ESA resistance or potential synergy with ESA. These effects are being explored in additional trials now in planning. There was no obvious correlation of response to karyotype or other classifications. We hypothesized that DNA methylation profiles could help explain the differences between responders and non-responders. Pre-therapy bone marrow mononuclear cells from 32 patients (including 4 from the prior Phase I study previously reported in ASH 2011) were analyzed using the Illumina 450K methylation array platform. Seven had complete response or CR (TI + increase in Hb >2Gm/dL), 10 had partial response or PR (TI without Hb increase) and 15 had no response or NR. Supervised hierarchical clustering by methylation intensity demonstrated a distinct profile associated with complete responders. Bisulfite sequencing (which allows quantification of multiple consecutive CpGs in an amplicon) of several differentially methylated loci confirmed the Illumina 450K data. In general, hypermethylation of a group of genes was associated with responders. Functional annotation of the hypo and hypermethylated genes which best distinguished CRs from NRs showed that the genes most affected by methylation were related to regulation of transcription followed by genes involved in cell-cell adhesion, inflammatory response, apoptosis and proliferation. Additional patient samples are being analyzed to confirm these results. In this interim analysis the observed correlation of hematological response to genomic methylation status suggests the possibility of preselecting patients likely to benefit from treatment with rigosertib. Conclusions Intermittent dosing of oral rigosertib is well tolerated and active in producing transfusion independence in lower risk MDS patients. A genomic methylation signature, once confirmed in prospective studies, may allow pre-selection of responders. Disclosures: Raza: Onconova Therapeutics: Research Funding. Al-Kali:Onconova Therapeutics: Research Funding. Tibes:Onconova Therapeutics: Research Funding. Spitzer:Onconova Therapeutics: Research Funding. Wilhelm:Onconova Therapeutics: Employment, Equity Ownership. Mukherjee:Onconova Therapeutics: Research Funding.

Abstract Background: Patients (pts) withHR-MDS have a median OS of 4 to 6 months (mo) after HMA failure (Prebet et al, J Clin Oncol 2011) and no approved salvage therapy. Development of new therapeutics for this population will benefit from the availability of surrogate endpoints and markers that can predict survival. Gore et al established response to azacitidine (Vidaza®) in first-line therapy for HR-MDS as a reasonable surrogate to predict survival (Gore et al, Haematologica 2013). Rigosertib, a novel dual PI3K/PLK pathway inhibitor, has been shown to reduce bone marrow blasts (BMBL) in these pts (Seetharam et al, Leuk Res 2012). Silverman et al described complete or partial bone marrow (BM) response, or stabilization after 4-8 weeks (wks) of treatment with rigosertib as a potential surrogate for predicting survival in pts with HR-MDS after failure of primary HMA therapy (Silverman et al, Hematol Oncol 2014). We tested this hypothesis in the context of a randomized Phase III trial. Methods:Pts with HR-MDS were randomly assigned 2:1 to rigosertib or best supportive care (BSC) after progressing on, failing to respond to, or relapsing after HMA treatment. BM aspirates were assessed pretreatment, at 4 weeks and at 8-week intervals thereafter. Central slide review was undertaken in a representative population of samples. The BMBL response at each time point was assessed using the following definitions: bone marrow complete response (mCR) = BMBL ≤ 5% and decrease of ≥ 50% from baseline; bone marrow partial response (mPR) = BMBL decrease from baseline of ≥ 50%, but BMBL still > 5%; stable disease (SD) = BMBL decrease or increase from baseline of < 50%; progressive disease (PD) = BMBL increase from baseline of ≥ 50% by an absolute minimum of 5%; Not evaluable (NE). Results:Bone marrow assessment was carried out in 156 patients (pts) on the rigosertib arm and 24 pts on the BSC arm at 4 wks after enrollment, and in 86 and 20 pts, respectively, at 12 wks. The invasive BM procedure was optional on the BSC arm, which accounts for the low number of assessments in this group. BM responses at the 2 time points are presented in Table 1. Since no difference in overall survival was noted between pts who had objective BM response and those who did not progress (ie, stable disease), a landmark analysis was conducted that separated pts who were alive at the 4-wk landmark time into two 4-wk response categories: BM response + SD vs. PD. Results of this analysis in rigosertib-treated patients were statistically significant at p = 0.011, with a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.62 and a median OS (from 4 wks onward) of 9.8 months in the mCR + mPR + SD group vs. 4.6 months in the PD group (Figure 1). Another landmark analysis was conducted at 12-wks. Results of this analysis were also significant (p < 0.001) in rigosertib-treated patients, with an HR of 0.39 and a median OS (from 12 wks onward) of 10.4 months in the mCR + mPR + SD group vs.7.5 months in the PD group (Figure 2). A time-dependent Cox regression of OS by 4-wk BMBL response reinforced the validity of the 4-wk and 12-wk BM assessments as surrogate biomarkers for survival (Table 2). Conclusions: These data suggest that BMBL response at 4 or 12 weeks was correlated with OS in this population of pts with HR-MDS treated with rigosertib after HMA failure and are consistent with previous observations in Phase II studies. Table 1 4- and 12-week Bone Marrow Blast Response (Intention-to-Treat Population) Number (%) of Patients 4-wk BMBL Response 12-wk BMBL Response Rigosertib N = 199 BSC N = 100 Rigosertib N = 199 BSC N = 100 Pts with BMBL assessment 156 (78) 24 (24)* 86 (43) 20 (20)* BM complete response (mCR) 22 4 11 5 BM partial response (mPR) 8 2 9 2 Stable disease (SD) 77 9 32 8 Progressive disease (PD) 49 9 34 5 * Bone marrow assessment was not required on the BSC arm. Figure 1 Figure 1. Figure 2 Figure 2. Table 2 Time-dependent Cox Regression of Overall Survival by Bone Marrow Blast Response Analysis Rigosertib BSC Wald P-value Hazard Ratio (95% Confidence Interval) Wald P-value Hazard Ratio (95% Confidence Interval) By 4-wk BMBL response 0.051 0.72 (0.51 - 1.00) 0.56 0.83 (0.45 - 1.54) By 12-wk BMBL response 0.0005 0.55 (0.39 - 0.77) 0.16 0.68 (0.39 - 1.17) *Stratified by pretreatment BMBL: 5%-19% vs. 20%-30% Disclosures Fenaux: Celgene: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding. Sekeres:Celgene Corp.: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Boehringer Ingelheim: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Wilhelm:Onconova Therapeutics, Inc: Employment, Equity Ownership. Azarnia:Onconova Therapeutics, Inc: Employment.

Abstract Background: No approved treatment options are available to HR-MDS pts after HMA therapy. Study 04-21 (“ONTIME” trial) was a Phase III, randomized, controlled study of the efficacy and safety of rigosertib, a novel small molecule inhibitor of PI3-kinase and PLK pathways, in a heterogeneous population of MDS pts who had relapsed after, failed to respond to, or progressed during administration of HMAs. The study was conducted at 87 sites in the United States and 5 European countries. Methods:From Dec 2010 to Aug 2013, 299 HR-MDS pts [<30% bone marrow blasts (BMBL)] who had progressed on (37% of total enrollment), failed to respond to (25%), or relapsed after (38%) HMA treatment were stratified on BMBL count and randomized 2:1 to receive rigosertib (199 pts) or BSC (100 pts). Rigosertib was administered at 1800 mg/24 hr for 72-hr as a continuous intravenous (CIV) ambulatory infusion, every 2 weeks for the first 16 weeks, and then every 4 weeks. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS), analyzed on an intention-to-treat (ITT) basis using the Kaplan-Meier method stratified on BMBL (5% to 19% vs. 20% to 30%). The trial had a 95% power to detect a 13-wk increase in median OS from 17 wks on BSC, with a 2-sided alpha = 0.05. The following results are based on 242 deaths: 161 in the rigosertib arm and 81 in the BSC arm. Results : Overall, the 2 arms were balanced in terms of baseline characteristics, with the majority of pts being male (66%), and White (82%). Age ranged from 50-90 yrs in the rigosertib arm and 55-86 years in the BSC arm (median, 74 yrs). The majority of pts (85%) had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) score of 0 or 1. The median duration of the last HMA therapy was 8.8 months (mo) in the rigosertib arm and 10.3 mo in the BSC arm; 127 (64%) of rigosertib pts and 57% of BSC pts were classified as “primary HMA failure” (ie, they failed to respond to or progressed during HMA therapy, as defined by Prebet et al, J Clin Oncol, 2011). A 2.3-mo improvement in median OS was found in the overall (ITT) population (8.2 mo rigosertib vs. 5.9 mo BSC) (Figure 1). The ITT survival for rigosertib was similar to that noted in Phase I/II studies (35 weeks). The stratified log-rank p-value was 0.33. The stratified hazard ratio was 0.87, which was quite different from the ratio of medians (5.9/8.2 = 0.72), due to the fact that the 2 survival curves converged at 15 mo. Notably, among the 184 patients with primary HMA failure, the median OS was 8.6 mo in the rigosertib arm (N = 127) vs. 5.3 mo in the BSC arm (N = 57), HR= 0.69, p= 0.040 (Figure 2). Multivariate Cox regression, adjusting for pretreatment prognostic factors, showed little change in the treatment effect. The following subgroups were correlated with better OS: pts with failure of/progression on HMA treatment, pts with duration of HMA treatment ≤ 9 mo, pts < 75 years of age, and pts with very high risk per IPSS-R (Figure 3). Rigosertib was well tolerated, with a median dose intensity of 92%. There were no significant compliance or operations issues related to ambulatory continuous infusion. Protocol-defined dose reductions were reported in 5% of pts, with 24% experiencing dose delays of >7 days, mostly due to unrelated adverse events (AEs). No obvious differences between rigosertib and BSC were found in the incidence of AEs (rigosertib, 99%; BSC, 85%) or of ≥ Grade 3 AEs (rigosertib, 79%; BSC, 68%). In the rigosertib arm, AEs reported by ≥ 20% of pts, irrespective of severity or causality, were nausea (35%), diarrhea (33%), constipation (31%), fatigue (30%), fever (27%), anemia (22%), and peripheral edema (21%). Rigosertib had low myelotoxicity, consistent with previous clinical experience. Conclusions:Although the primary endpoint in this Phase III study of rigosertib vs BSC in pts with HR-MDS did not reach statistical significance in the ITT population, encouraging rigosertib treatment-related improvement in OS was noted in several subgroups of MDS pts, including those with “primary HMA failure and in patients in the IPSS-R Very High Risk category. CIV therapy with rigosertib had a favorable safety profile in this orphan population of elderly pts with MDS. Figure 1 Figure 1. Figure 2 Figure 2. Figure 3 Figure 3. Disclosures Fenaux: Celgene: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding. Sekeres:Celgene Corp.: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Boehringer Ingelheim: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Roboz:Novartis: Consultancy; Agios: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Glaxo SmithKline: Consultancy; Astra Zeneca: Consultancy; Sunesis: Consultancy; Teva Oncology: Consultancy; Astex: Consultancy. Wilhelm:Onconova Therapeutics, Inc: Employment, Equity Ownership. Wilhelm:Onconova Therapeutics, Inc: Employment. Azarnia:Onconova Therapeutics, Inc: Employment. Maniar:Onconova Therapeutics, Inc: Employment.

Microsporidiosis is an emerging opportunistic infection in immunocompromised patients. We report a case of fatal disseminated Anncaliia algerae infection in a profoundly immunosuppressed pancreas and kidney transplant recipient.

Abstract Background Cachexia has significant impact on the patients' quality of life and prognosis. It is frequently observed in patients with cancer, especially in advanced stages, but prevalence data for the overall population are lacking. Good quality estimates of cancer cachexia in general and for each of the major cancer types would be highly relevant for potential treatment development efforts in this field. Both the USA and European Union (EU) have implemented special clinical development rules for such rare disorders what are called ‘orphan diseases’. The cut‐off level for a disease to be considered an orphan disease in the USA is 200 000 people (0.06% of the population) and EU is 5 per 10 000 people (0.05% of the population). Methods For this systematic review, we searched at PubMed (from inception to 31 January 2018) to identify clinical studies that assessed the prevalence of cachexia in cancer patients at risk. Studies reporting the prevalence of either cancer cachexia or wasting disease in the top‐10 cancer types and 4 other selected cancer types known to be particularly commonly complicated by cachexia were included in this analysis (i.e. prostate cancer, breast cancer, colorectal cancer, melanoma, endometrial cancer, thyroid cancer, urinary bladder cancer, non‐hodgkin lymphoma, lung cancer, kidney and renal pelvis cancer, head and neck cancer, gastric cancer, liver cancer, and pancreatic cancer). We calculated the current burden of cancer cachexia, disease by disease, in the USA and in the EU and compared them to the current guidelines for the definition of orphan disease status. Results We estimate that in 2014 in the USA, a total of 527 100 patients (16.5 subjects per 10 000 people of the total population), and in 2013 in the EU, a total of 800 300 patients (15.8 subjects per 10 000 people of the total population) suffered from cancer cachexia (of any kind). In the 14 separately analysed cancer types, the prevalence of cancer cachexia in the USA ranged between 11 300 (0.4/10 000, gastric cancer) and 92 000 patients (2.9/10 000, lung cancer) and in the EU between 14 300 (0.3/10 000, melanoma of the skin) and 150 100 (3.0/10 000, colorectal cancer). Conclusions The absolute number of patients affected by cancer cachexia in each cancer group is lower than the defined thresholds for orphan diseases in the USA and EU. Cancer cachexia in each subgroup separately should be considered an orphan disease.