Citations

87 Background: The increasing demand for specialist palliative care (PC) in cancer care requires an available and responsive clinical workforce. But as the volume of work expands, PC providers face an increased risk of burnout, characterized by depersonalization and work-related emotional exhaustion. The prevalence and predictors of burnout among PC providers is poorly understood. Methods: Members of the American Academy of Hospice and Palliative Medicine (e.g. advanced practice provider, registered nurses, chaplains) completed the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI) via electronic survey in the second half of 2013; respondents were recruited via e-mail, blog and Facebook posts, and Twitter tweets. The MBI determine burnout severity across two domains, Emotional Exhaustion (EE) and Depersonalization (DP). Severity is reported as “low”, “moderate”, or “high”; “high” is consistent with burnout. Demographic and work-related variables associated with burnout in other studies were determined via stepwise logistic regression. Results: We received surveys from 1,241 clinicians. We estimated a response rate of 30%. 68% of respondents were physicians. Most respondents were over age 50 (57%), female (65%), were married or partnered (82%) and had worked in the field for less than 10 years (67%). 42% took overnight call regularly, 30% reported working 50 hours per week or more, and 57% had at least 4 colleagues. Regarding burnout, 24% reported high DP, 59% reported high EE, and 62% of reported high burnout symptoms on either EE or DP scales. In logistic regression, younger physicians, those working more than 50 hours per work, and those with fewer colleagues within their practice were at greatest risk of burnout (p<0.02). Conclusions: PC clinicians report a burnout rate of 62%. Even with the limitations of our methods and potentially biased sampling, this prevalence is remarkable and higher than data reported in medical oncology (45%). Burnout severity is associated with working in isolation and working longer hours. Further studies on how burnout affects sustainability of the PC workforce are needed, especially since this workforce is so critical to the provision of high quality cancer care.

61 Background: Patients with cancer often have complex symptoms and morbidity that prompt frequent Emergency Department visits. The length of stay in the ED for cancer patients exceeds that of patients without cancer. Patients with cancer are also more likely to be admitted, but are often discharged within 72h. Protracted ED visits, extensive investigations, and the burdens of even a short admission may be distressing and may not be aligned with patients’ care goals and preferences. Furthermore, the healthcare resources dedicated to these patients is considerable and has economic implications. We recently established a Supportive Care Infusion Center (SCIC), an on-campus outpatient unit where patients can receive treatments for symptom relief and comfort; they are assured integrated palliative care with routine oncologic care. We believe there is a subset of cancer patients who can be safely transferred from the ED to the SCIC for appropriate care. Methods: We are retrospectively evaluating cancer patients admitted through the ED to validate clinical parameters likely to lead to admission, and also identify any differences between patients admitted for <72h vs >72h. Patients are analyzed based on symptoms, cancer type, prior cancer therapies, performance status, comorbidities, and presence/absence of advance care planning as well as previous contact with Palliative Care. Data are also being gathered on patient outcomes, including mortality within 60d of admission. Results: Previously established indicators predictive of admission included shortness of breath and SIRS criteria, which our current review validates. We also observe that patients admitted for >72h have greater symptom burden and comorbidities and have received multiple lines of therapy. They also less frequently have advance care planning in place. Data analysis is ongoing. Conclusions: There exists a difference between cancer patients admitted >72h and those discharged within 72h. Awareness of these characteristics may lead to improved workflow in the ED. Identifying patients who may be suitable for transfer to an outpatient supportive care unit rather than short-term admission will also facilitate cost-effectiveness. Future direction includes evaluation of outcomes such as mortality, quality of life, and patient-caregiver satisfaction.

274 Background: The objectives of the formative research were to identify key themes of patient-centered cancer care and determine the best method to collect data to develop the CAHPS Survey for Cancer Care Prototype. This survey seeks to measure aspects of care most important to patients and allow comparisons of those aspects across treatment centers and treatment modalities. Methods: We developed a library of 1,781 items from CAHPS and cancer care surveys. We conducted 14 focus groups with patients (including 2 conducted in Spanish) who had received cancer care in the past 12 months, and 2 focus groups involving family members of cancer patients. We met with 10 experts representing patients and survivors, or who had expertise in quality improvement, oncology, shared decision-making and patient safety to obtain feedback on the development of the survey, potential markets for the instrument, and to assist with overall strategy. Finally, we conducted separate interviews with 5 stakeholder groups representing oncology associations to obtain feedback on focal provider, attribution and sampling. Results: While the focus group results validated findings from the item library, new concepts also emerged, such as the need for having a plan of care. Patients most readily identified with a team of providers, rather than a single provider. The two most important domains to patients were (1) how well the cancer care team communicates with patients and (2) whether the cancer care team keeps patients informed about cancer treatment. Patients were also interested in care coordination, access to information, providers who are up-to-date, and shared decision-making. Stakeholder interviews noted that survey results would be most valuable if presented by treatment modality: medical, radiation, and surgical oncology. Conclusions: These findings suggest that cancer care is best for the patient when providers are knowledgeable and straightforward with medical information, yet can demonstrate empathy and compassion.

86 Background: Phyllodes tumors (PT) are rare breast neoplasms confounding their systematic study and evidence-based management guidelines. There is little data on the sensitivity of preoperative core needle biopsy (CNB) and imaging findings in establishing a correct preoperative diagnosis. We undertook this study to evaluate the sensitivity of CNB histologic findings and imaging findings in preoperatively categorizing tumors as benign or borderline/malignant. Methods: We identified 47 patients who underwent surgical resection of a PT at our institution after a preoperative CNB between 6/2000-3/2012. Statistical analysis utilized Wilcoxon rank-sum, chi-square or Fisher’s exact tests, and 95% confidence intervals (CI) are reported. Results: 30 patients had a final diagnosis of benign and 17 of borderline/malignant PT. The latter were significantly more often palpable (76.5% vs 36.7%, p=0.01). No other clinical or radiologic feature predicted borderline/malignant subtype, although irregular shape on US was suggestive (70.6% vs 44.8%, p= 0.09). CNB diagnosis by tumor type is summarized in the table. No benign PT had ≥10 mitoses, necrosis or marked stromal atypia on CNB. No case with absent mitoses on preoperative CNB was a borderline/malignant PT; however 77% of benign PT did exhibit mitoses on CNB. Sensitivity of CNB for PT overall was 48.9% (95% CI: 35.3-62.8%) while it was 40% (24.6-57.7%) for benign PT and 17.6% (6.2-41.0%) for borderline/malignant PT. Conclusions: Marked stromal atypia, ≥10 mitoses and necrosis were rare on CNB, but suggestive of malignancy. No imaging or histology feature reliably distinguished between tumor types. Over one-third of borderline/malignant PT had a preoperative CNB diagnosis of fibroadenoma or cellular fibroepithelial lesion emphasizing the low sensitivity of CNB and the need for judicious consideration of definitive surgical excision. [Table: see text]

36 Background: Black race is associated with worse outcomes in localized breast cancer. We evaluated the characteristics of patients enrolled in the Trial Assigning Individualized Options for Treatment (TAILORx) by race and ethnicity. Methods: The analysis included 10,071 evaluable patients with Recurrence Score (RS) data. Eligibility criteria included: (1) T1-2, N0 disease, (2) estrogen receptor (ER) and/or progesterone receptor (PR) positive disease that was also HER2/neu negative, (3) age 75 years or younger and medically appropriate for adjuvant systemic chemotherapy. Results: The study population included 8,501 whites (84%), 722 blacks (7%), 423 Asians (4%), and the remainder other/unknown race. With regard to ethnicity, 7,916 were nonHispanic (79%), 919 were Hispanic (9%), and 1,236 were of unreported ethnicity (12%). There was no significant difference in RS distribution (p = 0.14), median RS (17 vs. 17), and mean RS (19.6 vs. 18.4) in blacks compared with nonblacks. There was likewise no difference in Hispanic vs. nonHispanic ethnicity for RS distribution (p = 0.53), median RS (17 vs. 17), and mean RS (18.6 vs. 18.4). Blacks were significantly more likely to be younger (39% vs. 30% < 50 years), have larger tumors (37% vs. 31% > 2 cm), poor histologic grade (25% vs. 17%), and PR-negative disease (14% vs. 10%) (Chi square test p < 0.05). Hispanic women were also significantly younger (39% vs. 30% < 50 years), and demonstrated marginal but statistically significant differences in tumor size (65% vs. 69% > 2 cm), histologic grade (20% vs. 18% poor), and PR expression (12% vs. 10% negative) (Chi square test < 0.05). In 974 patients with information on body mass index (BMI), there was no correlation between BMI and RS (r = -0.04). BMI was higher for blacks than whites (medians 31.6 vs. 28.9, p = 0.02, Wilcoxon test), but not in Hispanics. Conclusions: In patients selected for participation in TAILORx there were no significant differences in RS by race, ethnicity, and BMI. Black and Hispanic patients were significantly younger, and blacks had tumors that were larger and more likely to be associated with poor grade. Clinical trial information: NCT00310180.

3 Background: Atypical ductal hyperplasia (ADH) is a high-risk breast lesion usually diagnosed with core needle biopsy. Although upgraded to cancer at surgical excision in ~15 to 25% of cases, routine excision is questioned due to cost and overtreatment. We evaluated clinical, imaging, and histologic features associated with cancer upgrade and developed a multivariate model to predict risk of upgrade. Methods: With IRB approval a single institution retrospective review was performed of patients who underwent surgical excision of ADH diagnosed by core biopsy from 06/2005 to 06/2013. Review was performed of electronic records, breast imagin,g and biopsy slides. Multiple imputations were used for missing data. Association of cancer upgrade with various features was assessed with logistic regression. Results: 409 biopsies with ADH on core biopsy, with later surgical excision, were included. The overall upgrade rate was (16.1%, 95% CI:12.9-20.0%); 10 patients had invasive cancer at excision and 56 DCIS only. Features on core biopsy most strongly associated with upgrade were imaging estimated percent of lesion removed (upgrade 9% for 90% removed, 14% for 50 to 75%, and 27% for < 50% removed), individual cell necrosis (upgrade 34% with necrosis vs. 9.5% without), and # foci of ADH (22% for >1 focus vs 8% for 1 focus). A multivariate predictive model (see Table) showed an average C-statistic of 0.77. Women with no necrosis and either 1 focus with ≥ 50% removal or >1 focus with 90% removal (36% of the sample) have low risk of upgrade (5.0%, 95% CI:1.3-8.7%). Conclusions: ADH on core biopsy with low risk of upgrade to cancer is defined by percent of imaging lesion removed, # of foci of ADH, and lack of individual cell necrosis. If findings are validated, women whose biopsies meet low-risk criteria might be considered for chemoprevention and surveillance rather than surgical excision.[Table: see text]

25 Background: Women with diabetes are at an increased risk of developing breast cancer, present with later stage disease, and experience higher breast cancer-specific mortality compared to nondiabetic women. Thus, it is imperative that diabetic women undergo routine screening mammography. Previous studies have shown conflicting results with smaller studies showing lower screening mammography rates among diabetics while a study using national self-report data showed that diabetic women were equally likely to be screened compared to nondiabetic women. Given the conflicting data and limitations of previous studies, we aimed to study receipt of mammography in diabetic women using a nationally representative administrative claims database. Methods: This was a retrospective study using a nationally representative administrative claims database from January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2012. We compared rates of receipt of mammography within a 2-year time frame in diabetic and nondiabetic women ages 40 to 64. We used Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set (HEDIS) logic to define women with diabetes. We used CPT and ICD-9 codes to identify mammogram services received. We calculated odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals to compare mammogram rates among diabetics compared to nondiabetics. Results: 1,723,674 nondiabetic women and 133,973 diabetic women were identified. Among women ages 40 to 49, diabetic women had significantly decreased mammography rates compared to nondiabetic women (OR 0.84; 95% CI 0.83, 0.85). Rates were also lower in diabetic women ages 50 to 64 (OR 0.88; 95% CI 0.88, 0.91). Despite lower mammography rates among diabetics, diabetic women had 1.78 times more visits than nondiabetic women. Conclusions: Women with diabetes are less likely to undergo routine screening mammography than women without diabetes, despite having more encounters with health care providers. This study serves as a reminder to provide timely preventive health services to all patients regardless of medical comorbidities.

97 Background: A diagnosis of EC significantly impairs patient (pt)’s survival and quality of life (QoL). We explored the relationship between pt-assessed QoL and survival. Methods: The Mayo Clinic Romero (formerly Esophageal Adenocarcinoma-Barrett's Esophagus) Registry prospectively collects clinical data during a pt's treatment course. QoL is recorded at enrollment (baseline) and annually using a validated 12-item Linear Analog Self-Assessment (LASA). A 10-pt scale is applied; ≤5 was termed clinically deficient QoL. Initial TNM staging, clinical (age, sex, prior chemotherapy, and esophagectomy), and socioeconomic variables (marital/employment status) were analyzed using Cox proportional hazards regression models. Results: 836 pts were analyzed. Median age was 64 years. 166, 506 and 164 pts had early, locally advanced, and metastatic EC, with 5-year survival rates of 75.1%, 33.6%, and 8.1%, respectively (P≤.0001). Poorer survival rates were seen in clinically QoL deficient pts in the following categories: Overall QoL (Hazard Ratio [H.R.] 0.66; 95% C.I., 0.54-0.80; P≤.0001) and LASA subsets for physical (H.R. 0.68; 95% C.I., 0.57-0.82; P≤.0001), emotional well-being (H.R. 0.69; C.I., 0.57-0.84; P=.0003), and social activity (H.R. 0.76; C.I., 0.63-0.91; P=.0028). No difference in survival was observed for marital or employment status, familial support, and financial/legal concerns. Pts with esophagectomy prior to LASA evaluation had improved survival (H.R. 0.68; 95% C.I., 0.55-0.85; P=.0005). No survival difference was observed whether pts received chemotherapy, before or after their baseline LASA evaluation. Conclusions: A strong association exists between pt’s overall survival and better overall QOL, physical, emotional well-being, and social activities. Using LASA to clinically monitor QoL at specified intervals may afford providers the opportunity to intervene when patients begin to experience QoL decline. The determinants of clinically deficit QoL and its impact on survival warrant further translational and prospective research.

584 Background: Standard therapy for stage II/III rectal cancer includes surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy. Multiple trials demonstrated neoadjuvant chemoradiation (CRT) provides better local control and decreased morbidity compared to adjuvant CRT, though differences in overall survival and long-term QoL have not been demonstrated. We examined impact of treatment (pre-op CRT/post-op CRT/no CRT) on long-term QoL. Methods: CanCORS patients with survey/medical record data diagnosed in 2003-2005 with stage II/III rectal (non-rectosigmoid) cancer had resection and survived > 7 years were included. QoL (SF-36, EQ-5D) measures and defecation problems were derived from surveys at 14 months and 7 years post-diagnosis. Mean scores were adjusted for the following when significant: age, gender, stage, sphincter preservation, comorbidities, and baseline self-reported health status and QoL scores. Results: Of 119 patients, 53% received pre-op CRT, 23% post-op CRT, and 24% no CRT. Of 114 patients with 14-month follow-up, Pre-op CRT and No CRT groups had better EQ-5D adjusted mean scores but worse defecation scale (DS) scores compared to the Post-op CRT group. Of 49 disease-free survivors with 7 years follow-up, there were no differences among groups in QoL scores, but the No CRT group had better DS scores than other groups. Conclusions: No major differences were detected in long-term QoL based on treatment aside from the DS, though sample sizes became small. Regardless of treatment, long term (7y) mental health and vitality were generally comparable to U.S. norms, while physical health and overall health status (EQ-5D) were somewhat lower. [Table: see text]

551 Background: Sorafenib inhibits various pro-angiogenesis pathways including PDGFR-B, a factor associated with resistance to anti-VEGF therapy. A previous phase II trial in patients with chemorefractory metastatic CRC demonstrated a 63% disease control rate with a combination of bevacizumab (BEV) and sorafenib. This phase I trial sought to determine the MTD of BEV and sorafenib combined with standard cytotoxic therapy for advanced gastrointestinal (GI) cancers. Methods: Patients with advanced GI malignancies appropriate for irinotecan-based therapy were enrolled (14 with CRC, 3 gastroesophageal). A standard 3 + 3 design was used with 3 escalating sorafenib dose levels (DL): (1) 200 mg po daily, days 3-7, 10-14; (2) 200 mg po twice daily, days 3-6, 10-13; and (3) 200 mg po twice daily, days 3-7, 10-14. FOLFIRI: irinotecan 180 mg/m2 d1, leucovorin 400 mg/m2 d1, 5-fluorouracil (FU) bolus 400 mg/m2 d1, 5-FU infusion 2400 mg/m2d1-2 and BEV 5 mg/kg d1. 1 cycle = 14 days. Results: Seventeen pts were enrolled, median age of 56 (range 32 and 81). Two pts were replaced, as they did not complete DLT evaluation, leaving 15 evaluable pts. Four evaluable pts at DL1 and 6 pts at DL2 had no DLTs. At DL 3, the first cohort of 3 pts did not experience any DLTs. In the second cohort of 3 pts, 2 pts experienced DLTs (asymptomatic G3 hypophosphatemia, G3 dehydration and diarrhea). MTD was determined to be DL2: sorafenib 200 mg PO twice daily, days 3-6, 10-13 combined with FOLFIRI and BEV at standard doses. Of the 15 evaluable pts, 4 pts had PR, 8 pts had SD as best response, 1 pt had PD, and 2 pts discontinued treatment prior to first tumor assessment. The median number of cycles was 10 (range 1-37). Three pts with CRC had disease control > 12 months. Conclusions: The MTD of this regimen is sorafenib 200 mg PO twice daily, days 3-6,10-13 combined with standard doses of FOLFIRI and BEV. Dual VEGF inhibition combined with cytotoxic therapy may provide prolonged disease stabilization for select patients with advanced GI malignancies. Supported by CA69912 and CA15083. Clinical trial information: NCT01383343.