Citations

297 Background: Unlike acute lymphoblastic leukemia, no studies have examined the effect of race on survival among AML in AYA using national data. Methods: We studied patients in the US National Cancer Data Base aged 15-39 diagnosed with AML from 2001-2011 (excluding acute promyelocytic leukemia). AMLs harboring inv(16) or t(8;21) were defined as good-risk. We examined overall survival (OS) according to race/ethnicity and survival trends over three time-periods: 2001-2004, 2005-2008, and 2009-2011. Results: We identified 8,986 patients, with a mean follow-up of 37 months. The median OS according to race/ethnicity was 56, 49, 41, and 22 months for Asians/Pacific Islanders (A/PI), Hispanics, Whites, and Blacks respectively (P < 0.001). OS improved over time among Whites only, with respective median OS of 31, 43, and 49 months (P < 0.001). Multivariate analysis adjusting for socio-demographics, travel distance, and AML type, showed that, compared to Whites, Blacks had a significantly worse and Hispanics a significantly better OS (Table). Conclusions: We found significant disparities in OS among racial/ethnic subgroups in AYA with AML despite adjustment for socio-demographic factors. Blacks had the worse and Hispanics the best outcome. In the past decade, OS improved only among the Whites. Further studies should examine provider and patient care delivery factors that may contribute to these disparities. [Table: see text]

284 Background: MM is an uncommon cancer with annual incidence of only 27,000 cases in the US. Our study determined the extent to which the number of MM patients treated annually in a treatment facility affected all-cause mortality. Methods: We used the National Cancer Data Base (NCDB) to identify adult patients with MM diagnosed from 2003-2011. NCDB is sourced from over 1,500 Commission on Cancer-accredited cancer registries representing 70% of cancer cases in the US. We classified treatment facilities by quartiles based on facility volume (mean patients/year): Quartile 1 (Q1: < 3.6), Quartile 2 (Q2: 3.6-6.1), Quartile 3 (Q3: 6.1-10.3) and Quartile 4 (Q4: > 10.3). We used hot deck imputation to account for missing data, Cox regression to analyze the association between facility volume and time-to-death, and random intercepts to adjust for multiple patients per facility. Results: There were 94,722 MM patients cared for at 1,333 facilities. Most patients (73.5%) were diagnosed and treated in the same facility. The median age at diagnosis was 67 years and 54.7% were males. The median annual facility volume was 6.1 patients/year (IQR: 3.6-10.3; range: 0.2-109.9). The distribution of patients according to facility volume was Q1 (5.2%), Q2 (12.6%), Q3 (21.9%) and Q4 (60.3%). The unadjusted median overall survival by facility volume was: Q1: 26.9 months, Q2: 29.1 months, Q3: 31.9 months and Q4: 49.1 months. After multivariable analysis adjusting for demographic (sex, age, race, ethnicity), socioeconomic (income, education, insurance type), geographic (area of residence, treatment facility location), co-morbidity (Charlson-Deyo score), and disease-specific (year of diagnosis) factors, we show that facility volume remains an independent predictor of all-cause mortality. Compared to patients treated at Q4 facilities, patients treated at lower quartile facilities had a higher risk of death (Q3 HR: 1.16 [95% CI, 1.12-1.20]; Q2: 1.21 [1.17-1.26]; Q1: 1.27 [1.22-1.34]). We observed an inverse volume-outcome relationship up to an annual facility volume of approximately 60 patients. Conclusions: MM patients treated at higher volume facilities had lower risk of mortality compared to those treated at lower volume facilities.

270 Background: At the 2013 ASCO Quality Symposium, we presented the formative development work and results of the 1st field test of the Cancer CAHPS survey. At that time, we noted next steps in the development and validation of the survey. In this poster/presentation, we will provide updates on these activities. Methods: The Spanish translation was completed in 2013. We conducted interviews with 9 cancer patients in 2014 to identify composite labels that resonated with consumers. We collaborated with diverse cancer care providers (health maintenance organizations, medical foundations, small oncology practices, and comprehensive cancer centers) to identify an approach to sampling patients that could be standardized across settings. With the input of stakeholders, we added additional Shared Decision Making (SDM) and Access to Care questions. Data on the revised survey were collected in a 2nd field test from May 2015 – November 2015. We will analyze these data to assess the feasibility of the sampling approach and confirm the psychometric properties of the survey. We embedded several secondary experiments in the 2nd field test including assessing the effect of language (Spanish vs. English) and mode of administration (mail only vs. web-mail mixed mode) on survey responses. Results: The Spanish-language survey is currently being fielded. Consumers identified “user friendly” composite labels, abbreviated here as Communicates well, SDM, Explains treatment, Supports self-management, Access, Delays, and Claims. We developed a comprehensive sampling approach that relies on billing data to identify cancer patient eligible to receive the survey. Preliminary findings indicate that the standardized sampling approach is feasible. The survey was administered to 3,581 patients across 4 cancer centers (i.e. reporting units) in the 2nd field test. Results of the psychometric analyses and embedded experiments will be completed in December 2015 and available for dissemination in January 2016. Conclusions: The cumulative findings from the 1st and 2nd field tests and other development activities conducted to date will be used to support an application for the CAHPS trademark.

75 Background: The focus of palliative radiotherapy (RT) is on improving quality of life (QOL) for patients with serious illnesses by eliminating or decreasing physical symptoms. The importance of assessing distress levels in palliative care patients is recognized due to the relevance of QOL, as treatment is given to provide symptom-relief rather than curative results. We sought to identify the most common causes of patient reported distress during palliative RT. Methods: Retrospective review was performed for patients who received palliative RT from 11/1/2012 to 6/4/2015 for various types of metastatic cancer at our institution. All patients completed a Patient Reported Distress (PRD) questionnaire with 30 specific questions and an overall distress thermometer prior to beginning treatment. The PRD survey quantified 30 areas of current concern ranging in patient-reported values from 1 to 5 in addition to a linear analog measure from 0 to 10 of overall reported distress in the last month. Results: Completed PRD surveys were available for a total of 297 patients, 149 (50.2%) female and 148 (49.8%) male. All patients were undergoing external beam radiation therapy for treatment of metastatic disease. 49 (16%) received chemotherapy and 46 (9%) underwent surgery. Overall distress ranged from 0 to 10, with a median of 5.0. The mean distress scores for the top five concerns ranged from 1.4 to 2.7. Top distresses were “Fatigue” (2.7), “Pain that affects daily functioning” (2.6), “How will I feel during treatment” (2.5), “Sleep difficulties” (2.4), and “Out of pocket medical costs” (2.3). Least troubling symptoms were “Transportation” (1.4), “A loved one relying on me for their physical care” (1.5), “My job” (1.5), “Housing during treatment” (1.5), “Spirituality” (1.5), and “Anger” (1.5). Conclusions: Patients demonstrated concern for distress related to interruption of activities of normal life, such as tiredness and insomnia, pain, and overall burdens from treatment. Medical costs were also a major concern. Importantly, housing and transportation were not issues in the current study but could be of concern in other regions. Providers should be aware that patients’ primary concerns may not be directly related to the symptom being palliated.

65 Background: Cholangiocarcinoma (CC) accounts for approximately 3% of all gastrointestinal cancers and have a poor incident to mortality rate. The incidence in the United States (US) is 2,000-3,000 cases annually, with this rate steadily increasing during the last twenty years; this trend is not solely observed in US but also seen in Europe, Australia and Japan. The highest incidence is seen in Southeast Asia due to parasitic infection. CC presents many challenges to healthcare professionals due to the anatomic nature of CC (Lowe et al, 2015). The worldwide increase in incidence of CC is indication for the essential development of nursing practice guidelines underpinned by expert evidence and knowledge and regarding the key aspects of care. Methods: A collaboration of nursing professionals representing major cancer research institutions from around the country and the United Kingdom worked together to identify key aspects of care, the aim being to develop Clinical Nursing Practice Guidelines. The process included an exhaustive literature review using Pubmed, Uptodate, Medline, and CINAHL databases; submission of respective institutional practices; group consensus on guideline content, evidence-based scoring assignment and approval by the Cholangiocarcinoma Medical Advisory Board. Results: The guidelines developed include the care of the patient: (1) with external biliary drains and internal bile duct stents, (2) with intractable nausea and vomiting resulting from disease process, (3) with fatigue resulting from disease process, (4) undergoing chemotherapy, (5) undergoing photon radiation, (6) undergoing radiation on a clinical trial, and (7) preparing for liver transplantation. The purpose of the guidelines are to advance the scientific knowledge of the symptoms experienced, quality of life of patients with CCA, establish standards in patient care, and improve quality of care and satisfaction for patients diagnosed with CC. Conclusions: Creation of evidence-based guidelines will provide a springboard for expanded competent knowledge and a model to test for improvement in the care and quality of life of the patient with CC.

226 Background: Patients undergoing cancer treatment often need support from an informal caregiver to help manage symptoms. Self-efficacy (SE) in caregiving refers to confidence in being able to care for the patient’s needs. Low SE has been associated with increased caregiver burden and mental health symptoms, which in turn, can affect the quality of informal care provided. The objective of this study was to examine the relationship between caregiver training received from cancer care providers and SE in caregivers of patients with colorectal cancer (CRC). Methods: Caregivers of CRC patients diagnosed in 2009 were invited to complete a self-administered questionnaire. Caregivers were asked about specific patient problems (pain, bowel, fatigue, medications, and other). Caregiver perceptions of training adequacy and SE were assessed on a problem specific basis. The patient’s stage of disease was obtained from cancer registry data. Associations between training and SE were examined for each problem using multivariate logistic regression and adjusted for age, relationship to patient, race, care burden, level of education, stage of disease, perception of patient’s health, and general confidence as a caregiver. Results: 417 caregivers completed the survey (70% response rate), of whom 374 (90%) were female and 284 (68%) were the patient’s spouse/partner. The number of caregivers reporting inadequate training for CRC-related problems were pain 77 (38%), bowel 80 (38%), fatigue 121 (48%), medication 65 (26%), and other 101 (40%). The odds of having low SE were significantly higher among those with perceptions of inadequate training across the following CRC-related problems: pain, 10.10 (3.36, 30.39); bowel, 5.04 (1.98, 12.82); fatigue, 8.45 (3.22, 22.15); managing medications, 9.00 (3.30, 24.51); and other, 3.87 (1.68, 8.93). Conclusions: This study showed a significant association between caregiver training and SE in a cross-sectional study. Given that the perception of inadequate training among caregivers was common, further exploration of the longitudinal impact of training on caregiver SE should be done to identify interventions to help improve the experience of cancer caregivers.

225 Background: Recent guidelines promote simultaneous palliative care with active treatment for advanced/metastatic cancers, including interventions addressing all quality of life (QOL) domains. Dignity Therapy (DT) is an intervention demonstrating promising outcomes at end of life. It has not been offered earlier to cancer patients nor paired with a Life Plan (LP) intervention. The purpose of this phase I/II feasibility study was to determine the feasibility, acceptability and selected patient-reported outcomes (PROs) of the Dignity Therapy/Life Plan intervention and pilot study methods in advanced pancreatic cancer patients pursuing chemotherapy. Methods: DT is a brief psychotherapeutic intervention consisting a focused life review/values clarification delivered during 3 outpatient oncology clinic visits. Interviews were audiotaped, transcribed, and edited to produce a Generativity Document, which the patient can later share with family. Life Plan is a type of “bucket list”, where patients document future hopes/dreams. Feasibility was evaluated, distress measured with the Distress Thermometer (0-10 scale) and QOL measured with the Linear Analogue Self Assessment (LASA, 0-10 scale). Baseline scores of distress and QOL were compared with scores after the intervention, 4-6 weeks later (Time 2 [T2]). Results: Ten pancreatic adenocarcinoma patients enrolled, mean age 63. Two-thirds of those recruited enrolled; 90% completed all study procedures. Two-thirds were satisfied/very satisfied with DT/LP, and 78% found study participation worthwhile, DT/LP timing to be just right and would recommend DT/LP to others. QOL improved (baseline mean = 7.0; T2 = 7.25). Distress scores improved (Baseline mean = 6.13; T2 = 5.63). Conclusions: Distress and QOL modestly improved from baseline to T2. Baseline scores were collected before patients had begun any chemotherapy, therefore any improvements while undertaking aggressive chemotherapy are noteworthy. Participants felt the intervention was acceptable and better than they had expected. Conducting DT/LP in an outpatient oncology setting for newly diagnosed pancreatic cancer patients is both feasible and acceptable. Outcomes are encouraging for future larger scale trials. Clinical trial information: NCT02132325.

176 Background: The purpose of the study was to determine the effectiveness of olanzapine (OLN) for the prevention of nausea and vomiting in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC). Methods: A randomized, double-blind, phase III trial was performed in chemotherapy-naïve patients receiving cisplatin, > 70 mg/m2, or cyclophosphamide-anthracycline-based chemotherapy, comparing OLN to placebo in combination with aprepitant (APR), a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist (5-HT3), and dexamethasone (DEX). The OLN regimen was 10 mg of oral OLN, 125 mg APR, a 5-HT3, and oral DEX 12 mg pre-chemotherapy, day 1, and 10 mg/day of oral OLN and 8 mg DEX on days 2-4 post-chemotherapy plus 80 mg APR on days 2, 3 post-chemotherapy. The placebo (PLA) regimen was oral placebo, pre-chemotherapy, day 1, and on days 2-4 post-chemotherapy; the APR, 5-HT3, and DEX pre- and post-chemotherapy were identical to that used in the OLN regimen. Fosaprepitant (150 mg IV), day 1 was allowed for substitution for the oral aprepitant. Palonosetron, ondansetron, or granisetron were the permitted 5-HT3 options. Nausea was measured on a 0-10 visual analogue scale, with 0 being “no nausea at all” and 10 being “nausea as bad as it can be”. No nausea was the primary endpoint and, complete response (no emesis and no use of rescue medications) was a secondary endpoint. Results: 401 patients (202 OLN, 199 PLA) were enrolled in the study. The proportion of patients who had no nausea was significantly greater for the OLN regimen compared to the PLA regimen for the acute period (24h post-chemotherapy) (74% vs. 45%, p < 0.0006), for the delayed period ( 24-120 h post-chemotherapy) (43% vs. 26%, p < 0.0006), and for the overall period (0-120 h) (39% vs. 22%, p < 0.0006). Complete response was significantly improved for the OLN patients compared to PLA patients for the acute (85% vs. 65%, p < 0.0001), the delayed (67% vs. 53%, p < 0.0078), and the overall periods (64% vs. 41%, p < 0.0001). There were no grade 3 or 4 toxicities. Conclusions: No nausea, the primary endpoint, and complete response, a secondary endpoint, were significantly improved with OLN, compared to PLA. Clinical trial information: NCT02116530.

64 Background: The goals of our Lymphoma Survivorship Clinic (SC) are to coordinate care, educate patients, and create a survivorship care plan (SCP). The aim of this study was to determine if patient-centered outcomes are improved after a SC visit. Methods: From 11/13-5/15, surveys were mailed to recently-treated lymphoma patients who were within 4 weeks of their last visit and in remission. Quality of life (QOL) was measured with PROMIS and distress was measured with the Impact of Events scale. Responses between those who attended SC and those who were eligible but did not attend were analyzed. Results: There were 96 surveys sent to the SC group; 59 were returned (61% response rate). Of the non-SC group, 140 surveys were sent and 84 were returned (60% response rate). Mean age was 57 years (range 23-77) in the SC group and 59 years (23-88) in the non-SC group. There were more females in the SC group (52% vs 30%) but no differences in race, marital status, education, or health literacy. Those who attended the SC were more likely to recall receiving a summary of cancer treatment and recommendations for follow-up care (90% SC vs. 75% non-SC, p = 0.03). Furthermore, SC attendees were more likely to “definitely” recall discussion on improving health or preventing illness (89% vs. 53%), getting help in making changes in habits/lifestyle (76% vs. 50%), diet (80% vs. 31%), and exercise (82% vs. 51%), all p < 0.001. There were no differences in discussions regarding smoking, follow-up testing, and symptom monitoring. The SC group was less likely to need more information regarding sexuality (6% vs 20%, p = 0.045). There were no differences in need for information regarding anxiety, fitness, familial cancer risk, fertility, complementary therapies, and social issues. The SC group was slightly more confident that they could get information or advice related to cancer (completely confident 76% vs. 61%, p = 0.07). There were no differences in QOL or distress. Conclusions: A Lymphoma SC visit increased receipt of SCP and provided more information on survivorship issues, particularly health behaviors, but did not improve QOL or distress. Further study is needed to determine if this leads to long-term health benefits.

34 Background: Patient run community based survivorship programs are rare; most are affiliated with clinics and hospitals. Aim: To highlight a community based non-hospital affiliated program that had operated successfully for 32 years and review their best practices and challenges. Methods: Data collected from Hope in the Valley support group program. In Wichita, Kansas there is a patient formed community based support group/survivorship program supported and operated privately by survivors. Results: Todate a total of 16 disease specific and 13 general cancer support groups are affiliated with the organization and all the services are housed in a building. The support groups meet in different places and are grouped according to their proximity to their residences. Services provided include lodging assistance, women's boutique, support group meetings, transportation, patient assistance program, and a hospitality center. Every new patient with cancer in the community was given a referral to the center. Cancer support groups include breast, gynecologic, lung, kidney, gastrointestinal, lymphoma, leukemia, adolescent, childhood and general cancer group. In 2014 67, 709 patients attended support groups meetings and 2000 patients attended between January- April 2015. The hospitality center had 20, 160 visits and 19,877 physician's office treatment visits were conducted in 2014. There are 3 full time staff, 7 part time staff and 200 volunteers run the organization. Challenges include recruitment of volunteers, funding for the organization, existing as an independent program from churches, hospital, clinics, or national organizations, public awareness of the program, the governance and structure of the organization. Details of the challenges and how their organization is run will be presented. Many of the patients used their services often give back as volunteers, facilitators and others. Conclusions: This is a survivorship program run by patients, actively addressing patients concerns and issues. This could provide a framework for future groups that want to form a community based patient centered cancer support group.