Citations

150 Background: Pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (pNETs) comprise less than 5% of all pancreatic tumors and 7% of all neuroendocrine tumors (NETs). There has been considerable progress in understanding the biology of pNETs and numerous therapeutic options emerged, especially with the collaboration of various specialties in the multidisciplinary setting. In this this study, we sought to analyze the association of facility volume, treatment modalities offered, and different risk adjusted outcomes in pNETs. Methods: We extracted data from National Cancer Data Base (NCDB) that covers 70% of all newly diagnosed cancer cases in the U.S and Puerto Rico. Patients with pNETs diagnosed between 2004 & 2017 were included and classified into tertiles based on hospital volume. Volume–outcome relationship was determined by using Cox regression adjusting for patient demographics, comorbidities, tumor characteristics, insurance type and therapy received. Kaplan Meier estimates of OS were compared with log-rank test. The primary predictor of interest was the facility volume defined as number of pNETs treated/year. A total of 7202 patients with pathologically confirmed pNETS were treated at 840 facilities. The median annual facility volume was 5patients/year. Facilities were classified into (T:mean cases/year) T1: < 3; T2:4-8; T3:≥9 cases/year. Results: A total of 7202 pNET patients were treated at 840 facilities. The median annual facility volume was 5 patients/year. Facilities were classified into (T: mean cases/year) T1:<3; T2:4-8; T3:≥9 cases/year. The unadjusted median OS by facility volume was: T1: 71 months (m), T2: 136 m, and T3: not-reached (p < 0.001). On multivariable analysis, compared with patients treated at T3 facilities, patients treated at lower-tertile facilities had higher risk of death [T2 hazard ratio (HR), 1.17 (95% CI, 1.03-1.33); T1 HR, 1.45 (CI, 1.30-1.67), p < 0.0001] and such a difference in OS was more pronounced in stage IV disease (Table). Patients at T3 facilities (vs T1) were more likely to receive surgical resection of the primary tumor (75 vs 49%), lymph node dissection performed at the time of surgery (70 vs 42%), and a better R0 resection (72 vs 46%) (p < 0.01). Conclusions: Patients who were treated for pNETs at high-volume centers (> 9cases/year) had significantly higher OS and were more likely to receive surgical resection along with lymph node dissection and R0 resection. There was a 45% increased risk of death in patients treated at low volume centers (< 3/year) as compared to high-volume centers (> 9/year). While OS difference was noticed in all stages, the difference was more pronounced in stage IV disease demonstrating the importance of multi-disciplinary approach in pNETs management and incorporating such quality measures in low-volume facilities.[Table: see text]

125 Background: The advent of immunotherapy (IO) has led to significant improvement in outcomes for patients (pts) with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (adv NSCLC). The rate of crossovers and receipt of post-protocol IO in pivotal trials leading to FDA approvals of IO in NSCLC has not been systematically evaluated. Here, we evaluate crossover rates and post protocol therapies for pts with adv NSCLC across multiple first-line (1L) IO monotherapy and chemotherapy/IO (chemo/IO) combination trials. Methods: We utilized the publicly available data from pivotal clinical trials leading to approvals of IO or chemo/IO regimens in 1L treatment of adv NSCLC. We extracted data on outcomes, rate of crossover from control arm to IO, proportion of pts in control arm receiving IO and the start dates of these clinical trials. The primary outcomes were the rates of crossover and the proportion of patients in control arms who received post-control IO. Results: The study included 4 trials with IO monotherapy and 12 trials with chemo/IO combinations in 1L adv NSCLC. The primary endpoints for these trials were PFS (25%), OS (19%), and both PFS and OS (56%). The crossover rate from control arm to experimental arm (with IO) ranged from 0-74% in IO monotherapy trials and 0-49% in chemo/IO trials. Two IO monotherapy trials and five chemo/IO trials did not allow crossover; among them, 3 trials had a PFS/OS co-primary endpoint, while others had OS as primary endpoint. Ten of 16 trials provided explicit information on use of subsequent post-protocol therapies in their publications. Among the two IO monotherapy trials which did not allow crossover, post-protocol IO was administered in only 20-30% of patients. Among the six chemo/IO trials with information on post-protocol therapies, 30%-59% patients on the control arm subsequently received some form of IO on progression. Nine of 12 trials started accrual after 10/2015, when nivolumab was approved in the United States as second-line (2L) therapy for adv NSCLC regardless of tumor PD-L1 expression. Conclusions: Despite the highly significant OS benefit from 2L IO, which was the standard of care (SOC) in the United States, the rates of crossover and post-protocol IO administration was distressingly low in 1L IO monotherapy and chemo/IO trials for 1L adv NSCLC. This low rate of 2L treatment with IO may have been due to limited global availability prior to widespread regulatory approval during the conduct of these trials. There is an increased need for consistency in reporting of crossover treatment and post-protocol treatments to allow adequate assessment of the true 1L benefit with IO. Control arms in pivotal trials require scrutiny to ensure confirmation with SOC to provide access to optimal treatments for patients and prevent magnification of observed benefits in experimental arms. The difficulty lies in the global conduct of large randomized clinical trials with differing regulatory approvals.

This JAMA Oncology Patient Page describes the use of systemic therapy in addition to surgery in the treatment of early-stage lung cancer.

11034 Background: While resources exist to address the needs of graduate medical trainees, online resources to assist trainees with specialty-specific professional development have not been fully developed or described in the past. The Hem-Onc Fellows Network (@HemOncFellows) is an online community for hematology-oncology trainees in all stages of training, including medical students, residents, fellows, and doctoral students. The network's goals are to provide professional development in hematology-oncology, create a community and safe space for hematology-oncology trainees, and amplify the voices and needs of trainees. Methods: The @HemOncFellows Twitter account was created in February of 2021. The hashtag #HOFellows was registered and certified with healthcare Symplur. The network hosts Twitter Spaces (TS) with guests every two weeks and distributes a newsletter. Fifteen TS were held between July 2021 and February 2022. For each TS, a specific topic of professional development was discussed. At least one content expert was invited to each TS to provide additional commentary. Demographics of TS participants and newsletter subscribers were gathered and qualitative and quantitative analysis was performed. Results: Since its inception, the Hem-Onc Fellows Network has grown to more than 2200 followers. Symplur has over 500 #HOFellows tweets from November of 2021 to early February of 2022. The network organized 15 TS: 14 in professional development topics and one meet-and-greet for new matched fellows in December. TS had an average of 41 participants per event. Most participants were United States-based but there were participants from 21 countries worldwide. Forty-eight participants attended three or more spaces, including 15 hem-onc fellows and 17 internal medicine residents. The newsletter has 48 subscribers. Conclusions: We demonstrate that implementing a trainee network on Twitter attracted participation and engagement from a diverse pool of trainees worldwide. TS represents a novel educational tool for engaging trainees and facilitating professional development.

6552 Background: Significant amounts of expensive oncology drugs are discarded resulting in waste and financial consequences for patients. Beginning in 2023, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) will require drug manufacturers to refund Medicare for any single-use drugs where greater than 10% of the drug is wasted. We explored potential IIJA-associated savings through assessment of patterns in spending for discarded oncology agents between 2017-2020. Methods: We utilized the Medicare Part B Discarded Drug Units database from 2017-2020. Using J codes, we extracted spending and reimbursement data for discarded medications for antineoplastic and classical hematology therapies. The primary outcome was identification of therapies with high percentage of waste and the economic impact of retroactive application of the IIJA for discarded therapies. Results: Medicare Part B utilization data was extracted for a median 77 (64-152) oncologic therapies per year with median reimbursement for discarded treatments of $590 M ($566-616). From 2017-2020, bortezomib, romiplostim, and nab-paclitaxel were consistently among the top 5 therapies by value of wasted product. Pembrolizumab waste by value declined significantly after 2017 following transition to fixed dosing. In 2020, the top 5 therapies by value of wasted product were bortezomib, nab-paclitaxel, trastuzumab, romiplostim, and cabazitaxel with a value of $278 M. In 2020, the agents with the highest percentage of wasted product were bortezomib (27%), cabazitaxel (28%), decitabine (23%), topotecan (23%), and azacitidine (22%) with a collective discarded value of $160 M. Notably, these agents have weight-based dosing and single-use vials. Based upon the average number of drug claims per recipient and volume of product discarded, eliminating drug waste would allow an additional 6564 patients to receive treatment with discarded bortezomib. The number of additionally treated patients for the other top 5 agents: cabazitaxel (1216), decitabine (1509), topotecan (291), and azacitidine (2682). Retroactive application of IIJA policy would have impacted a median 20 (12-26) oncology agents resulting in median annual cost savings of $153 M (142-157) and the median annual spending on wasted oncology therapies would decline to $440 M (410-466). Conclusions: The IIJA would have yielded a median annual savings of $153 M in Medicare spending if applied retroactively. Given a 10% waste cutoff, a limited number of agents would be targeted by this legislation. In our study, we observe that drugs associated with weight-based dosing and single-use drug vials account for most drug waste. Strategies to minimize discarded units (through storage of unused product, approval of multi-dose vial formulations, or fixed-dose therapies) could yield substantial savings while enabling health equity in collaboration with communities with difficult access to these drugs.

4145 Background: Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is the 4th leading cause of cancer death. Outcomes remain poor, due to irresectability at diagnosis for many and sub-optimal responses to systemic therapy. Cytotoxic chemotherapy remains the standard of care. High microsatellite instability (MSI-H) predicts response to immune checkpoint inhibition (ICI) in many cancers. Detecting high MSI is rare in PDAC (incidence <2%), but case reports demonstrate potential therapeutic benefit with ICI. Here, we present multi-institutional data to characterize the clinical behavior of MSI-H PDAC, with special attention to response to ICI. Methods: Cases of MSI-H PDAC were obtained by reviewing data of all PDAC patients from our tertiary cancer center who had undergone genomic sequencing by one commercially available platform. The resulting cohort was supplemented with MSI-H PDAC cases identified by GI oncology specialists at multiple institutions. De-identified patient data were compiled and analyzed. Results: 15 MSI-H PDAC patients were identified. 20% had stage II disease at diagnosis, 27% stage III, and 53% stage IV. 73% of patients received ICI (n=11); 40% as 1st line and 33% as 2nd line. These patients demonstrated 100% overall response rate; 45% complete response (1 pathologic CR, 4 radiographic CR) and 55% partial response. No patient that received ICI had lost response or died after a median follow-up of 18 months (range 6-89 mos). 1 patient had oligoprogression of a single hepatic lesion after 7 mos that was then irradiated; this patient retained radiographic CR for 17 subsequent mos (ongoing). In this cohort, we observe poor responses to cytotoxic chemotherapy. In total, 12 regimens were trialed among 9 patients. Overall response rate was 0%. 42% achieved disease stability, with median duration of response of 2 mos; only 2 cases maintained disease stability for >5 mos. 4 patients did not receive ICI; all patients died, with a median survival of 7.5 mos. Conclusions: MSI-H PDAC represents a rare but important subtype of PDAC with unique clinical behavior. Given its rarity, large-scale analyses and trials are unlikely to be performed, making case series such as ours crucial. In our cohort, we observe impressive, durable responses to ICI, along with very poor responses to cytotoxic chemotherapy. Our data argues for consideration of ICI in any patient presenting with MSI-H PDAC, including in the first-line and neoadjuvant settings.

4130 Background: KRAS is mutationally activated in over 90% of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). Compared to pts with KRAS mutation, KRAS wild-type (wt) PDAC seem to have better response to therapy and may harbor potentially actionable molecular alterations. Here, we analyze the molecular profile and clinical outcome of a cohort of pts with KRAS wt PDAC. Methods: A retrospective review was conducted on pts with PDAC who underwent CLIA-certified Next Generation Sequencing (NGS) testing at Mayo Clinic between December 1, 2018 and December 1, 2021. Pts with KRAS wt PDAC with available reports were included. Their genomic drivers, RNA expression, demographics, disease characteristics, therapies offered, and clinical outcome data were collected. The study was approved by the institutional IRB. Results: Of the 241 eligible pts, 8% (19) has KRAS wt PDAC. Among those, 2 pts had no mutation identified by the gene/molecular panel used. Of the 17 pts (89%) with identified alterations, mutations found in ³ 2 pts were TP53 (53%), CDKN2A (16%) and CDKN2B/ERBB2/PTEN/MSH3/RNF43/FBXW7/KMT2D/GNAS (11% each). Chromosomal rearrangements were identified in 5 (26%): CADPS2-BRAF, GP2-ERBB2, PTPRK-RSPO3, EML4-NTRK3 and TFG-MET. RNA expression results were available in 12 pts: common overexpression were ERBB2 (27%) and MET/NRAS/MYC/CCDN1/CCNE1/AR (18% each); and the under-expression MGMT (18%). Among the 13 pts with available MSI status via NGS, 2 (11%) were MSI-high (both had high TMB [28.4 and 23.7 m/MB]) while all others were TMB < 10 m/MB. The median age at diagnosis was 61 years (68% males). 8/19 (42%) were Stage IV at diagnosis with 15/19 (79%) pts ultimately diagnosed with metastatic disease. Among metastatic pts, median lines of treatment received was 2.5 (range:0-4). 4 pts received FOLFIRINOX (FFX), 2 gemcitabine/ nab-paclitaxel (GP) and tumor response were comparable to previously reported results. 1 received 1st-line pembrolizumab and remained on therapy at the time of analysis. The median length of follow up from diagnosis was 29 months. A patient with TFG-MET re-arrangement previously progressed on FFX and GP was treated using a MET inhibitor, and achieved significant CA19-9 drop and pancreas tumor shrinkage at 1st restaging, with ongoing response. Conclusions: The molecular profile of KRAS wt PDAC is highly heterogeneous and difficult to generalize. Novel approaches (e.g., basket trials) are needed to develop therapy for this rare PDAC subgroup.

PURPOSE: Precision oncology promises improved outcomes but the cost-effectiveness and accessibility of targeted therapies is debatable. We report price change patterns from 2015 to 2019 for several oral anticancer medications for common solid tumor malignancies. METHODS: We collected provider utilization and payment data from the public Medicare Part D database and extracted drug price information for commonly prescribed targeted oral anticancer agents for lung, breast, and prostate cancer. We then calculated median Pearson correlation coefficient values for various drugs (containing more than two data points) within each therapeutic class. We also calculated compound annual growth rates (CAGRs) for medication costs within each class and compared them with the consumer price index (CPI). RESULTS: Our study included six epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitors (EGFRi; one generic), five anaplastic lymphoma kinase inhibitors (ALKi), two B-Raf inhibitors (BRAFi), three hormonal agents (one generic), three cyclin-dependent kinases 4 and 6 inhibitors (CDK4/6i), two poly-ADP-ribose inhibitors (PARPi), and seven antiandrogen agents (two generic). The median (range) Pearson correlation coefficient values for cost of drugs within each therapeutic class were 0.967 (0.915-0.978) for EGFRi, 0.981 (0.966-0.989) for ALKi, 0.996 for BRAFi, 0.994 (0.992-0.999) for CDK4/6i, 0.855 for PARPi, and 0.442 (–0.522 to 0.962) for antiandrogens. Therapies with two or fewer data points (generic erlotinib, dacomitinib, abiraterone, apalutamide, and darolutamide) were excluded. The median CAGRs in costs over the 5-year period were 4.56% (EGFRi), 6.40% (ALKi), 2.58% (BRAFi), 5.48% (hormonal agents), 5.21% (CDK4/6i), 27.29% (PARPi), and 34.8% (antiandrogens). The CPI over 5 years was 2.26%/year, and the average inflation rate was 1.90%/year. CONCLUSION: The median CAGR in costs for modern oral precision-driven cancer therapeutic classes mostly outpaced CPI and the average inflation. Increase in cost within the same class should be weighed against incremental clinical benefit for the patients to ensure that rising costs do not limit access to targeted therapies.