Citations

e20605 Background: Intravenous (IV) fosaprepitant is a potent antiemetic, commonly used in patients receiving chemotherapy. The purpose of this study was to investigate the incidence of IV fosaprepitant-associated infusion site adverse events (ISAEs) among a cohort of breast cancer patients receiving doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide (AC) chemotherapy at Mayo Rochester. Methods: A retrospective review of electronic medical record (EMR) data was performed for all patients who were initiated on AC chemotherapy from January 2011 to April 2012. Data collected from the EMR included baseline demographics, antiemetic regimen, documentation of ISAEs and type of IV access (peripheral vs. central). Descriptive statistics (mean and standard deviation or percentages) were summarized overall and by type of IV access and initially administered antiemetic. Results: 148 patients were included, with a median age of 54 years (range 28-76). 98 patients initially received IV fosaprepitant; 44 oral aprepitant; 6 neither. 132 (89%) initially had peripheral IV access and 16 (11%) had central venous access. Overall, 33 patients (34%) experienced an IV fosaprepitant associated ISAE including: erythema (n=22), pain (n=26), swelling (n=12), infusion site hives (n=5), extravasation (n=4), deep venous thrombosis (n=3), superficial thrombosis (n=7), phlebitis/thrombophlebitis (n=5), venous discoloration (n=1), venous engorgement (n=1), venous hardening/induration (n=4) and local scarring (n=1). Only 1 patient (2%) experienced an oral aprepitant associated ISAE, which was infusion site pain. This patient had previously had a fosaprepitant associated ISAE at the same site. All experienced ISAEs occurred in patients with peripheral IV access. Conclusions: The incidence and severity of ISAEs associated with IV fosaprepitant administration among a group of patients receiving doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide chemotherapy is significant and is appreciably higher than what has been noted in other reports. The higher incidence observed is likely related to the predominance of peripheral venous access used in the studied cohort.

Abstract BACKGROUND: Biobanks collect and store biological samples and data from participants for use in research by multiple investigators. The Mayo Clinic Biobank was established by the Mayo Clinic Center for Individualized Medicine with a goal to support a wide array of health-related research studies at Mayo Clinic, including cancer studies. The Biobank is not focused on any particular disease, however, through annotation by questionnaires, the Mayo electronic medical record (EMR), and the Mayo Cancer Registry, it is a useful clinical research resource for cancer related studies. METHODS: Recruitment started in April 2009. Our goal is 50,000 enrollees. Eligible subjects are adult Mayo Clinic patients, U.S residents, and able to consent. Mailed invitations were sent to patients with appointments in certain Mayo Clinic departments. Each participant completed a health history questionnaire including a wide variety of health information as well as whether they or their 1st-degree relatives had ever been diagnosed with specific cancers. For self-reported cancers, subjects were asked to provide the age they were first diagnosed. Subjects also provided a blood sample and granted research access to clinically collected specimens and data from their Mayo Clinic record, at enrollment and into the future. All research projects utilizing samples from this resource are required to return to the Biobank the data generated from their projects. RESULTS: In the first three years, 21736 subjects consented to participate (30% response rate). Participants are 58% female, 95% White, and range in age from 18 to 97 with a median age of 62. At enrollment, 74% were residents in Minnesota, 6% in Iowa, 4% in Wisconsin, and 15% in the other states. Twelve percent reported being a current smoker, while 59% were never smokers. The most common self-reported cancers at baseline were non-melanoma skin cancer (n=2950), prostate cancer (n=1107), breast cancer (n=941), melanoma (n=692), colorectal cancer (n=296), cervical cancer (n=240), sarcoma (n=233), urinary/bladder (n=211), lymphoma (n=187), thyroid cancer (n=186), endometrial cancer (n=170), kidney cancer (n=163), lung cancer (n=145). Excluding non-melanoma skin cancer, 16188 (74%) (6516 male, 9672 female) self-reported being cancer free at baseline. Data will be presented on the frequency of incident cancers diagnosed since enrollment in the Biobank. To date, the Biobank has served as a source of controls for 17 cancer related studies on genetic susceptibility, including studies of the breast, colon, myeloma, brain, lung, pancreas, endometrium, and kidneys. CONCLUSIONS: The Mayo Clinic Biobank has quickly been established as a valuable resource for cancer researchers at Mayo Clinic - primarily as a source of controls for genetic studies. As the Biobank continues to grow in sample size and length of follow-up, it will also serve as a cohort study of cancer incidence embedded within an EMR of a large health organization. Citation Format: Janet E. Olson, Euijung Ryu, Kiley J. Johnson, Karen Maschke, Jody A. Morrisette, Mark Liebow, Paul Y. Takahashi, Ruchi G. Sharma, Kari S. Anderson, Matthew A. Hathcock, Jyotishman Pathak, Noralane M. Lindor, Timothy J. Beebe, Stephen N. Thibodeau, James R. Cerhan. The Mayo Clinic Biobank - A growing resource for cancer related studies. [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 104th Annual Meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research; 2013 Apr 6-10; Washington, DC. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2013;73(8 Suppl):Abstract nr 2515. doi:10.1158/1538-7445.AM2013-2515

SummaryBackgroundChronic ulcerative colitis (CUC) and colonic Crohn's disease (CD) increase colorectal neoplasia (CRN) risk. While sessile serrated polyp (SSP) is a known cancer precursor, serrated epithelial changes (SEC) are of uncertain prevalence and neoplastic risk.AimTo assess the serrated lesion detection rates in CUC and CD and documented incidence of subsequent CRN in a retrospective, single‐centre cohort study.MethodsPatients were identified by a central diagnostic index and pathology review confirmed SEC, SSP, CUC and CD diagnoses from 2006–12. Matched controls were identified from among all CUC and CD patients having colonoscopy during the second half of the time period. All were followed for incident CRN, estimated by the Kaplan–Meier method.ResultsBetween 2006 and 2012, 79 SEC and 10 SSP cases were identified. Detection rates were estimated to be 10/1000 and 2/1000 patients, for SEC and SSP respectively, among 4208 unique CUC or CD patients having colonoscopy from 2010–12. With only 10 cases, SSP patients were not further analysed. Cumulative incidence of subsequent CRN at 1 and 3 years was 12% (95% CI, 0–30%) and 30% (3–57%), respectively, in SEC patients compared to 4% (0–12%) and 9% (0–23%), respectively, in CUC or CD controls (P = 0.047, log‐rank). However, this statistical difference was not significant after patients were stratified for history of prior or synchronous dysplasia (P = 0.09).ConclusionsSerrated epithelial changes and sessile serrated polyps are uncommonly detected by colonoscopy in chronic ulcerative colitis and Crohn's disease patients. Histology with changes of serrated epithelium may be associated with risk of subsequent colorectal neoplasia, however further studies are needed to explore this relationship.

ABSTRACT Objectives To determine whether α‐synuclein dinucleotide repeat (REP1) genotypes are associated with survival in Parkinson's disease (PD). Methods Investigators from the Genetic Epidemiology of Parkinson's Disease Consortium provided REP1 genotypes and baseline and follow‐up clinical data for cases. The primary outcome was time to death. Cox proportional hazards regression models were used to assess the association of REP1 genotypes with survival. Results Twenty‐one sites contributed data for 6,154 cases. There was no significant association between α‐synuclein REP1 genotypes and survival in PD. However, there was a significant association between REP1 genotypes and age at onset of PD (hazard ratio: 1.06; 95% confidence interval: 1.01‐1.10; P value = 0.01). Conclusions In our large consortium study, α‐synuclein REP1 genotypes were not associated with survival in PD. Further studies of α‐synuclein's role in disease progression and long‐term outcomes are needed. © 2014 International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society

Abstract Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening rates are often ascertained via self-reports but can be subject to overreporting bias. Asking about intention to get screened before asking about past screening may minimize overreporting of cancer screening. In a statewide survey conducted from July through October of 2005, we embedded an experiment that tested the effect of question ordering (asking about future intention to get screened before or after asking about past screening; “future first” and “future second,” respectively), crossed with survey mode (mail versus telephone), on CRC screening rates. Weighted analysis focused on 752 respondents who were ages 50 years or older. We found (a) that asking about future intentions to get screened before asking about past screening (future first) statistically significantly lowers reports of past CRC screening [70.9% future second versus 58.0% future first; odds ratio (OR), 1.83; 95% confidence interval (95% CI), 1.08-3.13]; (b) that there was no main effect of survey mode; and (c) that the effect of the ordering of the future intentions item varies by survey mode. In the mailed survey, the odds of reporting past CRC screening were almost thrice greater in the future second condition compared with the future first condition (72.4% versus 49.0%, respectively; OR, 2.74; 95% CI, 1.22-6.17). In the telephone condition, the odds of reporting were only 28% higher in the future second (69.5%) condition than in the future first condition (63.9%; OR, 1.28; 95% CI, 0.64-2.57). The results suggest that asking about future intentions to get screened before the actual behavior elicits lower, and arguably more truthful reports of CRC screening but mainly in mailed surveys. (Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2008;17(4):785–90)