644 Background: liver metastases (LM) from well-differentiated gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (wd-GEP-NET) can develop in 28-77% of patients (pts) in their lifetime. Multiple treatments can provide radiological and symptomatic response. Our aim was to evaluate responses to locoregional (LRT) and systemic (SYST) treatments in wd-GEP-NET with LM. Methods: we included consecutive records of pts with confirmed histological diagnosis of wd-GEP-NET and radiological LM, treated at our institution between 2008-2019. Relevant variables were retrospectively extracted from electronic records. Radiological response was assessed with RECIST 1.1 by radiological independent review. Results: 55 pts, 45.5% male. Median age at LM diagnosis 49 years (IQR 41-63). Primary tumor sites: 49% pancreatic, 27.3% small intestine, 11% unknown, 12.7% others. WHO 2019 grade 1, 2 and 3 in 52.7, 41.8 and 1.8%, respectively. Twentynine tumors (52.7%) were functional, with carcinoid syndrome in n20. At LM diagnosis, 91% of pts had symptomatic disease: hormonal n8, local n4, systemic n4, hormonal + local n4, local + systemic n22, hormonal + systemic n5, hormonal + local + systemic n5. LM tumoral burden was <10% in 22%, 11-50% in 43.6, > 50% in 30.9% of pts. 49.1% of pts had extra hepatic metastatic disease. LRT to LM was administered to 32 pts: TAE/TACE n26, ablation n8. SYST to 22 pts: somatostatin analog n15, Lutetium-177 n4, chemotherapy n2, everolimus n1. 1 pt did not receive treatment. Response to treatments is shown. In the LRT group, -- pts developed complications: n16 postembolization syndrome, n2 infections, n3 liver failure, n7 others. There was 1-procedure-related death. Conclusions: Patients treated with LRT at our institution achieved similar efficacy and safety results compared to those reported by previous studies.[Table: see text]

327 Background: Advanced gastric cancer (GC) is a disease with high morbidity and poor prognosis. We hypothesize that different sites of metastasis have different impact in terms of symptoms and complications. We sought to evaluate if site specific morbidity in our patients impacted treatment and survival. Methods: Medical records from patients with advanced GC treated from Jan 2005 to Dec 2015 were retrospectively reviewed. Morbidity was defined as having any symptom by metastases in a specific site. OS was estimated by Kaplan Meier method and compared by Log-rank test. P value < 0.05 was considered significant. Results: We included 180 consecutive patients, median age at diagnosis was 56 years (21-90), 55% were women. Most common sites of metastases were: peritoneum 76.1%, non-regional lymph nodes 38.9%, liver 22.8%, lung 26.7%, bone 9.4% and ovary 12.8%. Regarding morbidity, at diagnosis 68% of patients presented morbidity by the primary tumor: obstruction 56%, bleeding 27%, obstruction and bleeding 3%, other 14%. Disease by peritoneum caused morbidity in 30%, by lung in 8%, by ovarian in 4.4%, by lymph nodes in 3.3%, and by other sites in 5.6% of patients. OS in the global cohort was: 3.53 months (2.2 to 4.8), nevertheless by univariate analysis we found that OS was affected by morbidity at some sites as it is show in table. More patients with peritoneal morbidity could not receive treatment vs those without peritoneal morbidity (p = 0.042). Conclusions: We found that morbidity in peritoneum, lung and ovary adversely affected prognosis of patients with advanced GC. Moreover, peritoneal morbidity preclude patients from receiving oncological treatment. [Table: see text]

e18056 Background: Cancer awareness months (CAM) are a health promotion tool that pursues to increase the public knowledge of a specific type of cancer. Awareness campaigns have benefited from the ease of access to the internet and social media. Analysis of internet search data has been used as an indirect tool to determine the information-seeking patterns of people and may reflect the impact of a campaign. We aim to determine national cancer awareness months’ impact on people’s internet search habits focusing on malignancies that have a specific awareness month in Mexico: breast, colorectal and prostate. Methods: We used Google Trends (GT) to obtain search volume indexes (SVIs), a term designed by GT scaled from 0 to 100 based on total searches during a specified period, of malignancies with an awareness month in Mexico from January 2008 to December 2018. Terms were consulted in Spanish: "cáncer de mama" (breast cancer), "cáncer de colon + cáncer colorrectal" (colon + colorectal cancer), "cáncer de próstata" (prostate cancer). We compared mean SVIs from each cancer awareness month to mean SVIs from the rest of the year using two-tailed two-independent sample T-tests. For prostate and colorectal, SVI’s were compared from the year its CAM was nationally instituted. Results: For breast cancer, mean SVI from October, its awareness month was 54.18 vs 12.09 for the rest of the year (p < 0.001). For colorectal cancer, mean SVI from its awareness month March, was 65.0 vs 55.5 for the rest of the year (p = 0.34). For prostate cancer, mean SVI from November, Mexican prostate awareness month, was 72.0 vs 35.52 for the rest of the year (p = 0.44). Conclusions: Google’s search volume for breast cancer was significantly higher in its awareness month compared to the rest of the year, which proves the impact of its CAM on modifying online activity. For more recently instituted CAMs on prostate and colorectal cancer, search volume didn’t change significantly between their CAM and the rest of the year. There are perhaps lessons to be learned from the breast cancer awareness month campaign which might usefully be adapted for the highest incident malignancies in Mexico.

Purpose: After colorectal cancer (CCR) treatment, adequate follow-up is recommended to improve overall survival. We aimed to assess the adherence to the National Comprehensive Cancer Network clinical practice guidelines on post-treatment surveillance for CRC at the National Institute of Medical Sciences and Nutrition Salvador Zubiran in Mexico City, Mexico. Methods: We included patients with stage I-III CRC treated between January 2014 and December 2016. We evaluated adherence to surveillance during the first three years after completion of CRC treatment or until recurrence, whichever came first. We defined adequate compliance with guidelines as ≥2 physician visits annually for three years, ≥2 serum carcinoembryonic antigen blood tests annually for two years, and at least one colonoscopy during the three-year surveillance period. Results: Overall-three-year adherence to surveillance recommendations was 53.8% (n=49). Colonoscopy was the component with the highest adherence with 91.2% (n=83) of the patients, followed by medical visits with 71.4% (n=65) of the patients. During the three-year period of follow-up, 23% (n=21) of patients lost follow-up. Three-year recurrence rate was 6.6% (n=6). In a bivariate analysis, we did not find any significant association between clinical and demographic factors and adherence to surveillance.Conclusions: At our institution, compliance to the guidelines on post-treatment surveillance is higher than the reported at similar centers in other world regions, though there is a decreasing trend in adherence during the study period. More evidence is needed to understand the potential barriers to surveillance and implement strategies to improve compliance to surveillance and the survival of patients.

67 Background: in Mexico, Colorectal Cancer (CRC) is a leading cause of cancer death, yet population-based screening programs are lacking. In our center, a cohort was created to validate a risk calculator to detect advanced colorectal neoplasia, and to understand barriers to implement a CRC screening program. We aimed to determine frequency and reasons associated to rejection of CRC screening in our population. Methods: from August 2019 to March 2020 (early close owing to COVID-19 pandemic) asymptomatic individuals between 50 and 75 years-old with standard-risk for CRC, without previous screening for CRC, from the outpatient internal medicine clinic at a tertiary care center in Mexico City, received standardized information on the importance of CRC screening and were invited to perform both Fecal Immunochemical Test and a screening colonoscopy within a clinical study at no cost. Individuals who rejected participation were given a 10-item questionnaire to select reasons for refusal, as many items as applied. Here we present two groups: 1) individuals who refused to receive information and to perform screening studies, and 2) individuals who refused to participate after receiving information. Results: 162 patients were invited to participate, 77 (47%) refused: 48 rejected immediately (group 1) and provided 51 reasons, and 29 declined after having received standardized information about CRC screening (group 2) and provided 30 reasons. Demographics for 77 patients were: 54 (70.1%) women, median age 66 (IQR 58-71) years. Main reasons for rejection in both groups were: “I do not have time” in 24 (29.6%) times, “I am not interested” in 23 (28.4%) times, and “I am scared” in 14 (17.3%) times (Table). Conclusions: in our cohort, we identified that nearly half of the population invited to participate in a CRC screening program refused. Main reasons were lack of time, lack of interest and fear. This may translate poor understanding on the importance of measures to prevent CRC, and absence of education programs to recall its importance. In order to increment participation in CRC screening, education and awareness campaigns should be implemented.[Table: see text]