User login
No Added Benefit From Chemo in This Breast Cancer Subtype
TOPLINE:
Women with estrogen receptor (ER)–positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)–negative invasive lobular carcinoma who are treated with endocrine therapy do not derive any additional survival benefit from neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy.
METHODOLOGY:
- Studies evaluating the long-term effects of chemotherapy in patients with invasive lobular carcinoma are limited and often “show inconclusive results,” the authors explained.
- Female patients diagnosed with ER-positive, HER2-negative invasive lobular carcinoma who received endocrine therapy were identified from the breast cancer database at Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
- Linked information on patient and tumor characteristics, vital status, and treatment were then obtained from the Netherlands Cancer Registry.
- Patients also had to have an indication for chemotherapy based on lymph node status, tumor size, histologic tumor grade, and hormone receptor status, in line with national guidelines.
- Among 716 patients with ER-positive, HER2-negative invasive lobular carcinoma, 520 who had an indication for chemotherapy were included. Of those, 379 received chemotherapy and 141 did not.
TAKEAWAY:
- Patients who received chemotherapy were younger at diagnosis than those who did not (51 vs 61 years), had an earlier average year of diagnosis (2010 vs 2015), and had longer follow-up (7.8 years vs 5.2 years).
- Chemotherapy recipients were more likely to have T3+ disease (33% vs 14%) and positive lymph node involvement (80% vs 49%), and less likely to undergo breast-conserving surgery (31% vs 43%).
- Researchers, however, found no difference between the chemotherapy and no-chemotherapy groups in terms of recurrence-free survival (hazard ratio [HR], 1.20; 95% CI, 0.63-2.31), breast cancer–specific survival (HR, 1.24; 95% CI, 0.60-2.58), and overall survival (HR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.56-1.66) after adjustment for confounders.
IN PRACTICE:
The authors “observed no evidence for added value of chemotherapy” for ER-positive, HER2-negative invasive lobular carcinoma who received endocrine therapy. “In view of the adverse effects of chemotherapy, our study takes an important step in answering a valuable question from the patient’s perspective,” the researchers wrote.
SOURCE:
The study, conducted by Bernadette A.M. Heemskerk-Gerritsen, PhD, from Erasmus Medical Center Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, the Netherlands, was published in Cancer on November 20, 2023.
LIMITATIONS:
The retrospective design means that there is a risk for residual confounding from factors not recorded in the database. The researchers believe that some patients did not receive chemotherapy owing to having comorbidities or patient preference, which could have influenced the results. Moreover, the duration of endocrine therapy was not recorded.
DISCLOSURES:
No funding was declared. One author declares relationships with GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, Menarini Silicon Biosystems, and Novartis. No other relevant financial relationships were declared.
TOPLINE:
Women with estrogen receptor (ER)–positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)–negative invasive lobular carcinoma who are treated with endocrine therapy do not derive any additional survival benefit from neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy.
METHODOLOGY:
- Studies evaluating the long-term effects of chemotherapy in patients with invasive lobular carcinoma are limited and often “show inconclusive results,” the authors explained.
- Female patients diagnosed with ER-positive, HER2-negative invasive lobular carcinoma who received endocrine therapy were identified from the breast cancer database at Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
- Linked information on patient and tumor characteristics, vital status, and treatment were then obtained from the Netherlands Cancer Registry.
- Patients also had to have an indication for chemotherapy based on lymph node status, tumor size, histologic tumor grade, and hormone receptor status, in line with national guidelines.
- Among 716 patients with ER-positive, HER2-negative invasive lobular carcinoma, 520 who had an indication for chemotherapy were included. Of those, 379 received chemotherapy and 141 did not.
TAKEAWAY:
- Patients who received chemotherapy were younger at diagnosis than those who did not (51 vs 61 years), had an earlier average year of diagnosis (2010 vs 2015), and had longer follow-up (7.8 years vs 5.2 years).
- Chemotherapy recipients were more likely to have T3+ disease (33% vs 14%) and positive lymph node involvement (80% vs 49%), and less likely to undergo breast-conserving surgery (31% vs 43%).
- Researchers, however, found no difference between the chemotherapy and no-chemotherapy groups in terms of recurrence-free survival (hazard ratio [HR], 1.20; 95% CI, 0.63-2.31), breast cancer–specific survival (HR, 1.24; 95% CI, 0.60-2.58), and overall survival (HR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.56-1.66) after adjustment for confounders.
IN PRACTICE:
The authors “observed no evidence for added value of chemotherapy” for ER-positive, HER2-negative invasive lobular carcinoma who received endocrine therapy. “In view of the adverse effects of chemotherapy, our study takes an important step in answering a valuable question from the patient’s perspective,” the researchers wrote.
SOURCE:
The study, conducted by Bernadette A.M. Heemskerk-Gerritsen, PhD, from Erasmus Medical Center Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, the Netherlands, was published in Cancer on November 20, 2023.
LIMITATIONS:
The retrospective design means that there is a risk for residual confounding from factors not recorded in the database. The researchers believe that some patients did not receive chemotherapy owing to having comorbidities or patient preference, which could have influenced the results. Moreover, the duration of endocrine therapy was not recorded.
DISCLOSURES:
No funding was declared. One author declares relationships with GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, Menarini Silicon Biosystems, and Novartis. No other relevant financial relationships were declared.
TOPLINE:
Women with estrogen receptor (ER)–positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)–negative invasive lobular carcinoma who are treated with endocrine therapy do not derive any additional survival benefit from neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy.
METHODOLOGY:
- Studies evaluating the long-term effects of chemotherapy in patients with invasive lobular carcinoma are limited and often “show inconclusive results,” the authors explained.
- Female patients diagnosed with ER-positive, HER2-negative invasive lobular carcinoma who received endocrine therapy were identified from the breast cancer database at Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
- Linked information on patient and tumor characteristics, vital status, and treatment were then obtained from the Netherlands Cancer Registry.
- Patients also had to have an indication for chemotherapy based on lymph node status, tumor size, histologic tumor grade, and hormone receptor status, in line with national guidelines.
- Among 716 patients with ER-positive, HER2-negative invasive lobular carcinoma, 520 who had an indication for chemotherapy were included. Of those, 379 received chemotherapy and 141 did not.
TAKEAWAY:
- Patients who received chemotherapy were younger at diagnosis than those who did not (51 vs 61 years), had an earlier average year of diagnosis (2010 vs 2015), and had longer follow-up (7.8 years vs 5.2 years).
- Chemotherapy recipients were more likely to have T3+ disease (33% vs 14%) and positive lymph node involvement (80% vs 49%), and less likely to undergo breast-conserving surgery (31% vs 43%).
- Researchers, however, found no difference between the chemotherapy and no-chemotherapy groups in terms of recurrence-free survival (hazard ratio [HR], 1.20; 95% CI, 0.63-2.31), breast cancer–specific survival (HR, 1.24; 95% CI, 0.60-2.58), and overall survival (HR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.56-1.66) after adjustment for confounders.
IN PRACTICE:
The authors “observed no evidence for added value of chemotherapy” for ER-positive, HER2-negative invasive lobular carcinoma who received endocrine therapy. “In view of the adverse effects of chemotherapy, our study takes an important step in answering a valuable question from the patient’s perspective,” the researchers wrote.
SOURCE:
The study, conducted by Bernadette A.M. Heemskerk-Gerritsen, PhD, from Erasmus Medical Center Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, the Netherlands, was published in Cancer on November 20, 2023.
LIMITATIONS:
The retrospective design means that there is a risk for residual confounding from factors not recorded in the database. The researchers believe that some patients did not receive chemotherapy owing to having comorbidities or patient preference, which could have influenced the results. Moreover, the duration of endocrine therapy was not recorded.
DISCLOSURES:
No funding was declared. One author declares relationships with GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, Menarini Silicon Biosystems, and Novartis. No other relevant financial relationships were declared.
Sickle Cell CRISPR Gene Therapy May Offer Patients ‘Functional Cure’
One therapy — exagamglogene autotemcel or exa-cel (Casgevy) — is the first to use CRISPR gene-editing technology, and could “provide a one-time functional cure to patients with sickle cell disease,” said Haydar Frangoul, MD, of The Children’s Hospital at TriStar Centennial, Nashville, Tennessee.
Dr. Frangoul, who presented a recent interim analysis on the therapy at the American Society of Hematology (ASH) annual meeting earlier this month, reported that one infusion of exa-cel prompted rapid increases in total hemoglobin levels and almost completely eliminated a common and painful complication of sickle cell disease that can lead to irreversible organ damage, known as vaso-occlusive crisis.
Overall, the gene therapy led to “a rapid, robust, and durable increase in total hemoglobin to normal or near normal levels,” Dr. Frangoul said.
Exa-cel, from Vertex Pharmaceuticals and CRISPR Therapeutics, is a single-dose infusion containing a patient’s modified cells. First, a patient’s stem cells are harvested and then genetically modified to produce fetal hemoglobin.
The development of exa-cel was “grounded in human genetics, which show that fetal hemoglobin can substitute for sickle hemoglobin,” Dr. Frangoul explained. Patients receive these edited cells, which then help restore normal hemoglobin production.
The analysis showed that a one-time infusion of exa-cel following myeloablative conditioning prevented vaso-occlusive crisis in all but one patient with severe sickle cell disease. The therapy also prevented inpatient hospitalizations for vaso-occlusive crisis in all patients and led to sustained improvements in quality of life.
The results are “really striking,” said Sarah H. O’Brien, MD, of Nationwide Children’s Hospital in Columbus, Ohio, who was not involved in the research. “The majority of our admissions on the hematology service are our patients with sickle cell. They’re uncomfortable, they’re in pain, they’re missing school, and they’re missing their activities,” which makes these interim findings quite “impactful.”
To examine the impact of exa-cel on vaso-occlusive crisis, the phase 3 trial included individuals aged 12 to 35 years with severe sickle cell disease and a history of at least two vaso-occlusive crises per year over the past 2 years.
Participants underwent cell CD34+ stem cell collection. These cells then underwent gene editing using CRISPR technology, explained Dr. Frangoul.
At the transplant center, patients received myeloablative conditioning chemotherapy with busulfan for 4 days before receiving an exa-cel infusion.
At the data cutoff in June 2023, 44 patients had been enrolled, of whom 30 were available for efficacy analysis. The mean age at screening was 22.1 years, and almost half (46.7%) were female. Prior to study recruitment, patients had a mean of 3.9 vaso-occlusive crises per year and a mean of 2.7 inpatient hospitalizations per year for severe vaso-occlusive crisis.
All but one patient (96.7%) met the primary endpoint of freedom from severe vaso-occlusive crisis for at least 12 consecutive months. The mean duration of freedom from vaso-occlusive crisis was 22.4 months, ranging from 14.8 months to 45.5 months. Moreover, 28 of the 29 patients who remained crisis-free at 12 months did not have a further vaso-occlusive crisis throughout the rest of the follow-up period.
Dr. Frangoul noted that results were similar for both adults and adolescents.
Exa-cel also led to a significant increase in freedom from inpatient hospitalizations, with 100% of patients achieving that goal, as well as early and sustained increases in both total and fetal hemoglobin levels, suggesting a “long-term meaningful benefit” from the therapy.
All 44 patients experienced adverse events related to myeloablative conditioning with busulfan, but only 29.5% had events linked to exa-cel. The most common adverse events overall were nausea (70.5%), stomatitis (63.6%), vomiting (56.8%), and febrile neutropenia (54.5%).
In a separate poster presented at ASH, Akshay Sharma, MBBS, of St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital in Memphis, Tennessee, Dr. Frangoul, and colleagues reported that exa-cel also led to better health-related quality of life.
Patients showed “substantial improvements” in measures of quality of life, which included physical, emotional, social, and functional well-being as well as pain at a 6-month follow-up through year 2.
Typical outcomes studied in most trials are “emergency room visits and hospitalizations but what people may not appreciate as much is how much these patients are dealing with pain and discomfort at home,” Dr. O’Brien said. These recently reported quality-of-life metrics “are so key and really help us understand the impact” of this new therapy.
Dr. O’Brien noted, however, that “patients may be reluctant to undergo” this therapy because of the impact myeloablative conditioning has on fertility. That is why ongoing research on how stem cell transplants can be delivered “without impacting fertility is very important.”
It is “hard to know,” Dr. O’Brien explained, whether exa-cel will be a one-time treatment in practice, as many of the patients “already have end-organ damage from their disease.”
To that end, Dr. Frangoul noted that patients who complete the current trial can enroll in one that will include 13 years of additional follow-up.
Finally, Dr. O’Brien cautioned, gene therapies such as exa-cel “are only going to apply to a small segment of the population” — patients with the most severe form of the disease. That’s why “it’s important that we still prioritize hydroxyurea [and] multidisciplinary care for patients with sickle cell disease,” she said.
The study was sponsored by Vertex Pharmaceuticals in collaboration with CRISPR Therapeutics. Dr. Frangoul declared relationships with Editas Medicine, Rocket Pharmaceuticals, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Vertex Pharmaceuticals, CRISPR Therapeutics, Bluebird Bio, and others. Dr. Sharma declared relationships with Vertex Pharmaceuticals, CRISPR Therapeutics, and others. Other authors declare numerous financial relationships.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
One therapy — exagamglogene autotemcel or exa-cel (Casgevy) — is the first to use CRISPR gene-editing technology, and could “provide a one-time functional cure to patients with sickle cell disease,” said Haydar Frangoul, MD, of The Children’s Hospital at TriStar Centennial, Nashville, Tennessee.
Dr. Frangoul, who presented a recent interim analysis on the therapy at the American Society of Hematology (ASH) annual meeting earlier this month, reported that one infusion of exa-cel prompted rapid increases in total hemoglobin levels and almost completely eliminated a common and painful complication of sickle cell disease that can lead to irreversible organ damage, known as vaso-occlusive crisis.
Overall, the gene therapy led to “a rapid, robust, and durable increase in total hemoglobin to normal or near normal levels,” Dr. Frangoul said.
Exa-cel, from Vertex Pharmaceuticals and CRISPR Therapeutics, is a single-dose infusion containing a patient’s modified cells. First, a patient’s stem cells are harvested and then genetically modified to produce fetal hemoglobin.
The development of exa-cel was “grounded in human genetics, which show that fetal hemoglobin can substitute for sickle hemoglobin,” Dr. Frangoul explained. Patients receive these edited cells, which then help restore normal hemoglobin production.
The analysis showed that a one-time infusion of exa-cel following myeloablative conditioning prevented vaso-occlusive crisis in all but one patient with severe sickle cell disease. The therapy also prevented inpatient hospitalizations for vaso-occlusive crisis in all patients and led to sustained improvements in quality of life.
The results are “really striking,” said Sarah H. O’Brien, MD, of Nationwide Children’s Hospital in Columbus, Ohio, who was not involved in the research. “The majority of our admissions on the hematology service are our patients with sickle cell. They’re uncomfortable, they’re in pain, they’re missing school, and they’re missing their activities,” which makes these interim findings quite “impactful.”
To examine the impact of exa-cel on vaso-occlusive crisis, the phase 3 trial included individuals aged 12 to 35 years with severe sickle cell disease and a history of at least two vaso-occlusive crises per year over the past 2 years.
Participants underwent cell CD34+ stem cell collection. These cells then underwent gene editing using CRISPR technology, explained Dr. Frangoul.
At the transplant center, patients received myeloablative conditioning chemotherapy with busulfan for 4 days before receiving an exa-cel infusion.
At the data cutoff in June 2023, 44 patients had been enrolled, of whom 30 were available for efficacy analysis. The mean age at screening was 22.1 years, and almost half (46.7%) were female. Prior to study recruitment, patients had a mean of 3.9 vaso-occlusive crises per year and a mean of 2.7 inpatient hospitalizations per year for severe vaso-occlusive crisis.
All but one patient (96.7%) met the primary endpoint of freedom from severe vaso-occlusive crisis for at least 12 consecutive months. The mean duration of freedom from vaso-occlusive crisis was 22.4 months, ranging from 14.8 months to 45.5 months. Moreover, 28 of the 29 patients who remained crisis-free at 12 months did not have a further vaso-occlusive crisis throughout the rest of the follow-up period.
Dr. Frangoul noted that results were similar for both adults and adolescents.
Exa-cel also led to a significant increase in freedom from inpatient hospitalizations, with 100% of patients achieving that goal, as well as early and sustained increases in both total and fetal hemoglobin levels, suggesting a “long-term meaningful benefit” from the therapy.
All 44 patients experienced adverse events related to myeloablative conditioning with busulfan, but only 29.5% had events linked to exa-cel. The most common adverse events overall were nausea (70.5%), stomatitis (63.6%), vomiting (56.8%), and febrile neutropenia (54.5%).
In a separate poster presented at ASH, Akshay Sharma, MBBS, of St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital in Memphis, Tennessee, Dr. Frangoul, and colleagues reported that exa-cel also led to better health-related quality of life.
Patients showed “substantial improvements” in measures of quality of life, which included physical, emotional, social, and functional well-being as well as pain at a 6-month follow-up through year 2.
Typical outcomes studied in most trials are “emergency room visits and hospitalizations but what people may not appreciate as much is how much these patients are dealing with pain and discomfort at home,” Dr. O’Brien said. These recently reported quality-of-life metrics “are so key and really help us understand the impact” of this new therapy.
Dr. O’Brien noted, however, that “patients may be reluctant to undergo” this therapy because of the impact myeloablative conditioning has on fertility. That is why ongoing research on how stem cell transplants can be delivered “without impacting fertility is very important.”
It is “hard to know,” Dr. O’Brien explained, whether exa-cel will be a one-time treatment in practice, as many of the patients “already have end-organ damage from their disease.”
To that end, Dr. Frangoul noted that patients who complete the current trial can enroll in one that will include 13 years of additional follow-up.
Finally, Dr. O’Brien cautioned, gene therapies such as exa-cel “are only going to apply to a small segment of the population” — patients with the most severe form of the disease. That’s why “it’s important that we still prioritize hydroxyurea [and] multidisciplinary care for patients with sickle cell disease,” she said.
The study was sponsored by Vertex Pharmaceuticals in collaboration with CRISPR Therapeutics. Dr. Frangoul declared relationships with Editas Medicine, Rocket Pharmaceuticals, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Vertex Pharmaceuticals, CRISPR Therapeutics, Bluebird Bio, and others. Dr. Sharma declared relationships with Vertex Pharmaceuticals, CRISPR Therapeutics, and others. Other authors declare numerous financial relationships.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
One therapy — exagamglogene autotemcel or exa-cel (Casgevy) — is the first to use CRISPR gene-editing technology, and could “provide a one-time functional cure to patients with sickle cell disease,” said Haydar Frangoul, MD, of The Children’s Hospital at TriStar Centennial, Nashville, Tennessee.
Dr. Frangoul, who presented a recent interim analysis on the therapy at the American Society of Hematology (ASH) annual meeting earlier this month, reported that one infusion of exa-cel prompted rapid increases in total hemoglobin levels and almost completely eliminated a common and painful complication of sickle cell disease that can lead to irreversible organ damage, known as vaso-occlusive crisis.
Overall, the gene therapy led to “a rapid, robust, and durable increase in total hemoglobin to normal or near normal levels,” Dr. Frangoul said.
Exa-cel, from Vertex Pharmaceuticals and CRISPR Therapeutics, is a single-dose infusion containing a patient’s modified cells. First, a patient’s stem cells are harvested and then genetically modified to produce fetal hemoglobin.
The development of exa-cel was “grounded in human genetics, which show that fetal hemoglobin can substitute for sickle hemoglobin,” Dr. Frangoul explained. Patients receive these edited cells, which then help restore normal hemoglobin production.
The analysis showed that a one-time infusion of exa-cel following myeloablative conditioning prevented vaso-occlusive crisis in all but one patient with severe sickle cell disease. The therapy also prevented inpatient hospitalizations for vaso-occlusive crisis in all patients and led to sustained improvements in quality of life.
The results are “really striking,” said Sarah H. O’Brien, MD, of Nationwide Children’s Hospital in Columbus, Ohio, who was not involved in the research. “The majority of our admissions on the hematology service are our patients with sickle cell. They’re uncomfortable, they’re in pain, they’re missing school, and they’re missing their activities,” which makes these interim findings quite “impactful.”
To examine the impact of exa-cel on vaso-occlusive crisis, the phase 3 trial included individuals aged 12 to 35 years with severe sickle cell disease and a history of at least two vaso-occlusive crises per year over the past 2 years.
Participants underwent cell CD34+ stem cell collection. These cells then underwent gene editing using CRISPR technology, explained Dr. Frangoul.
At the transplant center, patients received myeloablative conditioning chemotherapy with busulfan for 4 days before receiving an exa-cel infusion.
At the data cutoff in June 2023, 44 patients had been enrolled, of whom 30 were available for efficacy analysis. The mean age at screening was 22.1 years, and almost half (46.7%) were female. Prior to study recruitment, patients had a mean of 3.9 vaso-occlusive crises per year and a mean of 2.7 inpatient hospitalizations per year for severe vaso-occlusive crisis.
All but one patient (96.7%) met the primary endpoint of freedom from severe vaso-occlusive crisis for at least 12 consecutive months. The mean duration of freedom from vaso-occlusive crisis was 22.4 months, ranging from 14.8 months to 45.5 months. Moreover, 28 of the 29 patients who remained crisis-free at 12 months did not have a further vaso-occlusive crisis throughout the rest of the follow-up period.
Dr. Frangoul noted that results were similar for both adults and adolescents.
Exa-cel also led to a significant increase in freedom from inpatient hospitalizations, with 100% of patients achieving that goal, as well as early and sustained increases in both total and fetal hemoglobin levels, suggesting a “long-term meaningful benefit” from the therapy.
All 44 patients experienced adverse events related to myeloablative conditioning with busulfan, but only 29.5% had events linked to exa-cel. The most common adverse events overall were nausea (70.5%), stomatitis (63.6%), vomiting (56.8%), and febrile neutropenia (54.5%).
In a separate poster presented at ASH, Akshay Sharma, MBBS, of St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital in Memphis, Tennessee, Dr. Frangoul, and colleagues reported that exa-cel also led to better health-related quality of life.
Patients showed “substantial improvements” in measures of quality of life, which included physical, emotional, social, and functional well-being as well as pain at a 6-month follow-up through year 2.
Typical outcomes studied in most trials are “emergency room visits and hospitalizations but what people may not appreciate as much is how much these patients are dealing with pain and discomfort at home,” Dr. O’Brien said. These recently reported quality-of-life metrics “are so key and really help us understand the impact” of this new therapy.
Dr. O’Brien noted, however, that “patients may be reluctant to undergo” this therapy because of the impact myeloablative conditioning has on fertility. That is why ongoing research on how stem cell transplants can be delivered “without impacting fertility is very important.”
It is “hard to know,” Dr. O’Brien explained, whether exa-cel will be a one-time treatment in practice, as many of the patients “already have end-organ damage from their disease.”
To that end, Dr. Frangoul noted that patients who complete the current trial can enroll in one that will include 13 years of additional follow-up.
Finally, Dr. O’Brien cautioned, gene therapies such as exa-cel “are only going to apply to a small segment of the population” — patients with the most severe form of the disease. That’s why “it’s important that we still prioritize hydroxyurea [and] multidisciplinary care for patients with sickle cell disease,” she said.
The study was sponsored by Vertex Pharmaceuticals in collaboration with CRISPR Therapeutics. Dr. Frangoul declared relationships with Editas Medicine, Rocket Pharmaceuticals, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Vertex Pharmaceuticals, CRISPR Therapeutics, Bluebird Bio, and others. Dr. Sharma declared relationships with Vertex Pharmaceuticals, CRISPR Therapeutics, and others. Other authors declare numerous financial relationships.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM ASH 2023
Survival-Toxicity Trade-off With T-DM1 in HER+ Breast Cancer
SAN ANTONIO — in older patients with advanced human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–positive (HER2+) breast cancer, although toxicity is much lower, results from the HERB TEA study show.
Overall, the standard-of-care triple regimen of monoclonal antibodies pertuzumab and trastuzumab plus docetaxel remains the “first-line treatment for HER2-positive advanced breast cancer, regardless of age,” said study author Akihiko Shimomura, MD, PhD, who presented the findings (abstract RF02-04) on December 7 at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium.
However, he noted that the standard-of-care regimen appears to be “intolerable mentally and physically” in those older than 65 years, and “impairs” quality of life.
Therefore a “new standard treatment with less toxicity and noninferior efficacy for older patients is needed,” said Dr. Shimomura, Department of Breast and Medical Oncology, National Center for Global Health and Medicine, Tokyo.
Dr. Shimomura and colleagues recruited patients aged 65 years or older with advanced HER2+ breast cancer who had received no prior chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer and had a good performance status.
Patients were randomly assigned to either pertuzumab and trastuzumab plus docetaxel or T-DM1 until disease progression. The planned sample size was 250 patients, but the study was terminated after 148 participants were recruited because an interim analysis showed that T-DM1 failed to show noninferiority.
Among 75 patients assigned to the standard-of-care regimen, the mean age was 71 years, with 64% aged 65-74 years. Sixty-five percent had stage IV disease, and 35% had relapsed. These baseline characteristics were similar among the 73 patients given T-DM1.
At the data cutoff of June 15, 2023, the median progression-free survival was comparable between the two groups, at 15.6 months with the triple therapy vs 11.3 months with T-DM1 (hazard ratio [HR], 1.358; P =.1236).
There was also no significant difference in overall survival between the two groups (HR, 1.263; P =.95322).
However, T-DM1 failed to meet its primary endpoint of noninferiority to pertuzumab and trastuzumab plus docetaxel, defined as a hazard ratio for overall survival of 1.35.
Nevertheless, T-DM1 was associated with significantly less toxicity than the standard-of care-regimen, with rates of grade 3 or worse adverse events of 36.1% vs 56.8%, Shimomura reported.
The most common hematologic adverse events with the triple therapy were leukopenia (34.2%) and neutropenia (52.0%), whereas thrombocytopenia was the most common event with T-DM1 (16.7%).
Liver toxicities were also increased with the antibody-drug conjugate, whereas fatigue, diarrhea, and appetite loss were more frequently seen with the standard-of-care regimen.
Although T-DM1 did not achieve noninferiority, given its lower toxicity profile, a “detailed analysis, including geriatric assessment, is needed to identify the patient population for whom T-DM1 may be used as first line treatment,” said Shimomura.
Virginia Kaklamani, MD, codirector of the SABCS and leader of the Breast Cancer Program at the UT Health San Antonio Cancer Center, Texas, said in an interview that the trial shows T-DM1 could be “a good alternative to our first line therapy in HER2+ metastatic breast cancer” for some patients.
“It is, however, unlikely to change the standard of care due to several changes in the field including the results from the KATHERINE trial and the DESTINY-Breast trials,” she said.
The study was funded by the Japanese National Cancer Center. Dr. Shimomura declares relationships with Daiichi Sankyo, Pfizer, AstraZeneca K.K., Chugai Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd, Eli Lilly Japan K.K., MSD Co. Ltd, Eisai Co. Ltd, Gilead Sciences, and Taiho Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
SAN ANTONIO — in older patients with advanced human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–positive (HER2+) breast cancer, although toxicity is much lower, results from the HERB TEA study show.
Overall, the standard-of-care triple regimen of monoclonal antibodies pertuzumab and trastuzumab plus docetaxel remains the “first-line treatment for HER2-positive advanced breast cancer, regardless of age,” said study author Akihiko Shimomura, MD, PhD, who presented the findings (abstract RF02-04) on December 7 at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium.
However, he noted that the standard-of-care regimen appears to be “intolerable mentally and physically” in those older than 65 years, and “impairs” quality of life.
Therefore a “new standard treatment with less toxicity and noninferior efficacy for older patients is needed,” said Dr. Shimomura, Department of Breast and Medical Oncology, National Center for Global Health and Medicine, Tokyo.
Dr. Shimomura and colleagues recruited patients aged 65 years or older with advanced HER2+ breast cancer who had received no prior chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer and had a good performance status.
Patients were randomly assigned to either pertuzumab and trastuzumab plus docetaxel or T-DM1 until disease progression. The planned sample size was 250 patients, but the study was terminated after 148 participants were recruited because an interim analysis showed that T-DM1 failed to show noninferiority.
Among 75 patients assigned to the standard-of-care regimen, the mean age was 71 years, with 64% aged 65-74 years. Sixty-five percent had stage IV disease, and 35% had relapsed. These baseline characteristics were similar among the 73 patients given T-DM1.
At the data cutoff of June 15, 2023, the median progression-free survival was comparable between the two groups, at 15.6 months with the triple therapy vs 11.3 months with T-DM1 (hazard ratio [HR], 1.358; P =.1236).
There was also no significant difference in overall survival between the two groups (HR, 1.263; P =.95322).
However, T-DM1 failed to meet its primary endpoint of noninferiority to pertuzumab and trastuzumab plus docetaxel, defined as a hazard ratio for overall survival of 1.35.
Nevertheless, T-DM1 was associated with significantly less toxicity than the standard-of care-regimen, with rates of grade 3 or worse adverse events of 36.1% vs 56.8%, Shimomura reported.
The most common hematologic adverse events with the triple therapy were leukopenia (34.2%) and neutropenia (52.0%), whereas thrombocytopenia was the most common event with T-DM1 (16.7%).
Liver toxicities were also increased with the antibody-drug conjugate, whereas fatigue, diarrhea, and appetite loss were more frequently seen with the standard-of-care regimen.
Although T-DM1 did not achieve noninferiority, given its lower toxicity profile, a “detailed analysis, including geriatric assessment, is needed to identify the patient population for whom T-DM1 may be used as first line treatment,” said Shimomura.
Virginia Kaklamani, MD, codirector of the SABCS and leader of the Breast Cancer Program at the UT Health San Antonio Cancer Center, Texas, said in an interview that the trial shows T-DM1 could be “a good alternative to our first line therapy in HER2+ metastatic breast cancer” for some patients.
“It is, however, unlikely to change the standard of care due to several changes in the field including the results from the KATHERINE trial and the DESTINY-Breast trials,” she said.
The study was funded by the Japanese National Cancer Center. Dr. Shimomura declares relationships with Daiichi Sankyo, Pfizer, AstraZeneca K.K., Chugai Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd, Eli Lilly Japan K.K., MSD Co. Ltd, Eisai Co. Ltd, Gilead Sciences, and Taiho Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
SAN ANTONIO — in older patients with advanced human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–positive (HER2+) breast cancer, although toxicity is much lower, results from the HERB TEA study show.
Overall, the standard-of-care triple regimen of monoclonal antibodies pertuzumab and trastuzumab plus docetaxel remains the “first-line treatment for HER2-positive advanced breast cancer, regardless of age,” said study author Akihiko Shimomura, MD, PhD, who presented the findings (abstract RF02-04) on December 7 at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium.
However, he noted that the standard-of-care regimen appears to be “intolerable mentally and physically” in those older than 65 years, and “impairs” quality of life.
Therefore a “new standard treatment with less toxicity and noninferior efficacy for older patients is needed,” said Dr. Shimomura, Department of Breast and Medical Oncology, National Center for Global Health and Medicine, Tokyo.
Dr. Shimomura and colleagues recruited patients aged 65 years or older with advanced HER2+ breast cancer who had received no prior chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer and had a good performance status.
Patients were randomly assigned to either pertuzumab and trastuzumab plus docetaxel or T-DM1 until disease progression. The planned sample size was 250 patients, but the study was terminated after 148 participants were recruited because an interim analysis showed that T-DM1 failed to show noninferiority.
Among 75 patients assigned to the standard-of-care regimen, the mean age was 71 years, with 64% aged 65-74 years. Sixty-five percent had stage IV disease, and 35% had relapsed. These baseline characteristics were similar among the 73 patients given T-DM1.
At the data cutoff of June 15, 2023, the median progression-free survival was comparable between the two groups, at 15.6 months with the triple therapy vs 11.3 months with T-DM1 (hazard ratio [HR], 1.358; P =.1236).
There was also no significant difference in overall survival between the two groups (HR, 1.263; P =.95322).
However, T-DM1 failed to meet its primary endpoint of noninferiority to pertuzumab and trastuzumab plus docetaxel, defined as a hazard ratio for overall survival of 1.35.
Nevertheless, T-DM1 was associated with significantly less toxicity than the standard-of care-regimen, with rates of grade 3 or worse adverse events of 36.1% vs 56.8%, Shimomura reported.
The most common hematologic adverse events with the triple therapy were leukopenia (34.2%) and neutropenia (52.0%), whereas thrombocytopenia was the most common event with T-DM1 (16.7%).
Liver toxicities were also increased with the antibody-drug conjugate, whereas fatigue, diarrhea, and appetite loss were more frequently seen with the standard-of-care regimen.
Although T-DM1 did not achieve noninferiority, given its lower toxicity profile, a “detailed analysis, including geriatric assessment, is needed to identify the patient population for whom T-DM1 may be used as first line treatment,” said Shimomura.
Virginia Kaklamani, MD, codirector of the SABCS and leader of the Breast Cancer Program at the UT Health San Antonio Cancer Center, Texas, said in an interview that the trial shows T-DM1 could be “a good alternative to our first line therapy in HER2+ metastatic breast cancer” for some patients.
“It is, however, unlikely to change the standard of care due to several changes in the field including the results from the KATHERINE trial and the DESTINY-Breast trials,” she said.
The study was funded by the Japanese National Cancer Center. Dr. Shimomura declares relationships with Daiichi Sankyo, Pfizer, AstraZeneca K.K., Chugai Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd, Eli Lilly Japan K.K., MSD Co. Ltd, Eisai Co. Ltd, Gilead Sciences, and Taiho Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
AT SABCS 2023
‘We Will Rock You’ Into Real-time Diabetes Control
, reveals a series of experiments.
The research was published in The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology.
After developing a cell line in which music-sensitive calcium channels triggered the release of insulin-containing vesicles, the researchers conducted a series of studies identifying the optimal frequency, pitch, and volume of sounds for triggering release.
After settling on low-bass heavy popular music, they tested their system on mice with type 1 diabetes that had the insulin-releasing cells implanted in their abdomen. Applying the music directly at 60 dB led to near wild-type levels of insulin in the blood within 15 minutes.
“With only 4 hours required for a full refill, [the system] can provide several therapeutic doses a day,” says Martin Fussenegger, PhD, professor of biotechnology and bioengineering, Department of Biosystems Science and Engineering, ETH Zurich, Basel, Switzerland, and colleagues.
“This would match the typical needs of people with type 2 diabetes consuming three meals a day, and for whom administration of prandial insulin is an established treatment option, as they do not have capability for early postprandial insulin secretion from preformed insulin.”
As the system requires nothing more than portable battery-powered commercially available loudspeakers, the multiple daily dosing of biopharmaceuticals becomes “straightforward in the absence of medical infrastructure or staff, simply by having the patient listen to the prescribed music.”
It therefore “could be an interesting option for cell-based therapies, especially where the need for frequent dosing raises compliance issues.”
It is a “very exciting piece of work, no doubt,” said Anandwardhan A. Hardikar, PhD, group leader, Diabetes and Islet Biology Group, Translational Health Research Institute, Western Sydney University, Penrith NSW, Australia.
He pointed out that the concept of using music to drive gene expression “is something we’ve known for the last 20 years,” but bringing the different strands of research together to generate cells that can be implanted into mice is “an amazing idea.”
Dr. Hardikar, who was not involved in the study, said, however, the publication of the study as a correspondence “does not allow for a lot of the detail that I would have expected as an academic,” and consequently some questions remain.
The most important is whether the music itself is required to trigger the insulin release, as opposed simply to sounds in general.
Is Music or Sound the “Trigger?”
Music is “frequency, it’s the amplitude of the waveform, and it’s the duration for which those waveforms are present,” he noted, but the same profile can be achieved by cutting up and editing the melody so it becomes a jumble of sounds.
For Dr. Hardikar, the “best control” for the study would be to have no music as well as the edited song, with “bits of pieces” played randomly so “it sounds like it’s the same frequency and amplitude.”
Then it would be clear whether the effect is owing to the “noise, or we have to appreciate the melody.”
The other outstanding question is whether the results “can directly translate to larger animals,” such as humans, Dr. Hardikar said.
The authors point out that when translated into mechanical vibrations in the middle ear, the acoustic waves of music activate mechanosensitive ion channels, a form of trigger that is seen across the animal kingdom.
They go on to highlight that while gene switches have been developed for use in next-generation cell-based therapies for a range of conditions, small-molecular trigger compounds face a number of challenges and may cause adverse effects.
With “traceless triggers” such as light, ultrasound, magnetic fields, radio waves, electricity, and heat also facing issues, there is a “need for new switching modalities.”
The researchers therefore developed a music-inducible cellular control (MUSIC) system, which leverages the known intracellular calcium surge in response to music, via calcium-permeable mechanosensitive channels, to drive the release of biopharmaceuticals from vesicles.
They then generated MUSIC-controlled insulin-releasing cell lines, finding that, using a customized box containing off-the-shelf loudspeakers, they could induce channel activation and insulin release with 60 dB at 50 Hz, which is “within the safe range for the human ear.”
Further experiments revealed that insulin release was greatest at 50-100 Hz, and higher than that seen with potassium chloride, the “gold-standard” depolarization control for calcium channels.
The researchers then showed that with optimal stimulation at 50 Hz and 60 dB, channel activation and subsequent insulin release required at least 3 seconds of continuous music, “which might protect the cellular device from inadvertent activation during everyday activities.”
Next, they examined the impact of different musical genres on insulin release, finding that low-bass heavy popular music and movie soundtracks induced maximum release, while the responses were more diverse to classical and guitar-based music.
Specifically, “We Will Rock You,” by the British rock band Queen, induced the release of 70% of available insulin within 5 minutes and 100% within 15 minutes. This, the team notes, is “similar to the dynamics of glucose-triggered insulin release by human pancreatic islets.”
Exposing the cells to a second music session at different intervals revealed that full insulin refill was achieved within 4 hours, which “would be appropriate to attenuate glycemic excursions associated with typical dietary habits.”
Finally, the researchers tested the system in vivo, constructing a box with two off-the-shelf loudspeakers that focuses acoustic waves, via deflectors, onto the abdomens of mice with type 1 diabetes.
Exposing the mice, which had been implanted with microencapsulated MUSIC cells in the peritoneum, to low-bass acoustic waves at 60 dB (50 m/s2) for 15 minutes allowed them to achieve near wild-type levels of insulin in the blood and restored normoglycemia.
Moreover, “Queen’s song ‘We Will Rock You’ generated sufficient insulin to rapidly attenuate postprandial glycemic excursions during glucose tolerance tests,” the team says.
In contrast, animals without implants, or those that had implants but did not have music immersion, remained severely hyperglycemic, they add.
They also note that the effect was seen only when the sound waves “directly impinge on the skin just above the implantation site” for at least 15 minutes, with no increase in insulin release observed with commercially available headphones or ear plugs, such as Apple AirPods, or with loud environmental noises.
Consequently, “therapeutic MUSIC sessions would still be compatible with listening to other types of music or listening to all types of music via headphones,” the researchers write, and are “compatible with standard drug administration schemes.”
The study was supported by a European Research Council advanced grant and in part by the Swiss National Science Foundation NCCR Molecular Systems Engineering. One author acknowledges the support of the Chinese Scholarship Council.
No relevant financial relationships were declared.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
, reveals a series of experiments.
The research was published in The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology.
After developing a cell line in which music-sensitive calcium channels triggered the release of insulin-containing vesicles, the researchers conducted a series of studies identifying the optimal frequency, pitch, and volume of sounds for triggering release.
After settling on low-bass heavy popular music, they tested their system on mice with type 1 diabetes that had the insulin-releasing cells implanted in their abdomen. Applying the music directly at 60 dB led to near wild-type levels of insulin in the blood within 15 minutes.
“With only 4 hours required for a full refill, [the system] can provide several therapeutic doses a day,” says Martin Fussenegger, PhD, professor of biotechnology and bioengineering, Department of Biosystems Science and Engineering, ETH Zurich, Basel, Switzerland, and colleagues.
“This would match the typical needs of people with type 2 diabetes consuming three meals a day, and for whom administration of prandial insulin is an established treatment option, as they do not have capability for early postprandial insulin secretion from preformed insulin.”
As the system requires nothing more than portable battery-powered commercially available loudspeakers, the multiple daily dosing of biopharmaceuticals becomes “straightforward in the absence of medical infrastructure or staff, simply by having the patient listen to the prescribed music.”
It therefore “could be an interesting option for cell-based therapies, especially where the need for frequent dosing raises compliance issues.”
It is a “very exciting piece of work, no doubt,” said Anandwardhan A. Hardikar, PhD, group leader, Diabetes and Islet Biology Group, Translational Health Research Institute, Western Sydney University, Penrith NSW, Australia.
He pointed out that the concept of using music to drive gene expression “is something we’ve known for the last 20 years,” but bringing the different strands of research together to generate cells that can be implanted into mice is “an amazing idea.”
Dr. Hardikar, who was not involved in the study, said, however, the publication of the study as a correspondence “does not allow for a lot of the detail that I would have expected as an academic,” and consequently some questions remain.
The most important is whether the music itself is required to trigger the insulin release, as opposed simply to sounds in general.
Is Music or Sound the “Trigger?”
Music is “frequency, it’s the amplitude of the waveform, and it’s the duration for which those waveforms are present,” he noted, but the same profile can be achieved by cutting up and editing the melody so it becomes a jumble of sounds.
For Dr. Hardikar, the “best control” for the study would be to have no music as well as the edited song, with “bits of pieces” played randomly so “it sounds like it’s the same frequency and amplitude.”
Then it would be clear whether the effect is owing to the “noise, or we have to appreciate the melody.”
The other outstanding question is whether the results “can directly translate to larger animals,” such as humans, Dr. Hardikar said.
The authors point out that when translated into mechanical vibrations in the middle ear, the acoustic waves of music activate mechanosensitive ion channels, a form of trigger that is seen across the animal kingdom.
They go on to highlight that while gene switches have been developed for use in next-generation cell-based therapies for a range of conditions, small-molecular trigger compounds face a number of challenges and may cause adverse effects.
With “traceless triggers” such as light, ultrasound, magnetic fields, radio waves, electricity, and heat also facing issues, there is a “need for new switching modalities.”
The researchers therefore developed a music-inducible cellular control (MUSIC) system, which leverages the known intracellular calcium surge in response to music, via calcium-permeable mechanosensitive channels, to drive the release of biopharmaceuticals from vesicles.
They then generated MUSIC-controlled insulin-releasing cell lines, finding that, using a customized box containing off-the-shelf loudspeakers, they could induce channel activation and insulin release with 60 dB at 50 Hz, which is “within the safe range for the human ear.”
Further experiments revealed that insulin release was greatest at 50-100 Hz, and higher than that seen with potassium chloride, the “gold-standard” depolarization control for calcium channels.
The researchers then showed that with optimal stimulation at 50 Hz and 60 dB, channel activation and subsequent insulin release required at least 3 seconds of continuous music, “which might protect the cellular device from inadvertent activation during everyday activities.”
Next, they examined the impact of different musical genres on insulin release, finding that low-bass heavy popular music and movie soundtracks induced maximum release, while the responses were more diverse to classical and guitar-based music.
Specifically, “We Will Rock You,” by the British rock band Queen, induced the release of 70% of available insulin within 5 minutes and 100% within 15 minutes. This, the team notes, is “similar to the dynamics of glucose-triggered insulin release by human pancreatic islets.”
Exposing the cells to a second music session at different intervals revealed that full insulin refill was achieved within 4 hours, which “would be appropriate to attenuate glycemic excursions associated with typical dietary habits.”
Finally, the researchers tested the system in vivo, constructing a box with two off-the-shelf loudspeakers that focuses acoustic waves, via deflectors, onto the abdomens of mice with type 1 diabetes.
Exposing the mice, which had been implanted with microencapsulated MUSIC cells in the peritoneum, to low-bass acoustic waves at 60 dB (50 m/s2) for 15 minutes allowed them to achieve near wild-type levels of insulin in the blood and restored normoglycemia.
Moreover, “Queen’s song ‘We Will Rock You’ generated sufficient insulin to rapidly attenuate postprandial glycemic excursions during glucose tolerance tests,” the team says.
In contrast, animals without implants, or those that had implants but did not have music immersion, remained severely hyperglycemic, they add.
They also note that the effect was seen only when the sound waves “directly impinge on the skin just above the implantation site” for at least 15 minutes, with no increase in insulin release observed with commercially available headphones or ear plugs, such as Apple AirPods, or with loud environmental noises.
Consequently, “therapeutic MUSIC sessions would still be compatible with listening to other types of music or listening to all types of music via headphones,” the researchers write, and are “compatible with standard drug administration schemes.”
The study was supported by a European Research Council advanced grant and in part by the Swiss National Science Foundation NCCR Molecular Systems Engineering. One author acknowledges the support of the Chinese Scholarship Council.
No relevant financial relationships were declared.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
, reveals a series of experiments.
The research was published in The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology.
After developing a cell line in which music-sensitive calcium channels triggered the release of insulin-containing vesicles, the researchers conducted a series of studies identifying the optimal frequency, pitch, and volume of sounds for triggering release.
After settling on low-bass heavy popular music, they tested their system on mice with type 1 diabetes that had the insulin-releasing cells implanted in their abdomen. Applying the music directly at 60 dB led to near wild-type levels of insulin in the blood within 15 minutes.
“With only 4 hours required for a full refill, [the system] can provide several therapeutic doses a day,” says Martin Fussenegger, PhD, professor of biotechnology and bioengineering, Department of Biosystems Science and Engineering, ETH Zurich, Basel, Switzerland, and colleagues.
“This would match the typical needs of people with type 2 diabetes consuming three meals a day, and for whom administration of prandial insulin is an established treatment option, as they do not have capability for early postprandial insulin secretion from preformed insulin.”
As the system requires nothing more than portable battery-powered commercially available loudspeakers, the multiple daily dosing of biopharmaceuticals becomes “straightforward in the absence of medical infrastructure or staff, simply by having the patient listen to the prescribed music.”
It therefore “could be an interesting option for cell-based therapies, especially where the need for frequent dosing raises compliance issues.”
It is a “very exciting piece of work, no doubt,” said Anandwardhan A. Hardikar, PhD, group leader, Diabetes and Islet Biology Group, Translational Health Research Institute, Western Sydney University, Penrith NSW, Australia.
He pointed out that the concept of using music to drive gene expression “is something we’ve known for the last 20 years,” but bringing the different strands of research together to generate cells that can be implanted into mice is “an amazing idea.”
Dr. Hardikar, who was not involved in the study, said, however, the publication of the study as a correspondence “does not allow for a lot of the detail that I would have expected as an academic,” and consequently some questions remain.
The most important is whether the music itself is required to trigger the insulin release, as opposed simply to sounds in general.
Is Music or Sound the “Trigger?”
Music is “frequency, it’s the amplitude of the waveform, and it’s the duration for which those waveforms are present,” he noted, but the same profile can be achieved by cutting up and editing the melody so it becomes a jumble of sounds.
For Dr. Hardikar, the “best control” for the study would be to have no music as well as the edited song, with “bits of pieces” played randomly so “it sounds like it’s the same frequency and amplitude.”
Then it would be clear whether the effect is owing to the “noise, or we have to appreciate the melody.”
The other outstanding question is whether the results “can directly translate to larger animals,” such as humans, Dr. Hardikar said.
The authors point out that when translated into mechanical vibrations in the middle ear, the acoustic waves of music activate mechanosensitive ion channels, a form of trigger that is seen across the animal kingdom.
They go on to highlight that while gene switches have been developed for use in next-generation cell-based therapies for a range of conditions, small-molecular trigger compounds face a number of challenges and may cause adverse effects.
With “traceless triggers” such as light, ultrasound, magnetic fields, radio waves, electricity, and heat also facing issues, there is a “need for new switching modalities.”
The researchers therefore developed a music-inducible cellular control (MUSIC) system, which leverages the known intracellular calcium surge in response to music, via calcium-permeable mechanosensitive channels, to drive the release of biopharmaceuticals from vesicles.
They then generated MUSIC-controlled insulin-releasing cell lines, finding that, using a customized box containing off-the-shelf loudspeakers, they could induce channel activation and insulin release with 60 dB at 50 Hz, which is “within the safe range for the human ear.”
Further experiments revealed that insulin release was greatest at 50-100 Hz, and higher than that seen with potassium chloride, the “gold-standard” depolarization control for calcium channels.
The researchers then showed that with optimal stimulation at 50 Hz and 60 dB, channel activation and subsequent insulin release required at least 3 seconds of continuous music, “which might protect the cellular device from inadvertent activation during everyday activities.”
Next, they examined the impact of different musical genres on insulin release, finding that low-bass heavy popular music and movie soundtracks induced maximum release, while the responses were more diverse to classical and guitar-based music.
Specifically, “We Will Rock You,” by the British rock band Queen, induced the release of 70% of available insulin within 5 minutes and 100% within 15 minutes. This, the team notes, is “similar to the dynamics of glucose-triggered insulin release by human pancreatic islets.”
Exposing the cells to a second music session at different intervals revealed that full insulin refill was achieved within 4 hours, which “would be appropriate to attenuate glycemic excursions associated with typical dietary habits.”
Finally, the researchers tested the system in vivo, constructing a box with two off-the-shelf loudspeakers that focuses acoustic waves, via deflectors, onto the abdomens of mice with type 1 diabetes.
Exposing the mice, which had been implanted with microencapsulated MUSIC cells in the peritoneum, to low-bass acoustic waves at 60 dB (50 m/s2) for 15 minutes allowed them to achieve near wild-type levels of insulin in the blood and restored normoglycemia.
Moreover, “Queen’s song ‘We Will Rock You’ generated sufficient insulin to rapidly attenuate postprandial glycemic excursions during glucose tolerance tests,” the team says.
In contrast, animals without implants, or those that had implants but did not have music immersion, remained severely hyperglycemic, they add.
They also note that the effect was seen only when the sound waves “directly impinge on the skin just above the implantation site” for at least 15 minutes, with no increase in insulin release observed with commercially available headphones or ear plugs, such as Apple AirPods, or with loud environmental noises.
Consequently, “therapeutic MUSIC sessions would still be compatible with listening to other types of music or listening to all types of music via headphones,” the researchers write, and are “compatible with standard drug administration schemes.”
The study was supported by a European Research Council advanced grant and in part by the Swiss National Science Foundation NCCR Molecular Systems Engineering. One author acknowledges the support of the Chinese Scholarship Council.
No relevant financial relationships were declared.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM THE LANCET DIABETES & ENDOCRINOLOGY
Less is more for axillary surgery in early breast cancer
SAN ANTONIO — than do those who have more extensive surgery, according to findings from a large meta-analysis.
Less extensive surgery also reduced patients’ risk for lymphedema, according to research (abstract GS02-05) presented at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium.
These results, which included data from more than 20,000 women, may “reassure” patients and clinicians that more extensive axillary lymph node dissection “does not improve outcomes in many women with early-stage breast cancer,” said Andrea V. Barrio, MD, a breast surgeon at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City, who was not involved in the study.
Gurdeep S. Mannu, DPhil, of the University of Oxford, United Kingdom, who presented the findings at SABCS, explained that the optimal surgical management of the axilla remains uncertain in this patient population.
To better understand the long-term risks and benefits of more vs less aggressive axillary surgery in early breast cancer, Dr. Mannu and colleagues performed a meta-analysis of 29 randomized trials conducted over six decades, which included data on 20,285 women. The trials compared more vs less extensive axillary surgery as well as axillary surgery vs axillary radiotherapy.
In trials comparing more vs less extensive axillary surgery, researchers found that 83% of locoregional recurrences occurred in the breast or in multiple sites/unspecified locations, and the remaining 17% occurred in isolated axilla or other local recurrences, such as in the supraclavicular fossa or internal mammary chain.
Those with recurrences in the breast or multiple sites/unspecified locations did not benefit from more extensive surgery, demonstrating similar recurrence rates (RR) (RR for breast, 1.13; 95% CI, 0.92-1.40; RR for other, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.67-1.18).
The group with recurrences in isolated axilla or other local recurrences tended to do better with more extensive surgery (RR, 0.43 and 0.41, respectively).
Overall though, after a median follow-up of 10 years, differences in locoregional recurrence rates at any site did not differ among patients who had more vs less extensive axillary surgery (RR, 0.91; P = .22). This finding held even when restricting the analysis to women with node-positive disease/unknown nodal status (RR, 1.00; P = .98) and for node-negative women (RR, 0.88; P = .15).
Dr. Mannu and colleagues observed similar findings for distant recurrence, breast cancer mortality, and death from any cause.
“But where there was quite a striking difference was in morbidity,” said Dr. Mannu.
To examine rates of lymphedema — the surgical complication that has been “one of the main motivations” for the deescalation trials of the past few decades — the researchers focused on more recent trials, which “are most relevant to women treated today,” Dr. Mannu explained.
These showed that more extensive axillary surgery was associated with almost 2.5-times the rate of lymphedema compared with less extensive treatment (odds ratio [OR], 2.43).
Finally, the team compared axillary dissection with axillary radiotherapy across five trials and found no significant differences in the treatment approaches in terms of locoregional occurrence, distant recurrence, breast cancer mortality, and death from any cause.
However, once again, a notable difference in rates of lymphedema occurred, with axillary dissection associated with higher rates compared with radiotherapy (OR, 1.79).
This is “probably the largest meta-analysis comparing more vs less axillary surgery,” Dr. Barrio said in an interview.
“When we have one or two positive sentinel nodes, anywhere from 30%-50% of women will have additional positive lymph nodes that we’re not removing” with less extensive surgery, she explained. This study shows that, even then, this “doesn’t seem to impact on survival.”
This is “likely related to better medical treatment and radiation techniques that can treat that disease just as well as big surgery, but with less lymphedema,” she added.
Nevertheless, Dr. Barrio believes that there are “situations where we still feel that axillary lymph node dissection is important: in women with advanced cancer, like inflammatory breast cancer, and in women who’ve received chemotherapy upfront, then had surgery, and still have positive nodes after the chemo.”
The study was funded by Cancer Research UK, British Heart Foundation, Medical Research Council.
No relevant financial relationships have been declared.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
SAN ANTONIO — than do those who have more extensive surgery, according to findings from a large meta-analysis.
Less extensive surgery also reduced patients’ risk for lymphedema, according to research (abstract GS02-05) presented at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium.
These results, which included data from more than 20,000 women, may “reassure” patients and clinicians that more extensive axillary lymph node dissection “does not improve outcomes in many women with early-stage breast cancer,” said Andrea V. Barrio, MD, a breast surgeon at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City, who was not involved in the study.
Gurdeep S. Mannu, DPhil, of the University of Oxford, United Kingdom, who presented the findings at SABCS, explained that the optimal surgical management of the axilla remains uncertain in this patient population.
To better understand the long-term risks and benefits of more vs less aggressive axillary surgery in early breast cancer, Dr. Mannu and colleagues performed a meta-analysis of 29 randomized trials conducted over six decades, which included data on 20,285 women. The trials compared more vs less extensive axillary surgery as well as axillary surgery vs axillary radiotherapy.
In trials comparing more vs less extensive axillary surgery, researchers found that 83% of locoregional recurrences occurred in the breast or in multiple sites/unspecified locations, and the remaining 17% occurred in isolated axilla or other local recurrences, such as in the supraclavicular fossa or internal mammary chain.
Those with recurrences in the breast or multiple sites/unspecified locations did not benefit from more extensive surgery, demonstrating similar recurrence rates (RR) (RR for breast, 1.13; 95% CI, 0.92-1.40; RR for other, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.67-1.18).
The group with recurrences in isolated axilla or other local recurrences tended to do better with more extensive surgery (RR, 0.43 and 0.41, respectively).
Overall though, after a median follow-up of 10 years, differences in locoregional recurrence rates at any site did not differ among patients who had more vs less extensive axillary surgery (RR, 0.91; P = .22). This finding held even when restricting the analysis to women with node-positive disease/unknown nodal status (RR, 1.00; P = .98) and for node-negative women (RR, 0.88; P = .15).
Dr. Mannu and colleagues observed similar findings for distant recurrence, breast cancer mortality, and death from any cause.
“But where there was quite a striking difference was in morbidity,” said Dr. Mannu.
To examine rates of lymphedema — the surgical complication that has been “one of the main motivations” for the deescalation trials of the past few decades — the researchers focused on more recent trials, which “are most relevant to women treated today,” Dr. Mannu explained.
These showed that more extensive axillary surgery was associated with almost 2.5-times the rate of lymphedema compared with less extensive treatment (odds ratio [OR], 2.43).
Finally, the team compared axillary dissection with axillary radiotherapy across five trials and found no significant differences in the treatment approaches in terms of locoregional occurrence, distant recurrence, breast cancer mortality, and death from any cause.
However, once again, a notable difference in rates of lymphedema occurred, with axillary dissection associated with higher rates compared with radiotherapy (OR, 1.79).
This is “probably the largest meta-analysis comparing more vs less axillary surgery,” Dr. Barrio said in an interview.
“When we have one or two positive sentinel nodes, anywhere from 30%-50% of women will have additional positive lymph nodes that we’re not removing” with less extensive surgery, she explained. This study shows that, even then, this “doesn’t seem to impact on survival.”
This is “likely related to better medical treatment and radiation techniques that can treat that disease just as well as big surgery, but with less lymphedema,” she added.
Nevertheless, Dr. Barrio believes that there are “situations where we still feel that axillary lymph node dissection is important: in women with advanced cancer, like inflammatory breast cancer, and in women who’ve received chemotherapy upfront, then had surgery, and still have positive nodes after the chemo.”
The study was funded by Cancer Research UK, British Heart Foundation, Medical Research Council.
No relevant financial relationships have been declared.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
SAN ANTONIO — than do those who have more extensive surgery, according to findings from a large meta-analysis.
Less extensive surgery also reduced patients’ risk for lymphedema, according to research (abstract GS02-05) presented at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium.
These results, which included data from more than 20,000 women, may “reassure” patients and clinicians that more extensive axillary lymph node dissection “does not improve outcomes in many women with early-stage breast cancer,” said Andrea V. Barrio, MD, a breast surgeon at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City, who was not involved in the study.
Gurdeep S. Mannu, DPhil, of the University of Oxford, United Kingdom, who presented the findings at SABCS, explained that the optimal surgical management of the axilla remains uncertain in this patient population.
To better understand the long-term risks and benefits of more vs less aggressive axillary surgery in early breast cancer, Dr. Mannu and colleagues performed a meta-analysis of 29 randomized trials conducted over six decades, which included data on 20,285 women. The trials compared more vs less extensive axillary surgery as well as axillary surgery vs axillary radiotherapy.
In trials comparing more vs less extensive axillary surgery, researchers found that 83% of locoregional recurrences occurred in the breast or in multiple sites/unspecified locations, and the remaining 17% occurred in isolated axilla or other local recurrences, such as in the supraclavicular fossa or internal mammary chain.
Those with recurrences in the breast or multiple sites/unspecified locations did not benefit from more extensive surgery, demonstrating similar recurrence rates (RR) (RR for breast, 1.13; 95% CI, 0.92-1.40; RR for other, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.67-1.18).
The group with recurrences in isolated axilla or other local recurrences tended to do better with more extensive surgery (RR, 0.43 and 0.41, respectively).
Overall though, after a median follow-up of 10 years, differences in locoregional recurrence rates at any site did not differ among patients who had more vs less extensive axillary surgery (RR, 0.91; P = .22). This finding held even when restricting the analysis to women with node-positive disease/unknown nodal status (RR, 1.00; P = .98) and for node-negative women (RR, 0.88; P = .15).
Dr. Mannu and colleagues observed similar findings for distant recurrence, breast cancer mortality, and death from any cause.
“But where there was quite a striking difference was in morbidity,” said Dr. Mannu.
To examine rates of lymphedema — the surgical complication that has been “one of the main motivations” for the deescalation trials of the past few decades — the researchers focused on more recent trials, which “are most relevant to women treated today,” Dr. Mannu explained.
These showed that more extensive axillary surgery was associated with almost 2.5-times the rate of lymphedema compared with less extensive treatment (odds ratio [OR], 2.43).
Finally, the team compared axillary dissection with axillary radiotherapy across five trials and found no significant differences in the treatment approaches in terms of locoregional occurrence, distant recurrence, breast cancer mortality, and death from any cause.
However, once again, a notable difference in rates of lymphedema occurred, with axillary dissection associated with higher rates compared with radiotherapy (OR, 1.79).
This is “probably the largest meta-analysis comparing more vs less axillary surgery,” Dr. Barrio said in an interview.
“When we have one or two positive sentinel nodes, anywhere from 30%-50% of women will have additional positive lymph nodes that we’re not removing” with less extensive surgery, she explained. This study shows that, even then, this “doesn’t seem to impact on survival.”
This is “likely related to better medical treatment and radiation techniques that can treat that disease just as well as big surgery, but with less lymphedema,” she added.
Nevertheless, Dr. Barrio believes that there are “situations where we still feel that axillary lymph node dissection is important: in women with advanced cancer, like inflammatory breast cancer, and in women who’ve received chemotherapy upfront, then had surgery, and still have positive nodes after the chemo.”
The study was funded by Cancer Research UK, British Heart Foundation, Medical Research Council.
No relevant financial relationships have been declared.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM SABCS 2023
Avoid anti-HER2 cancer therapies during pregnancy
TOPLINE:
, according to a recent analysis.
METHODOLOGY:
- Current guidelines do not recommend treating pregnant women with trastuzumab, given documented safety concerns. Other anti-HER2 agents are also discouraged in this setting because of a lack of safety data. However, when considering the efficacy of these drugs in HER2-positive breast cancer, having a better understanding of the potential toxicities in pregnant patients is important.
- In the current case-control analysis, the team explored the risk for adverse effects among pregnant women exposed to anti-HER2 agents vs other anticancer drugs.
- The researchers leveraged the World Health Organization’s pharmacovigilance database, VigiBase, to identify reports with at least one pregnancy-related complication and one suspected anticancer drug.
- The researchers classified exposure to the drugs as occurring before pregnancy, during pregnancy, or via breast milk, semen, or skin. The team then examined 30 maternal and fetal or neonatal adverse outcomes and grouped them into seven categories: abortions, stillbirths, congenital malformations, pregnancy complications, preterm birth, neonatal complications, and delivery complications.
- The most used anti-HER2 agent was trastuzumab (n = 302), followed by pertuzumab (n = 55), trastuzumab-emtansine (n = 20), and lapatinib (n = 18).
TAKEAWAY:
- Among 3,558 reports included in the analysis, 328 patients were exposed to anti-HER2 drugs compared with 3,230 patients who received other anticancer agents.
- Pregnancy, fetal, or newborn adverse outcomes were reported in 61.3% of women treated with anti-HER2 agents and 56.3% of those receiving other anticancer drugs.
- The five most frequently reported complications in the anti-HER2 group were oligohydramnios (23.8%), preterm birth (17.4%), intrauterine growth restriction (9.8%), neonatal respiratory disorder (7.3%), and spontaneous abortion (7.3%).
- Adverse outcomes overreported in women who received anti-HER2 agents included oligohydramnios (reporting odds ratio [ROR], 17.68), congenital tract disorders (ROR, 9.98), and neonatal kidney failure (ROR, 9.15). Cardiovascular malformations were also overreported among women receiving trastuzumab-emtansine (ROR, 4.46), as were intrauterine growth restrictions for those treated with lapatinib (ROR, 7.68).
IN PRACTICE:
Exposure to anti-HER2 agents was associated with “severe specific adverse pregnancy and fetal or newborn outcomes compared with exposure to other anticancer treatments,” with a “strong, highly significant overreporting of congenital respiratory tract disorders and neonatal kidney failure,” which can lead to oligohydramnios, the authors wrote. The authors also noted that when delaying anti-HER2 therapy is not possible, it’s imperative to monitor patients closely for oligohydramnios.
SOURCE:
The study, led by Paul Gougis, MD, Institut Curie Centre de Recherche, Paris, , was published online in JAMA Network Open.
LIMITATIONS:
Potential inconsistencies in the collection of pharmacovigilance data could limit the generalizability of the results in the general population. The group of women exposed to other anticancer therapies may also constitute a different patient population from that given anti-HER2 therapies.
DISCLOSURES:
Coauthor Jean-Philippe Spano, MD, PhD, declared relationships Gilead, AstraZeneca, Lilly, Pfizer, Novartis, Daiichi Sankyo, and GSK.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
, according to a recent analysis.
METHODOLOGY:
- Current guidelines do not recommend treating pregnant women with trastuzumab, given documented safety concerns. Other anti-HER2 agents are also discouraged in this setting because of a lack of safety data. However, when considering the efficacy of these drugs in HER2-positive breast cancer, having a better understanding of the potential toxicities in pregnant patients is important.
- In the current case-control analysis, the team explored the risk for adverse effects among pregnant women exposed to anti-HER2 agents vs other anticancer drugs.
- The researchers leveraged the World Health Organization’s pharmacovigilance database, VigiBase, to identify reports with at least one pregnancy-related complication and one suspected anticancer drug.
- The researchers classified exposure to the drugs as occurring before pregnancy, during pregnancy, or via breast milk, semen, or skin. The team then examined 30 maternal and fetal or neonatal adverse outcomes and grouped them into seven categories: abortions, stillbirths, congenital malformations, pregnancy complications, preterm birth, neonatal complications, and delivery complications.
- The most used anti-HER2 agent was trastuzumab (n = 302), followed by pertuzumab (n = 55), trastuzumab-emtansine (n = 20), and lapatinib (n = 18).
TAKEAWAY:
- Among 3,558 reports included in the analysis, 328 patients were exposed to anti-HER2 drugs compared with 3,230 patients who received other anticancer agents.
- Pregnancy, fetal, or newborn adverse outcomes were reported in 61.3% of women treated with anti-HER2 agents and 56.3% of those receiving other anticancer drugs.
- The five most frequently reported complications in the anti-HER2 group were oligohydramnios (23.8%), preterm birth (17.4%), intrauterine growth restriction (9.8%), neonatal respiratory disorder (7.3%), and spontaneous abortion (7.3%).
- Adverse outcomes overreported in women who received anti-HER2 agents included oligohydramnios (reporting odds ratio [ROR], 17.68), congenital tract disorders (ROR, 9.98), and neonatal kidney failure (ROR, 9.15). Cardiovascular malformations were also overreported among women receiving trastuzumab-emtansine (ROR, 4.46), as were intrauterine growth restrictions for those treated with lapatinib (ROR, 7.68).
IN PRACTICE:
Exposure to anti-HER2 agents was associated with “severe specific adverse pregnancy and fetal or newborn outcomes compared with exposure to other anticancer treatments,” with a “strong, highly significant overreporting of congenital respiratory tract disorders and neonatal kidney failure,” which can lead to oligohydramnios, the authors wrote. The authors also noted that when delaying anti-HER2 therapy is not possible, it’s imperative to monitor patients closely for oligohydramnios.
SOURCE:
The study, led by Paul Gougis, MD, Institut Curie Centre de Recherche, Paris, , was published online in JAMA Network Open.
LIMITATIONS:
Potential inconsistencies in the collection of pharmacovigilance data could limit the generalizability of the results in the general population. The group of women exposed to other anticancer therapies may also constitute a different patient population from that given anti-HER2 therapies.
DISCLOSURES:
Coauthor Jean-Philippe Spano, MD, PhD, declared relationships Gilead, AstraZeneca, Lilly, Pfizer, Novartis, Daiichi Sankyo, and GSK.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
, according to a recent analysis.
METHODOLOGY:
- Current guidelines do not recommend treating pregnant women with trastuzumab, given documented safety concerns. Other anti-HER2 agents are also discouraged in this setting because of a lack of safety data. However, when considering the efficacy of these drugs in HER2-positive breast cancer, having a better understanding of the potential toxicities in pregnant patients is important.
- In the current case-control analysis, the team explored the risk for adverse effects among pregnant women exposed to anti-HER2 agents vs other anticancer drugs.
- The researchers leveraged the World Health Organization’s pharmacovigilance database, VigiBase, to identify reports with at least one pregnancy-related complication and one suspected anticancer drug.
- The researchers classified exposure to the drugs as occurring before pregnancy, during pregnancy, or via breast milk, semen, or skin. The team then examined 30 maternal and fetal or neonatal adverse outcomes and grouped them into seven categories: abortions, stillbirths, congenital malformations, pregnancy complications, preterm birth, neonatal complications, and delivery complications.
- The most used anti-HER2 agent was trastuzumab (n = 302), followed by pertuzumab (n = 55), trastuzumab-emtansine (n = 20), and lapatinib (n = 18).
TAKEAWAY:
- Among 3,558 reports included in the analysis, 328 patients were exposed to anti-HER2 drugs compared with 3,230 patients who received other anticancer agents.
- Pregnancy, fetal, or newborn adverse outcomes were reported in 61.3% of women treated with anti-HER2 agents and 56.3% of those receiving other anticancer drugs.
- The five most frequently reported complications in the anti-HER2 group were oligohydramnios (23.8%), preterm birth (17.4%), intrauterine growth restriction (9.8%), neonatal respiratory disorder (7.3%), and spontaneous abortion (7.3%).
- Adverse outcomes overreported in women who received anti-HER2 agents included oligohydramnios (reporting odds ratio [ROR], 17.68), congenital tract disorders (ROR, 9.98), and neonatal kidney failure (ROR, 9.15). Cardiovascular malformations were also overreported among women receiving trastuzumab-emtansine (ROR, 4.46), as were intrauterine growth restrictions for those treated with lapatinib (ROR, 7.68).
IN PRACTICE:
Exposure to anti-HER2 agents was associated with “severe specific adverse pregnancy and fetal or newborn outcomes compared with exposure to other anticancer treatments,” with a “strong, highly significant overreporting of congenital respiratory tract disorders and neonatal kidney failure,” which can lead to oligohydramnios, the authors wrote. The authors also noted that when delaying anti-HER2 therapy is not possible, it’s imperative to monitor patients closely for oligohydramnios.
SOURCE:
The study, led by Paul Gougis, MD, Institut Curie Centre de Recherche, Paris, , was published online in JAMA Network Open.
LIMITATIONS:
Potential inconsistencies in the collection of pharmacovigilance data could limit the generalizability of the results in the general population. The group of women exposed to other anticancer therapies may also constitute a different patient population from that given anti-HER2 therapies.
DISCLOSURES:
Coauthor Jean-Philippe Spano, MD, PhD, declared relationships Gilead, AstraZeneca, Lilly, Pfizer, Novartis, Daiichi Sankyo, and GSK.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Insufficient sleep impairs women’s insulin sensitivity
Women, particularly those who are postmenopausal, who sleep less than the recommended 7 hours per night may have impaired insulin sensitivity regardless of their degree of adiposity, a randomized crossover trial reveals.
The research was published recently in Diabetes Care.
Nearly 40 women were randomly assigned to either restricted sleep or adequate sleep for 6 weeks, then crossed over to the other sleep condition. During sleep restriction, women slept an average of 6.2 hours per night versus 7-9 hours per night.
Both fasting insulin levels and insulin resistance were significantly increased during sleep restriction, with the effect on insulin resistance particularly notable in postmenopausal women. This was independent of adiposity and changes in adiposity.
“What we’re seeing is that more insulin is needed to normalize glucose levels in the women under conditions of sleep restriction,” said senior author Marie-Pierre St-Onge, PhD, director of the Center of Excellence for Sleep and Circadian Research at Columbia University Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York, in a release.
“Even then, the insulin may not have been doing enough to counteract rising blood glucose levels of postmenopausal women,” she stated.
Prolonged lack of sleep may accelerate diabetes progression
Dr. St-Onge added,
Dr. St-Onge said in an interview that it was crucial to show the impact of sleep restriction in a randomized study, because “observational studies don’t provide information on causality.”
The study did not rely on people “living in our clinical research facility,” but instead enrolled individuals who were “living their lives,” and the reduction in sleep achieved was “similar to what is seen in the general population with sleep,” she said.
Dr. St-Onge therefore believes the findings indicate that sleep has been overlooked as a contributory factor in insulin sensitivity.
Robert Gabbay, MD, PhD, chief scientific and medical officer at the American Diabetes Association, said in an interview that this is an “important study [that] builds on what we have seen on the importance of sleep for metabolic outcomes and diabetes.”
He continued, “There have been several studies showing the association of sleep and diabetes, but that does not necessarily mean cause and effect.”
On the other hand, Dr. Gabbay said, “randomizing people can help see sleep influences on key metabolic measures of diabetes, [which] helps to build a stronger case that sleep disturbances can cause worsening metabolic health.”
He emphasized that both the quantity and quality of sleep are “critical for optimal diabetes health” and highlighted that the ADA’s Standards of Care “recommends screening for sleep issues and counseling to improve sleep.”
“This study provides new insight into the health effects of even small sleep deficits in women across all stages of adulthood and racial and ethnic backgrounds,” commented Corinne Silva, PhD, program director in the Division of Diabetes, Endocrinology, and Metabolic Diseases at the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, which co-funded the study.
The authors note that more than one-third of adults sleep less than the recommended 7 hours per night, which is “concerning given robust associations of short sleep with cardiometabolic diseases.”
Moreover, “women report poorer sleep than men,” explained Marishka Brown, PhD, director of the National Center on Sleep Disorders Research at the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, which also co-funded the study.
“So understanding how sleep disturbances impact their health across the lifespan is critical, especially for postmenopausal women,” she said, particularly because previous studies have not reflected real-world sleep patterns or have focused on men.
The researchers conducted a trial to evaluate the causal impact of prolonged, mild sleep restriction on cardiometabolic risk factors in women as part of the American Heart Association Go Red for Women Strategically Focused Research Network.
They recruited metabolically healthy women aged 20-75 years who were at increased risk for cardiometabolic disease due to having either overweight or class I obesity or at least one parent with type 2 diabetes, hyperlipidemia, or cardiovascular disease.
They were also required to have a habitual total sleep time on actigraphy of 7-9 hours per night and low risk for sleep apnea. Exclusion criteria included excessive caffeine intake, a significantly advanced or delayed sleep phase, shift work, and travel across time zones.
The participants were randomly assigned to either adequate sleep, defined as 7-9 hours per night, or sleep restriction, defined as a reduction in sleep duration of 1.5 hours per night, for 6 weeks. They were then crossed over to the other sleep condition.
Assessments, including MRI and oral glucose tolerance tests, were performed at baseline and at the end of each study phase.
The researchers report on 38 women who took part in the trial, of whom 11 were postmenopausal. The mean age was 37.6 years; 31.6% self-identified as Black and 26.3% as Hispanic. The mean body mass index (BMI) was 25.5.
Postmenopausal women had a higher mean age than other women, at 56.1 years versus 30.1 years, and a higher baseline fasting blood glucose, at 5.26 mmol/L (94.68 mg/dL) versus 4.70 mmol/L (84.6 mg/dL).
The team reported that compliance with the sleep protocol was “excellent,” with women during sleep restriction having a reduction in total sleep time of 1.34 hours per night versus women in the adequate sleep arm (P < .0001).
Sleep restriction was also associated with significant increases in fasting plasma insulin versus adequate sleep, at a beta value of 0.68 pmol/L (P = .016), and significantly increased Homeostatic Model Assessment for Insulin Resistance (HOMA-IR) values (beta = 0.30; P = .016).
The impact on HOMA-IR values was significantly more pronounced in postmenopausal than menopausal women, at beta values of 0.45 versus 0.27 (P for interaction = .042).
Sleep restriction had no significant effect on fasting plasma glucose levels, and the association between sleep duration and cardiometabolic parameters was not modified by the proportion of either total or visceral adipose tissue, or by changes in adiposity.
This clinical trial was supported by the American Heart Association, a National Institutes of Health Clinical and Translational Science Award to Columbia University, and N.Y. Nutrition Obesity Research Center. Individual authors received support from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. No relevant financial relationships were declared.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Women, particularly those who are postmenopausal, who sleep less than the recommended 7 hours per night may have impaired insulin sensitivity regardless of their degree of adiposity, a randomized crossover trial reveals.
The research was published recently in Diabetes Care.
Nearly 40 women were randomly assigned to either restricted sleep or adequate sleep for 6 weeks, then crossed over to the other sleep condition. During sleep restriction, women slept an average of 6.2 hours per night versus 7-9 hours per night.
Both fasting insulin levels and insulin resistance were significantly increased during sleep restriction, with the effect on insulin resistance particularly notable in postmenopausal women. This was independent of adiposity and changes in adiposity.
“What we’re seeing is that more insulin is needed to normalize glucose levels in the women under conditions of sleep restriction,” said senior author Marie-Pierre St-Onge, PhD, director of the Center of Excellence for Sleep and Circadian Research at Columbia University Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York, in a release.
“Even then, the insulin may not have been doing enough to counteract rising blood glucose levels of postmenopausal women,” she stated.
Prolonged lack of sleep may accelerate diabetes progression
Dr. St-Onge added,
Dr. St-Onge said in an interview that it was crucial to show the impact of sleep restriction in a randomized study, because “observational studies don’t provide information on causality.”
The study did not rely on people “living in our clinical research facility,” but instead enrolled individuals who were “living their lives,” and the reduction in sleep achieved was “similar to what is seen in the general population with sleep,” she said.
Dr. St-Onge therefore believes the findings indicate that sleep has been overlooked as a contributory factor in insulin sensitivity.
Robert Gabbay, MD, PhD, chief scientific and medical officer at the American Diabetes Association, said in an interview that this is an “important study [that] builds on what we have seen on the importance of sleep for metabolic outcomes and diabetes.”
He continued, “There have been several studies showing the association of sleep and diabetes, but that does not necessarily mean cause and effect.”
On the other hand, Dr. Gabbay said, “randomizing people can help see sleep influences on key metabolic measures of diabetes, [which] helps to build a stronger case that sleep disturbances can cause worsening metabolic health.”
He emphasized that both the quantity and quality of sleep are “critical for optimal diabetes health” and highlighted that the ADA’s Standards of Care “recommends screening for sleep issues and counseling to improve sleep.”
“This study provides new insight into the health effects of even small sleep deficits in women across all stages of adulthood and racial and ethnic backgrounds,” commented Corinne Silva, PhD, program director in the Division of Diabetes, Endocrinology, and Metabolic Diseases at the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, which co-funded the study.
The authors note that more than one-third of adults sleep less than the recommended 7 hours per night, which is “concerning given robust associations of short sleep with cardiometabolic diseases.”
Moreover, “women report poorer sleep than men,” explained Marishka Brown, PhD, director of the National Center on Sleep Disorders Research at the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, which also co-funded the study.
“So understanding how sleep disturbances impact their health across the lifespan is critical, especially for postmenopausal women,” she said, particularly because previous studies have not reflected real-world sleep patterns or have focused on men.
The researchers conducted a trial to evaluate the causal impact of prolonged, mild sleep restriction on cardiometabolic risk factors in women as part of the American Heart Association Go Red for Women Strategically Focused Research Network.
They recruited metabolically healthy women aged 20-75 years who were at increased risk for cardiometabolic disease due to having either overweight or class I obesity or at least one parent with type 2 diabetes, hyperlipidemia, or cardiovascular disease.
They were also required to have a habitual total sleep time on actigraphy of 7-9 hours per night and low risk for sleep apnea. Exclusion criteria included excessive caffeine intake, a significantly advanced or delayed sleep phase, shift work, and travel across time zones.
The participants were randomly assigned to either adequate sleep, defined as 7-9 hours per night, or sleep restriction, defined as a reduction in sleep duration of 1.5 hours per night, for 6 weeks. They were then crossed over to the other sleep condition.
Assessments, including MRI and oral glucose tolerance tests, were performed at baseline and at the end of each study phase.
The researchers report on 38 women who took part in the trial, of whom 11 were postmenopausal. The mean age was 37.6 years; 31.6% self-identified as Black and 26.3% as Hispanic. The mean body mass index (BMI) was 25.5.
Postmenopausal women had a higher mean age than other women, at 56.1 years versus 30.1 years, and a higher baseline fasting blood glucose, at 5.26 mmol/L (94.68 mg/dL) versus 4.70 mmol/L (84.6 mg/dL).
The team reported that compliance with the sleep protocol was “excellent,” with women during sleep restriction having a reduction in total sleep time of 1.34 hours per night versus women in the adequate sleep arm (P < .0001).
Sleep restriction was also associated with significant increases in fasting plasma insulin versus adequate sleep, at a beta value of 0.68 pmol/L (P = .016), and significantly increased Homeostatic Model Assessment for Insulin Resistance (HOMA-IR) values (beta = 0.30; P = .016).
The impact on HOMA-IR values was significantly more pronounced in postmenopausal than menopausal women, at beta values of 0.45 versus 0.27 (P for interaction = .042).
Sleep restriction had no significant effect on fasting plasma glucose levels, and the association between sleep duration and cardiometabolic parameters was not modified by the proportion of either total or visceral adipose tissue, or by changes in adiposity.
This clinical trial was supported by the American Heart Association, a National Institutes of Health Clinical and Translational Science Award to Columbia University, and N.Y. Nutrition Obesity Research Center. Individual authors received support from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. No relevant financial relationships were declared.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Women, particularly those who are postmenopausal, who sleep less than the recommended 7 hours per night may have impaired insulin sensitivity regardless of their degree of adiposity, a randomized crossover trial reveals.
The research was published recently in Diabetes Care.
Nearly 40 women were randomly assigned to either restricted sleep or adequate sleep for 6 weeks, then crossed over to the other sleep condition. During sleep restriction, women slept an average of 6.2 hours per night versus 7-9 hours per night.
Both fasting insulin levels and insulin resistance were significantly increased during sleep restriction, with the effect on insulin resistance particularly notable in postmenopausal women. This was independent of adiposity and changes in adiposity.
“What we’re seeing is that more insulin is needed to normalize glucose levels in the women under conditions of sleep restriction,” said senior author Marie-Pierre St-Onge, PhD, director of the Center of Excellence for Sleep and Circadian Research at Columbia University Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York, in a release.
“Even then, the insulin may not have been doing enough to counteract rising blood glucose levels of postmenopausal women,” she stated.
Prolonged lack of sleep may accelerate diabetes progression
Dr. St-Onge added,
Dr. St-Onge said in an interview that it was crucial to show the impact of sleep restriction in a randomized study, because “observational studies don’t provide information on causality.”
The study did not rely on people “living in our clinical research facility,” but instead enrolled individuals who were “living their lives,” and the reduction in sleep achieved was “similar to what is seen in the general population with sleep,” she said.
Dr. St-Onge therefore believes the findings indicate that sleep has been overlooked as a contributory factor in insulin sensitivity.
Robert Gabbay, MD, PhD, chief scientific and medical officer at the American Diabetes Association, said in an interview that this is an “important study [that] builds on what we have seen on the importance of sleep for metabolic outcomes and diabetes.”
He continued, “There have been several studies showing the association of sleep and diabetes, but that does not necessarily mean cause and effect.”
On the other hand, Dr. Gabbay said, “randomizing people can help see sleep influences on key metabolic measures of diabetes, [which] helps to build a stronger case that sleep disturbances can cause worsening metabolic health.”
He emphasized that both the quantity and quality of sleep are “critical for optimal diabetes health” and highlighted that the ADA’s Standards of Care “recommends screening for sleep issues and counseling to improve sleep.”
“This study provides new insight into the health effects of even small sleep deficits in women across all stages of adulthood and racial and ethnic backgrounds,” commented Corinne Silva, PhD, program director in the Division of Diabetes, Endocrinology, and Metabolic Diseases at the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, which co-funded the study.
The authors note that more than one-third of adults sleep less than the recommended 7 hours per night, which is “concerning given robust associations of short sleep with cardiometabolic diseases.”
Moreover, “women report poorer sleep than men,” explained Marishka Brown, PhD, director of the National Center on Sleep Disorders Research at the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, which also co-funded the study.
“So understanding how sleep disturbances impact their health across the lifespan is critical, especially for postmenopausal women,” she said, particularly because previous studies have not reflected real-world sleep patterns or have focused on men.
The researchers conducted a trial to evaluate the causal impact of prolonged, mild sleep restriction on cardiometabolic risk factors in women as part of the American Heart Association Go Red for Women Strategically Focused Research Network.
They recruited metabolically healthy women aged 20-75 years who were at increased risk for cardiometabolic disease due to having either overweight or class I obesity or at least one parent with type 2 diabetes, hyperlipidemia, or cardiovascular disease.
They were also required to have a habitual total sleep time on actigraphy of 7-9 hours per night and low risk for sleep apnea. Exclusion criteria included excessive caffeine intake, a significantly advanced or delayed sleep phase, shift work, and travel across time zones.
The participants were randomly assigned to either adequate sleep, defined as 7-9 hours per night, or sleep restriction, defined as a reduction in sleep duration of 1.5 hours per night, for 6 weeks. They were then crossed over to the other sleep condition.
Assessments, including MRI and oral glucose tolerance tests, were performed at baseline and at the end of each study phase.
The researchers report on 38 women who took part in the trial, of whom 11 were postmenopausal. The mean age was 37.6 years; 31.6% self-identified as Black and 26.3% as Hispanic. The mean body mass index (BMI) was 25.5.
Postmenopausal women had a higher mean age than other women, at 56.1 years versus 30.1 years, and a higher baseline fasting blood glucose, at 5.26 mmol/L (94.68 mg/dL) versus 4.70 mmol/L (84.6 mg/dL).
The team reported that compliance with the sleep protocol was “excellent,” with women during sleep restriction having a reduction in total sleep time of 1.34 hours per night versus women in the adequate sleep arm (P < .0001).
Sleep restriction was also associated with significant increases in fasting plasma insulin versus adequate sleep, at a beta value of 0.68 pmol/L (P = .016), and significantly increased Homeostatic Model Assessment for Insulin Resistance (HOMA-IR) values (beta = 0.30; P = .016).
The impact on HOMA-IR values was significantly more pronounced in postmenopausal than menopausal women, at beta values of 0.45 versus 0.27 (P for interaction = .042).
Sleep restriction had no significant effect on fasting plasma glucose levels, and the association between sleep duration and cardiometabolic parameters was not modified by the proportion of either total or visceral adipose tissue, or by changes in adiposity.
This clinical trial was supported by the American Heart Association, a National Institutes of Health Clinical and Translational Science Award to Columbia University, and N.Y. Nutrition Obesity Research Center. Individual authors received support from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. No relevant financial relationships were declared.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM DIABETES CARE
Does laughter offer better blood glucose control?
David S. Greene, PhD, associate professor in the department of rehabilitation and human services at the University of Northern Colorado, Greeley, has pioneered research into the field, one previously overlooked when it comes to diabetes management.
This news organization caught up with Dr. Greene to ask about his research along with the implications for diabetes care and for patient well-being.
Question: What prompted you to research the link between humor and diabetes control?
Answer: I was diagnosed with type 1 diabetes in 1966 and consequently have lived with, and studied, various aspects of diabetes for the past 57 years.
For a time, I maintained a small private practice counseling people with diabetes. There I noticed, anecdotally, that my clients’ ability to laugh at, and see the humor in, their diabetes correlated with their emotional adjustment to living with their condition.
While I could find research confirming the physical and psychological benefits of humor in general, I was unable to find any research specifically relating to humor and diabetes.
My new research agenda was born.
Q: What did your research reveal?
A: My first study, published in 2020, found that people living with diabetes displayed the same level of both types of positive, or affiliative and self-enhancing, humor as the norm group used in developing the Humor Styles Questionnaire.
This was a surprising finding given that individuals with diabetes are dealing with a life-altering, chronic illness, with higher rates of depression and anxiety. Moreover, positive humor scores are known to be negatively correlated with depression and anxiety.
While levels of aggressive humor were not altered in my study, people with diabetes did have higher levels of self-defeating humor in my study, which is correlated with psychiatric and somatic concerns, and symptomatology, and so is to be expected.
My second study, published in 2021, examined whether there was a difference between people with diabetes who had an hemoglobin A1c level of 6.99% or less versus those with levels of at least 7% on four disparate types of humor.
The A1c of 6.99% or less group scored significantly higher for both affiliative humor and self-enhancing humor. This implies that better diabetes control is associated with positive humor. This was expected, as was the finding that negative humor was not associated with better control.
On the other hand, there was no significant difference between participants on either type of negative humor, whether aggressive or self-defeating.
Finally, my third study, published in 2023 [with coauthor Nancy D. King, PhD], found that offering humor training to people with type 1 diabetes can strengthen both their affiliative and self-enhancing sense of humor, while leaving their aggressive or self-defeating humor unaffected.
Q: What is ‘positive humor,’ and why do you think it is associated with diabetes control?
A: Both affiliative and self-enhancing humor enhance a person’s sense of self and their relationships with others.
Affiliative humor has been shown to be positively correlated with self-esteem, psychological well-being, social intimacy, and emotional stability. It is also negatively correlated with depression and anxiety.
Self-enhancing humor involves the ability to maintain a humorous outlook on life and to use humor to regulate emotions and as a coping strategy. Like affiliative humor, it is correlated with cheerfulness, self-esteem, optimism, psychological well-being, and life satisfaction. It is negatively related to depression and anxiety.
The preponderance of literature suggests positive humor specifically is associated with buffering many of the risk factors and complications associated with diabetes.
Q: What could underlie the associations between humor and diabetes control?
A: Unfortunately, none of my studies have been able to determine cause and effect, although the most recent one came the closest.
While not reaching statistical significance, the mean reduction in A1c levels from 7.12% at baseline to 6.75% at the post–humor training assessment may very well imply a practical and psychological significance to patients.
I believe, with a larger sample size, significance will be achieved, and that the relationship between positive humor and diabetes control will be shown to be bidirectional, with positive humor improving diabetes control, and improved control improving positive humor.
I hypothesize this will also bring psychological and physiological benefits. After all, humor has already been associated with reduced blood glucose levels, reduced microvascular complications, improved heart health, reduced blood pressure, decreased levels of depression and anxiety.
Humor also helps us deal with stress and trauma, so a cause-and-effect relationship makes sense.
Q: Can a positive sense of humor be taught?
A: Absolutely. There is evidence that humor can be developed and strengthened. Paul McGhee, PhD, developed a seven-step humor training program that has been effective in elevating measures of humor across a number of studies.
Others have successfully developed their own protocols, and of course my third study demonstrated a significant increase in both affiliative and self-enhancing humor with training.
Q: Do you think humor training could be incorporated into diabetes care?
A: Humor training programs are easily accessible, incur low to no cost, and are easy to implement. Furthermore, once a person is trained, access to ongoing humor is free, readily available, and fun.
Several diabetes educators have also reported that humor can promote connections, encourage and support diabetes management, galvanize effectiveness, and increase an audience’s attention during education programs.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
David S. Greene, PhD, associate professor in the department of rehabilitation and human services at the University of Northern Colorado, Greeley, has pioneered research into the field, one previously overlooked when it comes to diabetes management.
This news organization caught up with Dr. Greene to ask about his research along with the implications for diabetes care and for patient well-being.
Question: What prompted you to research the link between humor and diabetes control?
Answer: I was diagnosed with type 1 diabetes in 1966 and consequently have lived with, and studied, various aspects of diabetes for the past 57 years.
For a time, I maintained a small private practice counseling people with diabetes. There I noticed, anecdotally, that my clients’ ability to laugh at, and see the humor in, their diabetes correlated with their emotional adjustment to living with their condition.
While I could find research confirming the physical and psychological benefits of humor in general, I was unable to find any research specifically relating to humor and diabetes.
My new research agenda was born.
Q: What did your research reveal?
A: My first study, published in 2020, found that people living with diabetes displayed the same level of both types of positive, or affiliative and self-enhancing, humor as the norm group used in developing the Humor Styles Questionnaire.
This was a surprising finding given that individuals with diabetes are dealing with a life-altering, chronic illness, with higher rates of depression and anxiety. Moreover, positive humor scores are known to be negatively correlated with depression and anxiety.
While levels of aggressive humor were not altered in my study, people with diabetes did have higher levels of self-defeating humor in my study, which is correlated with psychiatric and somatic concerns, and symptomatology, and so is to be expected.
My second study, published in 2021, examined whether there was a difference between people with diabetes who had an hemoglobin A1c level of 6.99% or less versus those with levels of at least 7% on four disparate types of humor.
The A1c of 6.99% or less group scored significantly higher for both affiliative humor and self-enhancing humor. This implies that better diabetes control is associated with positive humor. This was expected, as was the finding that negative humor was not associated with better control.
On the other hand, there was no significant difference between participants on either type of negative humor, whether aggressive or self-defeating.
Finally, my third study, published in 2023 [with coauthor Nancy D. King, PhD], found that offering humor training to people with type 1 diabetes can strengthen both their affiliative and self-enhancing sense of humor, while leaving their aggressive or self-defeating humor unaffected.
Q: What is ‘positive humor,’ and why do you think it is associated with diabetes control?
A: Both affiliative and self-enhancing humor enhance a person’s sense of self and their relationships with others.
Affiliative humor has been shown to be positively correlated with self-esteem, psychological well-being, social intimacy, and emotional stability. It is also negatively correlated with depression and anxiety.
Self-enhancing humor involves the ability to maintain a humorous outlook on life and to use humor to regulate emotions and as a coping strategy. Like affiliative humor, it is correlated with cheerfulness, self-esteem, optimism, psychological well-being, and life satisfaction. It is negatively related to depression and anxiety.
The preponderance of literature suggests positive humor specifically is associated with buffering many of the risk factors and complications associated with diabetes.
Q: What could underlie the associations between humor and diabetes control?
A: Unfortunately, none of my studies have been able to determine cause and effect, although the most recent one came the closest.
While not reaching statistical significance, the mean reduction in A1c levels from 7.12% at baseline to 6.75% at the post–humor training assessment may very well imply a practical and psychological significance to patients.
I believe, with a larger sample size, significance will be achieved, and that the relationship between positive humor and diabetes control will be shown to be bidirectional, with positive humor improving diabetes control, and improved control improving positive humor.
I hypothesize this will also bring psychological and physiological benefits. After all, humor has already been associated with reduced blood glucose levels, reduced microvascular complications, improved heart health, reduced blood pressure, decreased levels of depression and anxiety.
Humor also helps us deal with stress and trauma, so a cause-and-effect relationship makes sense.
Q: Can a positive sense of humor be taught?
A: Absolutely. There is evidence that humor can be developed and strengthened. Paul McGhee, PhD, developed a seven-step humor training program that has been effective in elevating measures of humor across a number of studies.
Others have successfully developed their own protocols, and of course my third study demonstrated a significant increase in both affiliative and self-enhancing humor with training.
Q: Do you think humor training could be incorporated into diabetes care?
A: Humor training programs are easily accessible, incur low to no cost, and are easy to implement. Furthermore, once a person is trained, access to ongoing humor is free, readily available, and fun.
Several diabetes educators have also reported that humor can promote connections, encourage and support diabetes management, galvanize effectiveness, and increase an audience’s attention during education programs.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
David S. Greene, PhD, associate professor in the department of rehabilitation and human services at the University of Northern Colorado, Greeley, has pioneered research into the field, one previously overlooked when it comes to diabetes management.
This news organization caught up with Dr. Greene to ask about his research along with the implications for diabetes care and for patient well-being.
Question: What prompted you to research the link between humor and diabetes control?
Answer: I was diagnosed with type 1 diabetes in 1966 and consequently have lived with, and studied, various aspects of diabetes for the past 57 years.
For a time, I maintained a small private practice counseling people with diabetes. There I noticed, anecdotally, that my clients’ ability to laugh at, and see the humor in, their diabetes correlated with their emotional adjustment to living with their condition.
While I could find research confirming the physical and psychological benefits of humor in general, I was unable to find any research specifically relating to humor and diabetes.
My new research agenda was born.
Q: What did your research reveal?
A: My first study, published in 2020, found that people living with diabetes displayed the same level of both types of positive, or affiliative and self-enhancing, humor as the norm group used in developing the Humor Styles Questionnaire.
This was a surprising finding given that individuals with diabetes are dealing with a life-altering, chronic illness, with higher rates of depression and anxiety. Moreover, positive humor scores are known to be negatively correlated with depression and anxiety.
While levels of aggressive humor were not altered in my study, people with diabetes did have higher levels of self-defeating humor in my study, which is correlated with psychiatric and somatic concerns, and symptomatology, and so is to be expected.
My second study, published in 2021, examined whether there was a difference between people with diabetes who had an hemoglobin A1c level of 6.99% or less versus those with levels of at least 7% on four disparate types of humor.
The A1c of 6.99% or less group scored significantly higher for both affiliative humor and self-enhancing humor. This implies that better diabetes control is associated with positive humor. This was expected, as was the finding that negative humor was not associated with better control.
On the other hand, there was no significant difference between participants on either type of negative humor, whether aggressive or self-defeating.
Finally, my third study, published in 2023 [with coauthor Nancy D. King, PhD], found that offering humor training to people with type 1 diabetes can strengthen both their affiliative and self-enhancing sense of humor, while leaving their aggressive or self-defeating humor unaffected.
Q: What is ‘positive humor,’ and why do you think it is associated with diabetes control?
A: Both affiliative and self-enhancing humor enhance a person’s sense of self and their relationships with others.
Affiliative humor has been shown to be positively correlated with self-esteem, psychological well-being, social intimacy, and emotional stability. It is also negatively correlated with depression and anxiety.
Self-enhancing humor involves the ability to maintain a humorous outlook on life and to use humor to regulate emotions and as a coping strategy. Like affiliative humor, it is correlated with cheerfulness, self-esteem, optimism, psychological well-being, and life satisfaction. It is negatively related to depression and anxiety.
The preponderance of literature suggests positive humor specifically is associated with buffering many of the risk factors and complications associated with diabetes.
Q: What could underlie the associations between humor and diabetes control?
A: Unfortunately, none of my studies have been able to determine cause and effect, although the most recent one came the closest.
While not reaching statistical significance, the mean reduction in A1c levels from 7.12% at baseline to 6.75% at the post–humor training assessment may very well imply a practical and psychological significance to patients.
I believe, with a larger sample size, significance will be achieved, and that the relationship between positive humor and diabetes control will be shown to be bidirectional, with positive humor improving diabetes control, and improved control improving positive humor.
I hypothesize this will also bring psychological and physiological benefits. After all, humor has already been associated with reduced blood glucose levels, reduced microvascular complications, improved heart health, reduced blood pressure, decreased levels of depression and anxiety.
Humor also helps us deal with stress and trauma, so a cause-and-effect relationship makes sense.
Q: Can a positive sense of humor be taught?
A: Absolutely. There is evidence that humor can be developed and strengthened. Paul McGhee, PhD, developed a seven-step humor training program that has been effective in elevating measures of humor across a number of studies.
Others have successfully developed their own protocols, and of course my third study demonstrated a significant increase in both affiliative and self-enhancing humor with training.
Q: Do you think humor training could be incorporated into diabetes care?
A: Humor training programs are easily accessible, incur low to no cost, and are easy to implement. Furthermore, once a person is trained, access to ongoing humor is free, readily available, and fun.
Several diabetes educators have also reported that humor can promote connections, encourage and support diabetes management, galvanize effectiveness, and increase an audience’s attention during education programs.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Neoadjuvant, adjuvant, or both? The debate in NSCLC rages on
MADRID – Should patients with resectable non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) receive adjuvant therapy, neoadjuvant therapy, or both, experts asked during a special session at the European Society for Medical Oncology 2023 Congress.
said Silke Gillessen, MD, head of the department of medical oncology, Università della Svizzera Italiana in Lugano, Switzerland.
Opening the session, Enriqueta Felip, MD, PhD, argued in favor of adjuvant therapy alone in resectable NSCLC.
Adjuvant immunotherapy after adjuvant chemotherapy is already considered standard of care for patients with resected NSCLC who don’t harbor EGFR and ALK mutations, explained Dr. Felip, head of the lung cancer unit at Vall d’Hebron University Hospital in Barcelona.
One major benefit to providing adjuvant therapy is that curative surgery won’t be delayed. Neoadjuvant therapy, on the other hand, leads about 15% of patients to forgo surgery, and about 30% who have both neoadjuvant therapy and surgery end up not receiving their planned adjuvant immunotherapy.
Another benefit: Emerging evidence suggests that the adjuvant-only option can improve disease-free and overall survival in select patients.
In the IMpower010 trial, for instance, adjuvant atezolizumab led to a marked improvement in disease-free survival, compared with best supportive care in patients with stage II-IIIA NSCLC. Patients with programmed death–ligand 1 expression of 50% or higher also demonstrated an overall survival benefit (hazard ratio, 0.42).
In the KEYNOTE-091 trial, adjuvant pembrolizumab significantly improved disease-free survival in all comers vs. placebo in patients with stage IB, II, or IIIA NSCLC who had surgery (HR, 0.76).
Providing adjuvant-only immunotherapy also allows for biomarker testing in resected specimens, Dr. Felip said, which may affect the choice of systemic therapy.
Next, Rafal Dziadziuszko, MD, PhD, argued in favor of neoadjuvant therapy alone in the setting of resectable NSCLC.
The advantages of providing treatment before surgery include initiating systemic treatment at an earlier point when most relapses are distant, possibly reducing the risk for tumor cell seeding during surgery as well as potentially leading to less invasive surgery by shrinking the tumors.
Dr. Dziadziuszko, from the Medical University of Gdansk in Poland, highlighted data from the Checkmate 816 trial, which showed that neoadjuvant nivolumab plus chemotherapy vs. chemotherapy alone increased the chance of having a pathologic complete response by nearly 14-fold in patients with IB-IIIA resectable NSCLC. Patients in the combination arm also demonstrated marked improvements in event-free survival, 31.6 months vs. 20.8 months, and overall survival.
The NADIM II trial, which coupled nivolumab and chemotherapy in stage III disease, found that neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy led to a pathologic complete response as well as a 52% improvement in progression-free survival and a 60% improvement in overall survival, compared with chemotherapy alone.
Despite these findings, several important questions remain, said Dr. Dziadziuszko. How many cycles of neoadjuvant immunochemotherapy should a patient receive before surgery? Will neoadjuvant therapy lead to treatment-related adverse events that preclude surgery? And for those who don’t have a strong response to neoadjuvant therapy, who should also receive adjuvant immunotherapy and for how long?
The latter question represents the “elephant in the room,” session chair Tony S. K. Mok, MD, chairman, department of clinical oncology, The Chinese University of Hong Kong.
With a paucity of overall survival data to provide a definitive answer, oncologists still face the age-old concern of “giving too much therapy in those who don’t need it” and “giving not enough therapy for those who need more,” said Dr. Mok.
Federico Cappuzzo, MD, PhD, argued that the key to patient selection for adjuvant therapy after neoadjuvant therapy and surgery lies in who has a pathologic complete response.
The current data suggest that patients receiving neoadjuvant therapy who achieve a pathologic complete response likely do not need adjuvant therapy whereas those who don’t achieve a complete response should receive adjuvant therapy, explained Dr. Cappuzzo, director of the department of oncology and hematology, AUSL della Romagna, Ravenna, Italy.
But, Dr. Mok asked, what about patients who achieve a major pathologic response in which the percentage of residual viable tumor is 10% or less or achieve less than a major pathologic response?
Dr. Mok suggested that measurable residual disease, which is indicative of recurrence, could potentially be used to determine the treatment pathway after neoadjuvant therapy and signal who may benefit from adjuvant therapy. However, he noted, studies evaluating the benefit of adjuvant therapy in this population would need to be done.
For patients who don’t respond well to neoadjuvant therapy and may benefit from adjuvant therapy, the question also becomes: “Do we give more of that same therapy?” asked Zofia Piotrowska, MD, a lung cancer medical oncologist at Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center, Boston, who was not involved in the debate.
“I think we really need to rethink that paradigm and try to develop new therapies that may work more effectively for those patients, to improve their outcomes,” Dr. Piotrowska said.
Dr. Mok declared relationships with a range of companies, including AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer, Novartis, SFJ Pharmaceuticals Roche, Merck Sharp & Dohme, and HutchMed. Dr. Felip declared relationships with AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Eli Lilly, F Hoffman–La Roche, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, and others. Dr. Dziadziuszko declared relationships with Roche, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Takeda, Pfizer, Novartis, and others. Dr. Cappuzzo declared relationships with Roche, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Takeda, Lilly, Bayer, Amgen, Sanofi, and others.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
MADRID – Should patients with resectable non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) receive adjuvant therapy, neoadjuvant therapy, or both, experts asked during a special session at the European Society for Medical Oncology 2023 Congress.
said Silke Gillessen, MD, head of the department of medical oncology, Università della Svizzera Italiana in Lugano, Switzerland.
Opening the session, Enriqueta Felip, MD, PhD, argued in favor of adjuvant therapy alone in resectable NSCLC.
Adjuvant immunotherapy after adjuvant chemotherapy is already considered standard of care for patients with resected NSCLC who don’t harbor EGFR and ALK mutations, explained Dr. Felip, head of the lung cancer unit at Vall d’Hebron University Hospital in Barcelona.
One major benefit to providing adjuvant therapy is that curative surgery won’t be delayed. Neoadjuvant therapy, on the other hand, leads about 15% of patients to forgo surgery, and about 30% who have both neoadjuvant therapy and surgery end up not receiving their planned adjuvant immunotherapy.
Another benefit: Emerging evidence suggests that the adjuvant-only option can improve disease-free and overall survival in select patients.
In the IMpower010 trial, for instance, adjuvant atezolizumab led to a marked improvement in disease-free survival, compared with best supportive care in patients with stage II-IIIA NSCLC. Patients with programmed death–ligand 1 expression of 50% or higher also demonstrated an overall survival benefit (hazard ratio, 0.42).
In the KEYNOTE-091 trial, adjuvant pembrolizumab significantly improved disease-free survival in all comers vs. placebo in patients with stage IB, II, or IIIA NSCLC who had surgery (HR, 0.76).
Providing adjuvant-only immunotherapy also allows for biomarker testing in resected specimens, Dr. Felip said, which may affect the choice of systemic therapy.
Next, Rafal Dziadziuszko, MD, PhD, argued in favor of neoadjuvant therapy alone in the setting of resectable NSCLC.
The advantages of providing treatment before surgery include initiating systemic treatment at an earlier point when most relapses are distant, possibly reducing the risk for tumor cell seeding during surgery as well as potentially leading to less invasive surgery by shrinking the tumors.
Dr. Dziadziuszko, from the Medical University of Gdansk in Poland, highlighted data from the Checkmate 816 trial, which showed that neoadjuvant nivolumab plus chemotherapy vs. chemotherapy alone increased the chance of having a pathologic complete response by nearly 14-fold in patients with IB-IIIA resectable NSCLC. Patients in the combination arm also demonstrated marked improvements in event-free survival, 31.6 months vs. 20.8 months, and overall survival.
The NADIM II trial, which coupled nivolumab and chemotherapy in stage III disease, found that neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy led to a pathologic complete response as well as a 52% improvement in progression-free survival and a 60% improvement in overall survival, compared with chemotherapy alone.
Despite these findings, several important questions remain, said Dr. Dziadziuszko. How many cycles of neoadjuvant immunochemotherapy should a patient receive before surgery? Will neoadjuvant therapy lead to treatment-related adverse events that preclude surgery? And for those who don’t have a strong response to neoadjuvant therapy, who should also receive adjuvant immunotherapy and for how long?
The latter question represents the “elephant in the room,” session chair Tony S. K. Mok, MD, chairman, department of clinical oncology, The Chinese University of Hong Kong.
With a paucity of overall survival data to provide a definitive answer, oncologists still face the age-old concern of “giving too much therapy in those who don’t need it” and “giving not enough therapy for those who need more,” said Dr. Mok.
Federico Cappuzzo, MD, PhD, argued that the key to patient selection for adjuvant therapy after neoadjuvant therapy and surgery lies in who has a pathologic complete response.
The current data suggest that patients receiving neoadjuvant therapy who achieve a pathologic complete response likely do not need adjuvant therapy whereas those who don’t achieve a complete response should receive adjuvant therapy, explained Dr. Cappuzzo, director of the department of oncology and hematology, AUSL della Romagna, Ravenna, Italy.
But, Dr. Mok asked, what about patients who achieve a major pathologic response in which the percentage of residual viable tumor is 10% or less or achieve less than a major pathologic response?
Dr. Mok suggested that measurable residual disease, which is indicative of recurrence, could potentially be used to determine the treatment pathway after neoadjuvant therapy and signal who may benefit from adjuvant therapy. However, he noted, studies evaluating the benefit of adjuvant therapy in this population would need to be done.
For patients who don’t respond well to neoadjuvant therapy and may benefit from adjuvant therapy, the question also becomes: “Do we give more of that same therapy?” asked Zofia Piotrowska, MD, a lung cancer medical oncologist at Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center, Boston, who was not involved in the debate.
“I think we really need to rethink that paradigm and try to develop new therapies that may work more effectively for those patients, to improve their outcomes,” Dr. Piotrowska said.
Dr. Mok declared relationships with a range of companies, including AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer, Novartis, SFJ Pharmaceuticals Roche, Merck Sharp & Dohme, and HutchMed. Dr. Felip declared relationships with AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Eli Lilly, F Hoffman–La Roche, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, and others. Dr. Dziadziuszko declared relationships with Roche, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Takeda, Pfizer, Novartis, and others. Dr. Cappuzzo declared relationships with Roche, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Takeda, Lilly, Bayer, Amgen, Sanofi, and others.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
MADRID – Should patients with resectable non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) receive adjuvant therapy, neoadjuvant therapy, or both, experts asked during a special session at the European Society for Medical Oncology 2023 Congress.
said Silke Gillessen, MD, head of the department of medical oncology, Università della Svizzera Italiana in Lugano, Switzerland.
Opening the session, Enriqueta Felip, MD, PhD, argued in favor of adjuvant therapy alone in resectable NSCLC.
Adjuvant immunotherapy after adjuvant chemotherapy is already considered standard of care for patients with resected NSCLC who don’t harbor EGFR and ALK mutations, explained Dr. Felip, head of the lung cancer unit at Vall d’Hebron University Hospital in Barcelona.
One major benefit to providing adjuvant therapy is that curative surgery won’t be delayed. Neoadjuvant therapy, on the other hand, leads about 15% of patients to forgo surgery, and about 30% who have both neoadjuvant therapy and surgery end up not receiving their planned adjuvant immunotherapy.
Another benefit: Emerging evidence suggests that the adjuvant-only option can improve disease-free and overall survival in select patients.
In the IMpower010 trial, for instance, adjuvant atezolizumab led to a marked improvement in disease-free survival, compared with best supportive care in patients with stage II-IIIA NSCLC. Patients with programmed death–ligand 1 expression of 50% or higher also demonstrated an overall survival benefit (hazard ratio, 0.42).
In the KEYNOTE-091 trial, adjuvant pembrolizumab significantly improved disease-free survival in all comers vs. placebo in patients with stage IB, II, or IIIA NSCLC who had surgery (HR, 0.76).
Providing adjuvant-only immunotherapy also allows for biomarker testing in resected specimens, Dr. Felip said, which may affect the choice of systemic therapy.
Next, Rafal Dziadziuszko, MD, PhD, argued in favor of neoadjuvant therapy alone in the setting of resectable NSCLC.
The advantages of providing treatment before surgery include initiating systemic treatment at an earlier point when most relapses are distant, possibly reducing the risk for tumor cell seeding during surgery as well as potentially leading to less invasive surgery by shrinking the tumors.
Dr. Dziadziuszko, from the Medical University of Gdansk in Poland, highlighted data from the Checkmate 816 trial, which showed that neoadjuvant nivolumab plus chemotherapy vs. chemotherapy alone increased the chance of having a pathologic complete response by nearly 14-fold in patients with IB-IIIA resectable NSCLC. Patients in the combination arm also demonstrated marked improvements in event-free survival, 31.6 months vs. 20.8 months, and overall survival.
The NADIM II trial, which coupled nivolumab and chemotherapy in stage III disease, found that neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy led to a pathologic complete response as well as a 52% improvement in progression-free survival and a 60% improvement in overall survival, compared with chemotherapy alone.
Despite these findings, several important questions remain, said Dr. Dziadziuszko. How many cycles of neoadjuvant immunochemotherapy should a patient receive before surgery? Will neoadjuvant therapy lead to treatment-related adverse events that preclude surgery? And for those who don’t have a strong response to neoadjuvant therapy, who should also receive adjuvant immunotherapy and for how long?
The latter question represents the “elephant in the room,” session chair Tony S. K. Mok, MD, chairman, department of clinical oncology, The Chinese University of Hong Kong.
With a paucity of overall survival data to provide a definitive answer, oncologists still face the age-old concern of “giving too much therapy in those who don’t need it” and “giving not enough therapy for those who need more,” said Dr. Mok.
Federico Cappuzzo, MD, PhD, argued that the key to patient selection for adjuvant therapy after neoadjuvant therapy and surgery lies in who has a pathologic complete response.
The current data suggest that patients receiving neoadjuvant therapy who achieve a pathologic complete response likely do not need adjuvant therapy whereas those who don’t achieve a complete response should receive adjuvant therapy, explained Dr. Cappuzzo, director of the department of oncology and hematology, AUSL della Romagna, Ravenna, Italy.
But, Dr. Mok asked, what about patients who achieve a major pathologic response in which the percentage of residual viable tumor is 10% or less or achieve less than a major pathologic response?
Dr. Mok suggested that measurable residual disease, which is indicative of recurrence, could potentially be used to determine the treatment pathway after neoadjuvant therapy and signal who may benefit from adjuvant therapy. However, he noted, studies evaluating the benefit of adjuvant therapy in this population would need to be done.
For patients who don’t respond well to neoadjuvant therapy and may benefit from adjuvant therapy, the question also becomes: “Do we give more of that same therapy?” asked Zofia Piotrowska, MD, a lung cancer medical oncologist at Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center, Boston, who was not involved in the debate.
“I think we really need to rethink that paradigm and try to develop new therapies that may work more effectively for those patients, to improve their outcomes,” Dr. Piotrowska said.
Dr. Mok declared relationships with a range of companies, including AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer, Novartis, SFJ Pharmaceuticals Roche, Merck Sharp & Dohme, and HutchMed. Dr. Felip declared relationships with AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Eli Lilly, F Hoffman–La Roche, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, and others. Dr. Dziadziuszko declared relationships with Roche, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Takeda, Pfizer, Novartis, and others. Dr. Cappuzzo declared relationships with Roche, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Takeda, Lilly, Bayer, Amgen, Sanofi, and others.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
AT ESMO 2023
‘We finally made it’: Amivantamab comes of age in NSCLC
MADRID – , experts said at the annual meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO).
The results of the three trials – PAPILLON, MARIPOSA, and MARIPOSA-2 – are “really exciting” for patients harboring EGFR mutations, said Silke Gillessen, MD, head of the department of medical oncology, Università della Svizzera Italiana in Lugano, Switzerland, and the ESMO 2023 scientific chair.
Presenting findings from PAPILLON, Nicolas Girard, MD, PhD, highlighted outcomes among patients with EGFR exon 20 insertion-mutated advanced NSCLC. These patients, who represent about 2%-3% of NSCLC cases, have “historically poor” outcomes, with a 5-year overall survival rate of just 8%.
Tumors harboring exon 20 insertions are largely insensitive to targeted and immune checkpoint therapies, explained Dr. Girard, from Curie-Montsouris Thorax Institute, Institut Curie, Paris. That leaves platinum-based chemotherapy as the standard of care, which has “limited efficacy,” he noted.
The FDA approved amivantamab in 2021 for EGFR exon 20 insertion-mutated advanced NSCLC after progression on platinum-based chemotherapy, but the PAPILLON trial explored whether combining the two therapies upfront would provide a more meaningful benefit.
In the trial, 308 treatment-naive patients with locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC and documented exon 20 insertions were randomly assigned to amivantamab plus chemotherapy or chemotherapy alone. The median age was about 62 years, approximately half were female, and just over 60% were Asian – a similar patient profile as MARIPOSA and MARIPOSA-2.
The results, simultaneously published in The New England Journal of Medicine, showed that amivantamab plus chemotherapy significantly increased progression-free survival (PFS). More specifically, after a median follow-up of 14.9 months, patients receiving the combination had a median PFS of 11.4 months vs. 5.7 months with chemotherapy alone (hazard ratio, 0.395; P < .0001). This benefit consistently occurred across predefined subgroups.
Amivantamab plus chemotherapy was associated with a lower risk of a second progression, with the median not reached vs. 17.2 months with chemotherapy alone (HR, 0.493; P = .001).
A higher proportion of patients receiving the combination had an objective response – 73% vs. 47% – and these patients had a longer duration of response as well – 9.7 months vs. 4.4 months.
The overall survival data were immature but showed a trend toward a reduced risk of death for those on the combination (HR, 0.675; P = .106).
The rates of grade ≥ 3 adverse events were 75% with amivantamab plus chemotherapy and 54% with chemotherapy alone, and adverse events leading to discontinuation of amivantamab occurred in 7% of patients. Pneumonitis/interstitial lung disease (ILD) was reported in 3% of patients in the combination therapy arm.
Dr. Girard concluded that, with a safety profile “consistent” with that seen for the individual agents, amivantamab plus chemotherapy “represents a new standard of care” for first-line treatment of EGFR exon 20 insertion-mutated advanced NSCLC.
Benjamin Besse, MD, PhD, who was not involved in the research, agreed that this combination is “definitely a new standard of care.”
The effect of giving amivantamab alongside chemotherapy “seems to be really additive,” said Dr. Besse, director of clinical research at the Gustave Roussy Institute and professor of medical oncology at Paris-Saclay University, both in Paris. But he noted that amivantamab is a “challenging drug in terms of toxicity.”
The MARIPOSA trials
The two MARIPOSA trials also demonstrated that amivantamab, in combination with other agents, improved PFS among patients with EGFR-mutated advanced NSCLC.
Byoung Chul Cho, MD, PhD, Yonsei Cancer Center, Seoul, South Korea, presented results from MARIPOSA, which focused on patients with any kind of EGFR mutation.
Although the EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) osimertinib is the current standard of care in this first-line setting, “resistance and disease progression are nearly inevitable,” and secondary EGFR and MET mutations may account for up to 50% of tumor resistance, Dr. Cho noted.
Early clinical data suggest that combining amivantamab with the highly selective third-generation EGFR TKI lazertinib leads to clinical activity and durable responses.
For the phase 3 MARIPOSA trial, 1,074 patients with treatment-naive locally advanced or metastatic EGFR-mutant NSCLC were randomly assigned to amivantamab plus lazertinib (n = 429), osimertinib alone (n = 429), or lazertinib alone (n = 216).
After a median follow-up of 22 months, the median PFS among patients on the combination was 23.7 months vs. 16.6 months for those on osimertinib alone (HR, 0.70; P < .001) and 18.5 months for those on lazertinib alone.
The PFS benefit observed with amivantamab plus lazertinib occurred across subgroups, including among patients with brain metastases. The combination reduced the risk for extracranial progression or death by 32% and improved median PFS by 9 months, compared with osimertinib alone (HR, 0.68; P < .001).
The risk for a second progression was also lower with the combination (HR, 0.75).
Interim overall survival data suggested a benefit with the combination therapy, compared with osimertinib alone (HR, 0.80; P = .11).
Grade 3 or higher adverse events were more common among patients treated with the combination vs. osimertinib alone – 75% vs. 43%. Higher rates of treatment-related discontinuation of any agent were observed in the combination group – 35% vs. 14% – though rates of adverse events leading to death were similar between the groups – 8% and 7%, respectively.
As in PAPILLON, rates of ILD/pneumonitis were “low,” said Dr. Cho, at approximately 3% in both treatment arms. However, he noted, rates of venous thromboembolism were higher with the combination, with grade ≥ 3 events occurring in 11% vs. 3.7% of patients on osimertinib.
Based on the findings, amivantamab plus lazertinib “represents a new standard of care in first-line EGFR-mutant advanced NSCLC,” Dr. Cho said. “It has been a long way and we finally made it.”
Next up is MARIPOSA-2, which evaluated patients with EGFR-mutated locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC who had progressed on or after osimertinib.
In this trial, 657 patients were randomly assigned to amivantamab plus lazertinib and chemotherapy (n = 263), amivantamab plus chemotherapy (n = 263), or chemotherapy alone (n = 131).
Given the increased risk for hematologic toxicities, the study protocol was adjusted in the triple therapy arm so that patients received lazertinib after completing carboplatin.
The findings, presented by study investigator Antonio Passaro, MD, PhD, were simultaneously published in Annals of Oncology.
After a median follow-up of 8.7 months, the triple therapy reduced the risk for progression or death by 56% (HR,0.44) and amivantamab plus chemotherapy reduced the risk for progression or death by 52% (HR, 0.48). Overall, the median PFS was 8.3 months in the triple combination arm, 6.3 months in the amivantamab plus chemotherapy arm, and 4.2 months in the chemotherapy arm.
This PFS benefit was observed across prespecified subgroups with both combination therapies. The combinations also reduced the risk for intracranial progression (HR, 0.58 in the triple therapy arm; HR, 0.55 in the amivantamab plus chemotherapy arm).
The current interim analysis did not show an overall survival benefit with either combination therapy vs. chemotherapy alone, although the survival curve hinted at a benefit in the amivantamab plus chemotherapy arm.
The median duration of response was 9.4 months for triple therapy, 6.9 months for the double combination, and 5.6 months for monotherapy.
Rates of grade ≥ 3 adverse events were notably higher in the combination groups – 92% of patients on triple therapy, 72% on double, and 48% on chemotherapy alone. But the treatment duration was longer in the combination groups and adverse events leading to death were low, as was discontinuation.
Amivantamab plus chemotherapy or plus lazertinib and chemotherapy are the “first regimens to demonstrate improved PFS vs. chemotherapy in EGFR-mutated NSCLC after disease progression on osimertinib,” concluded Dr. Passaro, from the European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, who presented the findings.
Dr. Passaro added that, given the consistent efficacy and more favorable safety profile, “we can say that amivantamab plus chemotherapy is the new standard of care for patients that are progressing after osimertinib,” although more follow-up is required to understand its “real impact” in the clinic.
Zofia Piotrowska, MD, who was not involved in either MARIPOSA trial, said both “are really important” in the EGFR-mutant NSCLC space.
The studies “addressed two different questions,” but both were “positive, and I think clinically significantly,” said Dr. Piotrowska, a lung cancer specialist at Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center, Boston.
However, Dr. Piotrowska noted that a core question for the community will be “how we find that balance between the clinical benefits [and] the toxicities.”
“There’s not going to be one easy answer” and treatment selection will have to be made on a “patient-by-patient basis,” she said.
PAPILLON, MARIPOSA, and MARIPOSA-2 were funded by Janssen Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Girard declared relationships with AstraZeneca, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Hoffmann La Roche, Lilly, Merck Sharp Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, and others. Dr. Cho declared relationships with Novartis, AstraZeneca, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Roche, BMS, Onegene Biotechnology, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, and others. Dr. Passaro declared relationships with AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Pfizer, Roche, Bayer, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Mundipharma, Daiichi Sankyo, Medscape, and eCancer. Dr. Besse declared institutional relationships with AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Blueprint Medicines, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eli Lilly, EISAI, Genzyme Corporation, GSK, and others. Dr. Piotrowska declared relationships with numerous companies including AstraZeneca, Novartis, and Takeda.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
MADRID – , experts said at the annual meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO).
The results of the three trials – PAPILLON, MARIPOSA, and MARIPOSA-2 – are “really exciting” for patients harboring EGFR mutations, said Silke Gillessen, MD, head of the department of medical oncology, Università della Svizzera Italiana in Lugano, Switzerland, and the ESMO 2023 scientific chair.
Presenting findings from PAPILLON, Nicolas Girard, MD, PhD, highlighted outcomes among patients with EGFR exon 20 insertion-mutated advanced NSCLC. These patients, who represent about 2%-3% of NSCLC cases, have “historically poor” outcomes, with a 5-year overall survival rate of just 8%.
Tumors harboring exon 20 insertions are largely insensitive to targeted and immune checkpoint therapies, explained Dr. Girard, from Curie-Montsouris Thorax Institute, Institut Curie, Paris. That leaves platinum-based chemotherapy as the standard of care, which has “limited efficacy,” he noted.
The FDA approved amivantamab in 2021 for EGFR exon 20 insertion-mutated advanced NSCLC after progression on platinum-based chemotherapy, but the PAPILLON trial explored whether combining the two therapies upfront would provide a more meaningful benefit.
In the trial, 308 treatment-naive patients with locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC and documented exon 20 insertions were randomly assigned to amivantamab plus chemotherapy or chemotherapy alone. The median age was about 62 years, approximately half were female, and just over 60% were Asian – a similar patient profile as MARIPOSA and MARIPOSA-2.
The results, simultaneously published in The New England Journal of Medicine, showed that amivantamab plus chemotherapy significantly increased progression-free survival (PFS). More specifically, after a median follow-up of 14.9 months, patients receiving the combination had a median PFS of 11.4 months vs. 5.7 months with chemotherapy alone (hazard ratio, 0.395; P < .0001). This benefit consistently occurred across predefined subgroups.
Amivantamab plus chemotherapy was associated with a lower risk of a second progression, with the median not reached vs. 17.2 months with chemotherapy alone (HR, 0.493; P = .001).
A higher proportion of patients receiving the combination had an objective response – 73% vs. 47% – and these patients had a longer duration of response as well – 9.7 months vs. 4.4 months.
The overall survival data were immature but showed a trend toward a reduced risk of death for those on the combination (HR, 0.675; P = .106).
The rates of grade ≥ 3 adverse events were 75% with amivantamab plus chemotherapy and 54% with chemotherapy alone, and adverse events leading to discontinuation of amivantamab occurred in 7% of patients. Pneumonitis/interstitial lung disease (ILD) was reported in 3% of patients in the combination therapy arm.
Dr. Girard concluded that, with a safety profile “consistent” with that seen for the individual agents, amivantamab plus chemotherapy “represents a new standard of care” for first-line treatment of EGFR exon 20 insertion-mutated advanced NSCLC.
Benjamin Besse, MD, PhD, who was not involved in the research, agreed that this combination is “definitely a new standard of care.”
The effect of giving amivantamab alongside chemotherapy “seems to be really additive,” said Dr. Besse, director of clinical research at the Gustave Roussy Institute and professor of medical oncology at Paris-Saclay University, both in Paris. But he noted that amivantamab is a “challenging drug in terms of toxicity.”
The MARIPOSA trials
The two MARIPOSA trials also demonstrated that amivantamab, in combination with other agents, improved PFS among patients with EGFR-mutated advanced NSCLC.
Byoung Chul Cho, MD, PhD, Yonsei Cancer Center, Seoul, South Korea, presented results from MARIPOSA, which focused on patients with any kind of EGFR mutation.
Although the EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) osimertinib is the current standard of care in this first-line setting, “resistance and disease progression are nearly inevitable,” and secondary EGFR and MET mutations may account for up to 50% of tumor resistance, Dr. Cho noted.
Early clinical data suggest that combining amivantamab with the highly selective third-generation EGFR TKI lazertinib leads to clinical activity and durable responses.
For the phase 3 MARIPOSA trial, 1,074 patients with treatment-naive locally advanced or metastatic EGFR-mutant NSCLC were randomly assigned to amivantamab plus lazertinib (n = 429), osimertinib alone (n = 429), or lazertinib alone (n = 216).
After a median follow-up of 22 months, the median PFS among patients on the combination was 23.7 months vs. 16.6 months for those on osimertinib alone (HR, 0.70; P < .001) and 18.5 months for those on lazertinib alone.
The PFS benefit observed with amivantamab plus lazertinib occurred across subgroups, including among patients with brain metastases. The combination reduced the risk for extracranial progression or death by 32% and improved median PFS by 9 months, compared with osimertinib alone (HR, 0.68; P < .001).
The risk for a second progression was also lower with the combination (HR, 0.75).
Interim overall survival data suggested a benefit with the combination therapy, compared with osimertinib alone (HR, 0.80; P = .11).
Grade 3 or higher adverse events were more common among patients treated with the combination vs. osimertinib alone – 75% vs. 43%. Higher rates of treatment-related discontinuation of any agent were observed in the combination group – 35% vs. 14% – though rates of adverse events leading to death were similar between the groups – 8% and 7%, respectively.
As in PAPILLON, rates of ILD/pneumonitis were “low,” said Dr. Cho, at approximately 3% in both treatment arms. However, he noted, rates of venous thromboembolism were higher with the combination, with grade ≥ 3 events occurring in 11% vs. 3.7% of patients on osimertinib.
Based on the findings, amivantamab plus lazertinib “represents a new standard of care in first-line EGFR-mutant advanced NSCLC,” Dr. Cho said. “It has been a long way and we finally made it.”
Next up is MARIPOSA-2, which evaluated patients with EGFR-mutated locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC who had progressed on or after osimertinib.
In this trial, 657 patients were randomly assigned to amivantamab plus lazertinib and chemotherapy (n = 263), amivantamab plus chemotherapy (n = 263), or chemotherapy alone (n = 131).
Given the increased risk for hematologic toxicities, the study protocol was adjusted in the triple therapy arm so that patients received lazertinib after completing carboplatin.
The findings, presented by study investigator Antonio Passaro, MD, PhD, were simultaneously published in Annals of Oncology.
After a median follow-up of 8.7 months, the triple therapy reduced the risk for progression or death by 56% (HR,0.44) and amivantamab plus chemotherapy reduced the risk for progression or death by 52% (HR, 0.48). Overall, the median PFS was 8.3 months in the triple combination arm, 6.3 months in the amivantamab plus chemotherapy arm, and 4.2 months in the chemotherapy arm.
This PFS benefit was observed across prespecified subgroups with both combination therapies. The combinations also reduced the risk for intracranial progression (HR, 0.58 in the triple therapy arm; HR, 0.55 in the amivantamab plus chemotherapy arm).
The current interim analysis did not show an overall survival benefit with either combination therapy vs. chemotherapy alone, although the survival curve hinted at a benefit in the amivantamab plus chemotherapy arm.
The median duration of response was 9.4 months for triple therapy, 6.9 months for the double combination, and 5.6 months for monotherapy.
Rates of grade ≥ 3 adverse events were notably higher in the combination groups – 92% of patients on triple therapy, 72% on double, and 48% on chemotherapy alone. But the treatment duration was longer in the combination groups and adverse events leading to death were low, as was discontinuation.
Amivantamab plus chemotherapy or plus lazertinib and chemotherapy are the “first regimens to demonstrate improved PFS vs. chemotherapy in EGFR-mutated NSCLC after disease progression on osimertinib,” concluded Dr. Passaro, from the European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, who presented the findings.
Dr. Passaro added that, given the consistent efficacy and more favorable safety profile, “we can say that amivantamab plus chemotherapy is the new standard of care for patients that are progressing after osimertinib,” although more follow-up is required to understand its “real impact” in the clinic.
Zofia Piotrowska, MD, who was not involved in either MARIPOSA trial, said both “are really important” in the EGFR-mutant NSCLC space.
The studies “addressed two different questions,” but both were “positive, and I think clinically significantly,” said Dr. Piotrowska, a lung cancer specialist at Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center, Boston.
However, Dr. Piotrowska noted that a core question for the community will be “how we find that balance between the clinical benefits [and] the toxicities.”
“There’s not going to be one easy answer” and treatment selection will have to be made on a “patient-by-patient basis,” she said.
PAPILLON, MARIPOSA, and MARIPOSA-2 were funded by Janssen Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Girard declared relationships with AstraZeneca, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Hoffmann La Roche, Lilly, Merck Sharp Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, and others. Dr. Cho declared relationships with Novartis, AstraZeneca, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Roche, BMS, Onegene Biotechnology, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, and others. Dr. Passaro declared relationships with AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Pfizer, Roche, Bayer, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Mundipharma, Daiichi Sankyo, Medscape, and eCancer. Dr. Besse declared institutional relationships with AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Blueprint Medicines, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eli Lilly, EISAI, Genzyme Corporation, GSK, and others. Dr. Piotrowska declared relationships with numerous companies including AstraZeneca, Novartis, and Takeda.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
MADRID – , experts said at the annual meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO).
The results of the three trials – PAPILLON, MARIPOSA, and MARIPOSA-2 – are “really exciting” for patients harboring EGFR mutations, said Silke Gillessen, MD, head of the department of medical oncology, Università della Svizzera Italiana in Lugano, Switzerland, and the ESMO 2023 scientific chair.
Presenting findings from PAPILLON, Nicolas Girard, MD, PhD, highlighted outcomes among patients with EGFR exon 20 insertion-mutated advanced NSCLC. These patients, who represent about 2%-3% of NSCLC cases, have “historically poor” outcomes, with a 5-year overall survival rate of just 8%.
Tumors harboring exon 20 insertions are largely insensitive to targeted and immune checkpoint therapies, explained Dr. Girard, from Curie-Montsouris Thorax Institute, Institut Curie, Paris. That leaves platinum-based chemotherapy as the standard of care, which has “limited efficacy,” he noted.
The FDA approved amivantamab in 2021 for EGFR exon 20 insertion-mutated advanced NSCLC after progression on platinum-based chemotherapy, but the PAPILLON trial explored whether combining the two therapies upfront would provide a more meaningful benefit.
In the trial, 308 treatment-naive patients with locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC and documented exon 20 insertions were randomly assigned to amivantamab plus chemotherapy or chemotherapy alone. The median age was about 62 years, approximately half were female, and just over 60% were Asian – a similar patient profile as MARIPOSA and MARIPOSA-2.
The results, simultaneously published in The New England Journal of Medicine, showed that amivantamab plus chemotherapy significantly increased progression-free survival (PFS). More specifically, after a median follow-up of 14.9 months, patients receiving the combination had a median PFS of 11.4 months vs. 5.7 months with chemotherapy alone (hazard ratio, 0.395; P < .0001). This benefit consistently occurred across predefined subgroups.
Amivantamab plus chemotherapy was associated with a lower risk of a second progression, with the median not reached vs. 17.2 months with chemotherapy alone (HR, 0.493; P = .001).
A higher proportion of patients receiving the combination had an objective response – 73% vs. 47% – and these patients had a longer duration of response as well – 9.7 months vs. 4.4 months.
The overall survival data were immature but showed a trend toward a reduced risk of death for those on the combination (HR, 0.675; P = .106).
The rates of grade ≥ 3 adverse events were 75% with amivantamab plus chemotherapy and 54% with chemotherapy alone, and adverse events leading to discontinuation of amivantamab occurred in 7% of patients. Pneumonitis/interstitial lung disease (ILD) was reported in 3% of patients in the combination therapy arm.
Dr. Girard concluded that, with a safety profile “consistent” with that seen for the individual agents, amivantamab plus chemotherapy “represents a new standard of care” for first-line treatment of EGFR exon 20 insertion-mutated advanced NSCLC.
Benjamin Besse, MD, PhD, who was not involved in the research, agreed that this combination is “definitely a new standard of care.”
The effect of giving amivantamab alongside chemotherapy “seems to be really additive,” said Dr. Besse, director of clinical research at the Gustave Roussy Institute and professor of medical oncology at Paris-Saclay University, both in Paris. But he noted that amivantamab is a “challenging drug in terms of toxicity.”
The MARIPOSA trials
The two MARIPOSA trials also demonstrated that amivantamab, in combination with other agents, improved PFS among patients with EGFR-mutated advanced NSCLC.
Byoung Chul Cho, MD, PhD, Yonsei Cancer Center, Seoul, South Korea, presented results from MARIPOSA, which focused on patients with any kind of EGFR mutation.
Although the EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) osimertinib is the current standard of care in this first-line setting, “resistance and disease progression are nearly inevitable,” and secondary EGFR and MET mutations may account for up to 50% of tumor resistance, Dr. Cho noted.
Early clinical data suggest that combining amivantamab with the highly selective third-generation EGFR TKI lazertinib leads to clinical activity and durable responses.
For the phase 3 MARIPOSA trial, 1,074 patients with treatment-naive locally advanced or metastatic EGFR-mutant NSCLC were randomly assigned to amivantamab plus lazertinib (n = 429), osimertinib alone (n = 429), or lazertinib alone (n = 216).
After a median follow-up of 22 months, the median PFS among patients on the combination was 23.7 months vs. 16.6 months for those on osimertinib alone (HR, 0.70; P < .001) and 18.5 months for those on lazertinib alone.
The PFS benefit observed with amivantamab plus lazertinib occurred across subgroups, including among patients with brain metastases. The combination reduced the risk for extracranial progression or death by 32% and improved median PFS by 9 months, compared with osimertinib alone (HR, 0.68; P < .001).
The risk for a second progression was also lower with the combination (HR, 0.75).
Interim overall survival data suggested a benefit with the combination therapy, compared with osimertinib alone (HR, 0.80; P = .11).
Grade 3 or higher adverse events were more common among patients treated with the combination vs. osimertinib alone – 75% vs. 43%. Higher rates of treatment-related discontinuation of any agent were observed in the combination group – 35% vs. 14% – though rates of adverse events leading to death were similar between the groups – 8% and 7%, respectively.
As in PAPILLON, rates of ILD/pneumonitis were “low,” said Dr. Cho, at approximately 3% in both treatment arms. However, he noted, rates of venous thromboembolism were higher with the combination, with grade ≥ 3 events occurring in 11% vs. 3.7% of patients on osimertinib.
Based on the findings, amivantamab plus lazertinib “represents a new standard of care in first-line EGFR-mutant advanced NSCLC,” Dr. Cho said. “It has been a long way and we finally made it.”
Next up is MARIPOSA-2, which evaluated patients with EGFR-mutated locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC who had progressed on or after osimertinib.
In this trial, 657 patients were randomly assigned to amivantamab plus lazertinib and chemotherapy (n = 263), amivantamab plus chemotherapy (n = 263), or chemotherapy alone (n = 131).
Given the increased risk for hematologic toxicities, the study protocol was adjusted in the triple therapy arm so that patients received lazertinib after completing carboplatin.
The findings, presented by study investigator Antonio Passaro, MD, PhD, were simultaneously published in Annals of Oncology.
After a median follow-up of 8.7 months, the triple therapy reduced the risk for progression or death by 56% (HR,0.44) and amivantamab plus chemotherapy reduced the risk for progression or death by 52% (HR, 0.48). Overall, the median PFS was 8.3 months in the triple combination arm, 6.3 months in the amivantamab plus chemotherapy arm, and 4.2 months in the chemotherapy arm.
This PFS benefit was observed across prespecified subgroups with both combination therapies. The combinations also reduced the risk for intracranial progression (HR, 0.58 in the triple therapy arm; HR, 0.55 in the amivantamab plus chemotherapy arm).
The current interim analysis did not show an overall survival benefit with either combination therapy vs. chemotherapy alone, although the survival curve hinted at a benefit in the amivantamab plus chemotherapy arm.
The median duration of response was 9.4 months for triple therapy, 6.9 months for the double combination, and 5.6 months for monotherapy.
Rates of grade ≥ 3 adverse events were notably higher in the combination groups – 92% of patients on triple therapy, 72% on double, and 48% on chemotherapy alone. But the treatment duration was longer in the combination groups and adverse events leading to death were low, as was discontinuation.
Amivantamab plus chemotherapy or plus lazertinib and chemotherapy are the “first regimens to demonstrate improved PFS vs. chemotherapy in EGFR-mutated NSCLC after disease progression on osimertinib,” concluded Dr. Passaro, from the European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, who presented the findings.
Dr. Passaro added that, given the consistent efficacy and more favorable safety profile, “we can say that amivantamab plus chemotherapy is the new standard of care for patients that are progressing after osimertinib,” although more follow-up is required to understand its “real impact” in the clinic.
Zofia Piotrowska, MD, who was not involved in either MARIPOSA trial, said both “are really important” in the EGFR-mutant NSCLC space.
The studies “addressed two different questions,” but both were “positive, and I think clinically significantly,” said Dr. Piotrowska, a lung cancer specialist at Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center, Boston.
However, Dr. Piotrowska noted that a core question for the community will be “how we find that balance between the clinical benefits [and] the toxicities.”
“There’s not going to be one easy answer” and treatment selection will have to be made on a “patient-by-patient basis,” she said.
PAPILLON, MARIPOSA, and MARIPOSA-2 were funded by Janssen Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Girard declared relationships with AstraZeneca, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Hoffmann La Roche, Lilly, Merck Sharp Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, and others. Dr. Cho declared relationships with Novartis, AstraZeneca, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Roche, BMS, Onegene Biotechnology, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, and others. Dr. Passaro declared relationships with AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Pfizer, Roche, Bayer, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Mundipharma, Daiichi Sankyo, Medscape, and eCancer. Dr. Besse declared institutional relationships with AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Blueprint Medicines, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eli Lilly, EISAI, Genzyme Corporation, GSK, and others. Dr. Piotrowska declared relationships with numerous companies including AstraZeneca, Novartis, and Takeda.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
AT ESMO 2023