M. Alexander Otto, PA, MMS

The study covered in this summary was published on researchsquare.com as a preprint and has not yet been peer reviewed.

Key takeaway

• Following lumpectomy for early breast cancer, a 1-week schedule of partial breast radiation – 30 Gy delivered in 5 daily fractions – is safe, effective, and convenient for both patients and hospitals.

Why this matters

• According to numerous guidelines, partial breast irradiation after lumpectomy is a sound approach for early-stage breast cancer, but there is a lack of consensus about treatment schedules.
• The investigators suggest that 30 Gy in five daily fractions is a “valid option” for these patients in a field that lacks consensus.

Study design

• The team reviewed 381 women with early breast cancer treated with this approach (30 Gy in five daily fractions) at their center from 2013 to 2022.
• Half of patients had left-sided tumors, 94.5% had invasive ductal carcinomas, 96.6% had grade 1 or grade 2 disease, and tumors were luminal like in 99.2% of patients.
• Following lumpectomy, women underwent partial breast irradiation to the tumor bed plus 15 mm of isometric expansion beyond it.
• Follow-up was a median of 28 months.

Key results

• Seven patients (2%) had a local recurrence, of which two were in the treatment field.
• Three-year local control, disease-free survival, and overall survival were high (97.5%, 95.7%, and 96.9%, respectively).
• Nearly 90% of patients and 97% of physicians reported good or excellent cosmesis.
• Ten patients (2.9%) had grade 2 late toxicities, including edema, asthenia, and fibrosis; there were no grade 3 or higher adverse events.
• Five patients (1.5%) had late cardiac major events, four of whom were treated on the right breast; three patients (0.9%) had late pulmonary fibrosis.
• The safety and efficacy outcomes are in line with previous reports, including those that used different dosage and/or fractionation schedules.

Limitations

• The study was retrospective, with a relatively short follow-up.
• Quality of life was not assessed.
• There was no objective baseline measure of cosmesis against which to compare cosmetic results.

Disclosures

• There was no funding for the study, and the investigators didn’t have any conflicts of interest to report.

This is a summary of a preprint research study, “One-Week External Beam Partial Breast Irradiation: Survival and Toxicity Outcomes,” led by Riccardo Ray Colciago from the Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milan. The study has not been peer reviewed. The full text can be found at researchsquare.com.
 

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The study covered in this summary was published on researchsquare.com as a preprint and has not yet been peer reviewed.

Key takeaway

• Following lumpectomy for early breast cancer, a 1-week schedule of partial breast radiation – 30 Gy delivered in 5 daily fractions – is safe, effective, and convenient for both patients and hospitals.

Why this matters

• According to numerous guidelines, partial breast irradiation after lumpectomy is a sound approach for early-stage breast cancer, but there is a lack of consensus about treatment schedules.
• The investigators suggest that 30 Gy in five daily fractions is a “valid option” for these patients in a field that lacks consensus.

Study design

• The team reviewed 381 women with early breast cancer treated with this approach (30 Gy in five daily fractions) at their center from 2013 to 2022.
• Half of patients had left-sided tumors, 94.5% had invasive ductal carcinomas, 96.6% had grade 1 or grade 2 disease, and tumors were luminal like in 99.2% of patients.
• Following lumpectomy, women underwent partial breast irradiation to the tumor bed plus 15 mm of isometric expansion beyond it.
• Follow-up was a median of 28 months.

Key results

• Seven patients (2%) had a local recurrence, of which two were in the treatment field.
• Three-year local control, disease-free survival, and overall survival were high (97.5%, 95.7%, and 96.9%, respectively).
• Nearly 90% of patients and 97% of physicians reported good or excellent cosmesis.
• Ten patients (2.9%) had grade 2 late toxicities, including edema, asthenia, and fibrosis; there were no grade 3 or higher adverse events.
• Five patients (1.5%) had late cardiac major events, four of whom were treated on the right breast; three patients (0.9%) had late pulmonary fibrosis.
• The safety and efficacy outcomes are in line with previous reports, including those that used different dosage and/or fractionation schedules.

Limitations

• The study was retrospective, with a relatively short follow-up.
• Quality of life was not assessed.
• There was no objective baseline measure of cosmesis against which to compare cosmetic results.

Disclosures

• There was no funding for the study, and the investigators didn’t have any conflicts of interest to report.

This is a summary of a preprint research study, “One-Week External Beam Partial Breast Irradiation: Survival and Toxicity Outcomes,” led by Riccardo Ray Colciago from the Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milan. The study has not been peer reviewed. The full text can be found at researchsquare.com.
 

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The study covered in this summary was published on researchsquare.com as a preprint and has not yet been peer reviewed.

Key takeaway

• Following lumpectomy for early breast cancer, a 1-week schedule of partial breast radiation – 30 Gy delivered in 5 daily fractions – is safe, effective, and convenient for both patients and hospitals.

Why this matters

• According to numerous guidelines, partial breast irradiation after lumpectomy is a sound approach for early-stage breast cancer, but there is a lack of consensus about treatment schedules.
• The investigators suggest that 30 Gy in five daily fractions is a “valid option” for these patients in a field that lacks consensus.

Study design

• The team reviewed 381 women with early breast cancer treated with this approach (30 Gy in five daily fractions) at their center from 2013 to 2022.
• Half of patients had left-sided tumors, 94.5% had invasive ductal carcinomas, 96.6% had grade 1 or grade 2 disease, and tumors were luminal like in 99.2% of patients.
• Following lumpectomy, women underwent partial breast irradiation to the tumor bed plus 15 mm of isometric expansion beyond it.
• Follow-up was a median of 28 months.

Key results

• Seven patients (2%) had a local recurrence, of which two were in the treatment field.
• Three-year local control, disease-free survival, and overall survival were high (97.5%, 95.7%, and 96.9%, respectively).
• Nearly 90% of patients and 97% of physicians reported good or excellent cosmesis.
• Ten patients (2.9%) had grade 2 late toxicities, including edema, asthenia, and fibrosis; there were no grade 3 or higher adverse events.
• Five patients (1.5%) had late cardiac major events, four of whom were treated on the right breast; three patients (0.9%) had late pulmonary fibrosis.
• The safety and efficacy outcomes are in line with previous reports, including those that used different dosage and/or fractionation schedules.

Limitations

• The study was retrospective, with a relatively short follow-up.
• Quality of life was not assessed.
• There was no objective baseline measure of cosmesis against which to compare cosmetic results.

Disclosures

• There was no funding for the study, and the investigators didn’t have any conflicts of interest to report.

This is a summary of a preprint research study, “One-Week External Beam Partial Breast Irradiation: Survival and Toxicity Outcomes,” led by Riccardo Ray Colciago from the Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milan. The study has not been peer reviewed. The full text can be found at researchsquare.com.
 

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration approved a new indication for sacituzumab govitecan (Trodelvy, Gilead Sciences) on Feb. 3 for patients with unresectable, locally advanced or metastatic hormone receptor (HR)–positive, HER2-negative breast cancer after endocrine-based therapy and at least two additional systemic therapies for metastatic disease.

Label expansion for the Trop-2–directed antibody-drug conjugate was based on the TROPICS-02 trial, which randomized 543 adults 1:1 to either sacituzumab govitecan 10 mg/kg IV on days 1 and 8 of a 21-day cycle or single agent chemotherapy, most often eribulin but also vinorelbine, gemcitabine, or capecitabine.

Median progression free survival was 5.5 months with sacituzumab govitecan versus 4 months with single agent chemotherapy (hazard ratio, 0.66; P = .0003). Median overall survival was 14.4 months in the sacituzumab govitecan group versus 11.2 months with chemotherapy (HR, 0.79), according to an FDA press release announcing the approval.

In a Gilead press release, Hope Rugo, MD, a breast cancer specialist at the University of California, San Francisco, and principal investigator for TROPICS-02, said the approval “is significant for the breast cancer community. We have had limited options to offer patients after endocrine-based therapy and chemotherapy, and to see a clinically meaningful survival benefit of more than 3 months with a quality-of-life benefit for these women is exceptional.”

The most common adverse events associated with sacituzumab govitecan in the trial, occurring in a quarter or more of participants, were decreased leukocyte count, decreased neutrophil count, decreased hemoglobin, decreased lymphocyte count, diarrhea, fatigue, nausea, alopecia, glucose elevation, constipation, and decreased albumin.

Labeling for the agent carries a boxedwarning of severe or life-threatening neutropenia and severe diarrhea.

The recommended dose is the trial dose: 10 mg/kg IV on days 1 and 8 of 21-day cycles until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

Sacituzumab govitecan was previously approved for unresectable, locally advanced or metastatic triple-negative breast cancer after two or more prior systemic therapies and locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer after platinum-based chemotherapy and either a PD-1 or PD-L1 inhibitor.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration approved a new indication for sacituzumab govitecan (Trodelvy, Gilead Sciences) on Feb. 3 for patients with unresectable, locally advanced or metastatic hormone receptor (HR)–positive, HER2-negative breast cancer after endocrine-based therapy and at least two additional systemic therapies for metastatic disease.

Label expansion for the Trop-2–directed antibody-drug conjugate was based on the TROPICS-02 trial, which randomized 543 adults 1:1 to either sacituzumab govitecan 10 mg/kg IV on days 1 and 8 of a 21-day cycle or single agent chemotherapy, most often eribulin but also vinorelbine, gemcitabine, or capecitabine.

Median progression free survival was 5.5 months with sacituzumab govitecan versus 4 months with single agent chemotherapy (hazard ratio, 0.66; P = .0003). Median overall survival was 14.4 months in the sacituzumab govitecan group versus 11.2 months with chemotherapy (HR, 0.79), according to an FDA press release announcing the approval.

In a Gilead press release, Hope Rugo, MD, a breast cancer specialist at the University of California, San Francisco, and principal investigator for TROPICS-02, said the approval “is significant for the breast cancer community. We have had limited options to offer patients after endocrine-based therapy and chemotherapy, and to see a clinically meaningful survival benefit of more than 3 months with a quality-of-life benefit for these women is exceptional.”

The most common adverse events associated with sacituzumab govitecan in the trial, occurring in a quarter or more of participants, were decreased leukocyte count, decreased neutrophil count, decreased hemoglobin, decreased lymphocyte count, diarrhea, fatigue, nausea, alopecia, glucose elevation, constipation, and decreased albumin.

Labeling for the agent carries a boxedwarning of severe or life-threatening neutropenia and severe diarrhea.

The recommended dose is the trial dose: 10 mg/kg IV on days 1 and 8 of 21-day cycles until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

Sacituzumab govitecan was previously approved for unresectable, locally advanced or metastatic triple-negative breast cancer after two or more prior systemic therapies and locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer after platinum-based chemotherapy and either a PD-1 or PD-L1 inhibitor.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration approved a new indication for sacituzumab govitecan (Trodelvy, Gilead Sciences) on Feb. 3 for patients with unresectable, locally advanced or metastatic hormone receptor (HR)–positive, HER2-negative breast cancer after endocrine-based therapy and at least two additional systemic therapies for metastatic disease.

Label expansion for the Trop-2–directed antibody-drug conjugate was based on the TROPICS-02 trial, which randomized 543 adults 1:1 to either sacituzumab govitecan 10 mg/kg IV on days 1 and 8 of a 21-day cycle or single agent chemotherapy, most often eribulin but also vinorelbine, gemcitabine, or capecitabine.

Median progression free survival was 5.5 months with sacituzumab govitecan versus 4 months with single agent chemotherapy (hazard ratio, 0.66; P = .0003). Median overall survival was 14.4 months in the sacituzumab govitecan group versus 11.2 months with chemotherapy (HR, 0.79), according to an FDA press release announcing the approval.

In a Gilead press release, Hope Rugo, MD, a breast cancer specialist at the University of California, San Francisco, and principal investigator for TROPICS-02, said the approval “is significant for the breast cancer community. We have had limited options to offer patients after endocrine-based therapy and chemotherapy, and to see a clinically meaningful survival benefit of more than 3 months with a quality-of-life benefit for these women is exceptional.”

The most common adverse events associated with sacituzumab govitecan in the trial, occurring in a quarter or more of participants, were decreased leukocyte count, decreased neutrophil count, decreased hemoglobin, decreased lymphocyte count, diarrhea, fatigue, nausea, alopecia, glucose elevation, constipation, and decreased albumin.

Labeling for the agent carries a boxedwarning of severe or life-threatening neutropenia and severe diarrhea.

The recommended dose is the trial dose: 10 mg/kg IV on days 1 and 8 of 21-day cycles until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

Sacituzumab govitecan was previously approved for unresectable, locally advanced or metastatic triple-negative breast cancer after two or more prior systemic therapies and locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer after platinum-based chemotherapy and either a PD-1 or PD-L1 inhibitor.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration approved elacestrant (Orserdu, Stemline Therapeutics) for postmenopausal women or men with ER-positive, HER2-negative, ESR1-mutated advanced or metastatic breast cancer that progressed on at least one line of endocrine therapy.

The agency also approved the Guardant360 CDx assay as a companion diagnostic to identify breast cancer patients who meet the treatment requirements, according to the agency’s press release announcing the approval.

The novel oral selective estrogen receptor degrader was approved based on the phase 3 EMERALD trial, which included 478 postmenopausal women and men with ER-positive, HER2-negative advanced or metastatic breast cancer, about half of whom had ESR1 mutations. Patients had progressed on one or two prior lines of endocrine therapy, including one containing a CDK4/6 inhibitor. Participants could also have had one prior line of chemotherapy in the advanced or metastatic setting.

Participants were randomized 1:1 to either elacestrant 345 mg orally once daily or investigator’s choice of endocrine therapy, which included fulvestrant or an aromatase inhibitor.

In the 228 patients (48%) with ESR1 mutations, median progression-free survival (PFS) was 3.8 months with elacestrant versus 1.9 months in the fulvestrant or aromatase inhibitor arm (hazard ratio, 0.55; P = .0005). Investigators observed no statistically significant PFS difference between the treatment arms in patients who didn’t have the mutation.
 

Fair comparison?

In June, experts raised concerns about the adequacy of the “standard of care” control arm in EMERALD, particularly that single agents were used at a time when combination therapy is becoming more common.

“The expression ‘standard of care’ is applied generously, as the control arm is restricted” to single agents and no combinations, which “may have led to a substandard” comparison group, Timothée Olivier, MD, Geneva University Hospital, and Vinay Prasad, MD, MPH, University of California, San Francisco, said in an editorial quoted in the piece.

EMERALD investigators acknowledged that there were issues with the control group, noting that in the “United States and Europe, combination therapy with fulvestrant” – instead of single agents – “is increasingly being used as the second-line [standard of care] treatment.”

However, the goal of the study “was to compare a novel endocrine therapy vs. currently available endocrine therapies,” not combination regimens, the investigators said.

Also, “the benefit of elacestrant over fulvestrant and AIs [aromatase inhibitors] in our monotherapy trial ... suggests that incorporating elacestrant as the preferred endocrine therapy backbone in future earlier-line combination studies is a promising strategy.”
 

Lipid monitoring necessary

The most common adverse events with elacestrant, occurring in 10% or more of patients, are musculoskeletal pain, nausea, increased cholesterol, increased AST, increased triglycerides, fatigue, decreased hemoglobin, vomiting, increased ALT, decreased sodium, increased creatinine, decreased appetite, diarrhea, headache, constipation, abdominal pain, hot flush, and dyspepsia, according to labeling.

Labeling warns that elacestrant “may cause hypercholesterolemia and hypertriglyceridemia. Monitor lipid profile prior to starting treatment and periodically thereafter.”

The recommended elacestrant dose is the trial dose, 345 mg orally with food once daily until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration approved elacestrant (Orserdu, Stemline Therapeutics) for postmenopausal women or men with ER-positive, HER2-negative, ESR1-mutated advanced or metastatic breast cancer that progressed on at least one line of endocrine therapy.

The agency also approved the Guardant360 CDx assay as a companion diagnostic to identify breast cancer patients who meet the treatment requirements, according to the agency’s press release announcing the approval.

The novel oral selective estrogen receptor degrader was approved based on the phase 3 EMERALD trial, which included 478 postmenopausal women and men with ER-positive, HER2-negative advanced or metastatic breast cancer, about half of whom had ESR1 mutations. Patients had progressed on one or two prior lines of endocrine therapy, including one containing a CDK4/6 inhibitor. Participants could also have had one prior line of chemotherapy in the advanced or metastatic setting.

Participants were randomized 1:1 to either elacestrant 345 mg orally once daily or investigator’s choice of endocrine therapy, which included fulvestrant or an aromatase inhibitor.

In the 228 patients (48%) with ESR1 mutations, median progression-free survival (PFS) was 3.8 months with elacestrant versus 1.9 months in the fulvestrant or aromatase inhibitor arm (hazard ratio, 0.55; P = .0005). Investigators observed no statistically significant PFS difference between the treatment arms in patients who didn’t have the mutation.
 

Fair comparison?

In June, experts raised concerns about the adequacy of the “standard of care” control arm in EMERALD, particularly that single agents were used at a time when combination therapy is becoming more common.

“The expression ‘standard of care’ is applied generously, as the control arm is restricted” to single agents and no combinations, which “may have led to a substandard” comparison group, Timothée Olivier, MD, Geneva University Hospital, and Vinay Prasad, MD, MPH, University of California, San Francisco, said in an editorial quoted in the piece.

EMERALD investigators acknowledged that there were issues with the control group, noting that in the “United States and Europe, combination therapy with fulvestrant” – instead of single agents – “is increasingly being used as the second-line [standard of care] treatment.”

However, the goal of the study “was to compare a novel endocrine therapy vs. currently available endocrine therapies,” not combination regimens, the investigators said.

Also, “the benefit of elacestrant over fulvestrant and AIs [aromatase inhibitors] in our monotherapy trial ... suggests that incorporating elacestrant as the preferred endocrine therapy backbone in future earlier-line combination studies is a promising strategy.”
 

Lipid monitoring necessary

The most common adverse events with elacestrant, occurring in 10% or more of patients, are musculoskeletal pain, nausea, increased cholesterol, increased AST, increased triglycerides, fatigue, decreased hemoglobin, vomiting, increased ALT, decreased sodium, increased creatinine, decreased appetite, diarrhea, headache, constipation, abdominal pain, hot flush, and dyspepsia, according to labeling.

Labeling warns that elacestrant “may cause hypercholesterolemia and hypertriglyceridemia. Monitor lipid profile prior to starting treatment and periodically thereafter.”

The recommended elacestrant dose is the trial dose, 345 mg orally with food once daily until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration approved elacestrant (Orserdu, Stemline Therapeutics) for postmenopausal women or men with ER-positive, HER2-negative, ESR1-mutated advanced or metastatic breast cancer that progressed on at least one line of endocrine therapy.

The agency also approved the Guardant360 CDx assay as a companion diagnostic to identify breast cancer patients who meet the treatment requirements, according to the agency’s press release announcing the approval.

The novel oral selective estrogen receptor degrader was approved based on the phase 3 EMERALD trial, which included 478 postmenopausal women and men with ER-positive, HER2-negative advanced or metastatic breast cancer, about half of whom had ESR1 mutations. Patients had progressed on one or two prior lines of endocrine therapy, including one containing a CDK4/6 inhibitor. Participants could also have had one prior line of chemotherapy in the advanced or metastatic setting.

Participants were randomized 1:1 to either elacestrant 345 mg orally once daily or investigator’s choice of endocrine therapy, which included fulvestrant or an aromatase inhibitor.

In the 228 patients (48%) with ESR1 mutations, median progression-free survival (PFS) was 3.8 months with elacestrant versus 1.9 months in the fulvestrant or aromatase inhibitor arm (hazard ratio, 0.55; P = .0005). Investigators observed no statistically significant PFS difference between the treatment arms in patients who didn’t have the mutation.
 

Fair comparison?

In June, experts raised concerns about the adequacy of the “standard of care” control arm in EMERALD, particularly that single agents were used at a time when combination therapy is becoming more common.

“The expression ‘standard of care’ is applied generously, as the control arm is restricted” to single agents and no combinations, which “may have led to a substandard” comparison group, Timothée Olivier, MD, Geneva University Hospital, and Vinay Prasad, MD, MPH, University of California, San Francisco, said in an editorial quoted in the piece.

EMERALD investigators acknowledged that there were issues with the control group, noting that in the “United States and Europe, combination therapy with fulvestrant” – instead of single agents – “is increasingly being used as the second-line [standard of care] treatment.”

However, the goal of the study “was to compare a novel endocrine therapy vs. currently available endocrine therapies,” not combination regimens, the investigators said.

Also, “the benefit of elacestrant over fulvestrant and AIs [aromatase inhibitors] in our monotherapy trial ... suggests that incorporating elacestrant as the preferred endocrine therapy backbone in future earlier-line combination studies is a promising strategy.”
 

Lipid monitoring necessary

The most common adverse events with elacestrant, occurring in 10% or more of patients, are musculoskeletal pain, nausea, increased cholesterol, increased AST, increased triglycerides, fatigue, decreased hemoglobin, vomiting, increased ALT, decreased sodium, increased creatinine, decreased appetite, diarrhea, headache, constipation, abdominal pain, hot flush, and dyspepsia, according to labeling.

Labeling warns that elacestrant “may cause hypercholesterolemia and hypertriglyceridemia. Monitor lipid profile prior to starting treatment and periodically thereafter.”

The recommended elacestrant dose is the trial dose, 345 mg orally with food once daily until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A combination of HER2-targeted drugs used in breast cancer is now available for use in colorectal cancer.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has granted accelerated approval to tucatinib (Tukysa) in combination with trastuzumab for use in RAS wild-type, HER2-positive unresectable or metastatic colorectal cancer that has progressed after fluoropyrimidine, oxaliplatin, and irinotecan-based chemotherapy.

This is the first FDA-approved treatment for HER2-positive metastatic colorectal cancer, maker Seagen said in a Jan. 19 press release.

“Historically, patients with HER2-positive metastatic colorectal cancer who have progressed following frontline therapy have had poor outcomes. The FDA approval of a chemotherapy-free combination regimen that specifically targets HER2 is great news for these patients,” John Strickler, MD, associate professor of medicine at Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C., said in the press release.

Dr. Strickler was the lead investigator on the approval trial, dubbed MOUNTAINEER, which involved 84 patients who met the treatment criteria and who had also been treated with an anti-VEGF antibody. Participants whose tumors were deficient in mismatch repair proteins or were microsatellite instability–high must also have received a PD-1 inhibitor. Patients who received prior anti-HER2 therapy were excluded, the FDA explained in its own press release.

Participants were treated with tucatinib 300 mg orally twice daily– the recommended dose in product labeling – with trastuzumab administered at a loading dose of 8 mg/kg intravenously on day 1 of cycle 1 followed by a maintenance dose of trastuzumab 6 mg/kg on day 1 of each subsequent 21-day cycle.

Overall response rate was 38%, and median duration of response was 12.4 months.

The most common adverse events, occurring in at least 20% of study participants, were diarrhea, fatigue, rash, nausea, abdominal pain, infusion related reactions, and pyrexia. The most common laboratory abnormalities were increased creatinine, decreased lymphocytes, increased alanine aminotransferase, and decreased hemoglobin, among others.

Serious adverse reactions occurred in 22% of patients. The most common (occurring in ≥ 2% of patients) were intestinal obstruction (7%); urinary tract infection (3.5%); and pneumonia, abdominal pain, and rectal perforation (2.3% each). Adverse reactions leading to permanent discontinuation occurred in 6% of patients, including increased alanine aminotransferase in 2.3%.

Continued approval for the indication may be contingent upon verification and description of clinical benefit in confirmatory trials, the company said.

A global, randomized phase 3 clinical trial (MOUNTAINEER-03) is ongoing and is comparing tucatinib in combination with trastuzumab and mFOLFOX6 with standard of care and is intended to serve as a confirmatory trial, the company said.

Tucatinib is already approved in combination with trastuzumab and capecitabine for use in the treatment of advanced unresectable or metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A combination of HER2-targeted drugs used in breast cancer is now available for use in colorectal cancer.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has granted accelerated approval to tucatinib (Tukysa) in combination with trastuzumab for use in RAS wild-type, HER2-positive unresectable or metastatic colorectal cancer that has progressed after fluoropyrimidine, oxaliplatin, and irinotecan-based chemotherapy.

This is the first FDA-approved treatment for HER2-positive metastatic colorectal cancer, maker Seagen said in a Jan. 19 press release.

“Historically, patients with HER2-positive metastatic colorectal cancer who have progressed following frontline therapy have had poor outcomes. The FDA approval of a chemotherapy-free combination regimen that specifically targets HER2 is great news for these patients,” John Strickler, MD, associate professor of medicine at Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C., said in the press release.

Dr. Strickler was the lead investigator on the approval trial, dubbed MOUNTAINEER, which involved 84 patients who met the treatment criteria and who had also been treated with an anti-VEGF antibody. Participants whose tumors were deficient in mismatch repair proteins or were microsatellite instability–high must also have received a PD-1 inhibitor. Patients who received prior anti-HER2 therapy were excluded, the FDA explained in its own press release.

Participants were treated with tucatinib 300 mg orally twice daily– the recommended dose in product labeling – with trastuzumab administered at a loading dose of 8 mg/kg intravenously on day 1 of cycle 1 followed by a maintenance dose of trastuzumab 6 mg/kg on day 1 of each subsequent 21-day cycle.

Overall response rate was 38%, and median duration of response was 12.4 months.

The most common adverse events, occurring in at least 20% of study participants, were diarrhea, fatigue, rash, nausea, abdominal pain, infusion related reactions, and pyrexia. The most common laboratory abnormalities were increased creatinine, decreased lymphocytes, increased alanine aminotransferase, and decreased hemoglobin, among others.

Serious adverse reactions occurred in 22% of patients. The most common (occurring in ≥ 2% of patients) were intestinal obstruction (7%); urinary tract infection (3.5%); and pneumonia, abdominal pain, and rectal perforation (2.3% each). Adverse reactions leading to permanent discontinuation occurred in 6% of patients, including increased alanine aminotransferase in 2.3%.

Continued approval for the indication may be contingent upon verification and description of clinical benefit in confirmatory trials, the company said.

A global, randomized phase 3 clinical trial (MOUNTAINEER-03) is ongoing and is comparing tucatinib in combination with trastuzumab and mFOLFOX6 with standard of care and is intended to serve as a confirmatory trial, the company said.

Tucatinib is already approved in combination with trastuzumab and capecitabine for use in the treatment of advanced unresectable or metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A combination of HER2-targeted drugs used in breast cancer is now available for use in colorectal cancer.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has granted accelerated approval to tucatinib (Tukysa) in combination with trastuzumab for use in RAS wild-type, HER2-positive unresectable or metastatic colorectal cancer that has progressed after fluoropyrimidine, oxaliplatin, and irinotecan-based chemotherapy.

This is the first FDA-approved treatment for HER2-positive metastatic colorectal cancer, maker Seagen said in a Jan. 19 press release.

“Historically, patients with HER2-positive metastatic colorectal cancer who have progressed following frontline therapy have had poor outcomes. The FDA approval of a chemotherapy-free combination regimen that specifically targets HER2 is great news for these patients,” John Strickler, MD, associate professor of medicine at Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C., said in the press release.

Dr. Strickler was the lead investigator on the approval trial, dubbed MOUNTAINEER, which involved 84 patients who met the treatment criteria and who had also been treated with an anti-VEGF antibody. Participants whose tumors were deficient in mismatch repair proteins or were microsatellite instability–high must also have received a PD-1 inhibitor. Patients who received prior anti-HER2 therapy were excluded, the FDA explained in its own press release.

Participants were treated with tucatinib 300 mg orally twice daily– the recommended dose in product labeling – with trastuzumab administered at a loading dose of 8 mg/kg intravenously on day 1 of cycle 1 followed by a maintenance dose of trastuzumab 6 mg/kg on day 1 of each subsequent 21-day cycle.

Overall response rate was 38%, and median duration of response was 12.4 months.

The most common adverse events, occurring in at least 20% of study participants, were diarrhea, fatigue, rash, nausea, abdominal pain, infusion related reactions, and pyrexia. The most common laboratory abnormalities were increased creatinine, decreased lymphocytes, increased alanine aminotransferase, and decreased hemoglobin, among others.

Serious adverse reactions occurred in 22% of patients. The most common (occurring in ≥ 2% of patients) were intestinal obstruction (7%); urinary tract infection (3.5%); and pneumonia, abdominal pain, and rectal perforation (2.3% each). Adverse reactions leading to permanent discontinuation occurred in 6% of patients, including increased alanine aminotransferase in 2.3%.

Continued approval for the indication may be contingent upon verification and description of clinical benefit in confirmatory trials, the company said.

A global, randomized phase 3 clinical trial (MOUNTAINEER-03) is ongoing and is comparing tucatinib in combination with trastuzumab and mFOLFOX6 with standard of care and is intended to serve as a confirmatory trial, the company said.

Tucatinib is already approved in combination with trastuzumab and capecitabine for use in the treatment of advanced unresectable or metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Children with hyperdiploid acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) are much more likely to also have congenital cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection, according to an analysis published in JAMA Network Open.

Although researchers found no association between ALL and congenital CMV infection overall, pediatric patients diagnosed with hyperdiploid ALL had sixfold greater odds of being positive for congenital CMV than cancer-free controls.

“These findings suggest mixed evidence for an association between congenital CMV infection and ALL” and that “a CMV-ALL association may be specific to hyperdiploid ALL,” said investigators, led by Jennifer Geris, PhD, a postdoctoral associate at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston.

A growing body of evidence suggests that CMV, a member of the herpesvirus family, may be a risk factor for ALL. Although the mechanism remains unclear, congenital CMV may encourage proliferation of CD34+ hematopoietic progenitor cells in bone marrow that are vulnerable to oncogenic transformation.

Two prior independent studies have suggested that prenatal CMV infection is associated with an increased risk of childhood ALL. However, given how common CMV infection is (more than 80% seropositivity worldwide) and the relatively rarity of pediatric ALL, Joseph Wiemels, PhD, argued in an accompanying editorial that CMV can’t be a direct cause of leukemia.

“Instead, CMV may play a supportive role” with infection in some infants altering immune function in a way that increases vulnerability to more direct causes of ALL, explained Dr. Wiemels, professor of population and public health sciences at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles. In other words, “exposure to CMV early rather than fulminant infection” at birth “may be the key epidemiologic feature.”

In the current study, Dr. Geris and colleagues tested dried newborn blood spots from 1189 children with ALL and 4,756 controls matched on age, sex, and mother’s race and ethnicity for the presence of cytomegalovirus at birth. Children were born in Michigan on or after Oct. 1, 1987.

Across the entire study population, congenital CMV was detected in 6 ALL cases (0.5%) and 21 controls (0.4%), with no difference in the odds of congenital CMV infection between the two groups. Among subjects positive for congenital CMV, it was not clear who had fulminant, clinically recognized disease and who did not.

Overall, 2 of 74 cases (2.7%) of hyperdiploid ALL were positive for congenital CMV. Compared with all controls in an unmatched analysis, those with hyperdiploid ALL were 6.26 times more likely to be CMV positive.

Overall, the investigators concluded that the current findings, in combination with previous evidence showing a similar connection, “strongly suggest CMV is associated specifically to hyperdiploid ALL.”

Although “the evidence supporting an association between CMV and ALL is tantalizing and mounting rapidly,” Dr. Wiemels noted that “much additional research attention is required to mechanistically describe pathways by which CMV may influence leukemia before the virus could be considered a potential target for prevention or clinical management of ALL.”

“We are still in the early chapters of the book describing the role of CMV and ALL,” but the virus might emerge as a clinical target “with much future promise for the health and well-being of our children,” he said.

The work was funded by the National Institutes of Health, the University of Minnesota, and the Department of Defense. The investigators and editorialist have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Children with hyperdiploid acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) are much more likely to also have congenital cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection, according to an analysis published in JAMA Network Open.

Although researchers found no association between ALL and congenital CMV infection overall, pediatric patients diagnosed with hyperdiploid ALL had sixfold greater odds of being positive for congenital CMV than cancer-free controls.

“These findings suggest mixed evidence for an association between congenital CMV infection and ALL” and that “a CMV-ALL association may be specific to hyperdiploid ALL,” said investigators, led by Jennifer Geris, PhD, a postdoctoral associate at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston.

A growing body of evidence suggests that CMV, a member of the herpesvirus family, may be a risk factor for ALL. Although the mechanism remains unclear, congenital CMV may encourage proliferation of CD34+ hematopoietic progenitor cells in bone marrow that are vulnerable to oncogenic transformation.

Two prior independent studies have suggested that prenatal CMV infection is associated with an increased risk of childhood ALL. However, given how common CMV infection is (more than 80% seropositivity worldwide) and the relatively rarity of pediatric ALL, Joseph Wiemels, PhD, argued in an accompanying editorial that CMV can’t be a direct cause of leukemia.

“Instead, CMV may play a supportive role” with infection in some infants altering immune function in a way that increases vulnerability to more direct causes of ALL, explained Dr. Wiemels, professor of population and public health sciences at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles. In other words, “exposure to CMV early rather than fulminant infection” at birth “may be the key epidemiologic feature.”

In the current study, Dr. Geris and colleagues tested dried newborn blood spots from 1189 children with ALL and 4,756 controls matched on age, sex, and mother’s race and ethnicity for the presence of cytomegalovirus at birth. Children were born in Michigan on or after Oct. 1, 1987.

Across the entire study population, congenital CMV was detected in 6 ALL cases (0.5%) and 21 controls (0.4%), with no difference in the odds of congenital CMV infection between the two groups. Among subjects positive for congenital CMV, it was not clear who had fulminant, clinically recognized disease and who did not.

Overall, 2 of 74 cases (2.7%) of hyperdiploid ALL were positive for congenital CMV. Compared with all controls in an unmatched analysis, those with hyperdiploid ALL were 6.26 times more likely to be CMV positive.

Overall, the investigators concluded that the current findings, in combination with previous evidence showing a similar connection, “strongly suggest CMV is associated specifically to hyperdiploid ALL.”

Although “the evidence supporting an association between CMV and ALL is tantalizing and mounting rapidly,” Dr. Wiemels noted that “much additional research attention is required to mechanistically describe pathways by which CMV may influence leukemia before the virus could be considered a potential target for prevention or clinical management of ALL.”

“We are still in the early chapters of the book describing the role of CMV and ALL,” but the virus might emerge as a clinical target “with much future promise for the health and well-being of our children,” he said.

The work was funded by the National Institutes of Health, the University of Minnesota, and the Department of Defense. The investigators and editorialist have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Children with hyperdiploid acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) are much more likely to also have congenital cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection, according to an analysis published in JAMA Network Open.

Although researchers found no association between ALL and congenital CMV infection overall, pediatric patients diagnosed with hyperdiploid ALL had sixfold greater odds of being positive for congenital CMV than cancer-free controls.

“These findings suggest mixed evidence for an association between congenital CMV infection and ALL” and that “a CMV-ALL association may be specific to hyperdiploid ALL,” said investigators, led by Jennifer Geris, PhD, a postdoctoral associate at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston.

A growing body of evidence suggests that CMV, a member of the herpesvirus family, may be a risk factor for ALL. Although the mechanism remains unclear, congenital CMV may encourage proliferation of CD34+ hematopoietic progenitor cells in bone marrow that are vulnerable to oncogenic transformation.

Two prior independent studies have suggested that prenatal CMV infection is associated with an increased risk of childhood ALL. However, given how common CMV infection is (more than 80% seropositivity worldwide) and the relatively rarity of pediatric ALL, Joseph Wiemels, PhD, argued in an accompanying editorial that CMV can’t be a direct cause of leukemia.

“Instead, CMV may play a supportive role” with infection in some infants altering immune function in a way that increases vulnerability to more direct causes of ALL, explained Dr. Wiemels, professor of population and public health sciences at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles. In other words, “exposure to CMV early rather than fulminant infection” at birth “may be the key epidemiologic feature.”

In the current study, Dr. Geris and colleagues tested dried newborn blood spots from 1189 children with ALL and 4,756 controls matched on age, sex, and mother’s race and ethnicity for the presence of cytomegalovirus at birth. Children were born in Michigan on or after Oct. 1, 1987.

Across the entire study population, congenital CMV was detected in 6 ALL cases (0.5%) and 21 controls (0.4%), with no difference in the odds of congenital CMV infection between the two groups. Among subjects positive for congenital CMV, it was not clear who had fulminant, clinically recognized disease and who did not.

Overall, 2 of 74 cases (2.7%) of hyperdiploid ALL were positive for congenital CMV. Compared with all controls in an unmatched analysis, those with hyperdiploid ALL were 6.26 times more likely to be CMV positive.

Overall, the investigators concluded that the current findings, in combination with previous evidence showing a similar connection, “strongly suggest CMV is associated specifically to hyperdiploid ALL.”

Although “the evidence supporting an association between CMV and ALL is tantalizing and mounting rapidly,” Dr. Wiemels noted that “much additional research attention is required to mechanistically describe pathways by which CMV may influence leukemia before the virus could be considered a potential target for prevention or clinical management of ALL.”

“We are still in the early chapters of the book describing the role of CMV and ALL,” but the virus might emerge as a clinical target “with much future promise for the health and well-being of our children,” he said.

The work was funded by the National Institutes of Health, the University of Minnesota, and the Department of Defense. The investigators and editorialist have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Although acute myeloid leukemia (AML) is on the rise worldwide, and the use of hematopoietic stem cell transplants (HSCT) as a treatment has increased overall, in some countries fewer than 5% of patients are offered this option.

The use of HSCT, the main curative option for AML, “remains unacceptably low,” commented Molly Tokaz, MD, a hematology/oncology fellow at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Seattle.

She was presenting the findings from a study of worldwide HSCT utilization at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.

Globally, the incidence of AML has increased 16.2% – from 101,867 cases in 2009 to 118,404 in 2016, she noted. This in turn has led to a 54.9% increase in the worldwide use of HSCT for AML, from 9,659 to 14,965 transplants per year over the same period.

North America and Europe have the highest utilization rates of allogeneic HSCT for AML, but even so, fewer than 40% of patients have the procedure, raising a “question of how [well] we are prioritizing the use of HSCT, even in these resource-abundant health systems,” Dr. Tokaz said.

Meanwhile, in Africa, South America, and the Eastern Mediterranean, fewer than 5% of AML patients undergo transplant. Although “resource-constrained regions have the largest growth in HSCT use” in recent years, utilization rates remain abysmally low, “which has profound effects on the expected outcomes for patients in these regions,” she said.

Overall, “patients from lower- and middle-income countries face substantial barriers to accessing stem cell transplantation for AML,” commented Chancellor Donald, MD, a hematologist/oncologist at Tulane University, New Orleans, who moderated the session.

The “stark regional differences” illustrate “inequities in the delivery of stem cell transplants” but also opportunities “to improve access to this potentially curative treatment,” he said.

The goal of the study was to establish a global baseline of HSCT utilization to help focus future expansion efforts aimed at closing regional access gaps. It shows there is much work to be done, Dr. Tokaz said.

An international effort is needed to address the issue, including better data collection, implementation of regional HSCT programs, increased representation of ethnic and racial minorities in international donor registries, and other measures. In many cases, telemedicine can help with sharing cross-border expertise.

In short, what’s needed is a “comprehensive global effort to improve outcomes for patients with AML” worldwide, Dr. Tokaz said.

Timing of transplant is similar across regions, generally coming during the first complete remission, and there’s also been a global shift toward collecting stem cells from peripheral blood.

There has also been a marked shift away from autologous procedures and toward allogeneic transplants, she said.

A key difference between regions, however, is that while more than half of transplants are from unrelated donors in Europe and North America, almost all are from related donors in Africa and the Eastern Mediterranean, with an increasing proportion of haploidentical donors. In addition, the majority of transplants in Asia, the western Pacific, and South America are from related donors.

The use of related donors has implications for HSCT treatment algorithms and outcomes, Dr. Tokaz said.

The estimates of AML incidence were obtained from the 2019 Global Burden of Disease study. Data on HSCT utilization came from the Worldwide Network for Blood and Marrow Transplantation. No funding source was reported. Dr. Tokaz reports no relevant financial relationships, but some co-authors had numerous industry ties. Dr. Donald reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Although acute myeloid leukemia (AML) is on the rise worldwide, and the use of hematopoietic stem cell transplants (HSCT) as a treatment has increased overall, in some countries fewer than 5% of patients are offered this option.

The use of HSCT, the main curative option for AML, “remains unacceptably low,” commented Molly Tokaz, MD, a hematology/oncology fellow at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Seattle.

She was presenting the findings from a study of worldwide HSCT utilization at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.

Globally, the incidence of AML has increased 16.2% – from 101,867 cases in 2009 to 118,404 in 2016, she noted. This in turn has led to a 54.9% increase in the worldwide use of HSCT for AML, from 9,659 to 14,965 transplants per year over the same period.

North America and Europe have the highest utilization rates of allogeneic HSCT for AML, but even so, fewer than 40% of patients have the procedure, raising a “question of how [well] we are prioritizing the use of HSCT, even in these resource-abundant health systems,” Dr. Tokaz said.

Meanwhile, in Africa, South America, and the Eastern Mediterranean, fewer than 5% of AML patients undergo transplant. Although “resource-constrained regions have the largest growth in HSCT use” in recent years, utilization rates remain abysmally low, “which has profound effects on the expected outcomes for patients in these regions,” she said.

Overall, “patients from lower- and middle-income countries face substantial barriers to accessing stem cell transplantation for AML,” commented Chancellor Donald, MD, a hematologist/oncologist at Tulane University, New Orleans, who moderated the session.

The “stark regional differences” illustrate “inequities in the delivery of stem cell transplants” but also opportunities “to improve access to this potentially curative treatment,” he said.

The goal of the study was to establish a global baseline of HSCT utilization to help focus future expansion efforts aimed at closing regional access gaps. It shows there is much work to be done, Dr. Tokaz said.

An international effort is needed to address the issue, including better data collection, implementation of regional HSCT programs, increased representation of ethnic and racial minorities in international donor registries, and other measures. In many cases, telemedicine can help with sharing cross-border expertise.

In short, what’s needed is a “comprehensive global effort to improve outcomes for patients with AML” worldwide, Dr. Tokaz said.

Timing of transplant is similar across regions, generally coming during the first complete remission, and there’s also been a global shift toward collecting stem cells from peripheral blood.

There has also been a marked shift away from autologous procedures and toward allogeneic transplants, she said.

A key difference between regions, however, is that while more than half of transplants are from unrelated donors in Europe and North America, almost all are from related donors in Africa and the Eastern Mediterranean, with an increasing proportion of haploidentical donors. In addition, the majority of transplants in Asia, the western Pacific, and South America are from related donors.

The use of related donors has implications for HSCT treatment algorithms and outcomes, Dr. Tokaz said.

The estimates of AML incidence were obtained from the 2019 Global Burden of Disease study. Data on HSCT utilization came from the Worldwide Network for Blood and Marrow Transplantation. No funding source was reported. Dr. Tokaz reports no relevant financial relationships, but some co-authors had numerous industry ties. Dr. Donald reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Although acute myeloid leukemia (AML) is on the rise worldwide, and the use of hematopoietic stem cell transplants (HSCT) as a treatment has increased overall, in some countries fewer than 5% of patients are offered this option.

The use of HSCT, the main curative option for AML, “remains unacceptably low,” commented Molly Tokaz, MD, a hematology/oncology fellow at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Seattle.

She was presenting the findings from a study of worldwide HSCT utilization at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.

Globally, the incidence of AML has increased 16.2% – from 101,867 cases in 2009 to 118,404 in 2016, she noted. This in turn has led to a 54.9% increase in the worldwide use of HSCT for AML, from 9,659 to 14,965 transplants per year over the same period.

North America and Europe have the highest utilization rates of allogeneic HSCT for AML, but even so, fewer than 40% of patients have the procedure, raising a “question of how [well] we are prioritizing the use of HSCT, even in these resource-abundant health systems,” Dr. Tokaz said.

Meanwhile, in Africa, South America, and the Eastern Mediterranean, fewer than 5% of AML patients undergo transplant. Although “resource-constrained regions have the largest growth in HSCT use” in recent years, utilization rates remain abysmally low, “which has profound effects on the expected outcomes for patients in these regions,” she said.

Overall, “patients from lower- and middle-income countries face substantial barriers to accessing stem cell transplantation for AML,” commented Chancellor Donald, MD, a hematologist/oncologist at Tulane University, New Orleans, who moderated the session.

The “stark regional differences” illustrate “inequities in the delivery of stem cell transplants” but also opportunities “to improve access to this potentially curative treatment,” he said.

The goal of the study was to establish a global baseline of HSCT utilization to help focus future expansion efforts aimed at closing regional access gaps. It shows there is much work to be done, Dr. Tokaz said.

An international effort is needed to address the issue, including better data collection, implementation of regional HSCT programs, increased representation of ethnic and racial minorities in international donor registries, and other measures. In many cases, telemedicine can help with sharing cross-border expertise.

In short, what’s needed is a “comprehensive global effort to improve outcomes for patients with AML” worldwide, Dr. Tokaz said.

Timing of transplant is similar across regions, generally coming during the first complete remission, and there’s also been a global shift toward collecting stem cells from peripheral blood.

There has also been a marked shift away from autologous procedures and toward allogeneic transplants, she said.

A key difference between regions, however, is that while more than half of transplants are from unrelated donors in Europe and North America, almost all are from related donors in Africa and the Eastern Mediterranean, with an increasing proportion of haploidentical donors. In addition, the majority of transplants in Asia, the western Pacific, and South America are from related donors.

The use of related donors has implications for HSCT treatment algorithms and outcomes, Dr. Tokaz said.

The estimates of AML incidence were obtained from the 2019 Global Burden of Disease study. Data on HSCT utilization came from the Worldwide Network for Blood and Marrow Transplantation. No funding source was reported. Dr. Tokaz reports no relevant financial relationships, but some co-authors had numerous industry ties. Dr. Donald reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

With recent expansions in its breast cancer indications, there has been an increase in the use of trastuzumab deruxtecan (T-DXd; Enhertu).

“A lot of us are using this more frequently now than we were in the past,” explained Sid Yadav, MD, a breast and gynecologic cancer specialist at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn. However, he added that managing its adverse events has been a “bit of a learning curve for all of us.”

The antibody-drug conjugate has been on the market since 2019 for metastatic human epidermal growth factor receptor (HER2)–positive breast cancer, but it was then approved in May 2022 for earlier use in this patient population and in August 2022 for patients with HER2-low disease. This latest approval was based on data showing an improvement in overall survival that was described as “practice changing.”

In addition, T-DXd is also approved for use in metastatic HER2-mutated non–small cell lung cancer and metastatic HER2-positive gastric and gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma.

Expanding use of this drug has led to growing awareness among oncologists of T-DXd’s considerable toxicities, Dr. Yadav told this news organization.

Among the eight or so patients he’s seen or treated over 2 months, Dr. Yadav has already seen one case of high-grade interstitial lung disease/pneumonitis, a complication that “everybody worries about” because the label for T-DXd carries a black box warning of this possibility.

There have been other issues at Mayo Clinic, as well. In one recent week, five patients were admitted for possible T-DXd adverse events, including neutropenic fever and sepsis; pneumonitis; severe nausea/vomiting with electrolyte imbalance; pneumonia, and non–ST elevation myocardial infarction with low ejection fraction.

It’s unknown what proportion of T-DXd recipients the five admissions represented. Dr. Yadav’s service has over 10 breast oncologists, so the cases could represent maybe 1%-10% of patients, he said.

His experience prompted Dr. Yadav to turn to Twitter to ask fellow oncologists what complications they’ve seen with T-DXd.

One said that his “real-world toxicity experience [has been] worse than the trial data,” which isn’t unusual, another oncologist noted, because real-world patients are often sicker than trial participants and more vulnerable to toxicities.

A third oncologist countered that she has “found [T-DXd] generally easy for patients to tolerate and [has] not needed to admit anyone” so far.

Overall, Dr. Yadav said that in his experience there are issues that need to be considered with T-DXd beyond interstitial lung disease.

As with any chemotherapy, neutropenia and infections are a concern, as the labeling notes. The interstitial lung disease case has also made Dr. Yadav have a low threshold to order CT in patients with any hints of shortness of breath and to start steroids if there’s any suspicion.

Probably the most common issue, however, is nausea and vomiting. In clinical trials, over 70% of participants reported nausea and over 40% experienced vomiting.

In response, Dr. Yadav and his colleagues have become more aggressive with prophylaxis. Pretreatment includes steroids, palonosetron, and fosaprepitant. Patients are also usually sent home with prochlorperazine, ondansetron, and lorazepam. If these don’t help, the team considers olanzapine.

They have also learned that “it’s important to spend that extra 15-20 minutes upfront” with patients before starting T-DXd to explain the risk for nausea and vomiting and how it will be managed, Dr. Yadav commented. “We do chemotherapy teaching for every patient, but I think we spend more time [now] talking about nausea and vomiting with this subset,” he said.

Dr. Yadav still starts patients on the standard breast cancer dose of T-DXd – 5.4 mg/kg every 3 weeks – but said he’s quicker now to lower the dose if patients aren’t doing well. He estimates he’s done that a couple of times so far.

Approaches at the Mayo Clinic are in line with those in a recent article on managing T-DXd toxicities by Hope Rugo, MD, from the University of California, San Francisco, and colleagues.

These authors conclude that adverse events related to T-DXd are frequent but are most commonly low grade and manageable. Nausea and vomiting are among the most common, and they note that interstitial lung disease/pneumonitis is an important adverse event, for which proactive monitoring, diagnosis, and management are key.

The review describes management practices of other health care providers and institutions with experience in using T-DXd to help with safe and effective management of the drug’s adverse events, particularly since the duration of treatment may be quite long.

Proper management of T-DXd–related adverse events will allow optimal exposure to and benefit from the drug and will help avoid premature discontinuation or improper dose reductions, Dr. Rugo and colleagues commented.

Dr. Yadav reports no relevant conflicts of interest.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

With recent expansions in its breast cancer indications, there has been an increase in the use of trastuzumab deruxtecan (T-DXd; Enhertu).

“A lot of us are using this more frequently now than we were in the past,” explained Sid Yadav, MD, a breast and gynecologic cancer specialist at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn. However, he added that managing its adverse events has been a “bit of a learning curve for all of us.”

The antibody-drug conjugate has been on the market since 2019 for metastatic human epidermal growth factor receptor (HER2)–positive breast cancer, but it was then approved in May 2022 for earlier use in this patient population and in August 2022 for patients with HER2-low disease. This latest approval was based on data showing an improvement in overall survival that was described as “practice changing.”

In addition, T-DXd is also approved for use in metastatic HER2-mutated non–small cell lung cancer and metastatic HER2-positive gastric and gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma.

Expanding use of this drug has led to growing awareness among oncologists of T-DXd’s considerable toxicities, Dr. Yadav told this news organization.

Among the eight or so patients he’s seen or treated over 2 months, Dr. Yadav has already seen one case of high-grade interstitial lung disease/pneumonitis, a complication that “everybody worries about” because the label for T-DXd carries a black box warning of this possibility.

There have been other issues at Mayo Clinic, as well. In one recent week, five patients were admitted for possible T-DXd adverse events, including neutropenic fever and sepsis; pneumonitis; severe nausea/vomiting with electrolyte imbalance; pneumonia, and non–ST elevation myocardial infarction with low ejection fraction.

It’s unknown what proportion of T-DXd recipients the five admissions represented. Dr. Yadav’s service has over 10 breast oncologists, so the cases could represent maybe 1%-10% of patients, he said.

His experience prompted Dr. Yadav to turn to Twitter to ask fellow oncologists what complications they’ve seen with T-DXd.

One said that his “real-world toxicity experience [has been] worse than the trial data,” which isn’t unusual, another oncologist noted, because real-world patients are often sicker than trial participants and more vulnerable to toxicities.

A third oncologist countered that she has “found [T-DXd] generally easy for patients to tolerate and [has] not needed to admit anyone” so far.

Overall, Dr. Yadav said that in his experience there are issues that need to be considered with T-DXd beyond interstitial lung disease.

As with any chemotherapy, neutropenia and infections are a concern, as the labeling notes. The interstitial lung disease case has also made Dr. Yadav have a low threshold to order CT in patients with any hints of shortness of breath and to start steroids if there’s any suspicion.

Probably the most common issue, however, is nausea and vomiting. In clinical trials, over 70% of participants reported nausea and over 40% experienced vomiting.

In response, Dr. Yadav and his colleagues have become more aggressive with prophylaxis. Pretreatment includes steroids, palonosetron, and fosaprepitant. Patients are also usually sent home with prochlorperazine, ondansetron, and lorazepam. If these don’t help, the team considers olanzapine.

They have also learned that “it’s important to spend that extra 15-20 minutes upfront” with patients before starting T-DXd to explain the risk for nausea and vomiting and how it will be managed, Dr. Yadav commented. “We do chemotherapy teaching for every patient, but I think we spend more time [now] talking about nausea and vomiting with this subset,” he said.

Dr. Yadav still starts patients on the standard breast cancer dose of T-DXd – 5.4 mg/kg every 3 weeks – but said he’s quicker now to lower the dose if patients aren’t doing well. He estimates he’s done that a couple of times so far.

Approaches at the Mayo Clinic are in line with those in a recent article on managing T-DXd toxicities by Hope Rugo, MD, from the University of California, San Francisco, and colleagues.

These authors conclude that adverse events related to T-DXd are frequent but are most commonly low grade and manageable. Nausea and vomiting are among the most common, and they note that interstitial lung disease/pneumonitis is an important adverse event, for which proactive monitoring, diagnosis, and management are key.

The review describes management practices of other health care providers and institutions with experience in using T-DXd to help with safe and effective management of the drug’s adverse events, particularly since the duration of treatment may be quite long.

Proper management of T-DXd–related adverse events will allow optimal exposure to and benefit from the drug and will help avoid premature discontinuation or improper dose reductions, Dr. Rugo and colleagues commented.

Dr. Yadav reports no relevant conflicts of interest.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

With recent expansions in its breast cancer indications, there has been an increase in the use of trastuzumab deruxtecan (T-DXd; Enhertu).

“A lot of us are using this more frequently now than we were in the past,” explained Sid Yadav, MD, a breast and gynecologic cancer specialist at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn. However, he added that managing its adverse events has been a “bit of a learning curve for all of us.”

The antibody-drug conjugate has been on the market since 2019 for metastatic human epidermal growth factor receptor (HER2)–positive breast cancer, but it was then approved in May 2022 for earlier use in this patient population and in August 2022 for patients with HER2-low disease. This latest approval was based on data showing an improvement in overall survival that was described as “practice changing.”

In addition, T-DXd is also approved for use in metastatic HER2-mutated non–small cell lung cancer and metastatic HER2-positive gastric and gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma.

Expanding use of this drug has led to growing awareness among oncologists of T-DXd’s considerable toxicities, Dr. Yadav told this news organization.

Among the eight or so patients he’s seen or treated over 2 months, Dr. Yadav has already seen one case of high-grade interstitial lung disease/pneumonitis, a complication that “everybody worries about” because the label for T-DXd carries a black box warning of this possibility.

There have been other issues at Mayo Clinic, as well. In one recent week, five patients were admitted for possible T-DXd adverse events, including neutropenic fever and sepsis; pneumonitis; severe nausea/vomiting with electrolyte imbalance; pneumonia, and non–ST elevation myocardial infarction with low ejection fraction.

It’s unknown what proportion of T-DXd recipients the five admissions represented. Dr. Yadav’s service has over 10 breast oncologists, so the cases could represent maybe 1%-10% of patients, he said.

His experience prompted Dr. Yadav to turn to Twitter to ask fellow oncologists what complications they’ve seen with T-DXd.

One said that his “real-world toxicity experience [has been] worse than the trial data,” which isn’t unusual, another oncologist noted, because real-world patients are often sicker than trial participants and more vulnerable to toxicities.

A third oncologist countered that she has “found [T-DXd] generally easy for patients to tolerate and [has] not needed to admit anyone” so far.

Overall, Dr. Yadav said that in his experience there are issues that need to be considered with T-DXd beyond interstitial lung disease.

As with any chemotherapy, neutropenia and infections are a concern, as the labeling notes. The interstitial lung disease case has also made Dr. Yadav have a low threshold to order CT in patients with any hints of shortness of breath and to start steroids if there’s any suspicion.

Probably the most common issue, however, is nausea and vomiting. In clinical trials, over 70% of participants reported nausea and over 40% experienced vomiting.

In response, Dr. Yadav and his colleagues have become more aggressive with prophylaxis. Pretreatment includes steroids, palonosetron, and fosaprepitant. Patients are also usually sent home with prochlorperazine, ondansetron, and lorazepam. If these don’t help, the team considers olanzapine.

They have also learned that “it’s important to spend that extra 15-20 minutes upfront” with patients before starting T-DXd to explain the risk for nausea and vomiting and how it will be managed, Dr. Yadav commented. “We do chemotherapy teaching for every patient, but I think we spend more time [now] talking about nausea and vomiting with this subset,” he said.

Dr. Yadav still starts patients on the standard breast cancer dose of T-DXd – 5.4 mg/kg every 3 weeks – but said he’s quicker now to lower the dose if patients aren’t doing well. He estimates he’s done that a couple of times so far.

Approaches at the Mayo Clinic are in line with those in a recent article on managing T-DXd toxicities by Hope Rugo, MD, from the University of California, San Francisco, and colleagues.

These authors conclude that adverse events related to T-DXd are frequent but are most commonly low grade and manageable. Nausea and vomiting are among the most common, and they note that interstitial lung disease/pneumonitis is an important adverse event, for which proactive monitoring, diagnosis, and management are key.

The review describes management practices of other health care providers and institutions with experience in using T-DXd to help with safe and effective management of the drug’s adverse events, particularly since the duration of treatment may be quite long.

Proper management of T-DXd–related adverse events will allow optimal exposure to and benefit from the drug and will help avoid premature discontinuation or improper dose reductions, Dr. Rugo and colleagues commented.

Dr. Yadav reports no relevant conflicts of interest.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration granted accelerated approval to teclistamab (Tecvayli, Janssen Biotech) for adults with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma after at least four prior lines of therapy, including a proteasome inhibitor, an immunomodulatory agent, and an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody.

The results made the case for “teclistamab as a monotherapy for eligible patients with heavily pretreated multiple myeloma, in need of new treatment options,” investigator Maria-Victoria Mateos, MD, PhD, a hematologist at the University Hospital of Salamanca (Spain) said in a June press release from drug maker Janssen/Johnson & Johnson.

The approval was based on the phase 1-2 single-arm MajesTEC-1 trial. The MajesTEC-1 findings, published in August in the New England Journal of Medicine, included 165 patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma after at least three therapy lines – including an immunomodulatory drug, a proteasome inhibitor, and an anti-CD38 antibody. These patients received a weekly subcutaneous 1.5 mg/kg injection of teclistamab after stepping up from 0.06 mg and 0.3 mg/kg doses.

According to the FDA announcement, the overall response rate was nearly 62%. And the estimated duration of response rate among responders was 90.6% at 6 months and 66.5% at 9 months.

The NEJM results also indicated that almost 40% of patients had a complete response to the therapy, over a median follow-up of 14.1 months. More than a quarter of patients (26.7%) had no minimal residual disease.

The study investigators concluded that “teclistamab resulted in a high rate of deep and durable response in patients with triple-class exposed relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma.”

In a press release, Michael Andreini, president and CEO of the Multiple Myeloma Research Foundation, commented that “teclistamab is an important new treatment option for patients who have faced multiple relapses.”

The recommended dose for teclistamab is 0.06 mg/kg via subcutaneous injection on day 1, 0.3 mg/kg on day 4, and 1.5 mg/kg on day 7, followed by 1.5 mg/kg once weekly until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

The FDA noted, however, that the prescribing information for teclistamab comes with a Boxed warning for “life-threatening or fatal cytokine-release syndrome (CRS) and neurologic toxicity, including immune effector cell–associated neurotoxicity (ICANS).”

CRS was reported in 72.1% of patients (grade 3 in one patient but no grade 4 cases), neurologic toxicity in 57%, and ICANS in 6%. Other common adverse events in the NEJM report included neutropenia in 71% of subjects (grade 3 or 4 in 64%); anemia in 52% (grade 3 or 4 in 37%), and thrombocytopenia in 40% (grade 3 or 4 in 21%). Overall, 45% of patients developed grade 3 or 4 infections.

“Because of the risks of CRS and neurologic toxicity, including ICANS, teclistamab-cqyv is available only through a restricted program under a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS), called the Tecvayli REMS,” according to the FDA’s press release.

Teclistamab is a T-cell–bispecific antibody that targets both CD3 expressed on the surface of T cells and B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA) expressed on the surface of myeloma cells, activating T-cells to kill cancer cells that express the antigen.

Three BCMA-directed therapies are already on the market in the United States that carry teclistamab’s indication: the antibody-drug conjugate belantamab mafodotin (Blenrep) and two chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapies, idecabtagene vicleucel (Abecma) and ciltacabtagene autoleucel (Carvykti).

The overall response rate is approximately 31% with belantamab mafodotin, 67% for idecabtagene vicleucel, and 83% for ciltacabtagene autoleucel.

Pfizer also has a bispecific BCMA-CD3–targeted antibody in development, elranatamab, for triple-class refractory multiple myeloma that is expected to compete with teclistamab.

MajesTEC-1 was funded by Janssen. Dr. Mateos is a paid speaker and consultant for the company.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration granted accelerated approval to teclistamab (Tecvayli, Janssen Biotech) for adults with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma after at least four prior lines of therapy, including a proteasome inhibitor, an immunomodulatory agent, and an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody.

The results made the case for “teclistamab as a monotherapy for eligible patients with heavily pretreated multiple myeloma, in need of new treatment options,” investigator Maria-Victoria Mateos, MD, PhD, a hematologist at the University Hospital of Salamanca (Spain) said in a June press release from drug maker Janssen/Johnson & Johnson.

The approval was based on the phase 1-2 single-arm MajesTEC-1 trial. The MajesTEC-1 findings, published in August in the New England Journal of Medicine, included 165 patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma after at least three therapy lines – including an immunomodulatory drug, a proteasome inhibitor, and an anti-CD38 antibody. These patients received a weekly subcutaneous 1.5 mg/kg injection of teclistamab after stepping up from 0.06 mg and 0.3 mg/kg doses.

According to the FDA announcement, the overall response rate was nearly 62%. And the estimated duration of response rate among responders was 90.6% at 6 months and 66.5% at 9 months.

The NEJM results also indicated that almost 40% of patients had a complete response to the therapy, over a median follow-up of 14.1 months. More than a quarter of patients (26.7%) had no minimal residual disease.

The study investigators concluded that “teclistamab resulted in a high rate of deep and durable response in patients with triple-class exposed relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma.”

In a press release, Michael Andreini, president and CEO of the Multiple Myeloma Research Foundation, commented that “teclistamab is an important new treatment option for patients who have faced multiple relapses.”

The recommended dose for teclistamab is 0.06 mg/kg via subcutaneous injection on day 1, 0.3 mg/kg on day 4, and 1.5 mg/kg on day 7, followed by 1.5 mg/kg once weekly until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

The FDA noted, however, that the prescribing information for teclistamab comes with a Boxed warning for “life-threatening or fatal cytokine-release syndrome (CRS) and neurologic toxicity, including immune effector cell–associated neurotoxicity (ICANS).”

CRS was reported in 72.1% of patients (grade 3 in one patient but no grade 4 cases), neurologic toxicity in 57%, and ICANS in 6%. Other common adverse events in the NEJM report included neutropenia in 71% of subjects (grade 3 or 4 in 64%); anemia in 52% (grade 3 or 4 in 37%), and thrombocytopenia in 40% (grade 3 or 4 in 21%). Overall, 45% of patients developed grade 3 or 4 infections.

“Because of the risks of CRS and neurologic toxicity, including ICANS, teclistamab-cqyv is available only through a restricted program under a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS), called the Tecvayli REMS,” according to the FDA’s press release.

Teclistamab is a T-cell–bispecific antibody that targets both CD3 expressed on the surface of T cells and B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA) expressed on the surface of myeloma cells, activating T-cells to kill cancer cells that express the antigen.

Three BCMA-directed therapies are already on the market in the United States that carry teclistamab’s indication: the antibody-drug conjugate belantamab mafodotin (Blenrep) and two chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapies, idecabtagene vicleucel (Abecma) and ciltacabtagene autoleucel (Carvykti).

The overall response rate is approximately 31% with belantamab mafodotin, 67% for idecabtagene vicleucel, and 83% for ciltacabtagene autoleucel.

Pfizer also has a bispecific BCMA-CD3–targeted antibody in development, elranatamab, for triple-class refractory multiple myeloma that is expected to compete with teclistamab.

MajesTEC-1 was funded by Janssen. Dr. Mateos is a paid speaker and consultant for the company.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration granted accelerated approval to teclistamab (Tecvayli, Janssen Biotech) for adults with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma after at least four prior lines of therapy, including a proteasome inhibitor, an immunomodulatory agent, and an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody.

The results made the case for “teclistamab as a monotherapy for eligible patients with heavily pretreated multiple myeloma, in need of new treatment options,” investigator Maria-Victoria Mateos, MD, PhD, a hematologist at the University Hospital of Salamanca (Spain) said in a June press release from drug maker Janssen/Johnson & Johnson.

The approval was based on the phase 1-2 single-arm MajesTEC-1 trial. The MajesTEC-1 findings, published in August in the New England Journal of Medicine, included 165 patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma after at least three therapy lines – including an immunomodulatory drug, a proteasome inhibitor, and an anti-CD38 antibody. These patients received a weekly subcutaneous 1.5 mg/kg injection of teclistamab after stepping up from 0.06 mg and 0.3 mg/kg doses.

According to the FDA announcement, the overall response rate was nearly 62%. And the estimated duration of response rate among responders was 90.6% at 6 months and 66.5% at 9 months.

The NEJM results also indicated that almost 40% of patients had a complete response to the therapy, over a median follow-up of 14.1 months. More than a quarter of patients (26.7%) had no minimal residual disease.

The study investigators concluded that “teclistamab resulted in a high rate of deep and durable response in patients with triple-class exposed relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma.”

In a press release, Michael Andreini, president and CEO of the Multiple Myeloma Research Foundation, commented that “teclistamab is an important new treatment option for patients who have faced multiple relapses.”

The recommended dose for teclistamab is 0.06 mg/kg via subcutaneous injection on day 1, 0.3 mg/kg on day 4, and 1.5 mg/kg on day 7, followed by 1.5 mg/kg once weekly until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

The FDA noted, however, that the prescribing information for teclistamab comes with a Boxed warning for “life-threatening or fatal cytokine-release syndrome (CRS) and neurologic toxicity, including immune effector cell–associated neurotoxicity (ICANS).”

CRS was reported in 72.1% of patients (grade 3 in one patient but no grade 4 cases), neurologic toxicity in 57%, and ICANS in 6%. Other common adverse events in the NEJM report included neutropenia in 71% of subjects (grade 3 or 4 in 64%); anemia in 52% (grade 3 or 4 in 37%), and thrombocytopenia in 40% (grade 3 or 4 in 21%). Overall, 45% of patients developed grade 3 or 4 infections.

“Because of the risks of CRS and neurologic toxicity, including ICANS, teclistamab-cqyv is available only through a restricted program under a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS), called the Tecvayli REMS,” according to the FDA’s press release.

Teclistamab is a T-cell–bispecific antibody that targets both CD3 expressed on the surface of T cells and B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA) expressed on the surface of myeloma cells, activating T-cells to kill cancer cells that express the antigen.

Three BCMA-directed therapies are already on the market in the United States that carry teclistamab’s indication: the antibody-drug conjugate belantamab mafodotin (Blenrep) and two chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapies, idecabtagene vicleucel (Abecma) and ciltacabtagene autoleucel (Carvykti).

The overall response rate is approximately 31% with belantamab mafodotin, 67% for idecabtagene vicleucel, and 83% for ciltacabtagene autoleucel.

Pfizer also has a bispecific BCMA-CD3–targeted antibody in development, elranatamab, for triple-class refractory multiple myeloma that is expected to compete with teclistamab.

MajesTEC-1 was funded by Janssen. Dr. Mateos is a paid speaker and consultant for the company.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Women with breast cancer who are taking adjuvant endocrine therapy to reduce the risk for recurrence often report that the side effects of dampening down estrogen, such as hot flashes and vaginal dryness, spoil their quality of life, and these side effects can lead to discontinuation of therapy.

But medical measures to address these side effects carry risks, as shown in the results of a new study from Denmark.

The use of vaginal estrogen therapy (VET) increased the risk for breast cancer recurrence by 39% in women with early estrogen receptor–positive breast cancer who were taking aromatase inhibitors (AIs).

There was no increase in the risk for recurrence in women who were using VET and taking tamoxifen or in women who were using VET and not taking any adjuvant endocrine therapy.

The finding was published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

“Patients who are taking aromatase inhibitors should try alternative strategies for management of genitourinary symptoms because (VET) will likely increase their risk for breast cancer recurrence,” warn the authors of an accompanying editorial, Elizabeth J. Cathcart-Rake, MD, and Kathryn J. Ruddy, MD, oncologists at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.

The use of oral estrogen treatment, known as menopausal hormone therapy (MHT), is also not recommended in breast cancer survivors being treated with AIs, the editorialists added.

The study did not find an increase in the risk for recurrence with MHT added onto AIs, but that finding comes from a very small subgroup of only 37 women.

“The absence of an obvious detrimental impact of MHT on breast cancer recurrence or mortality” in this study “is not particularly reassuring,” especially given higher systemic estrogen levels seen with MHT, Dr. Cathcart-Rake and Dr. Ruddy commented.
 

Differences between endocrine therapies

“Our study is, to our knowledge, the first to report a potential increased risk of recurrence in patients receiving AIs treated with VET,” say the investigators, led by Søren Cold, MD, an oncology researcher at Odense University Hospital, Denmark.

They suggest that women who are taking VET and AIs should be switched to tamoxifen after 2-3 years.

Speculating as to the apparent safety differences between the two endocrine therapies, Dr. Cold and colleagues explained that “AIs lower or nearly eliminate estrogen. As such, even a modest increase in circulating estrogens may” increase recurrence risk.

Tamoxifen, on the other hand, competes for estrogen receptor binding, so “a modest elevation of the very low serum estrogen levels” with hormone therapy “is not assumed to counteract the receptor blockade,” they said.
 

Study details

Study participants, obtained from a nationwide registry in Denmark, were diagnosed with early-stage, invasive, estrogen receptor–positive breast cancer from 1997 to 2004. Upfront treatment included surgery plus, in the majority of women, radiation.

The review identified 8,461 such women. After initial treatment for breast cancer, 2,410 went on to adjuvant endocrine therapy, including 2,007 with tamoxifen and 403 with an AI.

Across the entire study population, nearly 2,000 women took VET and 133 women took MHT, as assessed by having redeemed at least two prescriptions. The hormone therapies were used in women who were both on and those who were not on endocrine therapy.

Overall, breast cancer recurred in 1,333 women (16%) over a median follow-up of 9.8 years.

The investigators then analyzed the risk for recurrence in various subgroups.

The 39% higher risk for recurrence was found among the 822 women who used VET while taking an AI, compared with 2,520 women who received AIs alone.

Findings in the study were adjusted for numerous potential confounders, including age, tumor biology, and comorbidities.

Women were a median of 61 years of age (range, 35-91 years). Seventy-seven percent had invasive ductal carcinoma, and 43% were node-positive. Women on hormone therapy tended to be younger, have smaller tumors, and be less likely to have lymph node metastases.

The investigators excluded women who had taken hormone replacement before their breast cancer diagnosis.

The work was funded by the Danish Cancer Society. Dr. Cold reports no disclosures, but some co-authors reported relationships with Samsung, Novartis, Pfizer, and other companies. Dr. Cathcart-Rake and Dr. Ruddy report no disclosures.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Women with breast cancer who are taking adjuvant endocrine therapy to reduce the risk for recurrence often report that the side effects of dampening down estrogen, such as hot flashes and vaginal dryness, spoil their quality of life, and these side effects can lead to discontinuation of therapy.

But medical measures to address these side effects carry risks, as shown in the results of a new study from Denmark.

The use of vaginal estrogen therapy (VET) increased the risk for breast cancer recurrence by 39% in women with early estrogen receptor–positive breast cancer who were taking aromatase inhibitors (AIs).

There was no increase in the risk for recurrence in women who were using VET and taking tamoxifen or in women who were using VET and not taking any adjuvant endocrine therapy.

The finding was published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

“Patients who are taking aromatase inhibitors should try alternative strategies for management of genitourinary symptoms because (VET) will likely increase their risk for breast cancer recurrence,” warn the authors of an accompanying editorial, Elizabeth J. Cathcart-Rake, MD, and Kathryn J. Ruddy, MD, oncologists at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.

The use of oral estrogen treatment, known as menopausal hormone therapy (MHT), is also not recommended in breast cancer survivors being treated with AIs, the editorialists added.

The study did not find an increase in the risk for recurrence with MHT added onto AIs, but that finding comes from a very small subgroup of only 37 women.

“The absence of an obvious detrimental impact of MHT on breast cancer recurrence or mortality” in this study “is not particularly reassuring,” especially given higher systemic estrogen levels seen with MHT, Dr. Cathcart-Rake and Dr. Ruddy commented.
 

Differences between endocrine therapies

“Our study is, to our knowledge, the first to report a potential increased risk of recurrence in patients receiving AIs treated with VET,” say the investigators, led by Søren Cold, MD, an oncology researcher at Odense University Hospital, Denmark.

They suggest that women who are taking VET and AIs should be switched to tamoxifen after 2-3 years.

Speculating as to the apparent safety differences between the two endocrine therapies, Dr. Cold and colleagues explained that “AIs lower or nearly eliminate estrogen. As such, even a modest increase in circulating estrogens may” increase recurrence risk.

Tamoxifen, on the other hand, competes for estrogen receptor binding, so “a modest elevation of the very low serum estrogen levels” with hormone therapy “is not assumed to counteract the receptor blockade,” they said.
 

Study details

Study participants, obtained from a nationwide registry in Denmark, were diagnosed with early-stage, invasive, estrogen receptor–positive breast cancer from 1997 to 2004. Upfront treatment included surgery plus, in the majority of women, radiation.

The review identified 8,461 such women. After initial treatment for breast cancer, 2,410 went on to adjuvant endocrine therapy, including 2,007 with tamoxifen and 403 with an AI.

Across the entire study population, nearly 2,000 women took VET and 133 women took MHT, as assessed by having redeemed at least two prescriptions. The hormone therapies were used in women who were both on and those who were not on endocrine therapy.

Overall, breast cancer recurred in 1,333 women (16%) over a median follow-up of 9.8 years.

The investigators then analyzed the risk for recurrence in various subgroups.

The 39% higher risk for recurrence was found among the 822 women who used VET while taking an AI, compared with 2,520 women who received AIs alone.

Findings in the study were adjusted for numerous potential confounders, including age, tumor biology, and comorbidities.

Women were a median of 61 years of age (range, 35-91 years). Seventy-seven percent had invasive ductal carcinoma, and 43% were node-positive. Women on hormone therapy tended to be younger, have smaller tumors, and be less likely to have lymph node metastases.

The investigators excluded women who had taken hormone replacement before their breast cancer diagnosis.

The work was funded by the Danish Cancer Society. Dr. Cold reports no disclosures, but some co-authors reported relationships with Samsung, Novartis, Pfizer, and other companies. Dr. Cathcart-Rake and Dr. Ruddy report no disclosures.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Women with breast cancer who are taking adjuvant endocrine therapy to reduce the risk for recurrence often report that the side effects of dampening down estrogen, such as hot flashes and vaginal dryness, spoil their quality of life, and these side effects can lead to discontinuation of therapy.

But medical measures to address these side effects carry risks, as shown in the results of a new study from Denmark.

The use of vaginal estrogen therapy (VET) increased the risk for breast cancer recurrence by 39% in women with early estrogen receptor–positive breast cancer who were taking aromatase inhibitors (AIs).

There was no increase in the risk for recurrence in women who were using VET and taking tamoxifen or in women who were using VET and not taking any adjuvant endocrine therapy.

The finding was published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

“Patients who are taking aromatase inhibitors should try alternative strategies for management of genitourinary symptoms because (VET) will likely increase their risk for breast cancer recurrence,” warn the authors of an accompanying editorial, Elizabeth J. Cathcart-Rake, MD, and Kathryn J. Ruddy, MD, oncologists at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.

The use of oral estrogen treatment, known as menopausal hormone therapy (MHT), is also not recommended in breast cancer survivors being treated with AIs, the editorialists added.

The study did not find an increase in the risk for recurrence with MHT added onto AIs, but that finding comes from a very small subgroup of only 37 women.

“The absence of an obvious detrimental impact of MHT on breast cancer recurrence or mortality” in this study “is not particularly reassuring,” especially given higher systemic estrogen levels seen with MHT, Dr. Cathcart-Rake and Dr. Ruddy commented.
 

Differences between endocrine therapies

“Our study is, to our knowledge, the first to report a potential increased risk of recurrence in patients receiving AIs treated with VET,” say the investigators, led by Søren Cold, MD, an oncology researcher at Odense University Hospital, Denmark.

They suggest that women who are taking VET and AIs should be switched to tamoxifen after 2-3 years.

Speculating as to the apparent safety differences between the two endocrine therapies, Dr. Cold and colleagues explained that “AIs lower or nearly eliminate estrogen. As such, even a modest increase in circulating estrogens may” increase recurrence risk.

Tamoxifen, on the other hand, competes for estrogen receptor binding, so “a modest elevation of the very low serum estrogen levels” with hormone therapy “is not assumed to counteract the receptor blockade,” they said.
 

Study details

Study participants, obtained from a nationwide registry in Denmark, were diagnosed with early-stage, invasive, estrogen receptor–positive breast cancer from 1997 to 2004. Upfront treatment included surgery plus, in the majority of women, radiation.

The review identified 8,461 such women. After initial treatment for breast cancer, 2,410 went on to adjuvant endocrine therapy, including 2,007 with tamoxifen and 403 with an AI.

Across the entire study population, nearly 2,000 women took VET and 133 women took MHT, as assessed by having redeemed at least two prescriptions. The hormone therapies were used in women who were both on and those who were not on endocrine therapy.

Overall, breast cancer recurred in 1,333 women (16%) over a median follow-up of 9.8 years.

The investigators then analyzed the risk for recurrence in various subgroups.

The 39% higher risk for recurrence was found among the 822 women who used VET while taking an AI, compared with 2,520 women who received AIs alone.

Findings in the study were adjusted for numerous potential confounders, including age, tumor biology, and comorbidities.

Women were a median of 61 years of age (range, 35-91 years). Seventy-seven percent had invasive ductal carcinoma, and 43% were node-positive. Women on hormone therapy tended to be younger, have smaller tumors, and be less likely to have lymph node metastases.

The investigators excluded women who had taken hormone replacement before their breast cancer diagnosis.

The work was funded by the Danish Cancer Society. Dr. Cold reports no disclosures, but some co-authors reported relationships with Samsung, Novartis, Pfizer, and other companies. Dr. Cathcart-Rake and Dr. Ruddy report no disclosures.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration approved AstraZeneca’s new tablet formulation of acalabrutinib (Calquence) for all current indications of the capsule version.

These include adult patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia, small lymphocytic lymphoma, and relapsed or refractory mantle cell lymphoma.

Approval of the tablet formulation of the selective Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor was based on the ELEVATE-PLUS trials, which showed bioequivalence with the capsule. The tablet had the same efficacy and safety profile with the same dosing strength and schedule, AstraZeneca said in a press release.

The benefit of the tablet formulation is that patients with acid reflux and other problems can take it with proton pump inhibitors, antacids, and H2-receptor antagonists, the company noted.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration approved AstraZeneca’s new tablet formulation of acalabrutinib (Calquence) for all current indications of the capsule version.

These include adult patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia, small lymphocytic lymphoma, and relapsed or refractory mantle cell lymphoma.

Approval of the tablet formulation of the selective Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor was based on the ELEVATE-PLUS trials, which showed bioequivalence with the capsule. The tablet had the same efficacy and safety profile with the same dosing strength and schedule, AstraZeneca said in a press release.

The benefit of the tablet formulation is that patients with acid reflux and other problems can take it with proton pump inhibitors, antacids, and H2-receptor antagonists, the company noted.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration approved AstraZeneca’s new tablet formulation of acalabrutinib (Calquence) for all current indications of the capsule version.

These include adult patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia, small lymphocytic lymphoma, and relapsed or refractory mantle cell lymphoma.

Approval of the tablet formulation of the selective Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor was based on the ELEVATE-PLUS trials, which showed bioequivalence with the capsule. The tablet had the same efficacy and safety profile with the same dosing strength and schedule, AstraZeneca said in a press release.

The benefit of the tablet formulation is that patients with acid reflux and other problems can take it with proton pump inhibitors, antacids, and H2-receptor antagonists, the company noted.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.