Roxanne Nelson, RN, BSN

The risk for colorectal cancer (CRC) in young adults is actually lower than has been estimated, because previous studies did not differentiate between colorectal adenocarcinoma and the histologically different carcinoid tumors, which are incidental findings, say experts.

New estimates for the risk of CRC in young adults, which differentiate colorectal adenocarcinoma from other types, are reported in a study published Dec. 15, 2020, in Annals of Internal Medicine.

They are important because this finding has implications for CRC screening, say a trio of experts in an accompanying editorial.

Reports of an increase in the incidence of CRC in younger adults have led to changes in screening for this cancer in the United States. The age for starting CRC screening has been lowered to 45 years (instead of 50 years) in recommendations issued in 2018 by the American Cancer Society, and also more recently in preliminary recommendations from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.

However, that 2018 ACS recommendation to lower the starting age to 45 years was based to a large extent on a report of a higher incidence of CRC in younger adults from a 2017 study that used the SEER (Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results) database).

But that SEER-based study considered “colorectal cancer” as a homogeneous group defined by topology, the editorialists pointed out.

The new study, the editorialists said, uses that same SEER database but has “disentangled colorectal adenocarcinoma, the target for screening, from other histologic CRC types, including neuroendocrine (carcinoid) tumors, for which screening is not recommended.”

The study authors explained that adenocarcinoma is a target for prevention through screening because it arises from precancerous polyps. Those growths can be detected and removed before cancer develops. That doesn’t apply to carcinoid tumors, which are frequently incidental findings on flexible sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy.

These carcinoid tumors typically are indolent, with a better prognosis than most other cancer types, the editorialists added. “Most likely, the majority of carcinoid tumors identified by screening represent incidental findings with little health benefit from detection. In fact, many may be characterized as overdiagnosed tumors, which by definition increase the burden and harms of screening without the balance of additional benefit.”

This new analysis showed that 4%-20% of the lesions previously described as CRC were not adenocarcinoma but carcinoid tumors, the editorialists pointed out.

This figure rose even higher in the subgroup of findings pertaining to the rectum, the colonic segment with the largest reported increase in early-onset CRC. Here, up to 34% of lesions (depending on patient age) were carcinoid tumors rather than adenocarcinoma, they noted.

The three editorialists – Michael Bretthauer, MD, PhD, and Mette Kalager, MD, PhD, both of the University of Oslo, and David Weinberg, MD, MSc, of Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia –  call for action based on the new findings.

“The ACS’s 2018 estimate of about 7,000 new CRC cases among persons aged 45-49 years in the United States (the justification for screening) needs to be adjusted downward on the basis of the new evidence,” the trio wrote.

They conclude that “caution is warranted when promoting the benefits of CRC screening for persons younger than 50 years.”

However, the senior author of the new study, Jordan Karlitz, MD, of Tulane University, New Orleans, strongly disagreed.

Contrary to the editorialists, Dr. Karlitz said in an interview that he and his colleagues firmly believe that colorectal cancer screening for average-risk patients should begin at age 45 and that their new research, despite its clarification about carcinoid tumors, provides evidence for that.

“There are a number of other studies that support screening at age 45 as well,” he said. “This [new] finding supports the presence of a large preclinical colorectal cancer case burden in patients in their 40s that is ultimately uncovered with screening initiation at age 50. Many of these cancers could be prevented or diagnosed at an earlier stage with screening at age 45.”

“This is the first study to analyze early-onset colorectal cancer by specific histologic subtype,” Dr. Karlitz also pointed out. 

“Although colorectal carcinoids are increasing at a faster rate than adenocarcinomas, adenocarcinomas constitute the overwhelming majority of colorectal cancers in people in their 40s and are also steadily increasing, which has implications for beginning screening at age 45,” he said.

Adenocarcinomas also make up the “overwhelming majority” of colorectal cancers in patients under 50 overall and “are the main driving force behind the increased colorectal cancer burden we are seeing in young patients,” Dr. Karlitz added.

Furthermore, “modeling studies on which the USPSTF screening recommendations were based [which recommended starting at age 45] were confined to adenocarcinoma, thus excluding carcinoids from their analysis,” he said.
 

Steepest changes in adenocarcinomas in younger groups

In their study, Dr. Karlitz and colleagues assessed the incidence rates of early colorectal cancer, using SEER data from 2000 to 2016, and stratifying the data by histologic subtype (primarily adenocarcinoma and carcinoid tumors), age group (20-29, 30-39, 40-49, and 50-54 years), and subsite.

A total of 123,143 CRC cases were identified in 119,624 patients between the ages of 20-54 years during that time period.

The absolute incidence rates in the younger age groups (20-29 and 30-39 years) were very low, compared with those aged 40-49 and 50-54 years.

The greatest 3-year average annual incident rate changes in adenocarcinoma (2000-2002 vs. 2014-2016) for any age group or subsite were for rectal-only cases in the 20-29 years group (+39%), as well as rectal-only cases in those aged 30-39 years (+39%), and colon-only cases in the age 30-39 group (+20%).

There was also significant increase in rectal-only adenocarcinoma in individuals aged 50-54 years (+10%). A statistically significant increase in the annual percentage change for adenocarcinomas was observed for all age groups, except for colon-only cases in the 20-29 years group (0.7%) and for both colorectal (0.2%) and colon-only cases (–0.1%) in those aged 50-54 years.

Even though the absolute carcinoid tumor incidence rates were lower than for adenocarcinoma in all age groups and subsites, a statistically significant increase was observed in the 3-year average annual incidence rate of combined-site colorectal carcinoid tumors in all age groups from 2000–2002 and 2014–2016. This increase was largely the result of increases in rectal carcinoid tumors, the authors note.

The authors also highlighted the results in the 40- to 49-year age group “because of differing opinions on whether to begin average-risk screening at age 45 or 50 years.”

They reported that rates of rectal and colon adenocarcinoma are increasing “substantially,” whether measured by changes in 3-year average annual incidence rate or by annual percentage changes. The change in average annual incidence rate of colon-only adenocarcinoma for persons aged 40-49 years was 13% (12.21 to 13.85 per 100,000), and that of rectal adenocarcinoma was 16% (7.50 to 8.72 per 100,000). Corresponding annual percentage changes were 0.8% and 1.2%, respectively. “These significant increases in adenocarcinoma incident rates add to the debate over earlier screening at age 45 years,” they commented.
 

Calls for next steps

The editorialists emphasize restraint when promoting the benefits of colorectal screening for persons younger than 50 years.

They point out that the USPSTF released a provisional update of its CRC screening recommendations about lowering the age to initiate screening to 45 years, as reported by this news organization.  

“No new empirical evidence has been found since the USPSTF update in 2016 to inform the effectiveness of screening in persons younger than 50 years,” they write, adding that similar to the American Cancer Society in 2018, the task force has relied exclusively on modeling studies.

This new data from Dr. Karlitz and colleagues “should prompt the modelers to recalculate their estimates of benefits and harms of screening,” they suggested.  “Revisiting the model would also allow competing forms of CRC screening to be compared in light of new risk assumptions.

“Previous assumptions that screening tests are equally effective in younger and older patients and that screening adherence will approach 100% may also be reconsidered,” the editorialist commented.

The study authors concluded somewhat differently.

“In conclusion, adenocarcinoma rates increased in many early-onset subgroups but showed no significant increase in others, including colon-only cases in persons aged 20-29 and 50-54 years,” the investigators wrote.

They also observed that “rectal carcinoid tumors are increasing in young patients and may have a substantial impact on overall CRC incident rates.”

Those findings on rectal carcinoid tumors “underscore the importance of assessing histologic CRC subtypes independently,” the researchers said.

This new approach, of which the current study is a first effort, “may lead to a better understanding of the drivers of temporal changes in overall CRC incidence and a more accurate measurement of the outcomes of adenocarcinoma risk reduction efforts, and can guide future research.”

The study had no outside funding. Dr. Karlitz reported personal fees from Exact Sciences, personal fees from Myriad Genetics, and other fees from Gastro Girl and GI OnDEMAND, outside the submitted work. Dr. Bretthauer reports grants from Norwegian Research Council, grants from Norwegian Cancer Society for research in colorectal cancer screening. Dr. Weinberg and Dr. Kalager have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

Help your patients understand colorectal cancer prevention and screening options by sharing AGA’s patient education from the GI Patient Center: www.gastro.org/CRC. 

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

The risk for colorectal cancer (CRC) in young adults is actually lower than has been estimated, because previous studies did not differentiate between colorectal adenocarcinoma and the histologically different carcinoid tumors, which are incidental findings, say experts.

New estimates for the risk of CRC in young adults, which differentiate colorectal adenocarcinoma from other types, are reported in a study published Dec. 15, 2020, in Annals of Internal Medicine.

They are important because this finding has implications for CRC screening, say a trio of experts in an accompanying editorial.

Reports of an increase in the incidence of CRC in younger adults have led to changes in screening for this cancer in the United States. The age for starting CRC screening has been lowered to 45 years (instead of 50 years) in recommendations issued in 2018 by the American Cancer Society, and also more recently in preliminary recommendations from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.

However, that 2018 ACS recommendation to lower the starting age to 45 years was based to a large extent on a report of a higher incidence of CRC in younger adults from a 2017 study that used the SEER (Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results) database).

But that SEER-based study considered “colorectal cancer” as a homogeneous group defined by topology, the editorialists pointed out.

The new study, the editorialists said, uses that same SEER database but has “disentangled colorectal adenocarcinoma, the target for screening, from other histologic CRC types, including neuroendocrine (carcinoid) tumors, for which screening is not recommended.”

The study authors explained that adenocarcinoma is a target for prevention through screening because it arises from precancerous polyps. Those growths can be detected and removed before cancer develops. That doesn’t apply to carcinoid tumors, which are frequently incidental findings on flexible sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy.

These carcinoid tumors typically are indolent, with a better prognosis than most other cancer types, the editorialists added. “Most likely, the majority of carcinoid tumors identified by screening represent incidental findings with little health benefit from detection. In fact, many may be characterized as overdiagnosed tumors, which by definition increase the burden and harms of screening without the balance of additional benefit.”

This new analysis showed that 4%-20% of the lesions previously described as CRC were not adenocarcinoma but carcinoid tumors, the editorialists pointed out.

This figure rose even higher in the subgroup of findings pertaining to the rectum, the colonic segment with the largest reported increase in early-onset CRC. Here, up to 34% of lesions (depending on patient age) were carcinoid tumors rather than adenocarcinoma, they noted.

The three editorialists – Michael Bretthauer, MD, PhD, and Mette Kalager, MD, PhD, both of the University of Oslo, and David Weinberg, MD, MSc, of Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia –  call for action based on the new findings.

“The ACS’s 2018 estimate of about 7,000 new CRC cases among persons aged 45-49 years in the United States (the justification for screening) needs to be adjusted downward on the basis of the new evidence,” the trio wrote.

They conclude that “caution is warranted when promoting the benefits of CRC screening for persons younger than 50 years.”

However, the senior author of the new study, Jordan Karlitz, MD, of Tulane University, New Orleans, strongly disagreed.

Contrary to the editorialists, Dr. Karlitz said in an interview that he and his colleagues firmly believe that colorectal cancer screening for average-risk patients should begin at age 45 and that their new research, despite its clarification about carcinoid tumors, provides evidence for that.

“There are a number of other studies that support screening at age 45 as well,” he said. “This [new] finding supports the presence of a large preclinical colorectal cancer case burden in patients in their 40s that is ultimately uncovered with screening initiation at age 50. Many of these cancers could be prevented or diagnosed at an earlier stage with screening at age 45.”

“This is the first study to analyze early-onset colorectal cancer by specific histologic subtype,” Dr. Karlitz also pointed out. 

“Although colorectal carcinoids are increasing at a faster rate than adenocarcinomas, adenocarcinomas constitute the overwhelming majority of colorectal cancers in people in their 40s and are also steadily increasing, which has implications for beginning screening at age 45,” he said.

Adenocarcinomas also make up the “overwhelming majority” of colorectal cancers in patients under 50 overall and “are the main driving force behind the increased colorectal cancer burden we are seeing in young patients,” Dr. Karlitz added.

Furthermore, “modeling studies on which the USPSTF screening recommendations were based [which recommended starting at age 45] were confined to adenocarcinoma, thus excluding carcinoids from their analysis,” he said.
 

Steepest changes in adenocarcinomas in younger groups

In their study, Dr. Karlitz and colleagues assessed the incidence rates of early colorectal cancer, using SEER data from 2000 to 2016, and stratifying the data by histologic subtype (primarily adenocarcinoma and carcinoid tumors), age group (20-29, 30-39, 40-49, and 50-54 years), and subsite.

A total of 123,143 CRC cases were identified in 119,624 patients between the ages of 20-54 years during that time period.

The absolute incidence rates in the younger age groups (20-29 and 30-39 years) were very low, compared with those aged 40-49 and 50-54 years.

The greatest 3-year average annual incident rate changes in adenocarcinoma (2000-2002 vs. 2014-2016) for any age group or subsite were for rectal-only cases in the 20-29 years group (+39%), as well as rectal-only cases in those aged 30-39 years (+39%), and colon-only cases in the age 30-39 group (+20%).

There was also significant increase in rectal-only adenocarcinoma in individuals aged 50-54 years (+10%). A statistically significant increase in the annual percentage change for adenocarcinomas was observed for all age groups, except for colon-only cases in the 20-29 years group (0.7%) and for both colorectal (0.2%) and colon-only cases (–0.1%) in those aged 50-54 years.

Even though the absolute carcinoid tumor incidence rates were lower than for adenocarcinoma in all age groups and subsites, a statistically significant increase was observed in the 3-year average annual incidence rate of combined-site colorectal carcinoid tumors in all age groups from 2000–2002 and 2014–2016. This increase was largely the result of increases in rectal carcinoid tumors, the authors note.

The authors also highlighted the results in the 40- to 49-year age group “because of differing opinions on whether to begin average-risk screening at age 45 or 50 years.”

They reported that rates of rectal and colon adenocarcinoma are increasing “substantially,” whether measured by changes in 3-year average annual incidence rate or by annual percentage changes. The change in average annual incidence rate of colon-only adenocarcinoma for persons aged 40-49 years was 13% (12.21 to 13.85 per 100,000), and that of rectal adenocarcinoma was 16% (7.50 to 8.72 per 100,000). Corresponding annual percentage changes were 0.8% and 1.2%, respectively. “These significant increases in adenocarcinoma incident rates add to the debate over earlier screening at age 45 years,” they commented.
 

Calls for next steps

The editorialists emphasize restraint when promoting the benefits of colorectal screening for persons younger than 50 years.

They point out that the USPSTF released a provisional update of its CRC screening recommendations about lowering the age to initiate screening to 45 years, as reported by this news organization.  

“No new empirical evidence has been found since the USPSTF update in 2016 to inform the effectiveness of screening in persons younger than 50 years,” they write, adding that similar to the American Cancer Society in 2018, the task force has relied exclusively on modeling studies.

This new data from Dr. Karlitz and colleagues “should prompt the modelers to recalculate their estimates of benefits and harms of screening,” they suggested.  “Revisiting the model would also allow competing forms of CRC screening to be compared in light of new risk assumptions.

“Previous assumptions that screening tests are equally effective in younger and older patients and that screening adherence will approach 100% may also be reconsidered,” the editorialist commented.

The study authors concluded somewhat differently.

“In conclusion, adenocarcinoma rates increased in many early-onset subgroups but showed no significant increase in others, including colon-only cases in persons aged 20-29 and 50-54 years,” the investigators wrote.

They also observed that “rectal carcinoid tumors are increasing in young patients and may have a substantial impact on overall CRC incident rates.”

Those findings on rectal carcinoid tumors “underscore the importance of assessing histologic CRC subtypes independently,” the researchers said.

This new approach, of which the current study is a first effort, “may lead to a better understanding of the drivers of temporal changes in overall CRC incidence and a more accurate measurement of the outcomes of adenocarcinoma risk reduction efforts, and can guide future research.”

The study had no outside funding. Dr. Karlitz reported personal fees from Exact Sciences, personal fees from Myriad Genetics, and other fees from Gastro Girl and GI OnDEMAND, outside the submitted work. Dr. Bretthauer reports grants from Norwegian Research Council, grants from Norwegian Cancer Society for research in colorectal cancer screening. Dr. Weinberg and Dr. Kalager have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

Help your patients understand colorectal cancer prevention and screening options by sharing AGA’s patient education from the GI Patient Center: www.gastro.org/CRC. 

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

The risk for colorectal cancer (CRC) in young adults is actually lower than has been estimated, because previous studies did not differentiate between colorectal adenocarcinoma and the histologically different carcinoid tumors, which are incidental findings, say experts.

New estimates for the risk of CRC in young adults, which differentiate colorectal adenocarcinoma from other types, are reported in a study published Dec. 15, 2020, in Annals of Internal Medicine.

They are important because this finding has implications for CRC screening, say a trio of experts in an accompanying editorial.

Reports of an increase in the incidence of CRC in younger adults have led to changes in screening for this cancer in the United States. The age for starting CRC screening has been lowered to 45 years (instead of 50 years) in recommendations issued in 2018 by the American Cancer Society, and also more recently in preliminary recommendations from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.

However, that 2018 ACS recommendation to lower the starting age to 45 years was based to a large extent on a report of a higher incidence of CRC in younger adults from a 2017 study that used the SEER (Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results) database).

But that SEER-based study considered “colorectal cancer” as a homogeneous group defined by topology, the editorialists pointed out.

The new study, the editorialists said, uses that same SEER database but has “disentangled colorectal adenocarcinoma, the target for screening, from other histologic CRC types, including neuroendocrine (carcinoid) tumors, for which screening is not recommended.”

The study authors explained that adenocarcinoma is a target for prevention through screening because it arises from precancerous polyps. Those growths can be detected and removed before cancer develops. That doesn’t apply to carcinoid tumors, which are frequently incidental findings on flexible sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy.

These carcinoid tumors typically are indolent, with a better prognosis than most other cancer types, the editorialists added. “Most likely, the majority of carcinoid tumors identified by screening represent incidental findings with little health benefit from detection. In fact, many may be characterized as overdiagnosed tumors, which by definition increase the burden and harms of screening without the balance of additional benefit.”

This new analysis showed that 4%-20% of the lesions previously described as CRC were not adenocarcinoma but carcinoid tumors, the editorialists pointed out.

This figure rose even higher in the subgroup of findings pertaining to the rectum, the colonic segment with the largest reported increase in early-onset CRC. Here, up to 34% of lesions (depending on patient age) were carcinoid tumors rather than adenocarcinoma, they noted.

The three editorialists – Michael Bretthauer, MD, PhD, and Mette Kalager, MD, PhD, both of the University of Oslo, and David Weinberg, MD, MSc, of Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia –  call for action based on the new findings.

“The ACS’s 2018 estimate of about 7,000 new CRC cases among persons aged 45-49 years in the United States (the justification for screening) needs to be adjusted downward on the basis of the new evidence,” the trio wrote.

They conclude that “caution is warranted when promoting the benefits of CRC screening for persons younger than 50 years.”

However, the senior author of the new study, Jordan Karlitz, MD, of Tulane University, New Orleans, strongly disagreed.

Contrary to the editorialists, Dr. Karlitz said in an interview that he and his colleagues firmly believe that colorectal cancer screening for average-risk patients should begin at age 45 and that their new research, despite its clarification about carcinoid tumors, provides evidence for that.

“There are a number of other studies that support screening at age 45 as well,” he said. “This [new] finding supports the presence of a large preclinical colorectal cancer case burden in patients in their 40s that is ultimately uncovered with screening initiation at age 50. Many of these cancers could be prevented or diagnosed at an earlier stage with screening at age 45.”

“This is the first study to analyze early-onset colorectal cancer by specific histologic subtype,” Dr. Karlitz also pointed out. 

“Although colorectal carcinoids are increasing at a faster rate than adenocarcinomas, adenocarcinomas constitute the overwhelming majority of colorectal cancers in people in their 40s and are also steadily increasing, which has implications for beginning screening at age 45,” he said.

Adenocarcinomas also make up the “overwhelming majority” of colorectal cancers in patients under 50 overall and “are the main driving force behind the increased colorectal cancer burden we are seeing in young patients,” Dr. Karlitz added.

Furthermore, “modeling studies on which the USPSTF screening recommendations were based [which recommended starting at age 45] were confined to adenocarcinoma, thus excluding carcinoids from their analysis,” he said.
 

Steepest changes in adenocarcinomas in younger groups

In their study, Dr. Karlitz and colleagues assessed the incidence rates of early colorectal cancer, using SEER data from 2000 to 2016, and stratifying the data by histologic subtype (primarily adenocarcinoma and carcinoid tumors), age group (20-29, 30-39, 40-49, and 50-54 years), and subsite.

A total of 123,143 CRC cases were identified in 119,624 patients between the ages of 20-54 years during that time period.

The absolute incidence rates in the younger age groups (20-29 and 30-39 years) were very low, compared with those aged 40-49 and 50-54 years.

The greatest 3-year average annual incident rate changes in adenocarcinoma (2000-2002 vs. 2014-2016) for any age group or subsite were for rectal-only cases in the 20-29 years group (+39%), as well as rectal-only cases in those aged 30-39 years (+39%), and colon-only cases in the age 30-39 group (+20%).

There was also significant increase in rectal-only adenocarcinoma in individuals aged 50-54 years (+10%). A statistically significant increase in the annual percentage change for adenocarcinomas was observed for all age groups, except for colon-only cases in the 20-29 years group (0.7%) and for both colorectal (0.2%) and colon-only cases (–0.1%) in those aged 50-54 years.

Even though the absolute carcinoid tumor incidence rates were lower than for adenocarcinoma in all age groups and subsites, a statistically significant increase was observed in the 3-year average annual incidence rate of combined-site colorectal carcinoid tumors in all age groups from 2000–2002 and 2014–2016. This increase was largely the result of increases in rectal carcinoid tumors, the authors note.

The authors also highlighted the results in the 40- to 49-year age group “because of differing opinions on whether to begin average-risk screening at age 45 or 50 years.”

They reported that rates of rectal and colon adenocarcinoma are increasing “substantially,” whether measured by changes in 3-year average annual incidence rate or by annual percentage changes. The change in average annual incidence rate of colon-only adenocarcinoma for persons aged 40-49 years was 13% (12.21 to 13.85 per 100,000), and that of rectal adenocarcinoma was 16% (7.50 to 8.72 per 100,000). Corresponding annual percentage changes were 0.8% and 1.2%, respectively. “These significant increases in adenocarcinoma incident rates add to the debate over earlier screening at age 45 years,” they commented.
 

Calls for next steps

The editorialists emphasize restraint when promoting the benefits of colorectal screening for persons younger than 50 years.

They point out that the USPSTF released a provisional update of its CRC screening recommendations about lowering the age to initiate screening to 45 years, as reported by this news organization.  

“No new empirical evidence has been found since the USPSTF update in 2016 to inform the effectiveness of screening in persons younger than 50 years,” they write, adding that similar to the American Cancer Society in 2018, the task force has relied exclusively on modeling studies.

This new data from Dr. Karlitz and colleagues “should prompt the modelers to recalculate their estimates of benefits and harms of screening,” they suggested.  “Revisiting the model would also allow competing forms of CRC screening to be compared in light of new risk assumptions.

“Previous assumptions that screening tests are equally effective in younger and older patients and that screening adherence will approach 100% may also be reconsidered,” the editorialist commented.

The study authors concluded somewhat differently.

“In conclusion, adenocarcinoma rates increased in many early-onset subgroups but showed no significant increase in others, including colon-only cases in persons aged 20-29 and 50-54 years,” the investigators wrote.

They also observed that “rectal carcinoid tumors are increasing in young patients and may have a substantial impact on overall CRC incident rates.”

Those findings on rectal carcinoid tumors “underscore the importance of assessing histologic CRC subtypes independently,” the researchers said.

This new approach, of which the current study is a first effort, “may lead to a better understanding of the drivers of temporal changes in overall CRC incidence and a more accurate measurement of the outcomes of adenocarcinoma risk reduction efforts, and can guide future research.”

The study had no outside funding. Dr. Karlitz reported personal fees from Exact Sciences, personal fees from Myriad Genetics, and other fees from Gastro Girl and GI OnDEMAND, outside the submitted work. Dr. Bretthauer reports grants from Norwegian Research Council, grants from Norwegian Cancer Society for research in colorectal cancer screening. Dr. Weinberg and Dr. Kalager have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

Help your patients understand colorectal cancer prevention and screening options by sharing AGA’s patient education from the GI Patient Center: www.gastro.org/CRC. 

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

Coronavirus vaccines have become a reality, as they are now being approved and authorized for use in a growing number of countries including the United States. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has just issued emergency authorization for the use of the COVID-19 vaccine produced by Pfizer and BioNTech. Close behind is the vaccine developed by Moderna, which has also applied to the FDA for emergency authorization.

scyther5/thinkstock

The efficacy of a two-dose administration of the vaccine has been pegged at 95.0%, and the FDA has said that the 95% credible interval for the vaccine efficacy was 90.3%-97.6%. But as with many initial clinical trials, whether for drugs or vaccines, not all populations were represented in the trial cohort, including individuals who are immunocompromised. At the current time, it is largely unknown how safe or effective the vaccine may be in this large population, many of whom are at high risk for serious COVID-19 complications.

At a special session held during the recent annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology, Anthony Fauci, MD, the nation’s leading infectious disease expert, said that individuals with compromised immune systems, whether because of chemotherapy or a bone marrow transplant, should plan to be vaccinated when the opportunity arises.

In response to a question from ASH President Stephanie J. Lee, MD, of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Seattle, Dr. Fauci emphasized that, despite being excluded from clinical trials, this population should get vaccinated. “I think we should recommend that they get vaccinated,” he said. “I mean, it is clear that, if you are on immunosuppressive agents, history tells us that you’re not going to have as robust a response as if you had an intact immune system that was not being compromised. But some degree of immunity is better than no degree of immunity.”

That does seem to be the consensus among experts who spoke in interviews: that as long as these are not live attenuated vaccines, they hold no specific risk to an immunocompromised patient, other than any factors specific to the individual that could be a contraindication.

“Patients, family members, friends, and work contacts should be encouraged to receive the vaccine,” said William Stohl, MD, PhD, chief of the division of rheumatology at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles. “Clinicians should advise patients to obtain the vaccine sooner rather than later.”

Kevin C. Wang, MD, PhD, of the department of dermatology at Stanford (Calif.) University, agreed. “I am 100% with Dr. Fauci. Everyone should get the vaccine, even if it may not be as effective,” he said. “I would treat it exactly like the flu vaccines that we recommend folks get every year.”

Dr. Wang noted that he couldn’t think of any contraindications unless the immunosuppressed patients have a history of severe allergic reactions to prior vaccinations. “But I would even say patients with history of cancer, upon recommendation of their oncologists, are likely to be suitable candidates for the vaccine,” he added. “I would say clinicians should approach counseling the same way they counsel patients for the flu vaccine, and as far as I know, there are no concerns for systemic drugs commonly used in dermatology patients.”

However, guidance has not yet been issued from either the FDA or the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention regarding the use of the vaccine in immunocompromised individuals. Given the lack of data, the FDA has said that “it will be something that providers will need to consider on an individual basis,” and that individuals should consult with physicians to weigh the potential benefits and potential risks.

The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices has said that clinicians need more guidance on whether to use the vaccine in pregnant or breastfeeding women, the immunocompromised, or those who have a history of allergies. The CDC itself has not yet released its formal guidance on vaccine use.


 

COVID-19 vaccines

Vaccines typically require years of research and testing before reaching the clinic, but this year researchers embarked on a global effort to develop safe and effective coronavirus vaccines in record time. Both the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna vaccines have only a few months of phase 3 clinical trial data, so much remains unknown about them, including their duration of effect and any long-term safety signals. In addition to excluding immunocompromised individuals, the clinical trials did not include children or pregnant women, so data are lacking for several population subgroups.

But these will not be the only vaccines available, as the pipeline is already becoming crowded. U.S. clinical trial data from a vaccine jointly being developed by Oxford-AstraZeneca, could potentially be ready, along with a request for FDA emergency use authorization, by late January 2021.

In addition, China and Russia have released vaccines, and there are currently 61 vaccines being investigated in clinical trials and at least 85 preclinical products under active investigation.

The vaccine candidates are using both conventional and novel mechanisms of action to elicit an immune response in patients. Conventional methods include attenuated inactivated (killed) virus and recombinant viral protein vaccines to develop immunity. Novel approaches include replication-deficient, adenovirus vector-based vaccines that contain the viral protein, and mRNA-based vaccines, such as the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, that encode for a SARS-CoV-2 spike protein.

“The special vaccine concern for immunocompromised individuals is introduction of a live virus,” Dr. Stohl said. “Neither the Moderna nor Pfizer vaccines are live viruses, so there should be no special contraindication for such individuals.”

Live vaccine should be avoided in immunocompromised patients, and currently, live SARS-CoV-2 vaccines are only being developed in India and Turkey.

It is not unusual for vaccine trials to begin with cohorts that exclude participants with various health conditions, including those who are immunocompromised. These groups are generally then evaluated in phase 4 trials, or postmarketing surveillance. While the precise number of immunosuppressed adults in the United States is not known, the numbers are believed to be rising because of increased life expectancy among immunosuppressed adults as a result of advances in treatment and new and wider indications for therapies that can affect the immune system.

According to data from the 2013 National Health Interview Survey, an estimated 2.7% of U.S. adults are immunosuppressed. This population covers a broad array of health conditions and medical specialties; people living with inflammatory or autoimmune conditions, such as inflammatory rheumatic diseases (rheumatoid arthritis, axial spondyloarthritis, lupus); inflammatory bowel disease (Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis); psoriasis; multiple sclerosis; organ transplant recipients; patients undergoing chemotherapy; and life-long immunosuppression attributable to HIV infection.

As the vaccines begin to roll out and become available, how should clinicians advise their patients, in the absence of any clinical trial data?


 

Risk vs. benefit

Gilaad Kaplan, MD, MPH, a gastroenterologist and professor of medicine at the University of Calgary (Alta.), noted that the inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) community has dealt with tremendous anxiety during the pandemic because many are immunocompromised because of the medications they use to treat their disease.

“For example, many patients with IBD are on biologics like anti-TNF [tumor necrosis factor] therapies, which are also used in other immune-mediated inflammatory diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis,” he said. “Understandably, individuals with IBD on immunosuppressive medications are concerned about the risk of severe complications due to COVID-19.”

The entire IBD community, along with the world, celebrated the announcement that multiple vaccines are protective against SARS-CoV-2, he noted. “Vaccines offer the potential to reduce the spread of COVID-19, allowing society to revert back to normalcy,” Dr. Kaplan said. “Moreover, for vulnerable populations, including those who are immunocompromised, vaccines offer the potential to directly protect them from the morbidity and mortality associated with COVID-19.”

That said, even though the news of vaccines are extremely promising, some cautions must be raised regarding their use in immunocompromised populations, such as persons with IBD. “The current trials, to my knowledge, did not include immunocompromised individuals and thus, we can only extrapolate from what we know from other trials of different vaccines,” he explained. “We know from prior vaccines studies that the immune response following vaccination is less robust in those who are immunocompromised as compared to a healthy control population.”

Dr. Kaplan also pointed to recent reports of allergic reactions that have been reported in healthy individuals. “We don’t know whether side effects, like allergic reactions, may be different in unstudied populations,” he said. “Thus, the medical and scientific community should prioritize clinical studies of safety and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines in immunocompromised populations.”

So, what does this mean for an individual with an immune-mediated inflammatory disease like Crohn’s disease or ulcerative colitis who is immunocompromised? Dr. Kaplan explained that it is a balance between the potential harm of being infected with COVID-19 and the uncertainty of receiving a vaccine in an understudied population. For those who are highly susceptible to dying from COVID-19, such as an older adult with IBD, or someone who faces high exposure, such as a health care worker, the potential protection of the vaccine greatly outweighs the uncertainty.

“However, for individuals who are at otherwise lower risk – for example, young and able to work from home – then waiting a few extra months for postmarketing surveillance studies in immunocompromised populations may be a reasonable approach, as long as these individuals are taking great care to avoid infection,” he said.
 

No waiting needed

Joel M. Gelfand, MD, MSCE, professor of dermatology and epidemiology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, feels that the newly approved vaccine should be safe for most of his patients.

“Patients with psoriatic disease should get the mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccine as soon as possible based on eligibility as determined by the CDC and local public health officials,” he said. “It is not a live vaccine, and therefore patients on biologics or other immune-modulating or immune-suppressing treatment can receive it.”

However, the impact of psoriasis treatment on immune response to the mRNA-based vaccines is not known. Dr. Gelfand noted that, extrapolating from the vaccine literature, there is some evidence that methotrexate reduces response to the influenza vaccine. “However, the clinical significance of this finding is not clear,” he said. “Since the mRNA vaccine needs to be taken twice, a few weeks apart, I do not recommend interrupting or delaying treatment for psoriatic disease while undergoing vaccination for COVID-19.”

Given the reports of allergic reactions, he added that it is advisable for patients with a history of life-threatening allergic reactions such as anaphylaxis or who have been advised to carry an epinephrine autoinjector, to talk with their health care provider to determine if COVID-19 vaccination is medically appropriate.

The National Psoriasis Foundation has issued guidance on COVID-19, explained Steven R. Feldman, MD, PhD, professor of dermatology, pathology, and social sciences & health policy at Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C., who is also a member of the committee that is working on those guidelines and keeping them up to date. “We are in the process of updating the guidelines with information on COVID vaccines,” he said.

He agreed that there are no contraindications for psoriasis patients to receive the vaccine, regardless of whether they are on immunosuppressive treatment, even though definitive data are lacking. “Fortunately, there’s a lot of good data coming out of Italy that patients with psoriasis on biologics do not appear to be at increased risk of getting COVID or of having worse outcomes from COVID,” he said.

Patients are going to ask about the vaccines, and when counseling them, clinicians should discuss the available data, the residual uncertainty, and patients’ concerns should be considered, Dr. Feldman explained. “There may be some concern that steroids and cyclosporine would reduce the effectiveness of vaccines, but there is no concern that any of the drugs would cause increased risk from nonlive vaccines.”

He added that there is evidence that “patients on biologics who receive nonlive vaccines do develop antibody responses and are immunized.”


 

Boosting efficacy

Even prior to making their announcement, the American College of Rheumatology had said that they would endorse the vaccine for all patients, explained rheumatologist Brett Smith, DO, from Blount Memorial Physicians Group and East Tennessee Children’s Hospital, Alcoa. “The vaccine is safe for all patients, but the problem may be that it’s not as effective,” he said. “But we don’t know that because it hasn’t been tested.”

With other vaccines, biologic medicines are held for 2 weeks before and afterwards, to get the best response. “But some patients don’t want to stop the medication,” Dr. Smith said. “They are afraid that their symptoms will return.”

As for counseling patients as to whether they should receive this vaccine, he explained that he typically doesn’t try to sway patients one way or another until they are really high risk. “When I counsel, it really depends on the individual situation. And for this vaccine, we have to be open to the fact that many people have already made up their mind.”

There are a lot of questions regarding the vaccine. One is the short time frame of development. “Vaccines typically take 6-10 years to come on the market, and this one is now available after a 3-month study,” Dr. Smith said. “Some have already decided that it’s too new for them.”

The process is also new, and patients need to understand that it doesn’t contain an active virus and “you can’t catch coronavirus from it.”

Dr. Smith also explained that, because the vaccine may be less effective in a person using biologic therapies, there is currently no information available on repeat vaccination. “These are all unanswered questions,” he said. “If the antibodies wane in a short time, can we be revaccinated and in what time frame? We just don’t know that yet.”

Marcelo Bonomi, MD, a medical oncologist from The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbus, explained that one way to ensure a more optimal response to the vaccine would be to wait until the patient has finished chemotherapy.* “The vaccine can be offered at that time, and in the meantime, they can take other steps to avoid infection,” he said. “If they are very immunosuppressed, it isn’t worth trying to give the vaccine.”

Cancer patients should be encouraged to stay as healthy as possible, and to wear masks and social distance. “It’s a comprehensive approach. Eat healthy, avoid alcohol and tobacco, and exercise. [These things] will help boost the immune system,” Dr. Bonomi said. “Family members should be encouraged to get vaccinated, which will help them avoid infection and exposing the patient.”

Jim Boonyaratanakornkit, MD, PhD, an infectious disease specialist who cares for cancer patients at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, agreed. “Giving a vaccine right after a transplant is a futile endeavor,” he said. “We need to wait 6 months to have an immune response.”

He pointed out there may be a continuing higher number of cases, with high levels peaking in Washington in February and March. “Close friends and family should be vaccinated if possible,” he said, “which will help interrupt transmission.”

The vaccines are using new platforms that are totally different, and there is no clear data as to how long the antibodies will persist. “We know that they last for at least 4 months,” said Dr. Boonyaratanakornkit. “We don’t know what level of antibody will protect them from COVID-19 infection. Current studies are being conducted, but we don’t have that information for anyone yet.”

*Correction, 1/7/21: An earlier version of this article misattributed quotes from Dr. Marcelo Bonomi.

For the latest clinical guidance, education, research and physician resources about coronavirus, visit the AGA COVID-19 Resource Center at www.gastro.org/COVID.

Coronavirus vaccines have become a reality, as they are now being approved and authorized for use in a growing number of countries including the United States. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has just issued emergency authorization for the use of the COVID-19 vaccine produced by Pfizer and BioNTech. Close behind is the vaccine developed by Moderna, which has also applied to the FDA for emergency authorization.

scyther5/thinkstock

The efficacy of a two-dose administration of the vaccine has been pegged at 95.0%, and the FDA has said that the 95% credible interval for the vaccine efficacy was 90.3%-97.6%. But as with many initial clinical trials, whether for drugs or vaccines, not all populations were represented in the trial cohort, including individuals who are immunocompromised. At the current time, it is largely unknown how safe or effective the vaccine may be in this large population, many of whom are at high risk for serious COVID-19 complications.

At a special session held during the recent annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology, Anthony Fauci, MD, the nation’s leading infectious disease expert, said that individuals with compromised immune systems, whether because of chemotherapy or a bone marrow transplant, should plan to be vaccinated when the opportunity arises.

In response to a question from ASH President Stephanie J. Lee, MD, of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Seattle, Dr. Fauci emphasized that, despite being excluded from clinical trials, this population should get vaccinated. “I think we should recommend that they get vaccinated,” he said. “I mean, it is clear that, if you are on immunosuppressive agents, history tells us that you’re not going to have as robust a response as if you had an intact immune system that was not being compromised. But some degree of immunity is better than no degree of immunity.”

That does seem to be the consensus among experts who spoke in interviews: that as long as these are not live attenuated vaccines, they hold no specific risk to an immunocompromised patient, other than any factors specific to the individual that could be a contraindication.

“Patients, family members, friends, and work contacts should be encouraged to receive the vaccine,” said William Stohl, MD, PhD, chief of the division of rheumatology at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles. “Clinicians should advise patients to obtain the vaccine sooner rather than later.”

Kevin C. Wang, MD, PhD, of the department of dermatology at Stanford (Calif.) University, agreed. “I am 100% with Dr. Fauci. Everyone should get the vaccine, even if it may not be as effective,” he said. “I would treat it exactly like the flu vaccines that we recommend folks get every year.”

Dr. Wang noted that he couldn’t think of any contraindications unless the immunosuppressed patients have a history of severe allergic reactions to prior vaccinations. “But I would even say patients with history of cancer, upon recommendation of their oncologists, are likely to be suitable candidates for the vaccine,” he added. “I would say clinicians should approach counseling the same way they counsel patients for the flu vaccine, and as far as I know, there are no concerns for systemic drugs commonly used in dermatology patients.”

However, guidance has not yet been issued from either the FDA or the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention regarding the use of the vaccine in immunocompromised individuals. Given the lack of data, the FDA has said that “it will be something that providers will need to consider on an individual basis,” and that individuals should consult with physicians to weigh the potential benefits and potential risks.

The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices has said that clinicians need more guidance on whether to use the vaccine in pregnant or breastfeeding women, the immunocompromised, or those who have a history of allergies. The CDC itself has not yet released its formal guidance on vaccine use.


 

COVID-19 vaccines

Vaccines typically require years of research and testing before reaching the clinic, but this year researchers embarked on a global effort to develop safe and effective coronavirus vaccines in record time. Both the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna vaccines have only a few months of phase 3 clinical trial data, so much remains unknown about them, including their duration of effect and any long-term safety signals. In addition to excluding immunocompromised individuals, the clinical trials did not include children or pregnant women, so data are lacking for several population subgroups.

But these will not be the only vaccines available, as the pipeline is already becoming crowded. U.S. clinical trial data from a vaccine jointly being developed by Oxford-AstraZeneca, could potentially be ready, along with a request for FDA emergency use authorization, by late January 2021.

In addition, China and Russia have released vaccines, and there are currently 61 vaccines being investigated in clinical trials and at least 85 preclinical products under active investigation.

The vaccine candidates are using both conventional and novel mechanisms of action to elicit an immune response in patients. Conventional methods include attenuated inactivated (killed) virus and recombinant viral protein vaccines to develop immunity. Novel approaches include replication-deficient, adenovirus vector-based vaccines that contain the viral protein, and mRNA-based vaccines, such as the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, that encode for a SARS-CoV-2 spike protein.

“The special vaccine concern for immunocompromised individuals is introduction of a live virus,” Dr. Stohl said. “Neither the Moderna nor Pfizer vaccines are live viruses, so there should be no special contraindication for such individuals.”

Live vaccine should be avoided in immunocompromised patients, and currently, live SARS-CoV-2 vaccines are only being developed in India and Turkey.

It is not unusual for vaccine trials to begin with cohorts that exclude participants with various health conditions, including those who are immunocompromised. These groups are generally then evaluated in phase 4 trials, or postmarketing surveillance. While the precise number of immunosuppressed adults in the United States is not known, the numbers are believed to be rising because of increased life expectancy among immunosuppressed adults as a result of advances in treatment and new and wider indications for therapies that can affect the immune system.

According to data from the 2013 National Health Interview Survey, an estimated 2.7% of U.S. adults are immunosuppressed. This population covers a broad array of health conditions and medical specialties; people living with inflammatory or autoimmune conditions, such as inflammatory rheumatic diseases (rheumatoid arthritis, axial spondyloarthritis, lupus); inflammatory bowel disease (Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis); psoriasis; multiple sclerosis; organ transplant recipients; patients undergoing chemotherapy; and life-long immunosuppression attributable to HIV infection.

As the vaccines begin to roll out and become available, how should clinicians advise their patients, in the absence of any clinical trial data?


 

Risk vs. benefit

Gilaad Kaplan, MD, MPH, a gastroenterologist and professor of medicine at the University of Calgary (Alta.), noted that the inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) community has dealt with tremendous anxiety during the pandemic because many are immunocompromised because of the medications they use to treat their disease.

“For example, many patients with IBD are on biologics like anti-TNF [tumor necrosis factor] therapies, which are also used in other immune-mediated inflammatory diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis,” he said. “Understandably, individuals with IBD on immunosuppressive medications are concerned about the risk of severe complications due to COVID-19.”

The entire IBD community, along with the world, celebrated the announcement that multiple vaccines are protective against SARS-CoV-2, he noted. “Vaccines offer the potential to reduce the spread of COVID-19, allowing society to revert back to normalcy,” Dr. Kaplan said. “Moreover, for vulnerable populations, including those who are immunocompromised, vaccines offer the potential to directly protect them from the morbidity and mortality associated with COVID-19.”

That said, even though the news of vaccines are extremely promising, some cautions must be raised regarding their use in immunocompromised populations, such as persons with IBD. “The current trials, to my knowledge, did not include immunocompromised individuals and thus, we can only extrapolate from what we know from other trials of different vaccines,” he explained. “We know from prior vaccines studies that the immune response following vaccination is less robust in those who are immunocompromised as compared to a healthy control population.”

Dr. Kaplan also pointed to recent reports of allergic reactions that have been reported in healthy individuals. “We don’t know whether side effects, like allergic reactions, may be different in unstudied populations,” he said. “Thus, the medical and scientific community should prioritize clinical studies of safety and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines in immunocompromised populations.”

So, what does this mean for an individual with an immune-mediated inflammatory disease like Crohn’s disease or ulcerative colitis who is immunocompromised? Dr. Kaplan explained that it is a balance between the potential harm of being infected with COVID-19 and the uncertainty of receiving a vaccine in an understudied population. For those who are highly susceptible to dying from COVID-19, such as an older adult with IBD, or someone who faces high exposure, such as a health care worker, the potential protection of the vaccine greatly outweighs the uncertainty.

“However, for individuals who are at otherwise lower risk – for example, young and able to work from home – then waiting a few extra months for postmarketing surveillance studies in immunocompromised populations may be a reasonable approach, as long as these individuals are taking great care to avoid infection,” he said.
 

No waiting needed

Joel M. Gelfand, MD, MSCE, professor of dermatology and epidemiology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, feels that the newly approved vaccine should be safe for most of his patients.

“Patients with psoriatic disease should get the mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccine as soon as possible based on eligibility as determined by the CDC and local public health officials,” he said. “It is not a live vaccine, and therefore patients on biologics or other immune-modulating or immune-suppressing treatment can receive it.”

However, the impact of psoriasis treatment on immune response to the mRNA-based vaccines is not known. Dr. Gelfand noted that, extrapolating from the vaccine literature, there is some evidence that methotrexate reduces response to the influenza vaccine. “However, the clinical significance of this finding is not clear,” he said. “Since the mRNA vaccine needs to be taken twice, a few weeks apart, I do not recommend interrupting or delaying treatment for psoriatic disease while undergoing vaccination for COVID-19.”

Given the reports of allergic reactions, he added that it is advisable for patients with a history of life-threatening allergic reactions such as anaphylaxis or who have been advised to carry an epinephrine autoinjector, to talk with their health care provider to determine if COVID-19 vaccination is medically appropriate.

The National Psoriasis Foundation has issued guidance on COVID-19, explained Steven R. Feldman, MD, PhD, professor of dermatology, pathology, and social sciences & health policy at Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C., who is also a member of the committee that is working on those guidelines and keeping them up to date. “We are in the process of updating the guidelines with information on COVID vaccines,” he said.

He agreed that there are no contraindications for psoriasis patients to receive the vaccine, regardless of whether they are on immunosuppressive treatment, even though definitive data are lacking. “Fortunately, there’s a lot of good data coming out of Italy that patients with psoriasis on biologics do not appear to be at increased risk of getting COVID or of having worse outcomes from COVID,” he said.

Patients are going to ask about the vaccines, and when counseling them, clinicians should discuss the available data, the residual uncertainty, and patients’ concerns should be considered, Dr. Feldman explained. “There may be some concern that steroids and cyclosporine would reduce the effectiveness of vaccines, but there is no concern that any of the drugs would cause increased risk from nonlive vaccines.”

He added that there is evidence that “patients on biologics who receive nonlive vaccines do develop antibody responses and are immunized.”


 

Boosting efficacy

Even prior to making their announcement, the American College of Rheumatology had said that they would endorse the vaccine for all patients, explained rheumatologist Brett Smith, DO, from Blount Memorial Physicians Group and East Tennessee Children’s Hospital, Alcoa. “The vaccine is safe for all patients, but the problem may be that it’s not as effective,” he said. “But we don’t know that because it hasn’t been tested.”

With other vaccines, biologic medicines are held for 2 weeks before and afterwards, to get the best response. “But some patients don’t want to stop the medication,” Dr. Smith said. “They are afraid that their symptoms will return.”

As for counseling patients as to whether they should receive this vaccine, he explained that he typically doesn’t try to sway patients one way or another until they are really high risk. “When I counsel, it really depends on the individual situation. And for this vaccine, we have to be open to the fact that many people have already made up their mind.”

There are a lot of questions regarding the vaccine. One is the short time frame of development. “Vaccines typically take 6-10 years to come on the market, and this one is now available after a 3-month study,” Dr. Smith said. “Some have already decided that it’s too new for them.”

The process is also new, and patients need to understand that it doesn’t contain an active virus and “you can’t catch coronavirus from it.”

Dr. Smith also explained that, because the vaccine may be less effective in a person using biologic therapies, there is currently no information available on repeat vaccination. “These are all unanswered questions,” he said. “If the antibodies wane in a short time, can we be revaccinated and in what time frame? We just don’t know that yet.”

Marcelo Bonomi, MD, a medical oncologist from The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbus, explained that one way to ensure a more optimal response to the vaccine would be to wait until the patient has finished chemotherapy.* “The vaccine can be offered at that time, and in the meantime, they can take other steps to avoid infection,” he said. “If they are very immunosuppressed, it isn’t worth trying to give the vaccine.”

Cancer patients should be encouraged to stay as healthy as possible, and to wear masks and social distance. “It’s a comprehensive approach. Eat healthy, avoid alcohol and tobacco, and exercise. [These things] will help boost the immune system,” Dr. Bonomi said. “Family members should be encouraged to get vaccinated, which will help them avoid infection and exposing the patient.”

Jim Boonyaratanakornkit, MD, PhD, an infectious disease specialist who cares for cancer patients at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, agreed. “Giving a vaccine right after a transplant is a futile endeavor,” he said. “We need to wait 6 months to have an immune response.”

He pointed out there may be a continuing higher number of cases, with high levels peaking in Washington in February and March. “Close friends and family should be vaccinated if possible,” he said, “which will help interrupt transmission.”

The vaccines are using new platforms that are totally different, and there is no clear data as to how long the antibodies will persist. “We know that they last for at least 4 months,” said Dr. Boonyaratanakornkit. “We don’t know what level of antibody will protect them from COVID-19 infection. Current studies are being conducted, but we don’t have that information for anyone yet.”

*Correction, 1/7/21: An earlier version of this article misattributed quotes from Dr. Marcelo Bonomi.

For the latest clinical guidance, education, research and physician resources about coronavirus, visit the AGA COVID-19 Resource Center at www.gastro.org/COVID.

Coronavirus vaccines have become a reality, as they are now being approved and authorized for use in a growing number of countries including the United States. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has just issued emergency authorization for the use of the COVID-19 vaccine produced by Pfizer and BioNTech. Close behind is the vaccine developed by Moderna, which has also applied to the FDA for emergency authorization.

scyther5/thinkstock

The efficacy of a two-dose administration of the vaccine has been pegged at 95.0%, and the FDA has said that the 95% credible interval for the vaccine efficacy was 90.3%-97.6%. But as with many initial clinical trials, whether for drugs or vaccines, not all populations were represented in the trial cohort, including individuals who are immunocompromised. At the current time, it is largely unknown how safe or effective the vaccine may be in this large population, many of whom are at high risk for serious COVID-19 complications.

At a special session held during the recent annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology, Anthony Fauci, MD, the nation’s leading infectious disease expert, said that individuals with compromised immune systems, whether because of chemotherapy or a bone marrow transplant, should plan to be vaccinated when the opportunity arises.

In response to a question from ASH President Stephanie J. Lee, MD, of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Seattle, Dr. Fauci emphasized that, despite being excluded from clinical trials, this population should get vaccinated. “I think we should recommend that they get vaccinated,” he said. “I mean, it is clear that, if you are on immunosuppressive agents, history tells us that you’re not going to have as robust a response as if you had an intact immune system that was not being compromised. But some degree of immunity is better than no degree of immunity.”

That does seem to be the consensus among experts who spoke in interviews: that as long as these are not live attenuated vaccines, they hold no specific risk to an immunocompromised patient, other than any factors specific to the individual that could be a contraindication.

“Patients, family members, friends, and work contacts should be encouraged to receive the vaccine,” said William Stohl, MD, PhD, chief of the division of rheumatology at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles. “Clinicians should advise patients to obtain the vaccine sooner rather than later.”

Kevin C. Wang, MD, PhD, of the department of dermatology at Stanford (Calif.) University, agreed. “I am 100% with Dr. Fauci. Everyone should get the vaccine, even if it may not be as effective,” he said. “I would treat it exactly like the flu vaccines that we recommend folks get every year.”

Dr. Wang noted that he couldn’t think of any contraindications unless the immunosuppressed patients have a history of severe allergic reactions to prior vaccinations. “But I would even say patients with history of cancer, upon recommendation of their oncologists, are likely to be suitable candidates for the vaccine,” he added. “I would say clinicians should approach counseling the same way they counsel patients for the flu vaccine, and as far as I know, there are no concerns for systemic drugs commonly used in dermatology patients.”

However, guidance has not yet been issued from either the FDA or the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention regarding the use of the vaccine in immunocompromised individuals. Given the lack of data, the FDA has said that “it will be something that providers will need to consider on an individual basis,” and that individuals should consult with physicians to weigh the potential benefits and potential risks.

The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices has said that clinicians need more guidance on whether to use the vaccine in pregnant or breastfeeding women, the immunocompromised, or those who have a history of allergies. The CDC itself has not yet released its formal guidance on vaccine use.


 

COVID-19 vaccines

Vaccines typically require years of research and testing before reaching the clinic, but this year researchers embarked on a global effort to develop safe and effective coronavirus vaccines in record time. Both the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna vaccines have only a few months of phase 3 clinical trial data, so much remains unknown about them, including their duration of effect and any long-term safety signals. In addition to excluding immunocompromised individuals, the clinical trials did not include children or pregnant women, so data are lacking for several population subgroups.

But these will not be the only vaccines available, as the pipeline is already becoming crowded. U.S. clinical trial data from a vaccine jointly being developed by Oxford-AstraZeneca, could potentially be ready, along with a request for FDA emergency use authorization, by late January 2021.

In addition, China and Russia have released vaccines, and there are currently 61 vaccines being investigated in clinical trials and at least 85 preclinical products under active investigation.

The vaccine candidates are using both conventional and novel mechanisms of action to elicit an immune response in patients. Conventional methods include attenuated inactivated (killed) virus and recombinant viral protein vaccines to develop immunity. Novel approaches include replication-deficient, adenovirus vector-based vaccines that contain the viral protein, and mRNA-based vaccines, such as the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, that encode for a SARS-CoV-2 spike protein.

“The special vaccine concern for immunocompromised individuals is introduction of a live virus,” Dr. Stohl said. “Neither the Moderna nor Pfizer vaccines are live viruses, so there should be no special contraindication for such individuals.”

Live vaccine should be avoided in immunocompromised patients, and currently, live SARS-CoV-2 vaccines are only being developed in India and Turkey.

It is not unusual for vaccine trials to begin with cohorts that exclude participants with various health conditions, including those who are immunocompromised. These groups are generally then evaluated in phase 4 trials, or postmarketing surveillance. While the precise number of immunosuppressed adults in the United States is not known, the numbers are believed to be rising because of increased life expectancy among immunosuppressed adults as a result of advances in treatment and new and wider indications for therapies that can affect the immune system.

According to data from the 2013 National Health Interview Survey, an estimated 2.7% of U.S. adults are immunosuppressed. This population covers a broad array of health conditions and medical specialties; people living with inflammatory or autoimmune conditions, such as inflammatory rheumatic diseases (rheumatoid arthritis, axial spondyloarthritis, lupus); inflammatory bowel disease (Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis); psoriasis; multiple sclerosis; organ transplant recipients; patients undergoing chemotherapy; and life-long immunosuppression attributable to HIV infection.

As the vaccines begin to roll out and become available, how should clinicians advise their patients, in the absence of any clinical trial data?


 

Risk vs. benefit

Gilaad Kaplan, MD, MPH, a gastroenterologist and professor of medicine at the University of Calgary (Alta.), noted that the inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) community has dealt with tremendous anxiety during the pandemic because many are immunocompromised because of the medications they use to treat their disease.

“For example, many patients with IBD are on biologics like anti-TNF [tumor necrosis factor] therapies, which are also used in other immune-mediated inflammatory diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis,” he said. “Understandably, individuals with IBD on immunosuppressive medications are concerned about the risk of severe complications due to COVID-19.”

The entire IBD community, along with the world, celebrated the announcement that multiple vaccines are protective against SARS-CoV-2, he noted. “Vaccines offer the potential to reduce the spread of COVID-19, allowing society to revert back to normalcy,” Dr. Kaplan said. “Moreover, for vulnerable populations, including those who are immunocompromised, vaccines offer the potential to directly protect them from the morbidity and mortality associated with COVID-19.”

That said, even though the news of vaccines are extremely promising, some cautions must be raised regarding their use in immunocompromised populations, such as persons with IBD. “The current trials, to my knowledge, did not include immunocompromised individuals and thus, we can only extrapolate from what we know from other trials of different vaccines,” he explained. “We know from prior vaccines studies that the immune response following vaccination is less robust in those who are immunocompromised as compared to a healthy control population.”

Dr. Kaplan also pointed to recent reports of allergic reactions that have been reported in healthy individuals. “We don’t know whether side effects, like allergic reactions, may be different in unstudied populations,” he said. “Thus, the medical and scientific community should prioritize clinical studies of safety and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines in immunocompromised populations.”

So, what does this mean for an individual with an immune-mediated inflammatory disease like Crohn’s disease or ulcerative colitis who is immunocompromised? Dr. Kaplan explained that it is a balance between the potential harm of being infected with COVID-19 and the uncertainty of receiving a vaccine in an understudied population. For those who are highly susceptible to dying from COVID-19, such as an older adult with IBD, or someone who faces high exposure, such as a health care worker, the potential protection of the vaccine greatly outweighs the uncertainty.

“However, for individuals who are at otherwise lower risk – for example, young and able to work from home – then waiting a few extra months for postmarketing surveillance studies in immunocompromised populations may be a reasonable approach, as long as these individuals are taking great care to avoid infection,” he said.
 

No waiting needed

Joel M. Gelfand, MD, MSCE, professor of dermatology and epidemiology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, feels that the newly approved vaccine should be safe for most of his patients.

“Patients with psoriatic disease should get the mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccine as soon as possible based on eligibility as determined by the CDC and local public health officials,” he said. “It is not a live vaccine, and therefore patients on biologics or other immune-modulating or immune-suppressing treatment can receive it.”

However, the impact of psoriasis treatment on immune response to the mRNA-based vaccines is not known. Dr. Gelfand noted that, extrapolating from the vaccine literature, there is some evidence that methotrexate reduces response to the influenza vaccine. “However, the clinical significance of this finding is not clear,” he said. “Since the mRNA vaccine needs to be taken twice, a few weeks apart, I do not recommend interrupting or delaying treatment for psoriatic disease while undergoing vaccination for COVID-19.”

Given the reports of allergic reactions, he added that it is advisable for patients with a history of life-threatening allergic reactions such as anaphylaxis or who have been advised to carry an epinephrine autoinjector, to talk with their health care provider to determine if COVID-19 vaccination is medically appropriate.

The National Psoriasis Foundation has issued guidance on COVID-19, explained Steven R. Feldman, MD, PhD, professor of dermatology, pathology, and social sciences & health policy at Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C., who is also a member of the committee that is working on those guidelines and keeping them up to date. “We are in the process of updating the guidelines with information on COVID vaccines,” he said.

He agreed that there are no contraindications for psoriasis patients to receive the vaccine, regardless of whether they are on immunosuppressive treatment, even though definitive data are lacking. “Fortunately, there’s a lot of good data coming out of Italy that patients with psoriasis on biologics do not appear to be at increased risk of getting COVID or of having worse outcomes from COVID,” he said.

Patients are going to ask about the vaccines, and when counseling them, clinicians should discuss the available data, the residual uncertainty, and patients’ concerns should be considered, Dr. Feldman explained. “There may be some concern that steroids and cyclosporine would reduce the effectiveness of vaccines, but there is no concern that any of the drugs would cause increased risk from nonlive vaccines.”

He added that there is evidence that “patients on biologics who receive nonlive vaccines do develop antibody responses and are immunized.”


 

Boosting efficacy

Even prior to making their announcement, the American College of Rheumatology had said that they would endorse the vaccine for all patients, explained rheumatologist Brett Smith, DO, from Blount Memorial Physicians Group and East Tennessee Children’s Hospital, Alcoa. “The vaccine is safe for all patients, but the problem may be that it’s not as effective,” he said. “But we don’t know that because it hasn’t been tested.”

With other vaccines, biologic medicines are held for 2 weeks before and afterwards, to get the best response. “But some patients don’t want to stop the medication,” Dr. Smith said. “They are afraid that their symptoms will return.”

As for counseling patients as to whether they should receive this vaccine, he explained that he typically doesn’t try to sway patients one way or another until they are really high risk. “When I counsel, it really depends on the individual situation. And for this vaccine, we have to be open to the fact that many people have already made up their mind.”

There are a lot of questions regarding the vaccine. One is the short time frame of development. “Vaccines typically take 6-10 years to come on the market, and this one is now available after a 3-month study,” Dr. Smith said. “Some have already decided that it’s too new for them.”

The process is also new, and patients need to understand that it doesn’t contain an active virus and “you can’t catch coronavirus from it.”

Dr. Smith also explained that, because the vaccine may be less effective in a person using biologic therapies, there is currently no information available on repeat vaccination. “These are all unanswered questions,” he said. “If the antibodies wane in a short time, can we be revaccinated and in what time frame? We just don’t know that yet.”

Marcelo Bonomi, MD, a medical oncologist from The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbus, explained that one way to ensure a more optimal response to the vaccine would be to wait until the patient has finished chemotherapy.* “The vaccine can be offered at that time, and in the meantime, they can take other steps to avoid infection,” he said. “If they are very immunosuppressed, it isn’t worth trying to give the vaccine.”

Cancer patients should be encouraged to stay as healthy as possible, and to wear masks and social distance. “It’s a comprehensive approach. Eat healthy, avoid alcohol and tobacco, and exercise. [These things] will help boost the immune system,” Dr. Bonomi said. “Family members should be encouraged to get vaccinated, which will help them avoid infection and exposing the patient.”

Jim Boonyaratanakornkit, MD, PhD, an infectious disease specialist who cares for cancer patients at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, agreed. “Giving a vaccine right after a transplant is a futile endeavor,” he said. “We need to wait 6 months to have an immune response.”

He pointed out there may be a continuing higher number of cases, with high levels peaking in Washington in February and March. “Close friends and family should be vaccinated if possible,” he said, “which will help interrupt transmission.”

The vaccines are using new platforms that are totally different, and there is no clear data as to how long the antibodies will persist. “We know that they last for at least 4 months,” said Dr. Boonyaratanakornkit. “We don’t know what level of antibody will protect them from COVID-19 infection. Current studies are being conducted, but we don’t have that information for anyone yet.”

*Correction, 1/7/21: An earlier version of this article misattributed quotes from Dr. Marcelo Bonomi.

For the latest clinical guidance, education, research and physician resources about coronavirus, visit the AGA COVID-19 Resource Center at www.gastro.org/COVID.

Now that COVID-19 vaccines are being distributed, the American Association for Cancer Research has called for people with cancer to be considered as a high-priority group.

“The available evidence supports the conclusion that patients with cancer, in particular with hematologic malignancies, should be considered among the high-risk groups for priority COVID-19 vaccination,” according to the AACR’s COVID-19 and Cancer Task Force.

A review of literature suggested that COVID-19 fatality rates for patients with cancer were double that of individuals without cancer, the team noted. The higher mortality rates still trended upward, even after adjusting for confounders including age, sex, and comorbidities, indicating that there is a greater risk for severe disease and COVID-19–related mortality.

The new AACR position paper was published online Dec. 19 in Cancer Discovery.

“We conclude that patients with an active cancer should be considered for priority access to COVID-19 vaccination, along other particularly vulnerable populations with risk factors for adverse outcomes with COVID-19,” the team wrote.

However, the authors noted that “it is unclear whether this recommendation should be applicable to patients with a past diagnosis of cancer, as cancer survivors can be considered having the same risk as other persons with matched age and other risk factors. 

“Given that there are nearly 17 million people living with a history of cancer in the United States alone, it is critical to understand whether these individuals are at a higher risk to contract SARS-COV-2 and to experience severe outcomes from COVID-19,” they added.
 

Allocation of initial doses

There has already been much discussion on the allocation of the initial doses of COVID-19 vaccines that have become available in the United States. The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommended that the first wave of vaccinations, described as phase 1a, should be administered to health care workers (about 21 million people) and residents of long-term care facilities (about 3 million).

The next priority group, phase 1b, should consist of frontline essential workers, a group of about 30 million, and adults aged 75 years or older, a group of about 21 million. When overlap between the groups is taken into account, phase 1b covers about 49 million people, according to the CDC.

Finally, phase 1c, the third priority group, would include adults aged 65-74 years (a group of about 32 million), adults aged 16-64 years with high-risk medical conditions (a group of about 110 million), and essential workers who did not qualify for inclusion in phase 1b (a group of about 57 million). With the overlap, Phase 1c would cover about 129 million people.

The AACR task force, led by Antoni Ribas, MD, PhD, of the Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center at the University of California, Los Angeles, noted in their position paper that their recommendation is consistent with ACIP’s guidelines. Those guidelines concluded that patients with cancer are at a higher risk for severe COVID-19, and should be one of the groups considered for early COVID-19 vaccination.
 

Questions remain

Approached for independent comment, Cardinale Smith, MD, PhD, chief quality officer for cancer services for the Mount Sinai Health System in New York, agreed with the AACR task force. “I share that they should be high priority,” she said, “But we don’t know that the efficacy will the same.”

Dr. Smith noted that the impact of cancer therapy on patient immune systems is more related to the type of treatment they’re receiving, and B- and T-cell responses. “But regardless, they should be getting the vaccine, and we just need to follow the guidelines.”

The AACR task force noted that information thus far is quite limited as to the effects of COVID-19 vaccination in patients with cancer. In the Pfizer-BioNTech BNT162b2 COVID vaccine trial, of 43,540 participants, only 3.7% were reported to have cancer. Other large COVID-19 vaccine trials will provide further follow-up information on the effectiveness of the vaccines in patients receiving different cancer treatments, they wrote, but for now, there is “currently not enough data to evaluate the interactions between active oncologic therapy with the ability to induce protective immunity” to COVID-19 with vaccination.

In a recent interview, Nora Disis, MD, a medical oncologist and director of both the Institute of Translational Health Sciences and the Cancer Vaccine Institute, University of Washington, Seattle, also discussed vaccinating cancer patients.

She pointed out that even though there are data suggesting that cancer patients are at higher risk, “they are a bit murky, in part because cancer patients are a heterogeneous group.”

“For example, there are data suggesting that lung and blood cancer patients fare worse,” said Dr. Disis, who is also editor in chief of JAMA Oncology. “There is also a suggestion that, like in the general population, COVID risk in cancer patients remains driven by comorbidities.”

She also pointed out the likelihood that individualized risk factors, including the type of cancer therapy, site of disease, and comorbidities, “will shape individual choices about vaccination among cancer patients.”

It is also reasonable to expect that patients with cancer will respond to the vaccines, even though historically some believed that they would be unable to mount an immune response. “Data on other viral vaccines have shown otherwise,” said Dr. Disis. “For example, there has been a long history of studies of flu vaccination in cancer patients, and in general, those vaccines confer protection.”

Several of the authors of the AACR position paper, including Dr. Ribas, reported relationships with industry as detailed in the paper. Dr. Smith has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Now that COVID-19 vaccines are being distributed, the American Association for Cancer Research has called for people with cancer to be considered as a high-priority group.

“The available evidence supports the conclusion that patients with cancer, in particular with hematologic malignancies, should be considered among the high-risk groups for priority COVID-19 vaccination,” according to the AACR’s COVID-19 and Cancer Task Force.

A review of literature suggested that COVID-19 fatality rates for patients with cancer were double that of individuals without cancer, the team noted. The higher mortality rates still trended upward, even after adjusting for confounders including age, sex, and comorbidities, indicating that there is a greater risk for severe disease and COVID-19–related mortality.

The new AACR position paper was published online Dec. 19 in Cancer Discovery.

“We conclude that patients with an active cancer should be considered for priority access to COVID-19 vaccination, along other particularly vulnerable populations with risk factors for adverse outcomes with COVID-19,” the team wrote.

However, the authors noted that “it is unclear whether this recommendation should be applicable to patients with a past diagnosis of cancer, as cancer survivors can be considered having the same risk as other persons with matched age and other risk factors. 

“Given that there are nearly 17 million people living with a history of cancer in the United States alone, it is critical to understand whether these individuals are at a higher risk to contract SARS-COV-2 and to experience severe outcomes from COVID-19,” they added.
 

Allocation of initial doses

There has already been much discussion on the allocation of the initial doses of COVID-19 vaccines that have become available in the United States. The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommended that the first wave of vaccinations, described as phase 1a, should be administered to health care workers (about 21 million people) and residents of long-term care facilities (about 3 million).

The next priority group, phase 1b, should consist of frontline essential workers, a group of about 30 million, and adults aged 75 years or older, a group of about 21 million. When overlap between the groups is taken into account, phase 1b covers about 49 million people, according to the CDC.

Finally, phase 1c, the third priority group, would include adults aged 65-74 years (a group of about 32 million), adults aged 16-64 years with high-risk medical conditions (a group of about 110 million), and essential workers who did not qualify for inclusion in phase 1b (a group of about 57 million). With the overlap, Phase 1c would cover about 129 million people.

The AACR task force, led by Antoni Ribas, MD, PhD, of the Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center at the University of California, Los Angeles, noted in their position paper that their recommendation is consistent with ACIP’s guidelines. Those guidelines concluded that patients with cancer are at a higher risk for severe COVID-19, and should be one of the groups considered for early COVID-19 vaccination.
 

Questions remain

Approached for independent comment, Cardinale Smith, MD, PhD, chief quality officer for cancer services for the Mount Sinai Health System in New York, agreed with the AACR task force. “I share that they should be high priority,” she said, “But we don’t know that the efficacy will the same.”

Dr. Smith noted that the impact of cancer therapy on patient immune systems is more related to the type of treatment they’re receiving, and B- and T-cell responses. “But regardless, they should be getting the vaccine, and we just need to follow the guidelines.”

The AACR task force noted that information thus far is quite limited as to the effects of COVID-19 vaccination in patients with cancer. In the Pfizer-BioNTech BNT162b2 COVID vaccine trial, of 43,540 participants, only 3.7% were reported to have cancer. Other large COVID-19 vaccine trials will provide further follow-up information on the effectiveness of the vaccines in patients receiving different cancer treatments, they wrote, but for now, there is “currently not enough data to evaluate the interactions between active oncologic therapy with the ability to induce protective immunity” to COVID-19 with vaccination.

In a recent interview, Nora Disis, MD, a medical oncologist and director of both the Institute of Translational Health Sciences and the Cancer Vaccine Institute, University of Washington, Seattle, also discussed vaccinating cancer patients.

She pointed out that even though there are data suggesting that cancer patients are at higher risk, “they are a bit murky, in part because cancer patients are a heterogeneous group.”

“For example, there are data suggesting that lung and blood cancer patients fare worse,” said Dr. Disis, who is also editor in chief of JAMA Oncology. “There is also a suggestion that, like in the general population, COVID risk in cancer patients remains driven by comorbidities.”

She also pointed out the likelihood that individualized risk factors, including the type of cancer therapy, site of disease, and comorbidities, “will shape individual choices about vaccination among cancer patients.”

It is also reasonable to expect that patients with cancer will respond to the vaccines, even though historically some believed that they would be unable to mount an immune response. “Data on other viral vaccines have shown otherwise,” said Dr. Disis. “For example, there has been a long history of studies of flu vaccination in cancer patients, and in general, those vaccines confer protection.”

Several of the authors of the AACR position paper, including Dr. Ribas, reported relationships with industry as detailed in the paper. Dr. Smith has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Now that COVID-19 vaccines are being distributed, the American Association for Cancer Research has called for people with cancer to be considered as a high-priority group.

“The available evidence supports the conclusion that patients with cancer, in particular with hematologic malignancies, should be considered among the high-risk groups for priority COVID-19 vaccination,” according to the AACR’s COVID-19 and Cancer Task Force.

A review of literature suggested that COVID-19 fatality rates for patients with cancer were double that of individuals without cancer, the team noted. The higher mortality rates still trended upward, even after adjusting for confounders including age, sex, and comorbidities, indicating that there is a greater risk for severe disease and COVID-19–related mortality.

The new AACR position paper was published online Dec. 19 in Cancer Discovery.

“We conclude that patients with an active cancer should be considered for priority access to COVID-19 vaccination, along other particularly vulnerable populations with risk factors for adverse outcomes with COVID-19,” the team wrote.

However, the authors noted that “it is unclear whether this recommendation should be applicable to patients with a past diagnosis of cancer, as cancer survivors can be considered having the same risk as other persons with matched age and other risk factors. 

“Given that there are nearly 17 million people living with a history of cancer in the United States alone, it is critical to understand whether these individuals are at a higher risk to contract SARS-COV-2 and to experience severe outcomes from COVID-19,” they added.
 

Allocation of initial doses

There has already been much discussion on the allocation of the initial doses of COVID-19 vaccines that have become available in the United States. The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommended that the first wave of vaccinations, described as phase 1a, should be administered to health care workers (about 21 million people) and residents of long-term care facilities (about 3 million).

The next priority group, phase 1b, should consist of frontline essential workers, a group of about 30 million, and adults aged 75 years or older, a group of about 21 million. When overlap between the groups is taken into account, phase 1b covers about 49 million people, according to the CDC.

Finally, phase 1c, the third priority group, would include adults aged 65-74 years (a group of about 32 million), adults aged 16-64 years with high-risk medical conditions (a group of about 110 million), and essential workers who did not qualify for inclusion in phase 1b (a group of about 57 million). With the overlap, Phase 1c would cover about 129 million people.

The AACR task force, led by Antoni Ribas, MD, PhD, of the Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center at the University of California, Los Angeles, noted in their position paper that their recommendation is consistent with ACIP’s guidelines. Those guidelines concluded that patients with cancer are at a higher risk for severe COVID-19, and should be one of the groups considered for early COVID-19 vaccination.
 

Questions remain

Approached for independent comment, Cardinale Smith, MD, PhD, chief quality officer for cancer services for the Mount Sinai Health System in New York, agreed with the AACR task force. “I share that they should be high priority,” she said, “But we don’t know that the efficacy will the same.”

Dr. Smith noted that the impact of cancer therapy on patient immune systems is more related to the type of treatment they’re receiving, and B- and T-cell responses. “But regardless, they should be getting the vaccine, and we just need to follow the guidelines.”

The AACR task force noted that information thus far is quite limited as to the effects of COVID-19 vaccination in patients with cancer. In the Pfizer-BioNTech BNT162b2 COVID vaccine trial, of 43,540 participants, only 3.7% were reported to have cancer. Other large COVID-19 vaccine trials will provide further follow-up information on the effectiveness of the vaccines in patients receiving different cancer treatments, they wrote, but for now, there is “currently not enough data to evaluate the interactions between active oncologic therapy with the ability to induce protective immunity” to COVID-19 with vaccination.

In a recent interview, Nora Disis, MD, a medical oncologist and director of both the Institute of Translational Health Sciences and the Cancer Vaccine Institute, University of Washington, Seattle, also discussed vaccinating cancer patients.

She pointed out that even though there are data suggesting that cancer patients are at higher risk, “they are a bit murky, in part because cancer patients are a heterogeneous group.”

“For example, there are data suggesting that lung and blood cancer patients fare worse,” said Dr. Disis, who is also editor in chief of JAMA Oncology. “There is also a suggestion that, like in the general population, COVID risk in cancer patients remains driven by comorbidities.”

She also pointed out the likelihood that individualized risk factors, including the type of cancer therapy, site of disease, and comorbidities, “will shape individual choices about vaccination among cancer patients.”

It is also reasonable to expect that patients with cancer will respond to the vaccines, even though historically some believed that they would be unable to mount an immune response. “Data on other viral vaccines have shown otherwise,” said Dr. Disis. “For example, there has been a long history of studies of flu vaccination in cancer patients, and in general, those vaccines confer protection.”

Several of the authors of the AACR position paper, including Dr. Ribas, reported relationships with industry as detailed in the paper. Dr. Smith has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A new monoclonal antibody that targets HER2 in breast cancer, margetuximab-cmkb (Margenza), has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration.

The new drug is indicated for use in combination with chemotherapy for the treatment of patients with metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer who have already received two or more prior anti-HER2 regimens, with at least one for metastatic disease.

Margetuximab-cmkb is also the first HER2-targeted therapy shown to improve progression-free survival (PFS) as compared with the first-ever HER2-targeted agent, trastuzumab in a head-to-head, phase 3 clinical trial (known as SOPHIA).

“Early detection and treatment have had a positive impact on the survival of patients with breast cancer, but the prognosis for people diagnosed with metastatic breast cancer remains poor, and additional treatments are needed,” said Hope S. Rugo, MD, director of breast oncology and clinical trials education, University of California, San Francisco, Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, in a press release.

“As the only HER2-targeted agent to have shown a PFS improvement versus trastuzumab in a head-to-head phase 3 clinical trial, margetuximab with chemotherapy represents the newest treatment option for patients who have progressed on available HER2-directed therapies,” said Dr. Rugo, who is an investigator in the SOPHIA trial.

Like trastuzumab, margetuximab-cmkb binds HER2 with high specificity and affinity and disrupts signaling that drives cell proliferation and survival, but margetuximab binds with elevated affinity to both the lower- and higher-affinity forms of CD16A, an Fc gamma receptor important for antibody dependent cell-mediated cytotoxicity against tumor cells, according to the manufacturer, MacroGenics.
 

Details of the pivotal trial

The SOPHIA trial was a randomized, open-label, phase 3 clinical trial that compared margetuximab-cmkb plus chemotherapy with trastuzumab plus chemotherapy in both arms in patients with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer who had previously been treated with anti–HER2-targeted therapies.

All patients in the cohort had previously received trastuzumab, all but one patient had previously also received pertuzumab, and most of the patients (91%) had also been treated with ado-trastuzumab emtansine, or T-DM1.

The trial randomly assigned 536 patients to receive either margetuximab-cmkb (n = 266) given intravenously at 15 mg/kg every 3 weeks or trastuzumab (n = 270) given intravenously at 6 mg/kg (or 8 mg/kg for loading dose) every 3 weeks in combination with either capecitabine, eribulin, gemcitabine, or vinorelbine, given at the standard doses.

As compared with trastuzumab, margetuximab plus chemotherapy led to a significant 24% reduction in the risk for progression or death (hazard ratio, 0.76).

The median PFS also favored margetuximab (5.8 months vs. 4.9 months), as did the overall response rate (22% vs. 16%).

The final overall survival analysis is expected in the second half of 2021.

Common adverse events associated with the margetuximab regimen included fatigue/asthenia (57%), nausea (33%), diarrhea (25%), and vomiting (21%). Infusion-related reactions occurred in 13% of patients receiving margetuximab, and almost all were grade 1 or 2, with only 1.5% at grade 3.

The product also carries a boxed warning for left ventricular dysfunction and embryo-fetal toxicity.

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

A new monoclonal antibody that targets HER2 in breast cancer, margetuximab-cmkb (Margenza), has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration.

The new drug is indicated for use in combination with chemotherapy for the treatment of patients with metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer who have already received two or more prior anti-HER2 regimens, with at least one for metastatic disease.

Margetuximab-cmkb is also the first HER2-targeted therapy shown to improve progression-free survival (PFS) as compared with the first-ever HER2-targeted agent, trastuzumab in a head-to-head, phase 3 clinical trial (known as SOPHIA).

“Early detection and treatment have had a positive impact on the survival of patients with breast cancer, but the prognosis for people diagnosed with metastatic breast cancer remains poor, and additional treatments are needed,” said Hope S. Rugo, MD, director of breast oncology and clinical trials education, University of California, San Francisco, Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, in a press release.

“As the only HER2-targeted agent to have shown a PFS improvement versus trastuzumab in a head-to-head phase 3 clinical trial, margetuximab with chemotherapy represents the newest treatment option for patients who have progressed on available HER2-directed therapies,” said Dr. Rugo, who is an investigator in the SOPHIA trial.

Like trastuzumab, margetuximab-cmkb binds HER2 with high specificity and affinity and disrupts signaling that drives cell proliferation and survival, but margetuximab binds with elevated affinity to both the lower- and higher-affinity forms of CD16A, an Fc gamma receptor important for antibody dependent cell-mediated cytotoxicity against tumor cells, according to the manufacturer, MacroGenics.
 

Details of the pivotal trial

The SOPHIA trial was a randomized, open-label, phase 3 clinical trial that compared margetuximab-cmkb plus chemotherapy with trastuzumab plus chemotherapy in both arms in patients with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer who had previously been treated with anti–HER2-targeted therapies.

All patients in the cohort had previously received trastuzumab, all but one patient had previously also received pertuzumab, and most of the patients (91%) had also been treated with ado-trastuzumab emtansine, or T-DM1.

The trial randomly assigned 536 patients to receive either margetuximab-cmkb (n = 266) given intravenously at 15 mg/kg every 3 weeks or trastuzumab (n = 270) given intravenously at 6 mg/kg (or 8 mg/kg for loading dose) every 3 weeks in combination with either capecitabine, eribulin, gemcitabine, or vinorelbine, given at the standard doses.

As compared with trastuzumab, margetuximab plus chemotherapy led to a significant 24% reduction in the risk for progression or death (hazard ratio, 0.76).

The median PFS also favored margetuximab (5.8 months vs. 4.9 months), as did the overall response rate (22% vs. 16%).

The final overall survival analysis is expected in the second half of 2021.

Common adverse events associated with the margetuximab regimen included fatigue/asthenia (57%), nausea (33%), diarrhea (25%), and vomiting (21%). Infusion-related reactions occurred in 13% of patients receiving margetuximab, and almost all were grade 1 or 2, with only 1.5% at grade 3.

The product also carries a boxed warning for left ventricular dysfunction and embryo-fetal toxicity.

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

A new monoclonal antibody that targets HER2 in breast cancer, margetuximab-cmkb (Margenza), has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration.

The new drug is indicated for use in combination with chemotherapy for the treatment of patients with metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer who have already received two or more prior anti-HER2 regimens, with at least one for metastatic disease.

Margetuximab-cmkb is also the first HER2-targeted therapy shown to improve progression-free survival (PFS) as compared with the first-ever HER2-targeted agent, trastuzumab in a head-to-head, phase 3 clinical trial (known as SOPHIA).

“Early detection and treatment have had a positive impact on the survival of patients with breast cancer, but the prognosis for people diagnosed with metastatic breast cancer remains poor, and additional treatments are needed,” said Hope S. Rugo, MD, director of breast oncology and clinical trials education, University of California, San Francisco, Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, in a press release.

“As the only HER2-targeted agent to have shown a PFS improvement versus trastuzumab in a head-to-head phase 3 clinical trial, margetuximab with chemotherapy represents the newest treatment option for patients who have progressed on available HER2-directed therapies,” said Dr. Rugo, who is an investigator in the SOPHIA trial.

Like trastuzumab, margetuximab-cmkb binds HER2 with high specificity and affinity and disrupts signaling that drives cell proliferation and survival, but margetuximab binds with elevated affinity to both the lower- and higher-affinity forms of CD16A, an Fc gamma receptor important for antibody dependent cell-mediated cytotoxicity against tumor cells, according to the manufacturer, MacroGenics.
 

Details of the pivotal trial

The SOPHIA trial was a randomized, open-label, phase 3 clinical trial that compared margetuximab-cmkb plus chemotherapy with trastuzumab plus chemotherapy in both arms in patients with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer who had previously been treated with anti–HER2-targeted therapies.

All patients in the cohort had previously received trastuzumab, all but one patient had previously also received pertuzumab, and most of the patients (91%) had also been treated with ado-trastuzumab emtansine, or T-DM1.

The trial randomly assigned 536 patients to receive either margetuximab-cmkb (n = 266) given intravenously at 15 mg/kg every 3 weeks or trastuzumab (n = 270) given intravenously at 6 mg/kg (or 8 mg/kg for loading dose) every 3 weeks in combination with either capecitabine, eribulin, gemcitabine, or vinorelbine, given at the standard doses.

As compared with trastuzumab, margetuximab plus chemotherapy led to a significant 24% reduction in the risk for progression or death (hazard ratio, 0.76).

The median PFS also favored margetuximab (5.8 months vs. 4.9 months), as did the overall response rate (22% vs. 16%).

The final overall survival analysis is expected in the second half of 2021.

Common adverse events associated with the margetuximab regimen included fatigue/asthenia (57%), nausea (33%), diarrhea (25%), and vomiting (21%). Infusion-related reactions occurred in 13% of patients receiving margetuximab, and almost all were grade 1 or 2, with only 1.5% at grade 3.

The product also carries a boxed warning for left ventricular dysfunction and embryo-fetal toxicity.

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

Coronavirus vaccines have become a reality, as they are now being approved and authorized for use in a growing number of countries including the United States. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has just issued emergency authorization for the use of the COVID-19 vaccine produced by Pfizer and BioNTech. Close behind is the vaccine developed by Moderna, which has also applied to the FDA for emergency authorization.

scyther5/thinkstock

The efficacy of a two-dose administration of the vaccine has been pegged at 95.0%, and the FDA has said that the 95% credible interval for the vaccine efficacy was 90.3%-97.6%. But as with many initial clinical trials, whether for drugs or vaccines, not all populations were represented in the trial cohort, including individuals who are immunocompromised. At the current time, it is largely unknown how safe or effective the vaccine may be in this large population, many of whom are at high risk for serious COVID-19 complications.

At a special session held during the recent annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology, Anthony Fauci, MD, the nation’s leading infectious disease expert, said that individuals with compromised immune systems, whether because of chemotherapy or a bone marrow transplant, should plan to be vaccinated when the opportunity arises.

In response to a question from ASH President Stephanie J. Lee, MD, of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Seattle, Dr. Fauci emphasized that, despite being excluded from clinical trials, this population should get vaccinated. “I think we should recommend that they get vaccinated,” he said. “I mean, it is clear that, if you are on immunosuppressive agents, history tells us that you’re not going to have as robust a response as if you had an intact immune system that was not being compromised. But some degree of immunity is better than no degree of immunity.”

That does seem to be the consensus among experts who spoke in interviews: that as long as these are not live attenuated vaccines, they hold no specific risk to an immunocompromised patient, other than any factors specific to the individual that could be a contraindication.

“Patients, family members, friends, and work contacts should be encouraged to receive the vaccine,” said William Stohl, MD, PhD, chief of the division of rheumatology at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles. “Clinicians should advise patients to obtain the vaccine sooner rather than later.”
 

Kevin C. Wang, MD, PhD, of the department of dermatology at Stanford (Calif.) University, agreed. “I am 100% with Dr. Fauci. Everyone should get the vaccine, even if it may not be as effective,” he said. “I would treat it exactly like the flu vaccines that we recommend folks get every year.”

Dr. Wang noted that he couldn’t think of any contraindications unless the immunosuppressed patients have a history of severe allergic reactions to prior vaccinations. “But I would even say patients with history of cancer, upon recommendation of their oncologists, are likely to be suitable candidates for the vaccine,” he added. “I would say clinicians should approach counseling the same way they counsel patients for the flu vaccine, and as far as I know, there are no concerns for systemic drugs commonly used in dermatology patients.”

However, guidance has not yet been issued from either the FDA or the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention regarding the use of the vaccine in immunocompromised individuals. Given the lack of data, the FDA has said that “it will be something that providers will need to consider on an individual basis,” and that individuals should consult with physicians to weigh the potential benefits and potential risks.

The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices has said that clinicians need more guidance on whether to use the vaccine in pregnant or breastfeeding women, the immunocompromised, or those who have a history of allergies. The CDC itself has not yet released its formal guidance on vaccine use.


 

COVID-19 vaccines

Vaccines typically require years of research and testing before reaching the clinic, but this year researchers embarked on a global effort to develop safe and effective coronavirus vaccines in record time. Both the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna vaccines have only a few months of phase 3 clinical trial data, so much remains unknown about them, including their duration of effect and any long-term safety signals. In addition to excluding immunocompromised individuals, the clinical trials did not include children or pregnant women, so data are lacking for several population subgroups.

But these will not be the only vaccines available, as the pipeline is already becoming crowded. U.S. clinical trial data from a vaccine jointly being developed by Oxford-AstraZeneca, could potentially be ready, along with a request for FDA emergency use authorization, by late January 2021.

In addition, China and Russia have released vaccines, and there are currently 61 vaccines being investigated in clinical trials and at least 85 preclinical products under active investigation.

The vaccine candidates are using both conventional and novel mechanisms of action to elicit an immune response in patients. Conventional methods include attenuated inactivated (killed) virus and recombinant viral protein vaccines to develop immunity. Novel approaches include replication-deficient, adenovirus vector-based vaccines that contain the viral protein, and mRNA-based vaccines, such as the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, that encode for a SARS-CoV-2 spike protein.

“The special vaccine concern for immunocompromised individuals is introduction of a live virus,” Dr. Stohl said. “Neither the Moderna nor Pfizer vaccines are live viruses, so there should be no special contraindication for such individuals.”

Live vaccine should be avoided in immunocompromised patients, and currently, live SARS-CoV-2 vaccines are only being developed in India and Turkey.

It is not unusual for vaccine trials to begin with cohorts that exclude participants with various health conditions, including those who are immunocompromised. These groups are generally then evaluated in phase 4 trials, or postmarketing surveillance. While the precise number of immunosuppressed adults in the United States is not known, the numbers are believed to be rising because of increased life expectancy among immunosuppressed adults as a result of advances in treatment and new and wider indications for therapies that can affect the immune system.

According to data from the 2013 National Health Interview Survey, an estimated 2.7% of U.S. adults are immunosuppressed. This population covers a broad array of health conditions and medical specialties; people living with inflammatory or autoimmune conditions, such as inflammatory rheumatic diseases (rheumatoid arthritis, axial spondyloarthritis, lupus); inflammatory bowel disease (Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis); psoriasis; multiple sclerosis; organ transplant recipients; patients undergoing chemotherapy; and life-long immunosuppression attributable to HIV infection.

As the vaccines begin to roll out and become available, how should clinicians advise their patients, in the absence of any clinical trial data?


 

Risk vs. benefit

Gilaad Kaplan, MD, MPH, a gastroenterologist and professor of medicine at the University of Calgary (Alta.), noted that the inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) community has dealt with tremendous anxiety during the pandemic because many are immunocompromised because of the medications they use to treat their disease.

“For example, many patients with IBD are on biologics like anti-TNF [tumor necrosis factor] therapies, which are also used in other immune-mediated inflammatory diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis,” he said. “Understandably, individuals with IBD on immunosuppressive medications are concerned about the risk of severe complications due to COVID-19.”

The entire IBD community, along with the world, celebrated the announcement that multiple vaccines are protective against SARS-CoV-2, he noted. “Vaccines offer the potential to reduce the spread of COVID-19, allowing society to revert back to normalcy,” Dr. Kaplan said. “Moreover, for vulnerable populations, including those who are immunocompromised, vaccines offer the potential to directly protect them from the morbidity and mortality associated with COVID-19.”

That said, even though the news of vaccines are extremely promising, some cautions must be raised regarding their use in immunocompromised populations, such as persons with IBD. “The current trials, to my knowledge, did not include immunocompromised individuals and thus, we can only extrapolate from what we know from other trials of different vaccines,” he explained. “We know from prior vaccines studies that the immune response following vaccination is less robust in those who are immunocompromised as compared to a healthy control population.”

Dr. Kaplan also pointed to recent reports of allergic reactions that have been reported in healthy individuals. “We don’t know whether side effects, like allergic reactions, may be different in unstudied populations,” he said. “Thus, the medical and scientific community should prioritize clinical studies of safety and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines in immunocompromised populations.”

So, what does this mean for an individual with an immune-mediated inflammatory disease like Crohn’s disease or ulcerative colitis who is immunocompromised? Dr. Kaplan explained that it is a balance between the potential harm of being infected with COVID-19 and the uncertainty of receiving a vaccine in an understudied population. For those who are highly susceptible to dying from COVID-19, such as an older adult with IBD, or someone who faces high exposure, such as a health care worker, the potential protection of the vaccine greatly outweighs the uncertainty.

“However, for individuals who are at otherwise lower risk – for example, young and able to work from home – then waiting a few extra months for postmarketing surveillance studies in immunocompromised populations may be a reasonable approach, as long as these individuals are taking great care to avoid infection,” he said.
 

No waiting needed

Joel M. Gelfand, MD, MSCE, professor of dermatology and epidemiology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, feels that the newly approved vaccine should be safe for most of his patients.

“Patients with psoriatic disease should get the mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccine as soon as possible based on eligibility as determined by the CDC and local public health officials,” he said. “It is not a live vaccine, and therefore patients on biologics or other immune-modulating or immune-suppressing treatment can receive it.”

However, the impact of psoriasis treatment on immune response to the mRNA-based vaccines is not known. Dr. Gelfand noted that, extrapolating from the vaccine literature, there is some evidence that methotrexate reduces response to the influenza vaccine. “However, the clinical significance of this finding is not clear,” he said. “Since the mRNA vaccine needs to be taken twice, a few weeks apart, I do not recommend interrupting or delaying treatment for psoriatic disease while undergoing vaccination for COVID-19.”

Given the reports of allergic reactions, he added that it is advisable for patients with a history of life-threatening allergic reactions such as anaphylaxis or who have been advised to carry an epinephrine autoinjector, to talk with their health care provider to determine if COVID-19 vaccination is medically appropriate.

The National Psoriasis Foundation has issued guidance on COVID-19, explained Steven R. Feldman, MD, PhD, professor of dermatology, pathology, and social sciences & health policy at Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C., who is also a member of the committee that is working on those guidelines and keeping them up to date. “We are in the process of updating the guidelines with information on COVID vaccines,” he said.

He agreed that there are no contraindications for psoriasis patients to receive the vaccine, regardless of whether they are on immunosuppressive treatment, even though definitive data are lacking. “Fortunately, there’s a lot of good data coming out of Italy that patients with psoriasis on biologics do not appear to be at increased risk of getting COVID or of having worse outcomes from COVID,” he said.

Patients are going to ask about the vaccines, and when counseling them, clinicians should discuss the available data, the residual uncertainty, and patients’ concerns should be considered, Dr. Feldman explained. “There may be some concern that steroids and cyclosporine would reduce the effectiveness of vaccines, but there is no concern that any of the drugs would cause increased risk from nonlive vaccines.”

He added that there is evidence that “patients on biologics who receive nonlive vaccines do develop antibody responses and are immunized.”


 

Boosting efficacy

Even prior to making their announcement, the American College of Rheumatology had said that they would endorse the vaccine for all patients, explained rheumatologist Brett Smith, DO, from Blount Memorial Physicians Group and East Tennessee Children’s Hospital, Alcoa. “The vaccine is safe for all patients, but the problem may be that it’s not as effective,” he said. “But we don’t know that because it hasn’t been tested.”

With other vaccines, biologic medicines are held for 2 weeks before and afterwards, to get the best response. “But some patients don’t want to stop the medication,” Dr. Smith said. “They are afraid that their symptoms will return.”

As for counseling patients as to whether they should receive this vaccine, he explained that he typically doesn’t try to sway patients one way or another until they are really high risk. “When I counsel, it really depends on the individual situation. And for this vaccine, we have to be open to the fact that many people have already made up their mind.”

There are a lot of questions regarding the vaccine. One is the short time frame of development. “Vaccines typically take 6-10 years to come on the market, and this one is now available after a 3-month study,” Dr. Smith said. “Some have already decided that it’s too new for them.”

The process is also new, and patients need to understand that it doesn’t contain an active virus and “you can’t catch coronavirus from it.”

Dr. Smith also explained that, because the vaccine may be less effective in a person using biologic therapies, there is currently no information available on repeat vaccination. “These are all unanswered questions,” he said. “If the antibodies wane in a short time, can we be revaccinated and in what time frame? We just don’t know that yet.”

Marcelo Bonomi, MD, a medical oncologist from The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbus, explained that one way to ensure a more optimal response to the vaccine would be to wait until the patient has finished chemotherapy.* “The vaccine can be offered at that time, and in the meantime, they can take other steps to avoid infection,” he said. “If they are very immunosuppressed, it isn’t worth trying to give the vaccine.”

Cancer patients should be encouraged to stay as healthy as possible, and to wear masks and social distance. “It’s a comprehensive approach. Eat healthy, avoid alcohol and tobacco, and exercise. [These things] will help boost the immune system,” Dr. Bonomi said. “Family members should be encouraged to get vaccinated, which will help them avoid infection and exposing the patient.”

Jim Boonyaratanakornkit, MD, PhD, an infectious disease specialist who cares for cancer patients at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, agreed. “Giving a vaccine right after a transplant is a futile endeavor,” he said. “We need to wait 6 months to have an immune response.”

He pointed out there may be a continuing higher number of cases, with high levels peaking in Washington in February and March. “Close friends and family should be vaccinated if possible,” he said, “which will help interrupt transmission.”

The vaccines are using new platforms that are totally different, and there is no clear data as to how long the antibodies will persist. “We know that they last for at least 4 months,” said Dr. Boonyaratanakornkit. “We don’t know what level of antibody will protect them from COVID-19 infection. Current studies are being conducted, but we don’t have that information for anyone yet.”
 

*Correction, 1/7/21: An earlier version of this article misattributed quotes from Dr. Marcelo Bonomi.

Coronavirus vaccines have become a reality, as they are now being approved and authorized for use in a growing number of countries including the United States. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has just issued emergency authorization for the use of the COVID-19 vaccine produced by Pfizer and BioNTech. Close behind is the vaccine developed by Moderna, which has also applied to the FDA for emergency authorization.

scyther5/thinkstock

The efficacy of a two-dose administration of the vaccine has been pegged at 95.0%, and the FDA has said that the 95% credible interval for the vaccine efficacy was 90.3%-97.6%. But as with many initial clinical trials, whether for drugs or vaccines, not all populations were represented in the trial cohort, including individuals who are immunocompromised. At the current time, it is largely unknown how safe or effective the vaccine may be in this large population, many of whom are at high risk for serious COVID-19 complications.

At a special session held during the recent annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology, Anthony Fauci, MD, the nation’s leading infectious disease expert, said that individuals with compromised immune systems, whether because of chemotherapy or a bone marrow transplant, should plan to be vaccinated when the opportunity arises.

In response to a question from ASH President Stephanie J. Lee, MD, of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Seattle, Dr. Fauci emphasized that, despite being excluded from clinical trials, this population should get vaccinated. “I think we should recommend that they get vaccinated,” he said. “I mean, it is clear that, if you are on immunosuppressive agents, history tells us that you’re not going to have as robust a response as if you had an intact immune system that was not being compromised. But some degree of immunity is better than no degree of immunity.”

That does seem to be the consensus among experts who spoke in interviews: that as long as these are not live attenuated vaccines, they hold no specific risk to an immunocompromised patient, other than any factors specific to the individual that could be a contraindication.

“Patients, family members, friends, and work contacts should be encouraged to receive the vaccine,” said William Stohl, MD, PhD, chief of the division of rheumatology at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles. “Clinicians should advise patients to obtain the vaccine sooner rather than later.”
 

Kevin C. Wang, MD, PhD, of the department of dermatology at Stanford (Calif.) University, agreed. “I am 100% with Dr. Fauci. Everyone should get the vaccine, even if it may not be as effective,” he said. “I would treat it exactly like the flu vaccines that we recommend folks get every year.”

Dr. Wang noted that he couldn’t think of any contraindications unless the immunosuppressed patients have a history of severe allergic reactions to prior vaccinations. “But I would even say patients with history of cancer, upon recommendation of their oncologists, are likely to be suitable candidates for the vaccine,” he added. “I would say clinicians should approach counseling the same way they counsel patients for the flu vaccine, and as far as I know, there are no concerns for systemic drugs commonly used in dermatology patients.”

However, guidance has not yet been issued from either the FDA or the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention regarding the use of the vaccine in immunocompromised individuals. Given the lack of data, the FDA has said that “it will be something that providers will need to consider on an individual basis,” and that individuals should consult with physicians to weigh the potential benefits and potential risks.

The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices has said that clinicians need more guidance on whether to use the vaccine in pregnant or breastfeeding women, the immunocompromised, or those who have a history of allergies. The CDC itself has not yet released its formal guidance on vaccine use.


 

COVID-19 vaccines

Vaccines typically require years of research and testing before reaching the clinic, but this year researchers embarked on a global effort to develop safe and effective coronavirus vaccines in record time. Both the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna vaccines have only a few months of phase 3 clinical trial data, so much remains unknown about them, including their duration of effect and any long-term safety signals. In addition to excluding immunocompromised individuals, the clinical trials did not include children or pregnant women, so data are lacking for several population subgroups.

But these will not be the only vaccines available, as the pipeline is already becoming crowded. U.S. clinical trial data from a vaccine jointly being developed by Oxford-AstraZeneca, could potentially be ready, along with a request for FDA emergency use authorization, by late January 2021.

In addition, China and Russia have released vaccines, and there are currently 61 vaccines being investigated in clinical trials and at least 85 preclinical products under active investigation.

The vaccine candidates are using both conventional and novel mechanisms of action to elicit an immune response in patients. Conventional methods include attenuated inactivated (killed) virus and recombinant viral protein vaccines to develop immunity. Novel approaches include replication-deficient, adenovirus vector-based vaccines that contain the viral protein, and mRNA-based vaccines, such as the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, that encode for a SARS-CoV-2 spike protein.

“The special vaccine concern for immunocompromised individuals is introduction of a live virus,” Dr. Stohl said. “Neither the Moderna nor Pfizer vaccines are live viruses, so there should be no special contraindication for such individuals.”

Live vaccine should be avoided in immunocompromised patients, and currently, live SARS-CoV-2 vaccines are only being developed in India and Turkey.

It is not unusual for vaccine trials to begin with cohorts that exclude participants with various health conditions, including those who are immunocompromised. These groups are generally then evaluated in phase 4 trials, or postmarketing surveillance. While the precise number of immunosuppressed adults in the United States is not known, the numbers are believed to be rising because of increased life expectancy among immunosuppressed adults as a result of advances in treatment and new and wider indications for therapies that can affect the immune system.

According to data from the 2013 National Health Interview Survey, an estimated 2.7% of U.S. adults are immunosuppressed. This population covers a broad array of health conditions and medical specialties; people living with inflammatory or autoimmune conditions, such as inflammatory rheumatic diseases (rheumatoid arthritis, axial spondyloarthritis, lupus); inflammatory bowel disease (Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis); psoriasis; multiple sclerosis; organ transplant recipients; patients undergoing chemotherapy; and life-long immunosuppression attributable to HIV infection.

As the vaccines begin to roll out and become available, how should clinicians advise their patients, in the absence of any clinical trial data?


 

Risk vs. benefit

Gilaad Kaplan, MD, MPH, a gastroenterologist and professor of medicine at the University of Calgary (Alta.), noted that the inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) community has dealt with tremendous anxiety during the pandemic because many are immunocompromised because of the medications they use to treat their disease.

“For example, many patients with IBD are on biologics like anti-TNF [tumor necrosis factor] therapies, which are also used in other immune-mediated inflammatory diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis,” he said. “Understandably, individuals with IBD on immunosuppressive medications are concerned about the risk of severe complications due to COVID-19.”

The entire IBD community, along with the world, celebrated the announcement that multiple vaccines are protective against SARS-CoV-2, he noted. “Vaccines offer the potential to reduce the spread of COVID-19, allowing society to revert back to normalcy,” Dr. Kaplan said. “Moreover, for vulnerable populations, including those who are immunocompromised, vaccines offer the potential to directly protect them from the morbidity and mortality associated with COVID-19.”

That said, even though the news of vaccines are extremely promising, some cautions must be raised regarding their use in immunocompromised populations, such as persons with IBD. “The current trials, to my knowledge, did not include immunocompromised individuals and thus, we can only extrapolate from what we know from other trials of different vaccines,” he explained. “We know from prior vaccines studies that the immune response following vaccination is less robust in those who are immunocompromised as compared to a healthy control population.”

Dr. Kaplan also pointed to recent reports of allergic reactions that have been reported in healthy individuals. “We don’t know whether side effects, like allergic reactions, may be different in unstudied populations,” he said. “Thus, the medical and scientific community should prioritize clinical studies of safety and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines in immunocompromised populations.”

So, what does this mean for an individual with an immune-mediated inflammatory disease like Crohn’s disease or ulcerative colitis who is immunocompromised? Dr. Kaplan explained that it is a balance between the potential harm of being infected with COVID-19 and the uncertainty of receiving a vaccine in an understudied population. For those who are highly susceptible to dying from COVID-19, such as an older adult with IBD, or someone who faces high exposure, such as a health care worker, the potential protection of the vaccine greatly outweighs the uncertainty.

“However, for individuals who are at otherwise lower risk – for example, young and able to work from home – then waiting a few extra months for postmarketing surveillance studies in immunocompromised populations may be a reasonable approach, as long as these individuals are taking great care to avoid infection,” he said.
 

No waiting needed

Joel M. Gelfand, MD, MSCE, professor of dermatology and epidemiology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, feels that the newly approved vaccine should be safe for most of his patients.

“Patients with psoriatic disease should get the mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccine as soon as possible based on eligibility as determined by the CDC and local public health officials,” he said. “It is not a live vaccine, and therefore patients on biologics or other immune-modulating or immune-suppressing treatment can receive it.”

However, the impact of psoriasis treatment on immune response to the mRNA-based vaccines is not known. Dr. Gelfand noted that, extrapolating from the vaccine literature, there is some evidence that methotrexate reduces response to the influenza vaccine. “However, the clinical significance of this finding is not clear,” he said. “Since the mRNA vaccine needs to be taken twice, a few weeks apart, I do not recommend interrupting or delaying treatment for psoriatic disease while undergoing vaccination for COVID-19.”

Given the reports of allergic reactions, he added that it is advisable for patients with a history of life-threatening allergic reactions such as anaphylaxis or who have been advised to carry an epinephrine autoinjector, to talk with their health care provider to determine if COVID-19 vaccination is medically appropriate.

The National Psoriasis Foundation has issued guidance on COVID-19, explained Steven R. Feldman, MD, PhD, professor of dermatology, pathology, and social sciences & health policy at Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C., who is also a member of the committee that is working on those guidelines and keeping them up to date. “We are in the process of updating the guidelines with information on COVID vaccines,” he said.

He agreed that there are no contraindications for psoriasis patients to receive the vaccine, regardless of whether they are on immunosuppressive treatment, even though definitive data are lacking. “Fortunately, there’s a lot of good data coming out of Italy that patients with psoriasis on biologics do not appear to be at increased risk of getting COVID or of having worse outcomes from COVID,” he said.

Patients are going to ask about the vaccines, and when counseling them, clinicians should discuss the available data, the residual uncertainty, and patients’ concerns should be considered, Dr. Feldman explained. “There may be some concern that steroids and cyclosporine would reduce the effectiveness of vaccines, but there is no concern that any of the drugs would cause increased risk from nonlive vaccines.”

He added that there is evidence that “patients on biologics who receive nonlive vaccines do develop antibody responses and are immunized.”


 

Boosting efficacy

Even prior to making their announcement, the American College of Rheumatology had said that they would endorse the vaccine for all patients, explained rheumatologist Brett Smith, DO, from Blount Memorial Physicians Group and East Tennessee Children’s Hospital, Alcoa. “The vaccine is safe for all patients, but the problem may be that it’s not as effective,” he said. “But we don’t know that because it hasn’t been tested.”

With other vaccines, biologic medicines are held for 2 weeks before and afterwards, to get the best response. “But some patients don’t want to stop the medication,” Dr. Smith said. “They are afraid that their symptoms will return.”

As for counseling patients as to whether they should receive this vaccine, he explained that he typically doesn’t try to sway patients one way or another until they are really high risk. “When I counsel, it really depends on the individual situation. And for this vaccine, we have to be open to the fact that many people have already made up their mind.”

There are a lot of questions regarding the vaccine. One is the short time frame of development. “Vaccines typically take 6-10 years to come on the market, and this one is now available after a 3-month study,” Dr. Smith said. “Some have already decided that it’s too new for them.”

The process is also new, and patients need to understand that it doesn’t contain an active virus and “you can’t catch coronavirus from it.”

Dr. Smith also explained that, because the vaccine may be less effective in a person using biologic therapies, there is currently no information available on repeat vaccination. “These are all unanswered questions,” he said. “If the antibodies wane in a short time, can we be revaccinated and in what time frame? We just don’t know that yet.”

Marcelo Bonomi, MD, a medical oncologist from The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbus, explained that one way to ensure a more optimal response to the vaccine would be to wait until the patient has finished chemotherapy.* “The vaccine can be offered at that time, and in the meantime, they can take other steps to avoid infection,” he said. “If they are very immunosuppressed, it isn’t worth trying to give the vaccine.”

Cancer patients should be encouraged to stay as healthy as possible, and to wear masks and social distance. “It’s a comprehensive approach. Eat healthy, avoid alcohol and tobacco, and exercise. [These things] will help boost the immune system,” Dr. Bonomi said. “Family members should be encouraged to get vaccinated, which will help them avoid infection and exposing the patient.”

Jim Boonyaratanakornkit, MD, PhD, an infectious disease specialist who cares for cancer patients at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, agreed. “Giving a vaccine right after a transplant is a futile endeavor,” he said. “We need to wait 6 months to have an immune response.”

He pointed out there may be a continuing higher number of cases, with high levels peaking in Washington in February and March. “Close friends and family should be vaccinated if possible,” he said, “which will help interrupt transmission.”

The vaccines are using new platforms that are totally different, and there is no clear data as to how long the antibodies will persist. “We know that they last for at least 4 months,” said Dr. Boonyaratanakornkit. “We don’t know what level of antibody will protect them from COVID-19 infection. Current studies are being conducted, but we don’t have that information for anyone yet.”
 

*Correction, 1/7/21: An earlier version of this article misattributed quotes from Dr. Marcelo Bonomi.

Coronavirus vaccines have become a reality, as they are now being approved and authorized for use in a growing number of countries including the United States. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has just issued emergency authorization for the use of the COVID-19 vaccine produced by Pfizer and BioNTech. Close behind is the vaccine developed by Moderna, which has also applied to the FDA for emergency authorization.

scyther5/thinkstock

The efficacy of a two-dose administration of the vaccine has been pegged at 95.0%, and the FDA has said that the 95% credible interval for the vaccine efficacy was 90.3%-97.6%. But as with many initial clinical trials, whether for drugs or vaccines, not all populations were represented in the trial cohort, including individuals who are immunocompromised. At the current time, it is largely unknown how safe or effective the vaccine may be in this large population, many of whom are at high risk for serious COVID-19 complications.

At a special session held during the recent annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology, Anthony Fauci, MD, the nation’s leading infectious disease expert, said that individuals with compromised immune systems, whether because of chemotherapy or a bone marrow transplant, should plan to be vaccinated when the opportunity arises.

In response to a question from ASH President Stephanie J. Lee, MD, of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Seattle, Dr. Fauci emphasized that, despite being excluded from clinical trials, this population should get vaccinated. “I think we should recommend that they get vaccinated,” he said. “I mean, it is clear that, if you are on immunosuppressive agents, history tells us that you’re not going to have as robust a response as if you had an intact immune system that was not being compromised. But some degree of immunity is better than no degree of immunity.”

That does seem to be the consensus among experts who spoke in interviews: that as long as these are not live attenuated vaccines, they hold no specific risk to an immunocompromised patient, other than any factors specific to the individual that could be a contraindication.

“Patients, family members, friends, and work contacts should be encouraged to receive the vaccine,” said William Stohl, MD, PhD, chief of the division of rheumatology at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles. “Clinicians should advise patients to obtain the vaccine sooner rather than later.”
 

Kevin C. Wang, MD, PhD, of the department of dermatology at Stanford (Calif.) University, agreed. “I am 100% with Dr. Fauci. Everyone should get the vaccine, even if it may not be as effective,” he said. “I would treat it exactly like the flu vaccines that we recommend folks get every year.”

Dr. Wang noted that he couldn’t think of any contraindications unless the immunosuppressed patients have a history of severe allergic reactions to prior vaccinations. “But I would even say patients with history of cancer, upon recommendation of their oncologists, are likely to be suitable candidates for the vaccine,” he added. “I would say clinicians should approach counseling the same way they counsel patients for the flu vaccine, and as far as I know, there are no concerns for systemic drugs commonly used in dermatology patients.”

However, guidance has not yet been issued from either the FDA or the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention regarding the use of the vaccine in immunocompromised individuals. Given the lack of data, the FDA has said that “it will be something that providers will need to consider on an individual basis,” and that individuals should consult with physicians to weigh the potential benefits and potential risks.

The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices has said that clinicians need more guidance on whether to use the vaccine in pregnant or breastfeeding women, the immunocompromised, or those who have a history of allergies. The CDC itself has not yet released its formal guidance on vaccine use.


 

COVID-19 vaccines

Vaccines typically require years of research and testing before reaching the clinic, but this year researchers embarked on a global effort to develop safe and effective coronavirus vaccines in record time. Both the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna vaccines have only a few months of phase 3 clinical trial data, so much remains unknown about them, including their duration of effect and any long-term safety signals. In addition to excluding immunocompromised individuals, the clinical trials did not include children or pregnant women, so data are lacking for several population subgroups.

But these will not be the only vaccines available, as the pipeline is already becoming crowded. U.S. clinical trial data from a vaccine jointly being developed by Oxford-AstraZeneca, could potentially be ready, along with a request for FDA emergency use authorization, by late January 2021.

In addition, China and Russia have released vaccines, and there are currently 61 vaccines being investigated in clinical trials and at least 85 preclinical products under active investigation.

The vaccine candidates are using both conventional and novel mechanisms of action to elicit an immune response in patients. Conventional methods include attenuated inactivated (killed) virus and recombinant viral protein vaccines to develop immunity. Novel approaches include replication-deficient, adenovirus vector-based vaccines that contain the viral protein, and mRNA-based vaccines, such as the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, that encode for a SARS-CoV-2 spike protein.

“The special vaccine concern for immunocompromised individuals is introduction of a live virus,” Dr. Stohl said. “Neither the Moderna nor Pfizer vaccines are live viruses, so there should be no special contraindication for such individuals.”

Live vaccine should be avoided in immunocompromised patients, and currently, live SARS-CoV-2 vaccines are only being developed in India and Turkey.

It is not unusual for vaccine trials to begin with cohorts that exclude participants with various health conditions, including those who are immunocompromised. These groups are generally then evaluated in phase 4 trials, or postmarketing surveillance. While the precise number of immunosuppressed adults in the United States is not known, the numbers are believed to be rising because of increased life expectancy among immunosuppressed adults as a result of advances in treatment and new and wider indications for therapies that can affect the immune system.

According to data from the 2013 National Health Interview Survey, an estimated 2.7% of U.S. adults are immunosuppressed. This population covers a broad array of health conditions and medical specialties; people living with inflammatory or autoimmune conditions, such as inflammatory rheumatic diseases (rheumatoid arthritis, axial spondyloarthritis, lupus); inflammatory bowel disease (Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis); psoriasis; multiple sclerosis; organ transplant recipients; patients undergoing chemotherapy; and life-long immunosuppression attributable to HIV infection.

As the vaccines begin to roll out and become available, how should clinicians advise their patients, in the absence of any clinical trial data?


 

Risk vs. benefit

Gilaad Kaplan, MD, MPH, a gastroenterologist and professor of medicine at the University of Calgary (Alta.), noted that the inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) community has dealt with tremendous anxiety during the pandemic because many are immunocompromised because of the medications they use to treat their disease.

“For example, many patients with IBD are on biologics like anti-TNF [tumor necrosis factor] therapies, which are also used in other immune-mediated inflammatory diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis,” he said. “Understandably, individuals with IBD on immunosuppressive medications are concerned about the risk of severe complications due to COVID-19.”

The entire IBD community, along with the world, celebrated the announcement that multiple vaccines are protective against SARS-CoV-2, he noted. “Vaccines offer the potential to reduce the spread of COVID-19, allowing society to revert back to normalcy,” Dr. Kaplan said. “Moreover, for vulnerable populations, including those who are immunocompromised, vaccines offer the potential to directly protect them from the morbidity and mortality associated with COVID-19.”

That said, even though the news of vaccines are extremely promising, some cautions must be raised regarding their use in immunocompromised populations, such as persons with IBD. “The current trials, to my knowledge, did not include immunocompromised individuals and thus, we can only extrapolate from what we know from other trials of different vaccines,” he explained. “We know from prior vaccines studies that the immune response following vaccination is less robust in those who are immunocompromised as compared to a healthy control population.”

Dr. Kaplan also pointed to recent reports of allergic reactions that have been reported in healthy individuals. “We don’t know whether side effects, like allergic reactions, may be different in unstudied populations,” he said. “Thus, the medical and scientific community should prioritize clinical studies of safety and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines in immunocompromised populations.”

So, what does this mean for an individual with an immune-mediated inflammatory disease like Crohn’s disease or ulcerative colitis who is immunocompromised? Dr. Kaplan explained that it is a balance between the potential harm of being infected with COVID-19 and the uncertainty of receiving a vaccine in an understudied population. For those who are highly susceptible to dying from COVID-19, such as an older adult with IBD, or someone who faces high exposure, such as a health care worker, the potential protection of the vaccine greatly outweighs the uncertainty.

“However, for individuals who are at otherwise lower risk – for example, young and able to work from home – then waiting a few extra months for postmarketing surveillance studies in immunocompromised populations may be a reasonable approach, as long as these individuals are taking great care to avoid infection,” he said.
 

No waiting needed

Joel M. Gelfand, MD, MSCE, professor of dermatology and epidemiology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, feels that the newly approved vaccine should be safe for most of his patients.

“Patients with psoriatic disease should get the mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccine as soon as possible based on eligibility as determined by the CDC and local public health officials,” he said. “It is not a live vaccine, and therefore patients on biologics or other immune-modulating or immune-suppressing treatment can receive it.”

However, the impact of psoriasis treatment on immune response to the mRNA-based vaccines is not known. Dr. Gelfand noted that, extrapolating from the vaccine literature, there is some evidence that methotrexate reduces response to the influenza vaccine. “However, the clinical significance of this finding is not clear,” he said. “Since the mRNA vaccine needs to be taken twice, a few weeks apart, I do not recommend interrupting or delaying treatment for psoriatic disease while undergoing vaccination for COVID-19.”

Given the reports of allergic reactions, he added that it is advisable for patients with a history of life-threatening allergic reactions such as anaphylaxis or who have been advised to carry an epinephrine autoinjector, to talk with their health care provider to determine if COVID-19 vaccination is medically appropriate.

The National Psoriasis Foundation has issued guidance on COVID-19, explained Steven R. Feldman, MD, PhD, professor of dermatology, pathology, and social sciences & health policy at Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C., who is also a member of the committee that is working on those guidelines and keeping them up to date. “We are in the process of updating the guidelines with information on COVID vaccines,” he said.

He agreed that there are no contraindications for psoriasis patients to receive the vaccine, regardless of whether they are on immunosuppressive treatment, even though definitive data are lacking. “Fortunately, there’s a lot of good data coming out of Italy that patients with psoriasis on biologics do not appear to be at increased risk of getting COVID or of having worse outcomes from COVID,” he said.

Patients are going to ask about the vaccines, and when counseling them, clinicians should discuss the available data, the residual uncertainty, and patients’ concerns should be considered, Dr. Feldman explained. “There may be some concern that steroids and cyclosporine would reduce the effectiveness of vaccines, but there is no concern that any of the drugs would cause increased risk from nonlive vaccines.”

He added that there is evidence that “patients on biologics who receive nonlive vaccines do develop antibody responses and are immunized.”


 

Boosting efficacy

Even prior to making their announcement, the American College of Rheumatology had said that they would endorse the vaccine for all patients, explained rheumatologist Brett Smith, DO, from Blount Memorial Physicians Group and East Tennessee Children’s Hospital, Alcoa. “The vaccine is safe for all patients, but the problem may be that it’s not as effective,” he said. “But we don’t know that because it hasn’t been tested.”

With other vaccines, biologic medicines are held for 2 weeks before and afterwards, to get the best response. “But some patients don’t want to stop the medication,” Dr. Smith said. “They are afraid that their symptoms will return.”

As for counseling patients as to whether they should receive this vaccine, he explained that he typically doesn’t try to sway patients one way or another until they are really high risk. “When I counsel, it really depends on the individual situation. And for this vaccine, we have to be open to the fact that many people have already made up their mind.”

There are a lot of questions regarding the vaccine. One is the short time frame of development. “Vaccines typically take 6-10 years to come on the market, and this one is now available after a 3-month study,” Dr. Smith said. “Some have already decided that it’s too new for them.”

The process is also new, and patients need to understand that it doesn’t contain an active virus and “you can’t catch coronavirus from it.”

Dr. Smith also explained that, because the vaccine may be less effective in a person using biologic therapies, there is currently no information available on repeat vaccination. “These are all unanswered questions,” he said. “If the antibodies wane in a short time, can we be revaccinated and in what time frame? We just don’t know that yet.”

Marcelo Bonomi, MD, a medical oncologist from The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbus, explained that one way to ensure a more optimal response to the vaccine would be to wait until the patient has finished chemotherapy.* “The vaccine can be offered at that time, and in the meantime, they can take other steps to avoid infection,” he said. “If they are very immunosuppressed, it isn’t worth trying to give the vaccine.”

Cancer patients should be encouraged to stay as healthy as possible, and to wear masks and social distance. “It’s a comprehensive approach. Eat healthy, avoid alcohol and tobacco, and exercise. [These things] will help boost the immune system,” Dr. Bonomi said. “Family members should be encouraged to get vaccinated, which will help them avoid infection and exposing the patient.”

Jim Boonyaratanakornkit, MD, PhD, an infectious disease specialist who cares for cancer patients at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, agreed. “Giving a vaccine right after a transplant is a futile endeavor,” he said. “We need to wait 6 months to have an immune response.”

He pointed out there may be a continuing higher number of cases, with high levels peaking in Washington in February and March. “Close friends and family should be vaccinated if possible,” he said, “which will help interrupt transmission.”

The vaccines are using new platforms that are totally different, and there is no clear data as to how long the antibodies will persist. “We know that they last for at least 4 months,” said Dr. Boonyaratanakornkit. “We don’t know what level of antibody will protect them from COVID-19 infection. Current studies are being conducted, but we don’t have that information for anyone yet.”
 

*Correction, 1/7/21: An earlier version of this article misattributed quotes from Dr. Marcelo Bonomi.

Black race is the most important risk factor for patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and is associated with poor survival, according to new findings.

Among patients with AML younger than 60 years, the rate of overall 3-year survival was significantly less among Black patients than White patients (34% vs. 43%). The risk for death was 27% higher for Black patients compared with White patients.

“Our study demonstrates the delicate interplay between a variety of factors that influence survival disparities, particularly for younger Black AML patients,” said first author Bhavana Bhatnagar, DO, of the Ohio State University’s Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbus. “We were able to confirm the impact of socioeconomic factors while also demonstrating that being Black is, in and of itself, an independent poor prognostic variable for survival.”

She noted that the persistently poor outcomes of young Black patients that were seen despite similar treatments in clinical trials strongly suggest that additional factors have a bearing on their survival.

The findings of the study were presented during the plenary session of the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology, which was held online this year. The study was simultaneously published in Cancer Discovery.

Racial disparities in cancer outcomes remain a challenge. The term “health disparities” describes the differences of health outcomes among different groups, said Chancellor Donald, MD, of Tulane University, New Orleans, who introduced the article at the meeting. “Racial health disparities usually result from an unequal distribution of power and resources, not genetics.

“The examination of health disparities is certainly a worthwhile endeavor,” he continued. “For generations, differences in key health outcomes have negatively impacted the quality of life and shortened the life span of countless individuals. As scientists, clinicians, and invested members of our shared society, we are obligated to obtain a profound understanding of the mechanisms and impact of this morbid reality.”
 

Black race a risk factor

For their study, Dr. Bhatnagar and colleagues conducted a nationwide population analysis using data from the Surveillance Epidemiology End Results (SEER) Program of the National Cancer Institute to identify 11,190 adults aged 18-60 years who were diagnosed with AML between 1986 and 2015.

To characterize molecular features, they conducted targeted sequencing of 81 genes in 1,339 patients with AML who were treated on frontline Cancer and Leukemia Group B/Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology (Alliance) protocols based on standard-intensity cytarabine/anthracycline induction followed by consolidation between 1986 and 2016. None of these patients received an allogeneic stem cell transplant when they achieved complete remission.

Although overall survival has improved during the past 3 decades, survival disparities between Black and White patients has widened over time (P < .001). The authors found a nonstatistically significant difference in survival between 1986 and 1995 (White patients, n = 1,365; Black patients, n = 160; P = .19). However, the difference was significant between 1996 and 2005 (White patients, n = 2,994; Black patients, n = 480; P = .004). “And it became even more noticeable in the most recent decade,” said Dr. Bhatnagar. “Furthermore, younger Black AML patients were found to have worse survival compared with younger White AML patients.”

Results from the second analysis of patients treated on Alliance protocols did not show any significant differences in early death rates (10% vs. 46%; P = .02) and complete remission rates (71% vs. 71%; P = 1.00). “While relapse rates were slightly higher in Black compared to White patients, this difference did not reach statistical significance,” said Dr. Bhatnagar. “There was also no significant difference in the number of cycles of consolidation chemotherapy administered to these patients.”

However, both disease-free and overall survival were significantly worse for Black patients, suggesting that factors other than treatment selection were likely at play in influencing the survival disparity. The median disease-free survival for Black patients was 0.8 years, vs. 1.4 years for White patients (P = .02). Overall survival was 1.2 years vs. 1.8 years (P = .02).

Relapse rates were slightly higher in Black patients than in White patients, at 71% vs. 59%, but this difference did not reach statistical significance (P = .14).
 

Differences in biomarkers

With regard to underlying molecular differences between Black and White patients, the investigators found that the most common mutations were in NPM1, FLT3-ITD, and DNM3TA. Mutations were detected in more than 20% of Black patients. Other commonly mutated genes were IDH2, NRAS, TET2, IDH1, and TP53, which were mutated in more than 10% of patients. “All of these genes are established commonly mutated genes in AML,” said Bhatnagar.

On univariable and multivariable outcome analyses, which were used to identify clinical or molecular features that had a bearing on outcome, FLT3-ITD and IDH2 mutations were the only mutations associated with a higher risk for death among Black patients.

“This is actually a very important finding, as both FLT3 and IDH2 are now targetable with small-molecule inhibitors,” said Dr. Bhatnagar. “In addition, it is also worth noting that other gene mutations that have known prognostic significance in AML, such as NPM1, as well as RUNX1 and TP53, did not remain in the final statistical model.

“Importantly, our study provides powerful evidence that suggests differences in underlying disease biology between young Black and White AML patients, as evidenced by differences in the frequencies of recurrent gene mutations, “ she said.
 

Understudied disparities

Although the study showed that Black patients had worse outcomes, “surprisingly, the authors found these outcomes hold even when the patients are participating in clinical trials,” noted Elisa Weiss, PhD, senior vice president of education, services, and health research for the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society.

“The study makes clear that the medical and science community need to do more to better understand the social, economic, environmental, and biological causes of these disparities,” she said in an interview. “In fact, the findings suggest that there are myriad complex and understudied causes of the identified disparities, and they are likely to lie at the intersection of all levels of the social ecology that impact an individual’s ability to access timely and unbiased care, maintain their mental and physical health, and receive needed social support and resources.”

She noted that the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society has an Equity in Access research program that aims to “advance study of underlying causes of inequitable access to care and identify policies, strategies, and interventions that have the potential to reduce inequities and increase access to health care, services, and programs for blood cancer patients and survivors.”

The research was supported in part by the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health, other institutions, and through several scholar awards. Dr. Bhatnagar has received advisory board honoraria from Novartis, Kite Pharma, Celgene, Astellas, and Cell Therapeutics. Dr. Weiss has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Black race is the most important risk factor for patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and is associated with poor survival, according to new findings.

Among patients with AML younger than 60 years, the rate of overall 3-year survival was significantly less among Black patients than White patients (34% vs. 43%). The risk for death was 27% higher for Black patients compared with White patients.

“Our study demonstrates the delicate interplay between a variety of factors that influence survival disparities, particularly for younger Black AML patients,” said first author Bhavana Bhatnagar, DO, of the Ohio State University’s Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbus. “We were able to confirm the impact of socioeconomic factors while also demonstrating that being Black is, in and of itself, an independent poor prognostic variable for survival.”

She noted that the persistently poor outcomes of young Black patients that were seen despite similar treatments in clinical trials strongly suggest that additional factors have a bearing on their survival.

The findings of the study were presented during the plenary session of the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology, which was held online this year. The study was simultaneously published in Cancer Discovery.

Racial disparities in cancer outcomes remain a challenge. The term “health disparities” describes the differences of health outcomes among different groups, said Chancellor Donald, MD, of Tulane University, New Orleans, who introduced the article at the meeting. “Racial health disparities usually result from an unequal distribution of power and resources, not genetics.

“The examination of health disparities is certainly a worthwhile endeavor,” he continued. “For generations, differences in key health outcomes have negatively impacted the quality of life and shortened the life span of countless individuals. As scientists, clinicians, and invested members of our shared society, we are obligated to obtain a profound understanding of the mechanisms and impact of this morbid reality.”
 

Black race a risk factor

For their study, Dr. Bhatnagar and colleagues conducted a nationwide population analysis using data from the Surveillance Epidemiology End Results (SEER) Program of the National Cancer Institute to identify 11,190 adults aged 18-60 years who were diagnosed with AML between 1986 and 2015.

To characterize molecular features, they conducted targeted sequencing of 81 genes in 1,339 patients with AML who were treated on frontline Cancer and Leukemia Group B/Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology (Alliance) protocols based on standard-intensity cytarabine/anthracycline induction followed by consolidation between 1986 and 2016. None of these patients received an allogeneic stem cell transplant when they achieved complete remission.

Although overall survival has improved during the past 3 decades, survival disparities between Black and White patients has widened over time (P < .001). The authors found a nonstatistically significant difference in survival between 1986 and 1995 (White patients, n = 1,365; Black patients, n = 160; P = .19). However, the difference was significant between 1996 and 2005 (White patients, n = 2,994; Black patients, n = 480; P = .004). “And it became even more noticeable in the most recent decade,” said Dr. Bhatnagar. “Furthermore, younger Black AML patients were found to have worse survival compared with younger White AML patients.”

Results from the second analysis of patients treated on Alliance protocols did not show any significant differences in early death rates (10% vs. 46%; P = .02) and complete remission rates (71% vs. 71%; P = 1.00). “While relapse rates were slightly higher in Black compared to White patients, this difference did not reach statistical significance,” said Dr. Bhatnagar. “There was also no significant difference in the number of cycles of consolidation chemotherapy administered to these patients.”

However, both disease-free and overall survival were significantly worse for Black patients, suggesting that factors other than treatment selection were likely at play in influencing the survival disparity. The median disease-free survival for Black patients was 0.8 years, vs. 1.4 years for White patients (P = .02). Overall survival was 1.2 years vs. 1.8 years (P = .02).

Relapse rates were slightly higher in Black patients than in White patients, at 71% vs. 59%, but this difference did not reach statistical significance (P = .14).
 

Differences in biomarkers

With regard to underlying molecular differences between Black and White patients, the investigators found that the most common mutations were in NPM1, FLT3-ITD, and DNM3TA. Mutations were detected in more than 20% of Black patients. Other commonly mutated genes were IDH2, NRAS, TET2, IDH1, and TP53, which were mutated in more than 10% of patients. “All of these genes are established commonly mutated genes in AML,” said Bhatnagar.

On univariable and multivariable outcome analyses, which were used to identify clinical or molecular features that had a bearing on outcome, FLT3-ITD and IDH2 mutations were the only mutations associated with a higher risk for death among Black patients.

“This is actually a very important finding, as both FLT3 and IDH2 are now targetable with small-molecule inhibitors,” said Dr. Bhatnagar. “In addition, it is also worth noting that other gene mutations that have known prognostic significance in AML, such as NPM1, as well as RUNX1 and TP53, did not remain in the final statistical model.

“Importantly, our study provides powerful evidence that suggests differences in underlying disease biology between young Black and White AML patients, as evidenced by differences in the frequencies of recurrent gene mutations, “ she said.
 

Understudied disparities

Although the study showed that Black patients had worse outcomes, “surprisingly, the authors found these outcomes hold even when the patients are participating in clinical trials,” noted Elisa Weiss, PhD, senior vice president of education, services, and health research for the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society.

“The study makes clear that the medical and science community need to do more to better understand the social, economic, environmental, and biological causes of these disparities,” she said in an interview. “In fact, the findings suggest that there are myriad complex and understudied causes of the identified disparities, and they are likely to lie at the intersection of all levels of the social ecology that impact an individual’s ability to access timely and unbiased care, maintain their mental and physical health, and receive needed social support and resources.”

She noted that the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society has an Equity in Access research program that aims to “advance study of underlying causes of inequitable access to care and identify policies, strategies, and interventions that have the potential to reduce inequities and increase access to health care, services, and programs for blood cancer patients and survivors.”

The research was supported in part by the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health, other institutions, and through several scholar awards. Dr. Bhatnagar has received advisory board honoraria from Novartis, Kite Pharma, Celgene, Astellas, and Cell Therapeutics. Dr. Weiss has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Black race is the most important risk factor for patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and is associated with poor survival, according to new findings.

Among patients with AML younger than 60 years, the rate of overall 3-year survival was significantly less among Black patients than White patients (34% vs. 43%). The risk for death was 27% higher for Black patients compared with White patients.

“Our study demonstrates the delicate interplay between a variety of factors that influence survival disparities, particularly for younger Black AML patients,” said first author Bhavana Bhatnagar, DO, of the Ohio State University’s Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbus. “We were able to confirm the impact of socioeconomic factors while also demonstrating that being Black is, in and of itself, an independent poor prognostic variable for survival.”

She noted that the persistently poor outcomes of young Black patients that were seen despite similar treatments in clinical trials strongly suggest that additional factors have a bearing on their survival.

The findings of the study were presented during the plenary session of the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology, which was held online this year. The study was simultaneously published in Cancer Discovery.

Racial disparities in cancer outcomes remain a challenge. The term “health disparities” describes the differences of health outcomes among different groups, said Chancellor Donald, MD, of Tulane University, New Orleans, who introduced the article at the meeting. “Racial health disparities usually result from an unequal distribution of power and resources, not genetics.

“The examination of health disparities is certainly a worthwhile endeavor,” he continued. “For generations, differences in key health outcomes have negatively impacted the quality of life and shortened the life span of countless individuals. As scientists, clinicians, and invested members of our shared society, we are obligated to obtain a profound understanding of the mechanisms and impact of this morbid reality.”
 

Black race a risk factor

For their study, Dr. Bhatnagar and colleagues conducted a nationwide population analysis using data from the Surveillance Epidemiology End Results (SEER) Program of the National Cancer Institute to identify 11,190 adults aged 18-60 years who were diagnosed with AML between 1986 and 2015.

To characterize molecular features, they conducted targeted sequencing of 81 genes in 1,339 patients with AML who were treated on frontline Cancer and Leukemia Group B/Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology (Alliance) protocols based on standard-intensity cytarabine/anthracycline induction followed by consolidation between 1986 and 2016. None of these patients received an allogeneic stem cell transplant when they achieved complete remission.

Although overall survival has improved during the past 3 decades, survival disparities between Black and White patients has widened over time (P < .001). The authors found a nonstatistically significant difference in survival between 1986 and 1995 (White patients, n = 1,365; Black patients, n = 160; P = .19). However, the difference was significant between 1996 and 2005 (White patients, n = 2,994; Black patients, n = 480; P = .004). “And it became even more noticeable in the most recent decade,” said Dr. Bhatnagar. “Furthermore, younger Black AML patients were found to have worse survival compared with younger White AML patients.”

Results from the second analysis of patients treated on Alliance protocols did not show any significant differences in early death rates (10% vs. 46%; P = .02) and complete remission rates (71% vs. 71%; P = 1.00). “While relapse rates were slightly higher in Black compared to White patients, this difference did not reach statistical significance,” said Dr. Bhatnagar. “There was also no significant difference in the number of cycles of consolidation chemotherapy administered to these patients.”

However, both disease-free and overall survival were significantly worse for Black patients, suggesting that factors other than treatment selection were likely at play in influencing the survival disparity. The median disease-free survival for Black patients was 0.8 years, vs. 1.4 years for White patients (P = .02). Overall survival was 1.2 years vs. 1.8 years (P = .02).

Relapse rates were slightly higher in Black patients than in White patients, at 71% vs. 59%, but this difference did not reach statistical significance (P = .14).
 

Differences in biomarkers

With regard to underlying molecular differences between Black and White patients, the investigators found that the most common mutations were in NPM1, FLT3-ITD, and DNM3TA. Mutations were detected in more than 20% of Black patients. Other commonly mutated genes were IDH2, NRAS, TET2, IDH1, and TP53, which were mutated in more than 10% of patients. “All of these genes are established commonly mutated genes in AML,” said Bhatnagar.

On univariable and multivariable outcome analyses, which were used to identify clinical or molecular features that had a bearing on outcome, FLT3-ITD and IDH2 mutations were the only mutations associated with a higher risk for death among Black patients.

“This is actually a very important finding, as both FLT3 and IDH2 are now targetable with small-molecule inhibitors,” said Dr. Bhatnagar. “In addition, it is also worth noting that other gene mutations that have known prognostic significance in AML, such as NPM1, as well as RUNX1 and TP53, did not remain in the final statistical model.

“Importantly, our study provides powerful evidence that suggests differences in underlying disease biology between young Black and White AML patients, as evidenced by differences in the frequencies of recurrent gene mutations, “ she said.
 

Understudied disparities

Although the study showed that Black patients had worse outcomes, “surprisingly, the authors found these outcomes hold even when the patients are participating in clinical trials,” noted Elisa Weiss, PhD, senior vice president of education, services, and health research for the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society.

“The study makes clear that the medical and science community need to do more to better understand the social, economic, environmental, and biological causes of these disparities,” she said in an interview. “In fact, the findings suggest that there are myriad complex and understudied causes of the identified disparities, and they are likely to lie at the intersection of all levels of the social ecology that impact an individual’s ability to access timely and unbiased care, maintain their mental and physical health, and receive needed social support and resources.”

She noted that the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society has an Equity in Access research program that aims to “advance study of underlying causes of inequitable access to care and identify policies, strategies, and interventions that have the potential to reduce inequities and increase access to health care, services, and programs for blood cancer patients and survivors.”

The research was supported in part by the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health, other institutions, and through several scholar awards. Dr. Bhatnagar has received advisory board honoraria from Novartis, Kite Pharma, Celgene, Astellas, and Cell Therapeutics. Dr. Weiss has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Despite being routinely used in clinical settings, prophylactic use of tranexamic acid, an antifibrinolytic agent administered with platelet transfusions, did not reduce bleeding among patients with blood cancers and severe thrombocytopenia, according to a new study.

The study compared tranexamic acid to placebo and found no significant differences in terms of the number of bleeding events, the number of red blood cell transfusions, or the number of platelet transfusions that were required.

However, the rate of occlusions in the central venous line was significantly higher for patients in the tranexamic acid group, although there was no difference between groups for other types of thrombotic events.

The findings were presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology, which was held online.

The study was highlighted as potentially practice changing at a press preview webinar by ASH Secretary Robert Brodsky, MD.

“They found absolutely no difference in bleeding or need for transfusion,” said Brodsky. “What they did find was more catheter-associated blood clots in the tranexamic acid group. This is a practice changer in that it probably should not be given prophylactically to patients with thrombocytopenia.”

Senior author Terry B. Gernsheimer, MD, of the University of Washington, Seattle, noted that tranexamic acid has been found to be effective in the treatment of bleeding related to childbirth, surgery, and inherited blood disorders.

It is also used for patients with blood cancers and severe thrombocytopenia. There is little evidence to support this use, which is why the researchers decided to investigate.

“Clearly patients with low platelet counts and blood cancers have a different kind of bleeding than the bleeding experienced by patients who have suffered some kind of trauma or surgery,” Dr. Gernsheimer said in a statement.

“Their bleeding likely is due to endothelial damage – damage to the lining of blood vessels – that tranexamic acid would not treat,” she added.

“To prevent bleeding in these patients, we may need to look at ways to speed the healing of the endothelium that occurs with chemotherapy, radiation, and graft-vs-host disease in patients receiving a transplant,” Dr. Gernsheimer commented.
 

Temper enthusiasm

“Overall, I think these results will temper enthusiasm for using tranexamic acid in this setting,” said Mitul Gandhi, MD, a medical oncologist with Virginia Cancer Specialists, who was approached for comment.

These data do not support the routine use of prophylactic tranexamic acid in chemotherapy-induced thrombocytopenia for patients with platelet counts lower than 30,000/μL, he added.

“The primary objective was not met, and there was an observed increased rate of catheter-associated thrombosis,” he said. “Continued use of judicious transfusion support and correction of a concomitant coagulopathy remains the main clinical approach to these patients.”

Dr. Gandhi commented that tranexamic acid “remains a potentially useful adjunct agent in certain cases of recalcitrant bleeding related to thrombocytopenia or coagulopathy.

“While there is no uniform scenario, it is typically reserved on a case-by-case basis after addressing vascular defects, utilization of platelet, fresh frozen plasma, cryoprecipitate transfusions, vitamin K repletion, and of course excluding any antiplatelet or anticoagulant therapy,» he told this news organization. “For persistent bleeding in spite of all corrective measures or hemorrhage into noncompressible vascular beds, such as with intracranial bleeds, antifibrinolytic therapy may assist in mitigating further blood loss.”

However, this has to be balanced with the potential increased risk for thrombosis after correction of the hemostatic insult.

At present, tranexamic acid “only has an FDA indication for uterine bleeding, but it is frequently used in trauma settings and obstetrical emergencies,” said Douglas Tremblay, MD, an internist at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, who was also approached for comment.

“There is evidence from prior studies that were done 20 or 30 years ago that it may help in this setting, so it is used in some institutions, although we don’t give it prophylactically for patients with a hematologic malignancy.”

Although this was a negative study, Dr. Tremblay pointed out that one thing that may come out of it is that there may be subgroups who can benefit from the prophylactic use of tranexamic acid. “There is very wide inclusion criteria for the study – any type of hematologic malignancy in patients undergoing chemotherapy or stem cell transplant,” he said in an interview. “Even among chemotherapy and transplant patients, there are different risks for bleeding.”

For example, patients undergoing induction chemotherapy for acute myeloid leukemia are at an increased risk of bleeding in comparison with patients with other hematologic malignancies, and those undergoing allogeneic transplant are at an increased risk of bleeding in comparison with patients undergoing autologous transplant. “So while its unclear if a subgroup may benefit from this strategy, lumped together, it doesn’t appear it is of any benefit and potentially harmful, in terms of line occlusions,” he said. “While that may seem to be a nuisance, it can delay chemotherapy or supportive infusions, and that can be a big deal.”
 

No evidence of benefit

Dr. Gernsheimer and colleagues conducted the American Trial Using Tranexamic Acid in Thrombocytopenia (A-TREAT), which evaluated the effects of prophylactic tranexamic acid as an adjunct to routine transfusion therapy on bleeding and transfusion requirements.

A total of 330 patients were randomly assigned to receive either tranexamic acid 1,000 mg IV or 1,300 mg or placebo. Randomization was stratified by site and therapy: chemotherapy, allogeneic transplant, or autologous transplant. It was anticipated that all patients had hypoproliferative thrombocytopenia (expected platelet count, 10,000/µL for at least 5 days).

Treatment continued for 30 days or platelet count recovery (>30,000/µL), diagnosis of thrombosis or veno-occlusive disease, recurrent line occlusion, visible hematuria, or physician or patient request.

The primary endpoint of the study was the proportion of patients with bleeding of World Health Organization grade 2 or above over 30 days after beginning therapy. Secondary endpoints included the number of transfusions and the number of days alive without WHO grade 2+ bleeding during the first 30 days post activation of study drug.

The time to first WHO 2+ bleeding was “remarkably similar” between the tranexamic acid groups and the placebo group, said Dr. Gernsheimer.

In the cohort as a whole, 48.8% in the placebo group experienced a grade 2+ bleed vs. 45.4% in the tranexamic group (odds ratio, 0.86).

Similar results were observed across subgroups: allogeneic transplant, 57.3% vs. 58.8% (OR, 0.94); autologous transplant, 19.9% vs. 24.7% ( OR, 0.71); or chemotherapy, 48% vs. 52.1% (OR, 0.84).

There were no significant differences in mean number of transfusions (difference, 0.1; 95% confidence interval, –1.9 to 2) or days alive without grade 2 or higher bleeding (difference, 0.1; 95% CI, –1.4 to 1.5).

“A post hoc analysis of WHO 3+ bleeding showed these events to be rare and without any improvement with tranexamic acid,” she said.

A higher percentage of patients in the tranexamic acid group experienced thrombotic events (19.5% vs. 11%). “But importantly, in both groups, it was primarily due to central line occlusions without an associated thrombus,” said Dr. Gernsheimer. “This was statistically significant.”

Fewer non–catheter related thrombotic events occurred in the tranexamic acid group (3.7% vs. 5.5%), but the difference was not statistically significant.

There was also no significant difference between groups in veno-occlusive disease after 30 days (1.8% vs. 1.2%) or all-cause mortality at 30 days (2.4% vs. 3%) or 100 days (11.5% vs. 11.5%). No deaths associated with thrombosis had occurred in either group at 120 days.

The study was supported by the University of Washington and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Gernsheimer has relationships with Amgen, Cellphire, Dova Pharmaceuticals, Novartis, Principia, Rigel, Sanofi, and Vertex. Dr. Tremblay and Dr. Gandhi have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Despite being routinely used in clinical settings, prophylactic use of tranexamic acid, an antifibrinolytic agent administered with platelet transfusions, did not reduce bleeding among patients with blood cancers and severe thrombocytopenia, according to a new study.

The study compared tranexamic acid to placebo and found no significant differences in terms of the number of bleeding events, the number of red blood cell transfusions, or the number of platelet transfusions that were required.

However, the rate of occlusions in the central venous line was significantly higher for patients in the tranexamic acid group, although there was no difference between groups for other types of thrombotic events.

The findings were presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology, which was held online.

The study was highlighted as potentially practice changing at a press preview webinar by ASH Secretary Robert Brodsky, MD.

“They found absolutely no difference in bleeding or need for transfusion,” said Brodsky. “What they did find was more catheter-associated blood clots in the tranexamic acid group. This is a practice changer in that it probably should not be given prophylactically to patients with thrombocytopenia.”

Senior author Terry B. Gernsheimer, MD, of the University of Washington, Seattle, noted that tranexamic acid has been found to be effective in the treatment of bleeding related to childbirth, surgery, and inherited blood disorders.

It is also used for patients with blood cancers and severe thrombocytopenia. There is little evidence to support this use, which is why the researchers decided to investigate.

“Clearly patients with low platelet counts and blood cancers have a different kind of bleeding than the bleeding experienced by patients who have suffered some kind of trauma or surgery,” Dr. Gernsheimer said in a statement.

“Their bleeding likely is due to endothelial damage – damage to the lining of blood vessels – that tranexamic acid would not treat,” she added.

“To prevent bleeding in these patients, we may need to look at ways to speed the healing of the endothelium that occurs with chemotherapy, radiation, and graft-vs-host disease in patients receiving a transplant,” Dr. Gernsheimer commented.
 

Temper enthusiasm

“Overall, I think these results will temper enthusiasm for using tranexamic acid in this setting,” said Mitul Gandhi, MD, a medical oncologist with Virginia Cancer Specialists, who was approached for comment.

These data do not support the routine use of prophylactic tranexamic acid in chemotherapy-induced thrombocytopenia for patients with platelet counts lower than 30,000/μL, he added.

“The primary objective was not met, and there was an observed increased rate of catheter-associated thrombosis,” he said. “Continued use of judicious transfusion support and correction of a concomitant coagulopathy remains the main clinical approach to these patients.”

Dr. Gandhi commented that tranexamic acid “remains a potentially useful adjunct agent in certain cases of recalcitrant bleeding related to thrombocytopenia or coagulopathy.

“While there is no uniform scenario, it is typically reserved on a case-by-case basis after addressing vascular defects, utilization of platelet, fresh frozen plasma, cryoprecipitate transfusions, vitamin K repletion, and of course excluding any antiplatelet or anticoagulant therapy,» he told this news organization. “For persistent bleeding in spite of all corrective measures or hemorrhage into noncompressible vascular beds, such as with intracranial bleeds, antifibrinolytic therapy may assist in mitigating further blood loss.”

However, this has to be balanced with the potential increased risk for thrombosis after correction of the hemostatic insult.

At present, tranexamic acid “only has an FDA indication for uterine bleeding, but it is frequently used in trauma settings and obstetrical emergencies,” said Douglas Tremblay, MD, an internist at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, who was also approached for comment.

“There is evidence from prior studies that were done 20 or 30 years ago that it may help in this setting, so it is used in some institutions, although we don’t give it prophylactically for patients with a hematologic malignancy.”

Although this was a negative study, Dr. Tremblay pointed out that one thing that may come out of it is that there may be subgroups who can benefit from the prophylactic use of tranexamic acid. “There is very wide inclusion criteria for the study – any type of hematologic malignancy in patients undergoing chemotherapy or stem cell transplant,” he said in an interview. “Even among chemotherapy and transplant patients, there are different risks for bleeding.”

For example, patients undergoing induction chemotherapy for acute myeloid leukemia are at an increased risk of bleeding in comparison with patients with other hematologic malignancies, and those undergoing allogeneic transplant are at an increased risk of bleeding in comparison with patients undergoing autologous transplant. “So while its unclear if a subgroup may benefit from this strategy, lumped together, it doesn’t appear it is of any benefit and potentially harmful, in terms of line occlusions,” he said. “While that may seem to be a nuisance, it can delay chemotherapy or supportive infusions, and that can be a big deal.”
 

No evidence of benefit

Dr. Gernsheimer and colleagues conducted the American Trial Using Tranexamic Acid in Thrombocytopenia (A-TREAT), which evaluated the effects of prophylactic tranexamic acid as an adjunct to routine transfusion therapy on bleeding and transfusion requirements.

A total of 330 patients were randomly assigned to receive either tranexamic acid 1,000 mg IV or 1,300 mg or placebo. Randomization was stratified by site and therapy: chemotherapy, allogeneic transplant, or autologous transplant. It was anticipated that all patients had hypoproliferative thrombocytopenia (expected platelet count, 10,000/µL for at least 5 days).

Treatment continued for 30 days or platelet count recovery (>30,000/µL), diagnosis of thrombosis or veno-occlusive disease, recurrent line occlusion, visible hematuria, or physician or patient request.

The primary endpoint of the study was the proportion of patients with bleeding of World Health Organization grade 2 or above over 30 days after beginning therapy. Secondary endpoints included the number of transfusions and the number of days alive without WHO grade 2+ bleeding during the first 30 days post activation of study drug.

The time to first WHO 2+ bleeding was “remarkably similar” between the tranexamic acid groups and the placebo group, said Dr. Gernsheimer.

In the cohort as a whole, 48.8% in the placebo group experienced a grade 2+ bleed vs. 45.4% in the tranexamic group (odds ratio, 0.86).

Similar results were observed across subgroups: allogeneic transplant, 57.3% vs. 58.8% (OR, 0.94); autologous transplant, 19.9% vs. 24.7% ( OR, 0.71); or chemotherapy, 48% vs. 52.1% (OR, 0.84).

There were no significant differences in mean number of transfusions (difference, 0.1; 95% confidence interval, –1.9 to 2) or days alive without grade 2 or higher bleeding (difference, 0.1; 95% CI, –1.4 to 1.5).

“A post hoc analysis of WHO 3+ bleeding showed these events to be rare and without any improvement with tranexamic acid,” she said.

A higher percentage of patients in the tranexamic acid group experienced thrombotic events (19.5% vs. 11%). “But importantly, in both groups, it was primarily due to central line occlusions without an associated thrombus,” said Dr. Gernsheimer. “This was statistically significant.”

Fewer non–catheter related thrombotic events occurred in the tranexamic acid group (3.7% vs. 5.5%), but the difference was not statistically significant.

There was also no significant difference between groups in veno-occlusive disease after 30 days (1.8% vs. 1.2%) or all-cause mortality at 30 days (2.4% vs. 3%) or 100 days (11.5% vs. 11.5%). No deaths associated with thrombosis had occurred in either group at 120 days.

The study was supported by the University of Washington and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Gernsheimer has relationships with Amgen, Cellphire, Dova Pharmaceuticals, Novartis, Principia, Rigel, Sanofi, and Vertex. Dr. Tremblay and Dr. Gandhi have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Despite being routinely used in clinical settings, prophylactic use of tranexamic acid, an antifibrinolytic agent administered with platelet transfusions, did not reduce bleeding among patients with blood cancers and severe thrombocytopenia, according to a new study.

The study compared tranexamic acid to placebo and found no significant differences in terms of the number of bleeding events, the number of red blood cell transfusions, or the number of platelet transfusions that were required.

However, the rate of occlusions in the central venous line was significantly higher for patients in the tranexamic acid group, although there was no difference between groups for other types of thrombotic events.

The findings were presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology, which was held online.

The study was highlighted as potentially practice changing at a press preview webinar by ASH Secretary Robert Brodsky, MD.

“They found absolutely no difference in bleeding or need for transfusion,” said Brodsky. “What they did find was more catheter-associated blood clots in the tranexamic acid group. This is a practice changer in that it probably should not be given prophylactically to patients with thrombocytopenia.”

Senior author Terry B. Gernsheimer, MD, of the University of Washington, Seattle, noted that tranexamic acid has been found to be effective in the treatment of bleeding related to childbirth, surgery, and inherited blood disorders.

It is also used for patients with blood cancers and severe thrombocytopenia. There is little evidence to support this use, which is why the researchers decided to investigate.

“Clearly patients with low platelet counts and blood cancers have a different kind of bleeding than the bleeding experienced by patients who have suffered some kind of trauma or surgery,” Dr. Gernsheimer said in a statement.

“Their bleeding likely is due to endothelial damage – damage to the lining of blood vessels – that tranexamic acid would not treat,” she added.

“To prevent bleeding in these patients, we may need to look at ways to speed the healing of the endothelium that occurs with chemotherapy, radiation, and graft-vs-host disease in patients receiving a transplant,” Dr. Gernsheimer commented.
 

Temper enthusiasm

“Overall, I think these results will temper enthusiasm for using tranexamic acid in this setting,” said Mitul Gandhi, MD, a medical oncologist with Virginia Cancer Specialists, who was approached for comment.

These data do not support the routine use of prophylactic tranexamic acid in chemotherapy-induced thrombocytopenia for patients with platelet counts lower than 30,000/μL, he added.

“The primary objective was not met, and there was an observed increased rate of catheter-associated thrombosis,” he said. “Continued use of judicious transfusion support and correction of a concomitant coagulopathy remains the main clinical approach to these patients.”

Dr. Gandhi commented that tranexamic acid “remains a potentially useful adjunct agent in certain cases of recalcitrant bleeding related to thrombocytopenia or coagulopathy.

“While there is no uniform scenario, it is typically reserved on a case-by-case basis after addressing vascular defects, utilization of platelet, fresh frozen plasma, cryoprecipitate transfusions, vitamin K repletion, and of course excluding any antiplatelet or anticoagulant therapy,» he told this news organization. “For persistent bleeding in spite of all corrective measures or hemorrhage into noncompressible vascular beds, such as with intracranial bleeds, antifibrinolytic therapy may assist in mitigating further blood loss.”

However, this has to be balanced with the potential increased risk for thrombosis after correction of the hemostatic insult.

At present, tranexamic acid “only has an FDA indication for uterine bleeding, but it is frequently used in trauma settings and obstetrical emergencies,” said Douglas Tremblay, MD, an internist at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, who was also approached for comment.

“There is evidence from prior studies that were done 20 or 30 years ago that it may help in this setting, so it is used in some institutions, although we don’t give it prophylactically for patients with a hematologic malignancy.”

Although this was a negative study, Dr. Tremblay pointed out that one thing that may come out of it is that there may be subgroups who can benefit from the prophylactic use of tranexamic acid. “There is very wide inclusion criteria for the study – any type of hematologic malignancy in patients undergoing chemotherapy or stem cell transplant,” he said in an interview. “Even among chemotherapy and transplant patients, there are different risks for bleeding.”

For example, patients undergoing induction chemotherapy for acute myeloid leukemia are at an increased risk of bleeding in comparison with patients with other hematologic malignancies, and those undergoing allogeneic transplant are at an increased risk of bleeding in comparison with patients undergoing autologous transplant. “So while its unclear if a subgroup may benefit from this strategy, lumped together, it doesn’t appear it is of any benefit and potentially harmful, in terms of line occlusions,” he said. “While that may seem to be a nuisance, it can delay chemotherapy or supportive infusions, and that can be a big deal.”
 

No evidence of benefit

Dr. Gernsheimer and colleagues conducted the American Trial Using Tranexamic Acid in Thrombocytopenia (A-TREAT), which evaluated the effects of prophylactic tranexamic acid as an adjunct to routine transfusion therapy on bleeding and transfusion requirements.

A total of 330 patients were randomly assigned to receive either tranexamic acid 1,000 mg IV or 1,300 mg or placebo. Randomization was stratified by site and therapy: chemotherapy, allogeneic transplant, or autologous transplant. It was anticipated that all patients had hypoproliferative thrombocytopenia (expected platelet count, 10,000/µL for at least 5 days).

Treatment continued for 30 days or platelet count recovery (>30,000/µL), diagnosis of thrombosis or veno-occlusive disease, recurrent line occlusion, visible hematuria, or physician or patient request.

The primary endpoint of the study was the proportion of patients with bleeding of World Health Organization grade 2 or above over 30 days after beginning therapy. Secondary endpoints included the number of transfusions and the number of days alive without WHO grade 2+ bleeding during the first 30 days post activation of study drug.

The time to first WHO 2+ bleeding was “remarkably similar” between the tranexamic acid groups and the placebo group, said Dr. Gernsheimer.

In the cohort as a whole, 48.8% in the placebo group experienced a grade 2+ bleed vs. 45.4% in the tranexamic group (odds ratio, 0.86).

Similar results were observed across subgroups: allogeneic transplant, 57.3% vs. 58.8% (OR, 0.94); autologous transplant, 19.9% vs. 24.7% ( OR, 0.71); or chemotherapy, 48% vs. 52.1% (OR, 0.84).

There were no significant differences in mean number of transfusions (difference, 0.1; 95% confidence interval, –1.9 to 2) or days alive without grade 2 or higher bleeding (difference, 0.1; 95% CI, –1.4 to 1.5).

“A post hoc analysis of WHO 3+ bleeding showed these events to be rare and without any improvement with tranexamic acid,” she said.

A higher percentage of patients in the tranexamic acid group experienced thrombotic events (19.5% vs. 11%). “But importantly, in both groups, it was primarily due to central line occlusions without an associated thrombus,” said Dr. Gernsheimer. “This was statistically significant.”

Fewer non–catheter related thrombotic events occurred in the tranexamic acid group (3.7% vs. 5.5%), but the difference was not statistically significant.

There was also no significant difference between groups in veno-occlusive disease after 30 days (1.8% vs. 1.2%) or all-cause mortality at 30 days (2.4% vs. 3%) or 100 days (11.5% vs. 11.5%). No deaths associated with thrombosis had occurred in either group at 120 days.

The study was supported by the University of Washington and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Gernsheimer has relationships with Amgen, Cellphire, Dova Pharmaceuticals, Novartis, Principia, Rigel, Sanofi, and Vertex. Dr. Tremblay and Dr. Gandhi have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Frontline pembrolizumab (Keytruda) significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS), compared with chemotherapy among patients with microsatellite instability–high/mismatch repair–deficient (MSI-H/dMMR) metastatic colorectal cancer, according to results from the KEYNOTE-177 study.

At a median follow-up of 32.4 months, PFS was 16.5 months for patients who received pembrolizumab versus 8.2 months for the chemotherapy group.

“In the past, no medical treatment has shown such difference in terms of improvement of PFS in metastatic colorectal cancer,” commented lead author Thierry André, MD, of Hôpital Saint Antoine, Paris, France, when presenting this study earlier this year at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

“I think this is setting a new standard of care,” said Michael J. Overman, MD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, who was the invited discussant at the ASCO meeting. However, he also pointed out that, despite the higher overall response rate (43.8% vs. 33.1% with chemotherapy), the rate of progressive disease was higher in the pembrolizumab arm than in the chemotherapy arm (29.4% vs. 12.3% for patients who received chemotherapy).

The study has now been published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Pembrolizumab is the “preferred choice” for patients with MSI-H/dMMR colorectal cancer because of “the durability of response, better safety profile, and improved quality of life associated with immunotherapy as compared with chemotherapy,” Axel Grothey, MD, GI cancer research, West Cancer Center and Research Institute, Germantown, Tenn., wrote in an accompanying editorial.

He noted that, in colorectal cancer, only 4%-5% of metastatic cancers show the MSI-H/dMMR phenotype; the prevalence is greater in BRAF V600E–mutated cancers, in cancers originating on the right side, and among female patients.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors have already demonstrated “convincing activity” in MSI-H/dMMR colorectal cancers, and pembrolizumab as well as nivolumab (Opdivo), with or without ipilimumab (Yervoy), are approved for use as salvage therapy in colorectal cancer, he noted.

These results for use as a first-line therapy in his patient population have been “long awaited,” he commented.
 

Study details

The KEYNOTE-177 trial included 307 patients with confirmed, untreated MSI-H/dMMR metastatic colorectal cancer who were randomly assigned to receive pembrolizumab 200 mg every 3 weeks for up to 35 cycles (n = 153) or the investigators’ choice of chemotherapy (n = 154). Chemotherapy regimens included modified FOLFOX (5-fluorouracil, leucovorin, oxaliplatin) alone or in combination with either bevacizumab or cetuximab, or FOLFIRI (leucovorin, fluorouracil, irinotecan) alone or in combination with either bevacizumab or cetuximab. Patients in the chemotherapy group could cross over to pembrolizumab therapy after disease progression.

The study’s two primary endpoints were PFS and overall survival.

At the second interim analysis, at a median follow-up (from randomization to data cutoff) of 32.4 months, pembrolizumab proved superior to chemotherapy with regard to PFS (hazard ratio, 0.60; P = .0002).

At 12 months and at 24 months, the estimated percentages of those alive without disease progression were 55.3% and 48.3%, respectively (95% confidence interval, 39.9-56.2) in the pembrolizumab group and 37.3% and 18.6%, respectively, in the chemotherapy group.

The mean PFS after 24 months of follow-up was 13.7 months for patients who received pembrolizumab versus 10.8 months for those who received chemotherapy. PFS was consistently longer with pembrolizumab across key prespecified subgroups. Complete responses were achieved in 11% of patients treated with pembrolizumab and in 4% of those treated with chemotherapy. At 24 months, 83% of patients in the pembrolizumab group had ongoing responses, compared with 35% in the chemotherapy group.

Overall survival data continue to evolve, the authors commented, noting that 56 patients in the pembrolizumab group and 69 in the chemotherapy group have died. The independent data-monitoring committee has recommended that the trial continue without any changes to the final analysis for assessment of overall survival until 190 overall deaths have occurred or until 12 months after the second interim analysis.

Crossover will be a factor when overall survival is assessed, the authors noted. At the time of data cutoff, 56 of 154 patients (36%) who received chemotherapy had crossed over to the pembrolizumab group after their disease had progressed. In addition, 35 patients in the chemotherapy group received anti–programmed death-1 or PD-ligand 1 therapies outside the trial. This extrapolates to a crossover rate of 59% in the intention-to-treat population.

Treatment-related adverse events of grade 3 or higher were more common in the chemotherapy group (66% vs. 22%). Immune-mediated adverse events and infusion reactions were more common with pembrolizumab than with chemotherapy (31% and 13%, respectively). Adverse events that were common with chemotherapy included gastrointestinal events, fatigue, neutropenia, and peripheral sensory neuropathy.
 

Preferred choice

In the accompanying editorial, Dr. Grothey pointed out that the results of this trial “deserve some scrutiny,” because disease progression was higher in the pembrolizumab group. This is mirrored by early poorer performance among patients treated with pembrolizumab versus chemotherapy until about 6.5 months after onset of therapy. After that, the “pembrolizumab group showed protracted improvement – a phenomenon seen in various other trials with PD-1 antibodies in gastrointestinal cancers.

“It appears that a subgroup not yet clearly defined within the MSI-H–dMMR population does not have a response to immune checkpoint inhibitors,” Dr. Grothey wrote.

The study was funded by Merck. Dr. André has received honoraria from Amgen, GlaxoSmithKline, and Pierre Fabre Pharmaceuticals; consulting fees and travel support from Bristol-Myers Squibb; advisory board fees and honoraria from F. Hoffmann–La Roche; advisory board fees from Gritstone Oncology, Halliodx, and Tesaro; grant support, paid to Hôpitaux de Paris; advisory board fees, honoraria, and travel support from Merck Sharp and Dohme; consulting fees and honoraria from Servier; and honoraria and travel support from Ventana Medical Systems. Dr. Grothey has received grants and nonfinancial support from Bayer; grants from Boston Biomedicals; grants from OBI Pharmaceuticals, Array/Pfizer, Natera, Merck, and Bristol-Myers Squibb; and grants and nonfinancial support from Roche/ Genentech outside the submitted work.

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

Frontline pembrolizumab (Keytruda) significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS), compared with chemotherapy among patients with microsatellite instability–high/mismatch repair–deficient (MSI-H/dMMR) metastatic colorectal cancer, according to results from the KEYNOTE-177 study.

At a median follow-up of 32.4 months, PFS was 16.5 months for patients who received pembrolizumab versus 8.2 months for the chemotherapy group.

“In the past, no medical treatment has shown such difference in terms of improvement of PFS in metastatic colorectal cancer,” commented lead author Thierry André, MD, of Hôpital Saint Antoine, Paris, France, when presenting this study earlier this year at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

“I think this is setting a new standard of care,” said Michael J. Overman, MD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, who was the invited discussant at the ASCO meeting. However, he also pointed out that, despite the higher overall response rate (43.8% vs. 33.1% with chemotherapy), the rate of progressive disease was higher in the pembrolizumab arm than in the chemotherapy arm (29.4% vs. 12.3% for patients who received chemotherapy).

The study has now been published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Pembrolizumab is the “preferred choice” for patients with MSI-H/dMMR colorectal cancer because of “the durability of response, better safety profile, and improved quality of life associated with immunotherapy as compared with chemotherapy,” Axel Grothey, MD, GI cancer research, West Cancer Center and Research Institute, Germantown, Tenn., wrote in an accompanying editorial.

He noted that, in colorectal cancer, only 4%-5% of metastatic cancers show the MSI-H/dMMR phenotype; the prevalence is greater in BRAF V600E–mutated cancers, in cancers originating on the right side, and among female patients.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors have already demonstrated “convincing activity” in MSI-H/dMMR colorectal cancers, and pembrolizumab as well as nivolumab (Opdivo), with or without ipilimumab (Yervoy), are approved for use as salvage therapy in colorectal cancer, he noted.

These results for use as a first-line therapy in his patient population have been “long awaited,” he commented.
 

Study details

The KEYNOTE-177 trial included 307 patients with confirmed, untreated MSI-H/dMMR metastatic colorectal cancer who were randomly assigned to receive pembrolizumab 200 mg every 3 weeks for up to 35 cycles (n = 153) or the investigators’ choice of chemotherapy (n = 154). Chemotherapy regimens included modified FOLFOX (5-fluorouracil, leucovorin, oxaliplatin) alone or in combination with either bevacizumab or cetuximab, or FOLFIRI (leucovorin, fluorouracil, irinotecan) alone or in combination with either bevacizumab or cetuximab. Patients in the chemotherapy group could cross over to pembrolizumab therapy after disease progression.

The study’s two primary endpoints were PFS and overall survival.

At the second interim analysis, at a median follow-up (from randomization to data cutoff) of 32.4 months, pembrolizumab proved superior to chemotherapy with regard to PFS (hazard ratio, 0.60; P = .0002).

At 12 months and at 24 months, the estimated percentages of those alive without disease progression were 55.3% and 48.3%, respectively (95% confidence interval, 39.9-56.2) in the pembrolizumab group and 37.3% and 18.6%, respectively, in the chemotherapy group.

The mean PFS after 24 months of follow-up was 13.7 months for patients who received pembrolizumab versus 10.8 months for those who received chemotherapy. PFS was consistently longer with pembrolizumab across key prespecified subgroups. Complete responses were achieved in 11% of patients treated with pembrolizumab and in 4% of those treated with chemotherapy. At 24 months, 83% of patients in the pembrolizumab group had ongoing responses, compared with 35% in the chemotherapy group.

Overall survival data continue to evolve, the authors commented, noting that 56 patients in the pembrolizumab group and 69 in the chemotherapy group have died. The independent data-monitoring committee has recommended that the trial continue without any changes to the final analysis for assessment of overall survival until 190 overall deaths have occurred or until 12 months after the second interim analysis.

Crossover will be a factor when overall survival is assessed, the authors noted. At the time of data cutoff, 56 of 154 patients (36%) who received chemotherapy had crossed over to the pembrolizumab group after their disease had progressed. In addition, 35 patients in the chemotherapy group received anti–programmed death-1 or PD-ligand 1 therapies outside the trial. This extrapolates to a crossover rate of 59% in the intention-to-treat population.

Treatment-related adverse events of grade 3 or higher were more common in the chemotherapy group (66% vs. 22%). Immune-mediated adverse events and infusion reactions were more common with pembrolizumab than with chemotherapy (31% and 13%, respectively). Adverse events that were common with chemotherapy included gastrointestinal events, fatigue, neutropenia, and peripheral sensory neuropathy.
 

Preferred choice

In the accompanying editorial, Dr. Grothey pointed out that the results of this trial “deserve some scrutiny,” because disease progression was higher in the pembrolizumab group. This is mirrored by early poorer performance among patients treated with pembrolizumab versus chemotherapy until about 6.5 months after onset of therapy. After that, the “pembrolizumab group showed protracted improvement – a phenomenon seen in various other trials with PD-1 antibodies in gastrointestinal cancers.

“It appears that a subgroup not yet clearly defined within the MSI-H–dMMR population does not have a response to immune checkpoint inhibitors,” Dr. Grothey wrote.

The study was funded by Merck. Dr. André has received honoraria from Amgen, GlaxoSmithKline, and Pierre Fabre Pharmaceuticals; consulting fees and travel support from Bristol-Myers Squibb; advisory board fees and honoraria from F. Hoffmann–La Roche; advisory board fees from Gritstone Oncology, Halliodx, and Tesaro; grant support, paid to Hôpitaux de Paris; advisory board fees, honoraria, and travel support from Merck Sharp and Dohme; consulting fees and honoraria from Servier; and honoraria and travel support from Ventana Medical Systems. Dr. Grothey has received grants and nonfinancial support from Bayer; grants from Boston Biomedicals; grants from OBI Pharmaceuticals, Array/Pfizer, Natera, Merck, and Bristol-Myers Squibb; and grants and nonfinancial support from Roche/ Genentech outside the submitted work.

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

Frontline pembrolizumab (Keytruda) significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS), compared with chemotherapy among patients with microsatellite instability–high/mismatch repair–deficient (MSI-H/dMMR) metastatic colorectal cancer, according to results from the KEYNOTE-177 study.

At a median follow-up of 32.4 months, PFS was 16.5 months for patients who received pembrolizumab versus 8.2 months for the chemotherapy group.

“In the past, no medical treatment has shown such difference in terms of improvement of PFS in metastatic colorectal cancer,” commented lead author Thierry André, MD, of Hôpital Saint Antoine, Paris, France, when presenting this study earlier this year at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

“I think this is setting a new standard of care,” said Michael J. Overman, MD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, who was the invited discussant at the ASCO meeting. However, he also pointed out that, despite the higher overall response rate (43.8% vs. 33.1% with chemotherapy), the rate of progressive disease was higher in the pembrolizumab arm than in the chemotherapy arm (29.4% vs. 12.3% for patients who received chemotherapy).

The study has now been published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Pembrolizumab is the “preferred choice” for patients with MSI-H/dMMR colorectal cancer because of “the durability of response, better safety profile, and improved quality of life associated with immunotherapy as compared with chemotherapy,” Axel Grothey, MD, GI cancer research, West Cancer Center and Research Institute, Germantown, Tenn., wrote in an accompanying editorial.

He noted that, in colorectal cancer, only 4%-5% of metastatic cancers show the MSI-H/dMMR phenotype; the prevalence is greater in BRAF V600E–mutated cancers, in cancers originating on the right side, and among female patients.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors have already demonstrated “convincing activity” in MSI-H/dMMR colorectal cancers, and pembrolizumab as well as nivolumab (Opdivo), with or without ipilimumab (Yervoy), are approved for use as salvage therapy in colorectal cancer, he noted.

These results for use as a first-line therapy in his patient population have been “long awaited,” he commented.
 

Study details

The KEYNOTE-177 trial included 307 patients with confirmed, untreated MSI-H/dMMR metastatic colorectal cancer who were randomly assigned to receive pembrolizumab 200 mg every 3 weeks for up to 35 cycles (n = 153) or the investigators’ choice of chemotherapy (n = 154). Chemotherapy regimens included modified FOLFOX (5-fluorouracil, leucovorin, oxaliplatin) alone or in combination with either bevacizumab or cetuximab, or FOLFIRI (leucovorin, fluorouracil, irinotecan) alone or in combination with either bevacizumab or cetuximab. Patients in the chemotherapy group could cross over to pembrolizumab therapy after disease progression.

The study’s two primary endpoints were PFS and overall survival.

At the second interim analysis, at a median follow-up (from randomization to data cutoff) of 32.4 months, pembrolizumab proved superior to chemotherapy with regard to PFS (hazard ratio, 0.60; P = .0002).

At 12 months and at 24 months, the estimated percentages of those alive without disease progression were 55.3% and 48.3%, respectively (95% confidence interval, 39.9-56.2) in the pembrolizumab group and 37.3% and 18.6%, respectively, in the chemotherapy group.

The mean PFS after 24 months of follow-up was 13.7 months for patients who received pembrolizumab versus 10.8 months for those who received chemotherapy. PFS was consistently longer with pembrolizumab across key prespecified subgroups. Complete responses were achieved in 11% of patients treated with pembrolizumab and in 4% of those treated with chemotherapy. At 24 months, 83% of patients in the pembrolizumab group had ongoing responses, compared with 35% in the chemotherapy group.

Overall survival data continue to evolve, the authors commented, noting that 56 patients in the pembrolizumab group and 69 in the chemotherapy group have died. The independent data-monitoring committee has recommended that the trial continue without any changes to the final analysis for assessment of overall survival until 190 overall deaths have occurred or until 12 months after the second interim analysis.

Crossover will be a factor when overall survival is assessed, the authors noted. At the time of data cutoff, 56 of 154 patients (36%) who received chemotherapy had crossed over to the pembrolizumab group after their disease had progressed. In addition, 35 patients in the chemotherapy group received anti–programmed death-1 or PD-ligand 1 therapies outside the trial. This extrapolates to a crossover rate of 59% in the intention-to-treat population.

Treatment-related adverse events of grade 3 or higher were more common in the chemotherapy group (66% vs. 22%). Immune-mediated adverse events and infusion reactions were more common with pembrolizumab than with chemotherapy (31% and 13%, respectively). Adverse events that were common with chemotherapy included gastrointestinal events, fatigue, neutropenia, and peripheral sensory neuropathy.
 

Preferred choice

In the accompanying editorial, Dr. Grothey pointed out that the results of this trial “deserve some scrutiny,” because disease progression was higher in the pembrolizumab group. This is mirrored by early poorer performance among patients treated with pembrolizumab versus chemotherapy until about 6.5 months after onset of therapy. After that, the “pembrolizumab group showed protracted improvement – a phenomenon seen in various other trials with PD-1 antibodies in gastrointestinal cancers.

“It appears that a subgroup not yet clearly defined within the MSI-H–dMMR population does not have a response to immune checkpoint inhibitors,” Dr. Grothey wrote.

The study was funded by Merck. Dr. André has received honoraria from Amgen, GlaxoSmithKline, and Pierre Fabre Pharmaceuticals; consulting fees and travel support from Bristol-Myers Squibb; advisory board fees and honoraria from F. Hoffmann–La Roche; advisory board fees from Gritstone Oncology, Halliodx, and Tesaro; grant support, paid to Hôpitaux de Paris; advisory board fees, honoraria, and travel support from Merck Sharp and Dohme; consulting fees and honoraria from Servier; and honoraria and travel support from Ventana Medical Systems. Dr. Grothey has received grants and nonfinancial support from Bayer; grants from Boston Biomedicals; grants from OBI Pharmaceuticals, Array/Pfizer, Natera, Merck, and Bristol-Myers Squibb; and grants and nonfinancial support from Roche/ Genentech outside the submitted work.

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

Instead of flying out to San Diego in California and soaking up a bit of sunshine in between listening to new research presentations, hematologists from around the world will be glued to their computer screens next weekend, tuning into the 62nd American Society of Hematology annual meeting.  

Like many other conferences this year, the ASH meeting will be virtual because of the continuing COVID-19 pandemic, although the dates remain the same: Dec. 5-8.  

This is the premier hematology event of the year, and the largest hematology conference in the world, with around 3,500 abstracts presented this year, commented Aaron T. Gerds, MD, chair of ASH’s Committee on Communications.
 

Ruxolitinib in chronic GvHD

“One of the things that people come to ASH for is to hear about practice-changing clinical trials, and this year is no exception,” said ASH secretary Robert Brodsky, MD.

In a preview webinar, he highlighted four abstracts that offer opportunities to change practice and revamp the current standards of care.

One clinical trial that is “almost certainly a practice changer,” he said, is the REACH 3 study (abstract 77) of the JAK inhibitor ruxolitinib (Jakafi, Incyte) in patients with chronic graft-versus-host disease (GvHD) after a stem cell transplant.

“This has been really hard to treat in patients undergoing allogeneic bone marrow transplants,” said Brodsky. “Steroids are the first-line treatment, but after that, nothing else has shown any improvement, and even steroids don’t work that well.”

There is currently no approved second-line therapy for chronic forms of GvHD, he emphasized. The main endpoint of the trial was overall response rate, which was doubled with ruxolitinib compared to the best available therapy (50% vs 25%).

“This is the first successful phase 3 trial for chronic GvHD,” Brodsky commented.  
 

Transplants for older patients with MDS

Transplant offers the only curative option for myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS), but typically this option is offered to younger patients because benefits for older adults have not been well-defined, Brodsky noted.

New data from a clinical trial conducted in patients with advanced MDS aged 50-75 years (abstract 75) offers the most definitive evidence to date that allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (AHCT) can significantly improve outcomes for older adults.  

It’s clear that transplant is the standard of care in younger patients, Brodsky commented, and although there is a trend of offering it to older patients, some are not getting referred and instead are being offered palliative care. “The thinking is that bone marrow transplant would be too toxic in this age group,” he said. “But what is very clear here is that, in an intent-to-treat analysis, there was a significant survival advantage – 48% versus 27% at 3 years for transplantation – and it was seen across all subgroups.”
 

Subcutaneous daratumumab

New data on a subcutaneous formulation of daratumumab (Darzalex, Janssen), which is usually given by intravenous infusion, will be presented from the APOLLO trial (abstract 412) in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma.

Patients who received subcutaneous daratumumab combined with pomalidomide and dexamethasone had a 37% reduction in disease progression or death compared to those who received pomalidomide and dexamethasone alone.

“From previous years we’ve learned that daratumumab has had a major impact on outcomes in multiple myeloma,” said Brodsky. “The nice thing about the subcutaneous formulation is that it can be administered quickly and in an outpatient setting, which is especially important in the COVID era.”  
 

Negative data with tranexamic acid

The fourth abstract highlighted by Brodsky is a negative study, but its findings can help guide clinical practice, he said. The a-TREAT study (abstract 2) showed that, despite being routinely used in the clinical setting, tranexamic acid does not prevent bleeding when administered prophylactically to severely thrombocytopenic patients undergoing treatment for hematologic malignancies.

“They found absolutely no difference in bleeding or need for transfusion,” said Brodsky. “What they did find was more catheter-associated blood clots in the tranexamic acid group. This is a practice changer in that it probably should not be given prophylactically to patients with thrombocytopenia.”
 

‘Very exciting’ news about gene therapy

Brodsky also highlighted several late-breaking abstract that will be presented at the meeting.

In particular, the first data on a gene therapy for hemophilia B (abstract LBA-6) are “very, very exciting,” he said. The HOPE-B trial showed a 96% response rate among patients with hemophilia B who were treated with etranacogene dezaparvovec, an investigational gene therapy composed of an adeno-associated virus serotype 5 (AAV5) vector containing a codon-optimized Padua variant human factor IX.

Brodsky pointed out that this was a large trial with 54 patients, but importantly, it included patients with pre-existing anti-AAV5 neutralizing antibodies. “About 40% of patients have naturally occurring antibodies to AAV5, and they have been excluded from previous trials because it was thought they wouldn’t take the vector,” said Brodsky. “But only one patient didn’t get a response.”

Following a single dose of etranacogene dezaparvovec, Factor IX activity increased into the mild to normal range without the need for prophylactic immunosuppression. Treated patients were able to discontinue prophylaxis and bleeding was controlled in most of the cohort.

“This is a big advance and we are getting very close to the point where gene therapy is going to be standard of care for some forms of hemophilia,” said Brodsky. However, he added that “we will still need to see more patients and have longer follow-up.”

He added that, with time, the technology behind gene therapy will probably become less expensive and more accessible to more patients, which will help become a standard of care.

This is also the hope for the technology behind chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR-T) therapy, he added. At present, this cellular therapy is manufactured individually for each patient and is very expensive, but work on “off-the-shelf” products is underway. This topic will be explored during the presidential symposium, entitled, “Universal Donor Solutions in Hematology.”

New data on one of the currently available CAR-T cell products will be presented at the meeting. The phase 2 ZUMA-5 trial showed that axicabtagene ciloleucel (Axi-Cel) may be a viable option for some patients with high-risk non-Hodgkin lymphoma who have not responded to standard treatments (abstract 700).

At a median follow-up of almost 18 months, 92% of participants achieved an objective response, and 78% achieved a complete response to the treatment. By 12 months, 72% were still in response, and at 17.5 months, 64% were still in response.

“We were very impressed with the magnitude of the responses, and also the durability,” said senior study author Caron Jacobson, MD, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, in a press release. “I was also struck early on by how favorable the safety profile was compared to what we’ve been seeing in the fast-growing lymphomas, such as large B cell lymphoma.”
 

Race and bloods cancers

ASH president Stephanie Lee, MD, MPH, highlighted several abstracts on disparities that will be presented at the meeting. One of these, which is to be presented during the plenary session, is an analysis of patient survival in acute myeloid leukemia (AML) (abstract 6).

It found that “self-reported race was the best indicator of survival,” noted Lee.

Overall survival at 3 years was 41% in White patients versus 32% in Black patients, a difference that was highly significant, she noted.

Part of the study also evaluated patients who were all on the same chemotherapy protocol, “so there was no effect of different treatment since they were on therapy determined by the trial,” said Lee.

Black patients were less likely to have normal cytogenetics compared with White patients (38% vs 51%; P = .01) and had a lower frequency of prognostically favorable NPM1 mutations (25% vs 38%; P = .04), but higher frequencies of spliceosome gene mutations (24% vs 12%; P = .009). Therefore, the results showed race was an independent prognosticator of poor survival in AML, aside from established molecular markers.

A special scientific session on race will be held on Dec. 5, Lee noted. While other abstracts consider race from the patient side, this session will focus on the scientist’s side, she explained, and address questions such as: “What are the implications of diversity and racism? And how does that impact scientists who are from underrepresented minorities?” 
 

COVID-19 and blood disorders

Lee also highlighted a study (abstract 215) that analyzed emerging data from the ASH Research Collaborative COVID-19 Registry for Hematology, which was developed to look at outcomes of COVID-19 infection in patients with underlying blood disorders.

An analysis of data from 250 patients at 74 sites around the world found that overall mortality was 28%. “This supports the emerging consensus that patients with hematologic malignancies experience significant morbidity and mortality from COVID-19 infection,” say the authors.

“We do need real-world data to see how SARS-CoV-2 is affecting our patients with hematologic diseases or those who don’t have a hematologic disease but who are then infected with the coronavirus and develop a hematologic problem like blood clots,” said Lee.

“More data will be coming in, but this is a good example of trying to harness real-world information to learn things until we have more controlled trials.”
 

‘Fireside chat’ with Fauci

COVID-19 will be on the agenda for a special session billed as a “fireside chat” with Anthony Fauci, MD, of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health.

“This will be kicking off our meeting on Saturday morning,” said Lee.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Instead of flying out to San Diego in California and soaking up a bit of sunshine in between listening to new research presentations, hematologists from around the world will be glued to their computer screens next weekend, tuning into the 62nd American Society of Hematology annual meeting.  

Like many other conferences this year, the ASH meeting will be virtual because of the continuing COVID-19 pandemic, although the dates remain the same: Dec. 5-8.  

This is the premier hematology event of the year, and the largest hematology conference in the world, with around 3,500 abstracts presented this year, commented Aaron T. Gerds, MD, chair of ASH’s Committee on Communications.
 

Ruxolitinib in chronic GvHD

“One of the things that people come to ASH for is to hear about practice-changing clinical trials, and this year is no exception,” said ASH secretary Robert Brodsky, MD.

In a preview webinar, he highlighted four abstracts that offer opportunities to change practice and revamp the current standards of care.

One clinical trial that is “almost certainly a practice changer,” he said, is the REACH 3 study (abstract 77) of the JAK inhibitor ruxolitinib (Jakafi, Incyte) in patients with chronic graft-versus-host disease (GvHD) after a stem cell transplant.

“This has been really hard to treat in patients undergoing allogeneic bone marrow transplants,” said Brodsky. “Steroids are the first-line treatment, but after that, nothing else has shown any improvement, and even steroids don’t work that well.”

There is currently no approved second-line therapy for chronic forms of GvHD, he emphasized. The main endpoint of the trial was overall response rate, which was doubled with ruxolitinib compared to the best available therapy (50% vs 25%).

“This is the first successful phase 3 trial for chronic GvHD,” Brodsky commented.  
 

Transplants for older patients with MDS

Transplant offers the only curative option for myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS), but typically this option is offered to younger patients because benefits for older adults have not been well-defined, Brodsky noted.

New data from a clinical trial conducted in patients with advanced MDS aged 50-75 years (abstract 75) offers the most definitive evidence to date that allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (AHCT) can significantly improve outcomes for older adults.  

It’s clear that transplant is the standard of care in younger patients, Brodsky commented, and although there is a trend of offering it to older patients, some are not getting referred and instead are being offered palliative care. “The thinking is that bone marrow transplant would be too toxic in this age group,” he said. “But what is very clear here is that, in an intent-to-treat analysis, there was a significant survival advantage – 48% versus 27% at 3 years for transplantation – and it was seen across all subgroups.”
 

Subcutaneous daratumumab

New data on a subcutaneous formulation of daratumumab (Darzalex, Janssen), which is usually given by intravenous infusion, will be presented from the APOLLO trial (abstract 412) in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma.

Patients who received subcutaneous daratumumab combined with pomalidomide and dexamethasone had a 37% reduction in disease progression or death compared to those who received pomalidomide and dexamethasone alone.

“From previous years we’ve learned that daratumumab has had a major impact on outcomes in multiple myeloma,” said Brodsky. “The nice thing about the subcutaneous formulation is that it can be administered quickly and in an outpatient setting, which is especially important in the COVID era.”  
 

Negative data with tranexamic acid

The fourth abstract highlighted by Brodsky is a negative study, but its findings can help guide clinical practice, he said. The a-TREAT study (abstract 2) showed that, despite being routinely used in the clinical setting, tranexamic acid does not prevent bleeding when administered prophylactically to severely thrombocytopenic patients undergoing treatment for hematologic malignancies.

“They found absolutely no difference in bleeding or need for transfusion,” said Brodsky. “What they did find was more catheter-associated blood clots in the tranexamic acid group. This is a practice changer in that it probably should not be given prophylactically to patients with thrombocytopenia.”
 

‘Very exciting’ news about gene therapy

Brodsky also highlighted several late-breaking abstract that will be presented at the meeting.

In particular, the first data on a gene therapy for hemophilia B (abstract LBA-6) are “very, very exciting,” he said. The HOPE-B trial showed a 96% response rate among patients with hemophilia B who were treated with etranacogene dezaparvovec, an investigational gene therapy composed of an adeno-associated virus serotype 5 (AAV5) vector containing a codon-optimized Padua variant human factor IX.

Brodsky pointed out that this was a large trial with 54 patients, but importantly, it included patients with pre-existing anti-AAV5 neutralizing antibodies. “About 40% of patients have naturally occurring antibodies to AAV5, and they have been excluded from previous trials because it was thought they wouldn’t take the vector,” said Brodsky. “But only one patient didn’t get a response.”

Following a single dose of etranacogene dezaparvovec, Factor IX activity increased into the mild to normal range without the need for prophylactic immunosuppression. Treated patients were able to discontinue prophylaxis and bleeding was controlled in most of the cohort.

“This is a big advance and we are getting very close to the point where gene therapy is going to be standard of care for some forms of hemophilia,” said Brodsky. However, he added that “we will still need to see more patients and have longer follow-up.”

He added that, with time, the technology behind gene therapy will probably become less expensive and more accessible to more patients, which will help become a standard of care.

This is also the hope for the technology behind chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR-T) therapy, he added. At present, this cellular therapy is manufactured individually for each patient and is very expensive, but work on “off-the-shelf” products is underway. This topic will be explored during the presidential symposium, entitled, “Universal Donor Solutions in Hematology.”

New data on one of the currently available CAR-T cell products will be presented at the meeting. The phase 2 ZUMA-5 trial showed that axicabtagene ciloleucel (Axi-Cel) may be a viable option for some patients with high-risk non-Hodgkin lymphoma who have not responded to standard treatments (abstract 700).

At a median follow-up of almost 18 months, 92% of participants achieved an objective response, and 78% achieved a complete response to the treatment. By 12 months, 72% were still in response, and at 17.5 months, 64% were still in response.

“We were very impressed with the magnitude of the responses, and also the durability,” said senior study author Caron Jacobson, MD, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, in a press release. “I was also struck early on by how favorable the safety profile was compared to what we’ve been seeing in the fast-growing lymphomas, such as large B cell lymphoma.”
 

Race and bloods cancers

ASH president Stephanie Lee, MD, MPH, highlighted several abstracts on disparities that will be presented at the meeting. One of these, which is to be presented during the plenary session, is an analysis of patient survival in acute myeloid leukemia (AML) (abstract 6).

It found that “self-reported race was the best indicator of survival,” noted Lee.

Overall survival at 3 years was 41% in White patients versus 32% in Black patients, a difference that was highly significant, she noted.

Part of the study also evaluated patients who were all on the same chemotherapy protocol, “so there was no effect of different treatment since they were on therapy determined by the trial,” said Lee.

Black patients were less likely to have normal cytogenetics compared with White patients (38% vs 51%; P = .01) and had a lower frequency of prognostically favorable NPM1 mutations (25% vs 38%; P = .04), but higher frequencies of spliceosome gene mutations (24% vs 12%; P = .009). Therefore, the results showed race was an independent prognosticator of poor survival in AML, aside from established molecular markers.

A special scientific session on race will be held on Dec. 5, Lee noted. While other abstracts consider race from the patient side, this session will focus on the scientist’s side, she explained, and address questions such as: “What are the implications of diversity and racism? And how does that impact scientists who are from underrepresented minorities?” 
 

COVID-19 and blood disorders

Lee also highlighted a study (abstract 215) that analyzed emerging data from the ASH Research Collaborative COVID-19 Registry for Hematology, which was developed to look at outcomes of COVID-19 infection in patients with underlying blood disorders.

An analysis of data from 250 patients at 74 sites around the world found that overall mortality was 28%. “This supports the emerging consensus that patients with hematologic malignancies experience significant morbidity and mortality from COVID-19 infection,” say the authors.

“We do need real-world data to see how SARS-CoV-2 is affecting our patients with hematologic diseases or those who don’t have a hematologic disease but who are then infected with the coronavirus and develop a hematologic problem like blood clots,” said Lee.

“More data will be coming in, but this is a good example of trying to harness real-world information to learn things until we have more controlled trials.”
 

‘Fireside chat’ with Fauci

COVID-19 will be on the agenda for a special session billed as a “fireside chat” with Anthony Fauci, MD, of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health.

“This will be kicking off our meeting on Saturday morning,” said Lee.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Instead of flying out to San Diego in California and soaking up a bit of sunshine in between listening to new research presentations, hematologists from around the world will be glued to their computer screens next weekend, tuning into the 62nd American Society of Hematology annual meeting.  

Like many other conferences this year, the ASH meeting will be virtual because of the continuing COVID-19 pandemic, although the dates remain the same: Dec. 5-8.  

This is the premier hematology event of the year, and the largest hematology conference in the world, with around 3,500 abstracts presented this year, commented Aaron T. Gerds, MD, chair of ASH’s Committee on Communications.
 

Ruxolitinib in chronic GvHD

“One of the things that people come to ASH for is to hear about practice-changing clinical trials, and this year is no exception,” said ASH secretary Robert Brodsky, MD.

In a preview webinar, he highlighted four abstracts that offer opportunities to change practice and revamp the current standards of care.

One clinical trial that is “almost certainly a practice changer,” he said, is the REACH 3 study (abstract 77) of the JAK inhibitor ruxolitinib (Jakafi, Incyte) in patients with chronic graft-versus-host disease (GvHD) after a stem cell transplant.

“This has been really hard to treat in patients undergoing allogeneic bone marrow transplants,” said Brodsky. “Steroids are the first-line treatment, but after that, nothing else has shown any improvement, and even steroids don’t work that well.”

There is currently no approved second-line therapy for chronic forms of GvHD, he emphasized. The main endpoint of the trial was overall response rate, which was doubled with ruxolitinib compared to the best available therapy (50% vs 25%).

“This is the first successful phase 3 trial for chronic GvHD,” Brodsky commented.  
 

Transplants for older patients with MDS

Transplant offers the only curative option for myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS), but typically this option is offered to younger patients because benefits for older adults have not been well-defined, Brodsky noted.

New data from a clinical trial conducted in patients with advanced MDS aged 50-75 years (abstract 75) offers the most definitive evidence to date that allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (AHCT) can significantly improve outcomes for older adults.  

It’s clear that transplant is the standard of care in younger patients, Brodsky commented, and although there is a trend of offering it to older patients, some are not getting referred and instead are being offered palliative care. “The thinking is that bone marrow transplant would be too toxic in this age group,” he said. “But what is very clear here is that, in an intent-to-treat analysis, there was a significant survival advantage – 48% versus 27% at 3 years for transplantation – and it was seen across all subgroups.”
 

Subcutaneous daratumumab

New data on a subcutaneous formulation of daratumumab (Darzalex, Janssen), which is usually given by intravenous infusion, will be presented from the APOLLO trial (abstract 412) in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma.

Patients who received subcutaneous daratumumab combined with pomalidomide and dexamethasone had a 37% reduction in disease progression or death compared to those who received pomalidomide and dexamethasone alone.

“From previous years we’ve learned that daratumumab has had a major impact on outcomes in multiple myeloma,” said Brodsky. “The nice thing about the subcutaneous formulation is that it can be administered quickly and in an outpatient setting, which is especially important in the COVID era.”  
 

Negative data with tranexamic acid

The fourth abstract highlighted by Brodsky is a negative study, but its findings can help guide clinical practice, he said. The a-TREAT study (abstract 2) showed that, despite being routinely used in the clinical setting, tranexamic acid does not prevent bleeding when administered prophylactically to severely thrombocytopenic patients undergoing treatment for hematologic malignancies.

“They found absolutely no difference in bleeding or need for transfusion,” said Brodsky. “What they did find was more catheter-associated blood clots in the tranexamic acid group. This is a practice changer in that it probably should not be given prophylactically to patients with thrombocytopenia.”
 

‘Very exciting’ news about gene therapy

Brodsky also highlighted several late-breaking abstract that will be presented at the meeting.

In particular, the first data on a gene therapy for hemophilia B (abstract LBA-6) are “very, very exciting,” he said. The HOPE-B trial showed a 96% response rate among patients with hemophilia B who were treated with etranacogene dezaparvovec, an investigational gene therapy composed of an adeno-associated virus serotype 5 (AAV5) vector containing a codon-optimized Padua variant human factor IX.

Brodsky pointed out that this was a large trial with 54 patients, but importantly, it included patients with pre-existing anti-AAV5 neutralizing antibodies. “About 40% of patients have naturally occurring antibodies to AAV5, and they have been excluded from previous trials because it was thought they wouldn’t take the vector,” said Brodsky. “But only one patient didn’t get a response.”

Following a single dose of etranacogene dezaparvovec, Factor IX activity increased into the mild to normal range without the need for prophylactic immunosuppression. Treated patients were able to discontinue prophylaxis and bleeding was controlled in most of the cohort.

“This is a big advance and we are getting very close to the point where gene therapy is going to be standard of care for some forms of hemophilia,” said Brodsky. However, he added that “we will still need to see more patients and have longer follow-up.”

He added that, with time, the technology behind gene therapy will probably become less expensive and more accessible to more patients, which will help become a standard of care.

This is also the hope for the technology behind chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR-T) therapy, he added. At present, this cellular therapy is manufactured individually for each patient and is very expensive, but work on “off-the-shelf” products is underway. This topic will be explored during the presidential symposium, entitled, “Universal Donor Solutions in Hematology.”

New data on one of the currently available CAR-T cell products will be presented at the meeting. The phase 2 ZUMA-5 trial showed that axicabtagene ciloleucel (Axi-Cel) may be a viable option for some patients with high-risk non-Hodgkin lymphoma who have not responded to standard treatments (abstract 700).

At a median follow-up of almost 18 months, 92% of participants achieved an objective response, and 78% achieved a complete response to the treatment. By 12 months, 72% were still in response, and at 17.5 months, 64% were still in response.

“We were very impressed with the magnitude of the responses, and also the durability,” said senior study author Caron Jacobson, MD, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, in a press release. “I was also struck early on by how favorable the safety profile was compared to what we’ve been seeing in the fast-growing lymphomas, such as large B cell lymphoma.”
 

Race and bloods cancers

ASH president Stephanie Lee, MD, MPH, highlighted several abstracts on disparities that will be presented at the meeting. One of these, which is to be presented during the plenary session, is an analysis of patient survival in acute myeloid leukemia (AML) (abstract 6).

It found that “self-reported race was the best indicator of survival,” noted Lee.

Overall survival at 3 years was 41% in White patients versus 32% in Black patients, a difference that was highly significant, she noted.

Part of the study also evaluated patients who were all on the same chemotherapy protocol, “so there was no effect of different treatment since they were on therapy determined by the trial,” said Lee.

Black patients were less likely to have normal cytogenetics compared with White patients (38% vs 51%; P = .01) and had a lower frequency of prognostically favorable NPM1 mutations (25% vs 38%; P = .04), but higher frequencies of spliceosome gene mutations (24% vs 12%; P = .009). Therefore, the results showed race was an independent prognosticator of poor survival in AML, aside from established molecular markers.

A special scientific session on race will be held on Dec. 5, Lee noted. While other abstracts consider race from the patient side, this session will focus on the scientist’s side, she explained, and address questions such as: “What are the implications of diversity and racism? And how does that impact scientists who are from underrepresented minorities?” 
 

COVID-19 and blood disorders

Lee also highlighted a study (abstract 215) that analyzed emerging data from the ASH Research Collaborative COVID-19 Registry for Hematology, which was developed to look at outcomes of COVID-19 infection in patients with underlying blood disorders.

An analysis of data from 250 patients at 74 sites around the world found that overall mortality was 28%. “This supports the emerging consensus that patients with hematologic malignancies experience significant morbidity and mortality from COVID-19 infection,” say the authors.

“We do need real-world data to see how SARS-CoV-2 is affecting our patients with hematologic diseases or those who don’t have a hematologic disease but who are then infected with the coronavirus and develop a hematologic problem like blood clots,” said Lee.

“More data will be coming in, but this is a good example of trying to harness real-world information to learn things until we have more controlled trials.”
 

‘Fireside chat’ with Fauci

COVID-19 will be on the agenda for a special session billed as a “fireside chat” with Anthony Fauci, MD, of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health.

“This will be kicking off our meeting on Saturday morning,” said Lee.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A small percentage of patients with cancer show exceptional responses to treatment and survive significantly longer than patients with clinically comparable tumors, despite having advanced disease.

An ongoing research project is studying why some patients have exceptional responses. The researchers have found particular molecular features in the tumors of about a quarter of these patients. In some cases, there are multiple rare genetic changes in the tumor genome. In other cases, the tumors are infiltrated with certain types of immune cells.

The findings were published online November 19 in Cancer Cell. They come from a genomic analysis of tumor biopsy specimens from 111 patients who were identified by the National Cancer Institute’s (NCI’s) Exceptional Responders Initiative, a national project launched in 2014.

An exceptional responder is defined as an individual who achieves a partial or complete response to a treatment that would be effective in fewer than 10% of similar patients. For exceptional response, the duration of response is at least three times longer than the usual median response time.

In this study of 111 such patients, about one quarter (24%, n = 26 patients) were found to have tumors in which there were molecular features that could potentially explain exceptional responses to treatment.

“We won’t be able to identify, in every patient, which particular drugs will be beneficial,” said Louis Staudt, MD, PhD, director of the NCI’s Center for Cancer Genomics, who co-led the study. “We are nowhere near that. But what it does say is that we have identified particular mutations, some of which we knew about in some types of cancer but can also occur less commonly in other cancer types.”

Staudt noted that these mutations can “illuminate” the path that the cancer will take — and potentially can be used to predict whether the cancer will be aggressive and will require treatment or could be managed with surveillance. This is why this research can be useful in the short term, he said.

“In the longer term, this is the kind of research that inspires future work,” he told Medscape Medical News. “That would encompass clinical trials involving drugs that target some of the pathways we found to be genetically inactivated in some of these responders.”

These results support the use of genetic testing in routine clinical care, he said.

Earlier this year, the NCI team published the results of a pilot study that affirmed the feasibility of this approach. Of the more than 100 cases that were analyzed, six were identified as involving potentially clinically actionable germline mutations.
 

‘Curiosity drove the research’

“We had these wonderful and gratifying experiences with our patients, so we were immediately curious how that happened, so it was pretty much that curiosity that drove a lot of this work,” said Staudt.

In the current study, Staudt and colleagues used multiple genomic methodologies to detect mutations, copy number changes, aberrant methylation, outlier gene expression, and the cellular makeup of the tumor microenvironment.

The hypothesized mechanisms for exceptional responses were broadly divided into the following four categories: DNA damage response (n = 15), intracellular signaling pathway (n = 9), prognostic genetics (n = 9), and immunologic engagement (n = 16). For many patients, two or more of these mechanisms were involved.

The authors note that the “predominance of plausible DNA damage response mechanisms parallels the frequent use of cytotoxic chemotherapy in routine cancer treatment reflected in this cohort.”

Twenty-six patients were identified as exceptional responders. Among these patients, a variety of cancer types was represented: brain (8); gastrointestinal tract (6); breast (4); cholangiocarcinoma (2); lung (2); pancreas, endometrium, ovarian, and bladder (1 each). Many of these patients (65%, n = 17) were treated with chemotherapy that included DNA-damaging agents. For more than half (54%, n = 14), targeted therapies were used, and some patients received both.

The authors highlight several patients as examples of exceptional responders:

• One patient with glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) was treated sequentially with surgery, localized carmustine, and radiotherapy. When the cancer recurred, temozolomide was administered. This induced a complete response that has lasted for more than a decade.
• A patient with metastatic colon adenocarcinoma has had an ongoing and nearly complete response that has lasted 45 months (last follow-up) after receiving temozolomide in combination with the investigational drug TRC102 (methoxyamine, under development by Tracon) in a phase 1 clinical trial. TRC102 is an inhibitor of the DNA base excision repair pathway, which is a pathway that causes resistance to alkylating and antimetabolite chemotherapeutics.
• A patient with metastatic, estrogen receptor–positive breast cancer received trastuzumab because of a high-level ERBB2 amplification, together with anastrozole. This resulted in an ongoing 2.4-year partial response.
• Although the patient was clinically HER2 positive, her tumor had exceedingly low expression of ERBB2 mRNA. Molecular profiling had classified the tumor as of the basal-like subtype rather than the HER2-enriched subtype. This meant that it was unlikely that trastuzumab contributed to the exceptional response, the authors note. Because the patient was estrogen-receptor positive, she received anastrozole, an inhibitor of aromatase (CYP19A), which converts testosterone into estradiol.
• A patient who had a gastrointestinal stromal tumor with a deletion of KIT exon 11 experienced relapse after an initial response to imatinib, which targets KIT and other tyrosine kinases, but then achieved a complete response with sunitinib. Gene expression profiling revealed high expression not only of KIT but also of genes encoding several tyrosine kinases that are targeted by sunitinib (KDR, FLT1, and FLT3). This may have accounted for the patient’s response.

Favorable genomic characteristics

The authors defined a “prognostic genetics” category of tumors, characterized by genetic lesions that are now known to be associated with a favorable prognosis but that were not addressed through routine care that these patients received when they were first diagnosed. Although the patients experienced relapse after first-line treatment, their exceptional survival after salvage therapy could be linked to favorable genomic characteristics.

For example, several of the patients with high-grade GBMs and astrocytomas had genetic lesions that are generally more common in low-grade glioma and that have been associated with an indolent clinical course following standard therapy.

The authors also assessed immune response. Examining immune cell infiltration in responder tumors in comparison with control cases, the team found that signatures of B cells and activated (CD56dim) natural killer cells were higher in exceptional-responder tumors.

In one patient with metastatic urothelial cancer who experienced disease progression after chemotherapy, radiotherapy, and surgery, treatment with nivolumab produced a complete response that lasted 7 months. Such an outcome occurs in only about 3% of bladder cancer patients. The tumor expressed high mRNA levels of PDCD1, which encodes the nivolumab target PD-1, and CD274, which encodes the PD-1 ligand PD-L1. There was also a high level of amplification of IFNG, which encodes interferon-gamma, a cytokine that has been linked to favorable response to immune checkpoint blockade.
 

Moving to precision medicine

“It is very valuable to be tested up front and again when the disease progresses, because there may have been some genetic changes, and this may change the treatment,” said co–lead author S. Percy Ivy, MD, of the NCI’s Division of Cancer Treatment and Diagnosis.

“The goal of this study was to understand what was unique about these patients and their genetic makeup that led them to be classified as exceptional responders, and hopefully we will be able to tease that out,” she added.

“As researchers, we have a lot to learn from these patients, and they have a lot to teach us,” she added. “In the future, they will help us as we move closer to the goal of delivering precision oncology to all of our patients. We’re not there yet, but every time we study more deeply and learn more, we are able to provide better care.”

To encourage participation in this effort by investigators around the world, the NCI team and their colleagues have made their molecular profiling results and clinical information publicly available in the NCI Genomic Data Commons.

The study was supported by the NCI’s Intramural Research Program, the National Institutes of Health, the Center for Cancer Research, and the NCI’s Center for Cancer Genomics. Staudt and Ivy have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A small percentage of patients with cancer show exceptional responses to treatment and survive significantly longer than patients with clinically comparable tumors, despite having advanced disease.

An ongoing research project is studying why some patients have exceptional responses. The researchers have found particular molecular features in the tumors of about a quarter of these patients. In some cases, there are multiple rare genetic changes in the tumor genome. In other cases, the tumors are infiltrated with certain types of immune cells.

The findings were published online November 19 in Cancer Cell. They come from a genomic analysis of tumor biopsy specimens from 111 patients who were identified by the National Cancer Institute’s (NCI’s) Exceptional Responders Initiative, a national project launched in 2014.

An exceptional responder is defined as an individual who achieves a partial or complete response to a treatment that would be effective in fewer than 10% of similar patients. For exceptional response, the duration of response is at least three times longer than the usual median response time.

In this study of 111 such patients, about one quarter (24%, n = 26 patients) were found to have tumors in which there were molecular features that could potentially explain exceptional responses to treatment.

“We won’t be able to identify, in every patient, which particular drugs will be beneficial,” said Louis Staudt, MD, PhD, director of the NCI’s Center for Cancer Genomics, who co-led the study. “We are nowhere near that. But what it does say is that we have identified particular mutations, some of which we knew about in some types of cancer but can also occur less commonly in other cancer types.”

Staudt noted that these mutations can “illuminate” the path that the cancer will take — and potentially can be used to predict whether the cancer will be aggressive and will require treatment or could be managed with surveillance. This is why this research can be useful in the short term, he said.

“In the longer term, this is the kind of research that inspires future work,” he told Medscape Medical News. “That would encompass clinical trials involving drugs that target some of the pathways we found to be genetically inactivated in some of these responders.”

These results support the use of genetic testing in routine clinical care, he said.

Earlier this year, the NCI team published the results of a pilot study that affirmed the feasibility of this approach. Of the more than 100 cases that were analyzed, six were identified as involving potentially clinically actionable germline mutations.
 

‘Curiosity drove the research’

“We had these wonderful and gratifying experiences with our patients, so we were immediately curious how that happened, so it was pretty much that curiosity that drove a lot of this work,” said Staudt.

In the current study, Staudt and colleagues used multiple genomic methodologies to detect mutations, copy number changes, aberrant methylation, outlier gene expression, and the cellular makeup of the tumor microenvironment.

The hypothesized mechanisms for exceptional responses were broadly divided into the following four categories: DNA damage response (n = 15), intracellular signaling pathway (n = 9), prognostic genetics (n = 9), and immunologic engagement (n = 16). For many patients, two or more of these mechanisms were involved.

The authors note that the “predominance of plausible DNA damage response mechanisms parallels the frequent use of cytotoxic chemotherapy in routine cancer treatment reflected in this cohort.”

Twenty-six patients were identified as exceptional responders. Among these patients, a variety of cancer types was represented: brain (8); gastrointestinal tract (6); breast (4); cholangiocarcinoma (2); lung (2); pancreas, endometrium, ovarian, and bladder (1 each). Many of these patients (65%, n = 17) were treated with chemotherapy that included DNA-damaging agents. For more than half (54%, n = 14), targeted therapies were used, and some patients received both.

The authors highlight several patients as examples of exceptional responders:

• One patient with glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) was treated sequentially with surgery, localized carmustine, and radiotherapy. When the cancer recurred, temozolomide was administered. This induced a complete response that has lasted for more than a decade.
• A patient with metastatic colon adenocarcinoma has had an ongoing and nearly complete response that has lasted 45 months (last follow-up) after receiving temozolomide in combination with the investigational drug TRC102 (methoxyamine, under development by Tracon) in a phase 1 clinical trial. TRC102 is an inhibitor of the DNA base excision repair pathway, which is a pathway that causes resistance to alkylating and antimetabolite chemotherapeutics.
• A patient with metastatic, estrogen receptor–positive breast cancer received trastuzumab because of a high-level ERBB2 amplification, together with anastrozole. This resulted in an ongoing 2.4-year partial response.
• Although the patient was clinically HER2 positive, her tumor had exceedingly low expression of ERBB2 mRNA. Molecular profiling had classified the tumor as of the basal-like subtype rather than the HER2-enriched subtype. This meant that it was unlikely that trastuzumab contributed to the exceptional response, the authors note. Because the patient was estrogen-receptor positive, she received anastrozole, an inhibitor of aromatase (CYP19A), which converts testosterone into estradiol.
• A patient who had a gastrointestinal stromal tumor with a deletion of KIT exon 11 experienced relapse after an initial response to imatinib, which targets KIT and other tyrosine kinases, but then achieved a complete response with sunitinib. Gene expression profiling revealed high expression not only of KIT but also of genes encoding several tyrosine kinases that are targeted by sunitinib (KDR, FLT1, and FLT3). This may have accounted for the patient’s response.

Favorable genomic characteristics

The authors defined a “prognostic genetics” category of tumors, characterized by genetic lesions that are now known to be associated with a favorable prognosis but that were not addressed through routine care that these patients received when they were first diagnosed. Although the patients experienced relapse after first-line treatment, their exceptional survival after salvage therapy could be linked to favorable genomic characteristics.

For example, several of the patients with high-grade GBMs and astrocytomas had genetic lesions that are generally more common in low-grade glioma and that have been associated with an indolent clinical course following standard therapy.

The authors also assessed immune response. Examining immune cell infiltration in responder tumors in comparison with control cases, the team found that signatures of B cells and activated (CD56dim) natural killer cells were higher in exceptional-responder tumors.

In one patient with metastatic urothelial cancer who experienced disease progression after chemotherapy, radiotherapy, and surgery, treatment with nivolumab produced a complete response that lasted 7 months. Such an outcome occurs in only about 3% of bladder cancer patients. The tumor expressed high mRNA levels of PDCD1, which encodes the nivolumab target PD-1, and CD274, which encodes the PD-1 ligand PD-L1. There was also a high level of amplification of IFNG, which encodes interferon-gamma, a cytokine that has been linked to favorable response to immune checkpoint blockade.
 

Moving to precision medicine

“It is very valuable to be tested up front and again when the disease progresses, because there may have been some genetic changes, and this may change the treatment,” said co–lead author S. Percy Ivy, MD, of the NCI’s Division of Cancer Treatment and Diagnosis.

“The goal of this study was to understand what was unique about these patients and their genetic makeup that led them to be classified as exceptional responders, and hopefully we will be able to tease that out,” she added.

“As researchers, we have a lot to learn from these patients, and they have a lot to teach us,” she added. “In the future, they will help us as we move closer to the goal of delivering precision oncology to all of our patients. We’re not there yet, but every time we study more deeply and learn more, we are able to provide better care.”

To encourage participation in this effort by investigators around the world, the NCI team and their colleagues have made their molecular profiling results and clinical information publicly available in the NCI Genomic Data Commons.

The study was supported by the NCI’s Intramural Research Program, the National Institutes of Health, the Center for Cancer Research, and the NCI’s Center for Cancer Genomics. Staudt and Ivy have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A small percentage of patients with cancer show exceptional responses to treatment and survive significantly longer than patients with clinically comparable tumors, despite having advanced disease.

An ongoing research project is studying why some patients have exceptional responses. The researchers have found particular molecular features in the tumors of about a quarter of these patients. In some cases, there are multiple rare genetic changes in the tumor genome. In other cases, the tumors are infiltrated with certain types of immune cells.

The findings were published online November 19 in Cancer Cell. They come from a genomic analysis of tumor biopsy specimens from 111 patients who were identified by the National Cancer Institute’s (NCI’s) Exceptional Responders Initiative, a national project launched in 2014.

An exceptional responder is defined as an individual who achieves a partial or complete response to a treatment that would be effective in fewer than 10% of similar patients. For exceptional response, the duration of response is at least three times longer than the usual median response time.

In this study of 111 such patients, about one quarter (24%, n = 26 patients) were found to have tumors in which there were molecular features that could potentially explain exceptional responses to treatment.

“We won’t be able to identify, in every patient, which particular drugs will be beneficial,” said Louis Staudt, MD, PhD, director of the NCI’s Center for Cancer Genomics, who co-led the study. “We are nowhere near that. But what it does say is that we have identified particular mutations, some of which we knew about in some types of cancer but can also occur less commonly in other cancer types.”

Staudt noted that these mutations can “illuminate” the path that the cancer will take — and potentially can be used to predict whether the cancer will be aggressive and will require treatment or could be managed with surveillance. This is why this research can be useful in the short term, he said.

“In the longer term, this is the kind of research that inspires future work,” he told Medscape Medical News. “That would encompass clinical trials involving drugs that target some of the pathways we found to be genetically inactivated in some of these responders.”

These results support the use of genetic testing in routine clinical care, he said.

Earlier this year, the NCI team published the results of a pilot study that affirmed the feasibility of this approach. Of the more than 100 cases that were analyzed, six were identified as involving potentially clinically actionable germline mutations.
 

‘Curiosity drove the research’

“We had these wonderful and gratifying experiences with our patients, so we were immediately curious how that happened, so it was pretty much that curiosity that drove a lot of this work,” said Staudt.

In the current study, Staudt and colleagues used multiple genomic methodologies to detect mutations, copy number changes, aberrant methylation, outlier gene expression, and the cellular makeup of the tumor microenvironment.

The hypothesized mechanisms for exceptional responses were broadly divided into the following four categories: DNA damage response (n = 15), intracellular signaling pathway (n = 9), prognostic genetics (n = 9), and immunologic engagement (n = 16). For many patients, two or more of these mechanisms were involved.

The authors note that the “predominance of plausible DNA damage response mechanisms parallels the frequent use of cytotoxic chemotherapy in routine cancer treatment reflected in this cohort.”

Twenty-six patients were identified as exceptional responders. Among these patients, a variety of cancer types was represented: brain (8); gastrointestinal tract (6); breast (4); cholangiocarcinoma (2); lung (2); pancreas, endometrium, ovarian, and bladder (1 each). Many of these patients (65%, n = 17) were treated with chemotherapy that included DNA-damaging agents. For more than half (54%, n = 14), targeted therapies were used, and some patients received both.

The authors highlight several patients as examples of exceptional responders:

• One patient with glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) was treated sequentially with surgery, localized carmustine, and radiotherapy. When the cancer recurred, temozolomide was administered. This induced a complete response that has lasted for more than a decade.
• A patient with metastatic colon adenocarcinoma has had an ongoing and nearly complete response that has lasted 45 months (last follow-up) after receiving temozolomide in combination with the investigational drug TRC102 (methoxyamine, under development by Tracon) in a phase 1 clinical trial. TRC102 is an inhibitor of the DNA base excision repair pathway, which is a pathway that causes resistance to alkylating and antimetabolite chemotherapeutics.
• A patient with metastatic, estrogen receptor–positive breast cancer received trastuzumab because of a high-level ERBB2 amplification, together with anastrozole. This resulted in an ongoing 2.4-year partial response.
• Although the patient was clinically HER2 positive, her tumor had exceedingly low expression of ERBB2 mRNA. Molecular profiling had classified the tumor as of the basal-like subtype rather than the HER2-enriched subtype. This meant that it was unlikely that trastuzumab contributed to the exceptional response, the authors note. Because the patient was estrogen-receptor positive, she received anastrozole, an inhibitor of aromatase (CYP19A), which converts testosterone into estradiol.
• A patient who had a gastrointestinal stromal tumor with a deletion of KIT exon 11 experienced relapse after an initial response to imatinib, which targets KIT and other tyrosine kinases, but then achieved a complete response with sunitinib. Gene expression profiling revealed high expression not only of KIT but also of genes encoding several tyrosine kinases that are targeted by sunitinib (KDR, FLT1, and FLT3). This may have accounted for the patient’s response.

Favorable genomic characteristics

The authors defined a “prognostic genetics” category of tumors, characterized by genetic lesions that are now known to be associated with a favorable prognosis but that were not addressed through routine care that these patients received when they were first diagnosed. Although the patients experienced relapse after first-line treatment, their exceptional survival after salvage therapy could be linked to favorable genomic characteristics.

For example, several of the patients with high-grade GBMs and astrocytomas had genetic lesions that are generally more common in low-grade glioma and that have been associated with an indolent clinical course following standard therapy.

The authors also assessed immune response. Examining immune cell infiltration in responder tumors in comparison with control cases, the team found that signatures of B cells and activated (CD56dim) natural killer cells were higher in exceptional-responder tumors.

In one patient with metastatic urothelial cancer who experienced disease progression after chemotherapy, radiotherapy, and surgery, treatment with nivolumab produced a complete response that lasted 7 months. Such an outcome occurs in only about 3% of bladder cancer patients. The tumor expressed high mRNA levels of PDCD1, which encodes the nivolumab target PD-1, and CD274, which encodes the PD-1 ligand PD-L1. There was also a high level of amplification of IFNG, which encodes interferon-gamma, a cytokine that has been linked to favorable response to immune checkpoint blockade.
 

Moving to precision medicine

“It is very valuable to be tested up front and again when the disease progresses, because there may have been some genetic changes, and this may change the treatment,” said co–lead author S. Percy Ivy, MD, of the NCI’s Division of Cancer Treatment and Diagnosis.

“The goal of this study was to understand what was unique about these patients and their genetic makeup that led them to be classified as exceptional responders, and hopefully we will be able to tease that out,” she added.

“As researchers, we have a lot to learn from these patients, and they have a lot to teach us,” she added. “In the future, they will help us as we move closer to the goal of delivering precision oncology to all of our patients. We’re not there yet, but every time we study more deeply and learn more, we are able to provide better care.”

To encourage participation in this effort by investigators around the world, the NCI team and their colleagues have made their molecular profiling results and clinical information publicly available in the NCI Genomic Data Commons.

The study was supported by the NCI’s Intramural Research Program, the National Institutes of Health, the Center for Cancer Research, and the NCI’s Center for Cancer Genomics. Staudt and Ivy have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.