User login
TULIP trial shows extended survival in HER2+ metastatic breast cancer
, according to Cristina Saura Manich, MD, Hospital Universitario Valle de Hebrón, Barcelona. In TULIP, trastuzumab duocarmazine (SYD985, Byondis B.V., NL) was compared with physician’s choice of chemotherapy, Dr. Saura said at the virtual European Society for Medical Oncology Congress 2021 on Sept. 18 (abstract LBA15).
Trastuzumab duocarmazine, Dr. Manich noted, is a novel HER2-targeting antibody–drug conjugate based on trastuzumab and a cleavable linker-duocarmycin (vc-seco-DUBA) payload. Its three-way mechanism of action includes uptake of the antibody–drug conjugate by internalization and intracellular release of the payload, and two bystander effects: proteolytic cleavage and subsequent release of payload in the tumor microenvironment and diffusion of active payload to neighboring tumor cells.
Two or more prior therapies for metastatic breast cancer
TULIP investigators enrolled 437 patients from 83 sites in 11 countries with HER2-positive locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer who had received two or more therapies for metastatic disease (treatment for brain metastases allowed). They were randomized 2:1 to SYD985 (1.2 mg/kg IV every 21 days [n = 291]) or physician’s choice (PC) [n = 146] of one of three trastuzumab-containing combinations or lapatinib plus capecitabine. Treatment was continued until progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was centrally assessed PFS.
Longer progression-free survival with SYD985
Median age was 57 years, and the median number of prior metastatic breast cancer regimens was 4.7. Centrally reviewed progression-free survival was significantly longer in the SYD985 group at 7.0 months (5.4-7.2) versus 4.9 months (4.0-5.5) for PC (hazard ratio [HR], 0.64, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.49-0.84, P = .002). Subgroup analysis, also centrally reviewed, revealed numerical advantage for SYD985 over physician choice across all categories (except for ECOG status 2). Analysis of progression-free survival by investigators showed a similar benefit for SYD985 (6.9 months versus 4.6 months, HR, 0.60, P < .001).
A first look at median overall survival showed a nonsignificant advantage for SYD985 (20.4 months versus 16.3 months (HR, 0.83, 95% CI, 0.62-1.09, P = .153). The overall response rate (partial or complete response) was similar between groups at 27.8% for SYD985 and 29.5% for PC, with reductions in target lesion measurement at 70.2% and 32.2% for SYD985 and physician choice, respectively. The clinical benefit rates were 38.5% for SYD985 and 32.2% for physician choice.
Ocular toxicity
Most patients had at least one treatment-related adverse event (96.5% SD985, 96.4% PC), and grade 3 or higher event rates were similar between groups (52.8% SYD985, 48.2% PC). The most frequently reported adverse events for SYD985 were ocular toxicity, with conjunctivitis reported in 38.2%, and keratitis in 38.2%, with fatigue at 33.3%; for physician’s choice these were diarrhea (35.8%), nausea (31.4%), and fatigue (29.9%). Interstitial lung disease pneumonitis was reported for 7.6% (5.2% grade 1-2) of patients treated with SYD985, including two grade 5 events. Eye toxicity led to discontinuations in 20.8% of SYD985 patients, dose modifications in 22.9%, with dose modifications for interstitial lung disease/pneumonitis in 5.2% of SYD985 patients. Six fatalities (2.1%) were reported in the SYD985 group, with four attributed to treatment. Assessment of health-related quality of life showed no significant difference between groups.
Dr. Manich outlined risk mitigation strategies. Patients with prior keratitis were excluded and patients were given prophylactic lubricating eye drops and regular eye exams by ophthalmologists. Treatment was discontinued if grade 3 or higher keratitis developed, and was delayed if grade 3 conjunctivitis developed until it reduced to grade 2. Also, patients with prior pneumonitis were excluded and CT lung scans were evaluated for lung changes. New or worsening respiratory symptoms triggered a full diagnostic workup. Treatment was discontinued for grade 2 or higher pneumonitis and delayed until resolution for grade 1 pneumonitis.
Another option
“It is encouraging to observe clinically meaningful and potentially practice changing PFS improvements in patients receiving treatment in the third line and beyond,” said Aditya Bardia, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston. “Several agents have been approved as treatments for HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer in recent years – including T-DXd, neratinib, tucatinib, and margetuximab – and [vic-]trastuzumab duocarmazine could eventually be another option.”
“At this time, there is only a minor 2-month difference in progression-free survival and a nonsignificant overall survival difference,” said Fatima Cardoso, MD, of Champalimaud Cancer Center, Lisbon, Portugal. “With the high incidence of ocular toxicity and four toxic deaths, we cannot recommend this drug for clinical practice, in my opinion.”
Dr. Manich concluded, “SYD985 can provide a new treatment option for patients with pretreated locally advanced or metastatic HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer.”
The study was funded by Byondis B.V. The authors disclosed numerous pharmaceutical-related financial interests.
This article was updated Sept. 24, 2021.
, according to Cristina Saura Manich, MD, Hospital Universitario Valle de Hebrón, Barcelona. In TULIP, trastuzumab duocarmazine (SYD985, Byondis B.V., NL) was compared with physician’s choice of chemotherapy, Dr. Saura said at the virtual European Society for Medical Oncology Congress 2021 on Sept. 18 (abstract LBA15).
Trastuzumab duocarmazine, Dr. Manich noted, is a novel HER2-targeting antibody–drug conjugate based on trastuzumab and a cleavable linker-duocarmycin (vc-seco-DUBA) payload. Its three-way mechanism of action includes uptake of the antibody–drug conjugate by internalization and intracellular release of the payload, and two bystander effects: proteolytic cleavage and subsequent release of payload in the tumor microenvironment and diffusion of active payload to neighboring tumor cells.
Two or more prior therapies for metastatic breast cancer
TULIP investigators enrolled 437 patients from 83 sites in 11 countries with HER2-positive locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer who had received two or more therapies for metastatic disease (treatment for brain metastases allowed). They were randomized 2:1 to SYD985 (1.2 mg/kg IV every 21 days [n = 291]) or physician’s choice (PC) [n = 146] of one of three trastuzumab-containing combinations or lapatinib plus capecitabine. Treatment was continued until progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was centrally assessed PFS.
Longer progression-free survival with SYD985
Median age was 57 years, and the median number of prior metastatic breast cancer regimens was 4.7. Centrally reviewed progression-free survival was significantly longer in the SYD985 group at 7.0 months (5.4-7.2) versus 4.9 months (4.0-5.5) for PC (hazard ratio [HR], 0.64, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.49-0.84, P = .002). Subgroup analysis, also centrally reviewed, revealed numerical advantage for SYD985 over physician choice across all categories (except for ECOG status 2). Analysis of progression-free survival by investigators showed a similar benefit for SYD985 (6.9 months versus 4.6 months, HR, 0.60, P < .001).
A first look at median overall survival showed a nonsignificant advantage for SYD985 (20.4 months versus 16.3 months (HR, 0.83, 95% CI, 0.62-1.09, P = .153). The overall response rate (partial or complete response) was similar between groups at 27.8% for SYD985 and 29.5% for PC, with reductions in target lesion measurement at 70.2% and 32.2% for SYD985 and physician choice, respectively. The clinical benefit rates were 38.5% for SYD985 and 32.2% for physician choice.
Ocular toxicity
Most patients had at least one treatment-related adverse event (96.5% SD985, 96.4% PC), and grade 3 or higher event rates were similar between groups (52.8% SYD985, 48.2% PC). The most frequently reported adverse events for SYD985 were ocular toxicity, with conjunctivitis reported in 38.2%, and keratitis in 38.2%, with fatigue at 33.3%; for physician’s choice these were diarrhea (35.8%), nausea (31.4%), and fatigue (29.9%). Interstitial lung disease pneumonitis was reported for 7.6% (5.2% grade 1-2) of patients treated with SYD985, including two grade 5 events. Eye toxicity led to discontinuations in 20.8% of SYD985 patients, dose modifications in 22.9%, with dose modifications for interstitial lung disease/pneumonitis in 5.2% of SYD985 patients. Six fatalities (2.1%) were reported in the SYD985 group, with four attributed to treatment. Assessment of health-related quality of life showed no significant difference between groups.
Dr. Manich outlined risk mitigation strategies. Patients with prior keratitis were excluded and patients were given prophylactic lubricating eye drops and regular eye exams by ophthalmologists. Treatment was discontinued if grade 3 or higher keratitis developed, and was delayed if grade 3 conjunctivitis developed until it reduced to grade 2. Also, patients with prior pneumonitis were excluded and CT lung scans were evaluated for lung changes. New or worsening respiratory symptoms triggered a full diagnostic workup. Treatment was discontinued for grade 2 or higher pneumonitis and delayed until resolution for grade 1 pneumonitis.
Another option
“It is encouraging to observe clinically meaningful and potentially practice changing PFS improvements in patients receiving treatment in the third line and beyond,” said Aditya Bardia, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston. “Several agents have been approved as treatments for HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer in recent years – including T-DXd, neratinib, tucatinib, and margetuximab – and [vic-]trastuzumab duocarmazine could eventually be another option.”
“At this time, there is only a minor 2-month difference in progression-free survival and a nonsignificant overall survival difference,” said Fatima Cardoso, MD, of Champalimaud Cancer Center, Lisbon, Portugal. “With the high incidence of ocular toxicity and four toxic deaths, we cannot recommend this drug for clinical practice, in my opinion.”
Dr. Manich concluded, “SYD985 can provide a new treatment option for patients with pretreated locally advanced or metastatic HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer.”
The study was funded by Byondis B.V. The authors disclosed numerous pharmaceutical-related financial interests.
This article was updated Sept. 24, 2021.
, according to Cristina Saura Manich, MD, Hospital Universitario Valle de Hebrón, Barcelona. In TULIP, trastuzumab duocarmazine (SYD985, Byondis B.V., NL) was compared with physician’s choice of chemotherapy, Dr. Saura said at the virtual European Society for Medical Oncology Congress 2021 on Sept. 18 (abstract LBA15).
Trastuzumab duocarmazine, Dr. Manich noted, is a novel HER2-targeting antibody–drug conjugate based on trastuzumab and a cleavable linker-duocarmycin (vc-seco-DUBA) payload. Its three-way mechanism of action includes uptake of the antibody–drug conjugate by internalization and intracellular release of the payload, and two bystander effects: proteolytic cleavage and subsequent release of payload in the tumor microenvironment and diffusion of active payload to neighboring tumor cells.
Two or more prior therapies for metastatic breast cancer
TULIP investigators enrolled 437 patients from 83 sites in 11 countries with HER2-positive locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer who had received two or more therapies for metastatic disease (treatment for brain metastases allowed). They were randomized 2:1 to SYD985 (1.2 mg/kg IV every 21 days [n = 291]) or physician’s choice (PC) [n = 146] of one of three trastuzumab-containing combinations or lapatinib plus capecitabine. Treatment was continued until progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was centrally assessed PFS.
Longer progression-free survival with SYD985
Median age was 57 years, and the median number of prior metastatic breast cancer regimens was 4.7. Centrally reviewed progression-free survival was significantly longer in the SYD985 group at 7.0 months (5.4-7.2) versus 4.9 months (4.0-5.5) for PC (hazard ratio [HR], 0.64, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.49-0.84, P = .002). Subgroup analysis, also centrally reviewed, revealed numerical advantage for SYD985 over physician choice across all categories (except for ECOG status 2). Analysis of progression-free survival by investigators showed a similar benefit for SYD985 (6.9 months versus 4.6 months, HR, 0.60, P < .001).
A first look at median overall survival showed a nonsignificant advantage for SYD985 (20.4 months versus 16.3 months (HR, 0.83, 95% CI, 0.62-1.09, P = .153). The overall response rate (partial or complete response) was similar between groups at 27.8% for SYD985 and 29.5% for PC, with reductions in target lesion measurement at 70.2% and 32.2% for SYD985 and physician choice, respectively. The clinical benefit rates were 38.5% for SYD985 and 32.2% for physician choice.
Ocular toxicity
Most patients had at least one treatment-related adverse event (96.5% SD985, 96.4% PC), and grade 3 or higher event rates were similar between groups (52.8% SYD985, 48.2% PC). The most frequently reported adverse events for SYD985 were ocular toxicity, with conjunctivitis reported in 38.2%, and keratitis in 38.2%, with fatigue at 33.3%; for physician’s choice these were diarrhea (35.8%), nausea (31.4%), and fatigue (29.9%). Interstitial lung disease pneumonitis was reported for 7.6% (5.2% grade 1-2) of patients treated with SYD985, including two grade 5 events. Eye toxicity led to discontinuations in 20.8% of SYD985 patients, dose modifications in 22.9%, with dose modifications for interstitial lung disease/pneumonitis in 5.2% of SYD985 patients. Six fatalities (2.1%) were reported in the SYD985 group, with four attributed to treatment. Assessment of health-related quality of life showed no significant difference between groups.
Dr. Manich outlined risk mitigation strategies. Patients with prior keratitis were excluded and patients were given prophylactic lubricating eye drops and regular eye exams by ophthalmologists. Treatment was discontinued if grade 3 or higher keratitis developed, and was delayed if grade 3 conjunctivitis developed until it reduced to grade 2. Also, patients with prior pneumonitis were excluded and CT lung scans were evaluated for lung changes. New or worsening respiratory symptoms triggered a full diagnostic workup. Treatment was discontinued for grade 2 or higher pneumonitis and delayed until resolution for grade 1 pneumonitis.
Another option
“It is encouraging to observe clinically meaningful and potentially practice changing PFS improvements in patients receiving treatment in the third line and beyond,” said Aditya Bardia, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston. “Several agents have been approved as treatments for HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer in recent years – including T-DXd, neratinib, tucatinib, and margetuximab – and [vic-]trastuzumab duocarmazine could eventually be another option.”
“At this time, there is only a minor 2-month difference in progression-free survival and a nonsignificant overall survival difference,” said Fatima Cardoso, MD, of Champalimaud Cancer Center, Lisbon, Portugal. “With the high incidence of ocular toxicity and four toxic deaths, we cannot recommend this drug for clinical practice, in my opinion.”
Dr. Manich concluded, “SYD985 can provide a new treatment option for patients with pretreated locally advanced or metastatic HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer.”
The study was funded by Byondis B.V. The authors disclosed numerous pharmaceutical-related financial interests.
This article was updated Sept. 24, 2021.
FROM ESMO 2021
When children and teens with cancer get COVID-19
Although most children and adolescents with cancer have mild illness from COVID-19 infection, some do experience severe disease and a small percentage even die, according to a recent analysis.
The findings, published online in Lancet Oncology, represent the first global registry data spanning different income groups to report COVID-19 outcomes in pediatric oncology patients.
“We wanted to create a global pool of evidence to answer the question: Do we see severe [COVID-19] infection [in children with cancer]?” corresponding author Sheena Mukkada, MD, St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital, Memphis, said in an interview.
In a cohort of 1,319 pediatric patients followed for 30 days, Dr. Mukkada and colleagues reported that 80% of these patients had asymptomatic to moderate disease from COVID-19, while 1 in 5 experienced severe or critical illness and almost 4% died – four times the mortality rate observed in published cohorts of general pediatric patients.
The results highlight that “children and adolescents with cancer generally recover without incident from COVID-19, but can have a severe course of infection,” the authors concluded.
And knowing that some children can get very sick, investigators wanted “to identify who these patients are so that we can prioritize and protect that group,” she added.
Echoing that sentiment, Kathy Pritchard-Jones, MD, president of the International Society of Paediatric Oncology and coauthor on the study, noted in a press release that, “by working together to create this global registry, we have enabled hospitals around the world to rapidly share and learn how COVID-19 is affecting children with cancer.”
Dr. Pritchard-Jones commented that overall these results provide reassurance that “many children can continue their cancer treatment safely, but they also highlight important clinical features that may predict a more severe clinical course and the need for greater vigilance for some patients.”
Inside the Global Registry data
The Global Registry of COVID-19 in Childhood Cancer, created jointly by St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital and SIOP, included data from 131 institutions in 45 countries. Children recruited into the registry between April 2020 and February 2021 ranged in age from infancy to 18 years old.
Most patients remained asymptomatic (35%) or experienced mild to moderate illness (45%), though 20% did develop severe or critical illness.
The investigators highlighted several factors associated with a greater risk of developing more severe illness from COVID-19, which included cancer type, intensity of therapy, age, absolute lymphocyte count, and presence of comorbidities or COVID-19 symptoms.
Notably, more than 80% of either severe or critical infections occurred in patients with hematologic malignancies – with 56% of cases in patients with acute lymphoblastic lymphoma or acute lymphoblastic leukemia – followed by extracranial solid tumors (15.8%), and central nervous system tumors (2.7%).
In patients with acute lymphoblastic leukemia or acute lymphoblastic lymphoma, severe or critical disease was most common in those receiving induction therapy (30%), relapse or refractory therapy (30%), and those in the maintenance or continuation phase of therapy (19%).
Older age was associated with a higher likelihood of having severe disease – with the lowest risk in infants (9.7%) and the highest in the 15- to 18-year-old cohort (27.3%).
Patients with lymphopenia who had an absolute lymphocyte count of 300 cells per mm3 or less and an absolute neutrophil count of 500 cells per mm3 or more also had an elevated risk of severe illness from COVID-19.
Regarding whether the presence of lymphopenia or neutropenia should change the treatment approach, Dr. Mukkada noted that, when possible, these patients should receive antiviral treatment, such as remdesivir, if the center has antivirals, or be prioritized for hospital admission.
Modifying cancer treatment might be recommended if patients are highly lymphopenic or have very low neutrophil counts, but a more effective strategy is simply to ensure that age-eligible children and adolescents with cancer or who have had a hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation have been fully vaccinated against COVID-19. For children who are not yet age-eligible, everyone around them should be vaccinated.
Pediatric patients in low- and middle-income countries were also more likely to have severe or critical outcomes from COVID-19 (41.7%), compared with patients in other income groups (23.9%).
The impact of COVID-19 “has been felt in every corner of the world, but particularly in low- and middle-income countries, compared to high-income countries,” senior author Carlos Rodriguez-Galindo, MD, global director at St. Jude, said in a statement.
In terms of the intersection of cancer treatment and COVID diagnosis, almost 83% of pediatric patients were receiving treatment for their cancer. Chemotherapy was withheld in about 45% of these patients and some modification to the treatment regimen occurred in almost 56% of participants on active therapy.
“Treatment modifications were least common in patients from upper-middle–income countries, compared with other income groups,” the authors wrote.
Although an interesting observation, Dr. Mukkada noted that the registry data could not explain why treatment modifications occurred less frequently in upper-middle income countries as opposed to high-income and lower-income countries.
U.K. Monitoring Project
Not all studies, however, have found that COVID-19 infection is significantly more severe in children with cancer. In a 2020 report from the U.K. Paediatric Coronavirus Cancer Monitoring Project, researchers evaluated all children in the United Kingdom under the age of 16 diagnosed with COVID and cancer.
“[Given that] we had complete coverage of every center in the U.K. that cares for children with cancer, we are confident that we picked up at least all the severe or critical cases,” lead author Gerard Millen, MD, honorary clinical research fellow, University of Birmingham (England), said in an interview.
Between March 2020 and July 2020, Dr. Millen and colleagues identified 54 positive cases of COVID-19, 15 (28%) of which were asymptomatic, 34 (63%) mild, and 4 (7.4%) severe or critical – more in line with the incidence of severe illness reported in the general pediatric population.
“Thankfully, we had no children with cancer in the U.K. who died from COVID-19,” Dr. Millen noted. “Overall, in the U.K., we have taken the approach that the majority of children with cancer in this country are at very low risk from COVID-19 and that we do not have good evidence to modify their treatment.”
Dr. Millen pointed out that the data in the U.K. study were “remarkably similar” to those from the high-income countries in the global St. Jude/SIOP cohort, where 7.4% of patients in that cohort had severe or critical disease, compared with 7.4% of patients from their own U.K. cohort.
“I think many of the key differences between the two cohorts reflect the fact that access to treatment in many low- to middle-income countries is more challenging with many factors contributing to overall poorer outcomes for both cancer and noncancer metrics,” Dr. Millen said.
Both the U.K. and registry studies were performed prior to vaccinations becoming available to older children, and before the emergence of certain variants, including the Delta variant, which is responsible for the most recent surge of COVID-19 infections around the world.
Data on COVID-19 vaccination in children with cancer are limited but promising so far.
As for whether the Delta variant might affect outcomes for children with cancer and COVID-19, Dr. Mukkada could only speculate, but she noted that “what we are hearing anecdotally about the [Delta] disease being more severe, even in patients who don’t have cancer, is leading us to say that we can’t close the registry yet. We are still actively enrolling children.”
The study was funded by the American Lebanese Syrian Associated Charities and the National Cancer Institute. The study authors and Dr. Millen disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Although most children and adolescents with cancer have mild illness from COVID-19 infection, some do experience severe disease and a small percentage even die, according to a recent analysis.
The findings, published online in Lancet Oncology, represent the first global registry data spanning different income groups to report COVID-19 outcomes in pediatric oncology patients.
“We wanted to create a global pool of evidence to answer the question: Do we see severe [COVID-19] infection [in children with cancer]?” corresponding author Sheena Mukkada, MD, St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital, Memphis, said in an interview.
In a cohort of 1,319 pediatric patients followed for 30 days, Dr. Mukkada and colleagues reported that 80% of these patients had asymptomatic to moderate disease from COVID-19, while 1 in 5 experienced severe or critical illness and almost 4% died – four times the mortality rate observed in published cohorts of general pediatric patients.
The results highlight that “children and adolescents with cancer generally recover without incident from COVID-19, but can have a severe course of infection,” the authors concluded.
And knowing that some children can get very sick, investigators wanted “to identify who these patients are so that we can prioritize and protect that group,” she added.
Echoing that sentiment, Kathy Pritchard-Jones, MD, president of the International Society of Paediatric Oncology and coauthor on the study, noted in a press release that, “by working together to create this global registry, we have enabled hospitals around the world to rapidly share and learn how COVID-19 is affecting children with cancer.”
Dr. Pritchard-Jones commented that overall these results provide reassurance that “many children can continue their cancer treatment safely, but they also highlight important clinical features that may predict a more severe clinical course and the need for greater vigilance for some patients.”
Inside the Global Registry data
The Global Registry of COVID-19 in Childhood Cancer, created jointly by St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital and SIOP, included data from 131 institutions in 45 countries. Children recruited into the registry between April 2020 and February 2021 ranged in age from infancy to 18 years old.
Most patients remained asymptomatic (35%) or experienced mild to moderate illness (45%), though 20% did develop severe or critical illness.
The investigators highlighted several factors associated with a greater risk of developing more severe illness from COVID-19, which included cancer type, intensity of therapy, age, absolute lymphocyte count, and presence of comorbidities or COVID-19 symptoms.
Notably, more than 80% of either severe or critical infections occurred in patients with hematologic malignancies – with 56% of cases in patients with acute lymphoblastic lymphoma or acute lymphoblastic leukemia – followed by extracranial solid tumors (15.8%), and central nervous system tumors (2.7%).
In patients with acute lymphoblastic leukemia or acute lymphoblastic lymphoma, severe or critical disease was most common in those receiving induction therapy (30%), relapse or refractory therapy (30%), and those in the maintenance or continuation phase of therapy (19%).
Older age was associated with a higher likelihood of having severe disease – with the lowest risk in infants (9.7%) and the highest in the 15- to 18-year-old cohort (27.3%).
Patients with lymphopenia who had an absolute lymphocyte count of 300 cells per mm3 or less and an absolute neutrophil count of 500 cells per mm3 or more also had an elevated risk of severe illness from COVID-19.
Regarding whether the presence of lymphopenia or neutropenia should change the treatment approach, Dr. Mukkada noted that, when possible, these patients should receive antiviral treatment, such as remdesivir, if the center has antivirals, or be prioritized for hospital admission.
Modifying cancer treatment might be recommended if patients are highly lymphopenic or have very low neutrophil counts, but a more effective strategy is simply to ensure that age-eligible children and adolescents with cancer or who have had a hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation have been fully vaccinated against COVID-19. For children who are not yet age-eligible, everyone around them should be vaccinated.
Pediatric patients in low- and middle-income countries were also more likely to have severe or critical outcomes from COVID-19 (41.7%), compared with patients in other income groups (23.9%).
The impact of COVID-19 “has been felt in every corner of the world, but particularly in low- and middle-income countries, compared to high-income countries,” senior author Carlos Rodriguez-Galindo, MD, global director at St. Jude, said in a statement.
In terms of the intersection of cancer treatment and COVID diagnosis, almost 83% of pediatric patients were receiving treatment for their cancer. Chemotherapy was withheld in about 45% of these patients and some modification to the treatment regimen occurred in almost 56% of participants on active therapy.
“Treatment modifications were least common in patients from upper-middle–income countries, compared with other income groups,” the authors wrote.
Although an interesting observation, Dr. Mukkada noted that the registry data could not explain why treatment modifications occurred less frequently in upper-middle income countries as opposed to high-income and lower-income countries.
U.K. Monitoring Project
Not all studies, however, have found that COVID-19 infection is significantly more severe in children with cancer. In a 2020 report from the U.K. Paediatric Coronavirus Cancer Monitoring Project, researchers evaluated all children in the United Kingdom under the age of 16 diagnosed with COVID and cancer.
“[Given that] we had complete coverage of every center in the U.K. that cares for children with cancer, we are confident that we picked up at least all the severe or critical cases,” lead author Gerard Millen, MD, honorary clinical research fellow, University of Birmingham (England), said in an interview.
Between March 2020 and July 2020, Dr. Millen and colleagues identified 54 positive cases of COVID-19, 15 (28%) of which were asymptomatic, 34 (63%) mild, and 4 (7.4%) severe or critical – more in line with the incidence of severe illness reported in the general pediatric population.
“Thankfully, we had no children with cancer in the U.K. who died from COVID-19,” Dr. Millen noted. “Overall, in the U.K., we have taken the approach that the majority of children with cancer in this country are at very low risk from COVID-19 and that we do not have good evidence to modify their treatment.”
Dr. Millen pointed out that the data in the U.K. study were “remarkably similar” to those from the high-income countries in the global St. Jude/SIOP cohort, where 7.4% of patients in that cohort had severe or critical disease, compared with 7.4% of patients from their own U.K. cohort.
“I think many of the key differences between the two cohorts reflect the fact that access to treatment in many low- to middle-income countries is more challenging with many factors contributing to overall poorer outcomes for both cancer and noncancer metrics,” Dr. Millen said.
Both the U.K. and registry studies were performed prior to vaccinations becoming available to older children, and before the emergence of certain variants, including the Delta variant, which is responsible for the most recent surge of COVID-19 infections around the world.
Data on COVID-19 vaccination in children with cancer are limited but promising so far.
As for whether the Delta variant might affect outcomes for children with cancer and COVID-19, Dr. Mukkada could only speculate, but she noted that “what we are hearing anecdotally about the [Delta] disease being more severe, even in patients who don’t have cancer, is leading us to say that we can’t close the registry yet. We are still actively enrolling children.”
The study was funded by the American Lebanese Syrian Associated Charities and the National Cancer Institute. The study authors and Dr. Millen disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Although most children and adolescents with cancer have mild illness from COVID-19 infection, some do experience severe disease and a small percentage even die, according to a recent analysis.
The findings, published online in Lancet Oncology, represent the first global registry data spanning different income groups to report COVID-19 outcomes in pediatric oncology patients.
“We wanted to create a global pool of evidence to answer the question: Do we see severe [COVID-19] infection [in children with cancer]?” corresponding author Sheena Mukkada, MD, St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital, Memphis, said in an interview.
In a cohort of 1,319 pediatric patients followed for 30 days, Dr. Mukkada and colleagues reported that 80% of these patients had asymptomatic to moderate disease from COVID-19, while 1 in 5 experienced severe or critical illness and almost 4% died – four times the mortality rate observed in published cohorts of general pediatric patients.
The results highlight that “children and adolescents with cancer generally recover without incident from COVID-19, but can have a severe course of infection,” the authors concluded.
And knowing that some children can get very sick, investigators wanted “to identify who these patients are so that we can prioritize and protect that group,” she added.
Echoing that sentiment, Kathy Pritchard-Jones, MD, president of the International Society of Paediatric Oncology and coauthor on the study, noted in a press release that, “by working together to create this global registry, we have enabled hospitals around the world to rapidly share and learn how COVID-19 is affecting children with cancer.”
Dr. Pritchard-Jones commented that overall these results provide reassurance that “many children can continue their cancer treatment safely, but they also highlight important clinical features that may predict a more severe clinical course and the need for greater vigilance for some patients.”
Inside the Global Registry data
The Global Registry of COVID-19 in Childhood Cancer, created jointly by St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital and SIOP, included data from 131 institutions in 45 countries. Children recruited into the registry between April 2020 and February 2021 ranged in age from infancy to 18 years old.
Most patients remained asymptomatic (35%) or experienced mild to moderate illness (45%), though 20% did develop severe or critical illness.
The investigators highlighted several factors associated with a greater risk of developing more severe illness from COVID-19, which included cancer type, intensity of therapy, age, absolute lymphocyte count, and presence of comorbidities or COVID-19 symptoms.
Notably, more than 80% of either severe or critical infections occurred in patients with hematologic malignancies – with 56% of cases in patients with acute lymphoblastic lymphoma or acute lymphoblastic leukemia – followed by extracranial solid tumors (15.8%), and central nervous system tumors (2.7%).
In patients with acute lymphoblastic leukemia or acute lymphoblastic lymphoma, severe or critical disease was most common in those receiving induction therapy (30%), relapse or refractory therapy (30%), and those in the maintenance or continuation phase of therapy (19%).
Older age was associated with a higher likelihood of having severe disease – with the lowest risk in infants (9.7%) and the highest in the 15- to 18-year-old cohort (27.3%).
Patients with lymphopenia who had an absolute lymphocyte count of 300 cells per mm3 or less and an absolute neutrophil count of 500 cells per mm3 or more also had an elevated risk of severe illness from COVID-19.
Regarding whether the presence of lymphopenia or neutropenia should change the treatment approach, Dr. Mukkada noted that, when possible, these patients should receive antiviral treatment, such as remdesivir, if the center has antivirals, or be prioritized for hospital admission.
Modifying cancer treatment might be recommended if patients are highly lymphopenic or have very low neutrophil counts, but a more effective strategy is simply to ensure that age-eligible children and adolescents with cancer or who have had a hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation have been fully vaccinated against COVID-19. For children who are not yet age-eligible, everyone around them should be vaccinated.
Pediatric patients in low- and middle-income countries were also more likely to have severe or critical outcomes from COVID-19 (41.7%), compared with patients in other income groups (23.9%).
The impact of COVID-19 “has been felt in every corner of the world, but particularly in low- and middle-income countries, compared to high-income countries,” senior author Carlos Rodriguez-Galindo, MD, global director at St. Jude, said in a statement.
In terms of the intersection of cancer treatment and COVID diagnosis, almost 83% of pediatric patients were receiving treatment for their cancer. Chemotherapy was withheld in about 45% of these patients and some modification to the treatment regimen occurred in almost 56% of participants on active therapy.
“Treatment modifications were least common in patients from upper-middle–income countries, compared with other income groups,” the authors wrote.
Although an interesting observation, Dr. Mukkada noted that the registry data could not explain why treatment modifications occurred less frequently in upper-middle income countries as opposed to high-income and lower-income countries.
U.K. Monitoring Project
Not all studies, however, have found that COVID-19 infection is significantly more severe in children with cancer. In a 2020 report from the U.K. Paediatric Coronavirus Cancer Monitoring Project, researchers evaluated all children in the United Kingdom under the age of 16 diagnosed with COVID and cancer.
“[Given that] we had complete coverage of every center in the U.K. that cares for children with cancer, we are confident that we picked up at least all the severe or critical cases,” lead author Gerard Millen, MD, honorary clinical research fellow, University of Birmingham (England), said in an interview.
Between March 2020 and July 2020, Dr. Millen and colleagues identified 54 positive cases of COVID-19, 15 (28%) of which were asymptomatic, 34 (63%) mild, and 4 (7.4%) severe or critical – more in line with the incidence of severe illness reported in the general pediatric population.
“Thankfully, we had no children with cancer in the U.K. who died from COVID-19,” Dr. Millen noted. “Overall, in the U.K., we have taken the approach that the majority of children with cancer in this country are at very low risk from COVID-19 and that we do not have good evidence to modify their treatment.”
Dr. Millen pointed out that the data in the U.K. study were “remarkably similar” to those from the high-income countries in the global St. Jude/SIOP cohort, where 7.4% of patients in that cohort had severe or critical disease, compared with 7.4% of patients from their own U.K. cohort.
“I think many of the key differences between the two cohorts reflect the fact that access to treatment in many low- to middle-income countries is more challenging with many factors contributing to overall poorer outcomes for both cancer and noncancer metrics,” Dr. Millen said.
Both the U.K. and registry studies were performed prior to vaccinations becoming available to older children, and before the emergence of certain variants, including the Delta variant, which is responsible for the most recent surge of COVID-19 infections around the world.
Data on COVID-19 vaccination in children with cancer are limited but promising so far.
As for whether the Delta variant might affect outcomes for children with cancer and COVID-19, Dr. Mukkada could only speculate, but she noted that “what we are hearing anecdotally about the [Delta] disease being more severe, even in patients who don’t have cancer, is leading us to say that we can’t close the registry yet. We are still actively enrolling children.”
The study was funded by the American Lebanese Syrian Associated Charities and the National Cancer Institute. The study authors and Dr. Millen disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Study supports add-on therapy for germline and wildtype BRCA mutations
The initial improvement that was seen in pathologic complete response (pCR) rates with the addition of carboplatin to paclitaxel and standard neoadjuvant chemotherapy translated into improved event-free survival (EFS) rates in patients with resectable TNBC more than 4 years after surgery.
The benefits of adding carboplatin to paclitaxel, followed by four cycles of AC (doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide) chemotherapy, were seen both in patients with germline BRCA mutations and those with wildtype BRCA.
The trial results also demonstrated, however, that there were no short- or long-term benefits to adding veliparib (ABT-888), a poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor, to the mix.
Although pCR and EFS rates were significantly improved with the combination of paclitaxel and carboplatin compared with paclitaxel alone, there were no significant differences when veliparib was added in either pCR, EFS, or overall survival (OS).
“These findings overall support the inclusion of carboplatin into neoadjuvant chemotherapy for stage 2 and 3 triple-negative breast cancer patients, regardless of germline BRCA status,” concluded lead author Sibylle Loibl, MD, PhD, chief executive officer and chair of the German Breast Group.
She presented the new data during an oral session at the virtual European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Congress 2021.
The BrighTNess results show that “neoadjuvant carboplatin plus paclitaxel is superior to paclitaxel alone, with high pCR rates and benefit of event-free survival rates with manageable toxicity and no safety signals,” commented invited discussant Monica Arnedos, MD, PhD, head of the breast cancer research program at the Institut Bergonié in Bordeaux, France.
The findings also put to rest the notion that patients with germline BRCA mutations would not benefit from carboplatin treatment because of extreme sensitivity to standard neoadjuvant chemotherapy.
“The BrighTNess study says otherwise,” Dr. Arnedos said. “Today we’ve seen that the pCR improved event-free survival regardless of the germline BRCA mutated status, so BRCA-mutated germline patients require neoadjuvant carboplatin.”
The new data may lead to changes in breast cancer guidelines, she suggested.
Prior to these results, the evidence was that “platinum salts as neoadjuvant chemotherapy increased pCR rates in triple-negative breast cancer patients, but this was associated with more toxicity, and with higher rates of treatment discontinuation and dose reduction, without strong evidence of long-term benefit. This led to a lack of consensus to recommend platinum salts in this setting between the different breast cancer guidelines.”
The new BrighTNess data showed that the improved pCR rates translated into an EFS benefit in both platinum-containing groups of the trial, a finding that is consistent with the KEYNOTE-522 trial, which showed that adding pembrolizumab (Keytruda) to chemotherapy improved pCR in patients with early TNBC.
The BrighTNess results suggest that patients with high- or moderate-risk TNBC could be treated in the neoadjuvant setting with paclitaxel and carboplatin followed by standard chemotherapy concurrently with pembrolizumab, followed by surgery, and adjuvant therapy with pembrolizumab plus olaparib (Lynparza) for patients with germline BRCA mutations, or capecitabine for patients without mutations, Dr. Arnedos proposed.
BrighTNess study details
The BrighTNess trial involved 634 patients with previously untreated histologically or cytologically confirmed stage 2-3 TNBC who were candidates for potentially curative surgery and had a good performance status. They were randomly assigned to receive either paclitaxel plus carboplatin and veliparib, paclitaxel plus carboplatin only, or paclitaxel alone prior to four cycles of chemotherapy with doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide (AC).
Initial results, published in 2018 in The Lancet Oncology, showed that the addition of veliparib to carboplatin and paclitaxel improved pCR rates compared with paclitaxel alone but not paclitaxel plus carboplatin. The trial data supported the addition of carboplatin to standard neoadjuvant chemotherapy but not veliparib, the investigators stated at the time.
Now at the ESMO meeting, Dr. Loibl presented longer follow-up results.
After a median follow-up of 4.5 years, the hazard ratio (HR) for event-free survival with the paclitaxel/carboplatin/veliparib combination compared with paclitaxel alone was 0.63 (P = .016). In a post-hoc analysis, the adjusted HR was 0.57 (P = .018).
In a subgroup of 309 patients who had initial pCRs, the HR for EFS compared with patients without a pCR was 0.26 (P < .0001). Among patients with germline BRCA mutation, the HR for EFS for those who had a pCR was 0.14 (P = .0004), and among those with germline wildtype BRCA and a pCR the HR was 0.29 (P < .0001).
However, there were no significant differences in OS a median of 4.5 years after surgery.
An analysis of the frequency of myelodysplastic syndrome, acute myeloid leukemia, or other second primary malignancies also showed no significant differences between the groups, Dr. Loibl noted.
Although there were higher rates of hematologic malignancies with the addition of carboplatin, with or without veliparib, these adverse events did not compromise either treatment delivery of the benefits of carboplatin on the primary pCR endpoint, she added.
The BrighTNess trial was supported by AbbVie. Dr. Loibl has reported receiving grants and honoraria from AbbVie and others, including Medscape. Dr. Arnedos has reported receiving honoraria, travel grants, and/or research grants from AstraZeneca, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The initial improvement that was seen in pathologic complete response (pCR) rates with the addition of carboplatin to paclitaxel and standard neoadjuvant chemotherapy translated into improved event-free survival (EFS) rates in patients with resectable TNBC more than 4 years after surgery.
The benefits of adding carboplatin to paclitaxel, followed by four cycles of AC (doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide) chemotherapy, were seen both in patients with germline BRCA mutations and those with wildtype BRCA.
The trial results also demonstrated, however, that there were no short- or long-term benefits to adding veliparib (ABT-888), a poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor, to the mix.
Although pCR and EFS rates were significantly improved with the combination of paclitaxel and carboplatin compared with paclitaxel alone, there were no significant differences when veliparib was added in either pCR, EFS, or overall survival (OS).
“These findings overall support the inclusion of carboplatin into neoadjuvant chemotherapy for stage 2 and 3 triple-negative breast cancer patients, regardless of germline BRCA status,” concluded lead author Sibylle Loibl, MD, PhD, chief executive officer and chair of the German Breast Group.
She presented the new data during an oral session at the virtual European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Congress 2021.
The BrighTNess results show that “neoadjuvant carboplatin plus paclitaxel is superior to paclitaxel alone, with high pCR rates and benefit of event-free survival rates with manageable toxicity and no safety signals,” commented invited discussant Monica Arnedos, MD, PhD, head of the breast cancer research program at the Institut Bergonié in Bordeaux, France.
The findings also put to rest the notion that patients with germline BRCA mutations would not benefit from carboplatin treatment because of extreme sensitivity to standard neoadjuvant chemotherapy.
“The BrighTNess study says otherwise,” Dr. Arnedos said. “Today we’ve seen that the pCR improved event-free survival regardless of the germline BRCA mutated status, so BRCA-mutated germline patients require neoadjuvant carboplatin.”
The new data may lead to changes in breast cancer guidelines, she suggested.
Prior to these results, the evidence was that “platinum salts as neoadjuvant chemotherapy increased pCR rates in triple-negative breast cancer patients, but this was associated with more toxicity, and with higher rates of treatment discontinuation and dose reduction, without strong evidence of long-term benefit. This led to a lack of consensus to recommend platinum salts in this setting between the different breast cancer guidelines.”
The new BrighTNess data showed that the improved pCR rates translated into an EFS benefit in both platinum-containing groups of the trial, a finding that is consistent with the KEYNOTE-522 trial, which showed that adding pembrolizumab (Keytruda) to chemotherapy improved pCR in patients with early TNBC.
The BrighTNess results suggest that patients with high- or moderate-risk TNBC could be treated in the neoadjuvant setting with paclitaxel and carboplatin followed by standard chemotherapy concurrently with pembrolizumab, followed by surgery, and adjuvant therapy with pembrolizumab plus olaparib (Lynparza) for patients with germline BRCA mutations, or capecitabine for patients without mutations, Dr. Arnedos proposed.
BrighTNess study details
The BrighTNess trial involved 634 patients with previously untreated histologically or cytologically confirmed stage 2-3 TNBC who were candidates for potentially curative surgery and had a good performance status. They were randomly assigned to receive either paclitaxel plus carboplatin and veliparib, paclitaxel plus carboplatin only, or paclitaxel alone prior to four cycles of chemotherapy with doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide (AC).
Initial results, published in 2018 in The Lancet Oncology, showed that the addition of veliparib to carboplatin and paclitaxel improved pCR rates compared with paclitaxel alone but not paclitaxel plus carboplatin. The trial data supported the addition of carboplatin to standard neoadjuvant chemotherapy but not veliparib, the investigators stated at the time.
Now at the ESMO meeting, Dr. Loibl presented longer follow-up results.
After a median follow-up of 4.5 years, the hazard ratio (HR) for event-free survival with the paclitaxel/carboplatin/veliparib combination compared with paclitaxel alone was 0.63 (P = .016). In a post-hoc analysis, the adjusted HR was 0.57 (P = .018).
In a subgroup of 309 patients who had initial pCRs, the HR for EFS compared with patients without a pCR was 0.26 (P < .0001). Among patients with germline BRCA mutation, the HR for EFS for those who had a pCR was 0.14 (P = .0004), and among those with germline wildtype BRCA and a pCR the HR was 0.29 (P < .0001).
However, there were no significant differences in OS a median of 4.5 years after surgery.
An analysis of the frequency of myelodysplastic syndrome, acute myeloid leukemia, or other second primary malignancies also showed no significant differences between the groups, Dr. Loibl noted.
Although there were higher rates of hematologic malignancies with the addition of carboplatin, with or without veliparib, these adverse events did not compromise either treatment delivery of the benefits of carboplatin on the primary pCR endpoint, she added.
The BrighTNess trial was supported by AbbVie. Dr. Loibl has reported receiving grants and honoraria from AbbVie and others, including Medscape. Dr. Arnedos has reported receiving honoraria, travel grants, and/or research grants from AstraZeneca, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The initial improvement that was seen in pathologic complete response (pCR) rates with the addition of carboplatin to paclitaxel and standard neoadjuvant chemotherapy translated into improved event-free survival (EFS) rates in patients with resectable TNBC more than 4 years after surgery.
The benefits of adding carboplatin to paclitaxel, followed by four cycles of AC (doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide) chemotherapy, were seen both in patients with germline BRCA mutations and those with wildtype BRCA.
The trial results also demonstrated, however, that there were no short- or long-term benefits to adding veliparib (ABT-888), a poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor, to the mix.
Although pCR and EFS rates were significantly improved with the combination of paclitaxel and carboplatin compared with paclitaxel alone, there were no significant differences when veliparib was added in either pCR, EFS, or overall survival (OS).
“These findings overall support the inclusion of carboplatin into neoadjuvant chemotherapy for stage 2 and 3 triple-negative breast cancer patients, regardless of germline BRCA status,” concluded lead author Sibylle Loibl, MD, PhD, chief executive officer and chair of the German Breast Group.
She presented the new data during an oral session at the virtual European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Congress 2021.
The BrighTNess results show that “neoadjuvant carboplatin plus paclitaxel is superior to paclitaxel alone, with high pCR rates and benefit of event-free survival rates with manageable toxicity and no safety signals,” commented invited discussant Monica Arnedos, MD, PhD, head of the breast cancer research program at the Institut Bergonié in Bordeaux, France.
The findings also put to rest the notion that patients with germline BRCA mutations would not benefit from carboplatin treatment because of extreme sensitivity to standard neoadjuvant chemotherapy.
“The BrighTNess study says otherwise,” Dr. Arnedos said. “Today we’ve seen that the pCR improved event-free survival regardless of the germline BRCA mutated status, so BRCA-mutated germline patients require neoadjuvant carboplatin.”
The new data may lead to changes in breast cancer guidelines, she suggested.
Prior to these results, the evidence was that “platinum salts as neoadjuvant chemotherapy increased pCR rates in triple-negative breast cancer patients, but this was associated with more toxicity, and with higher rates of treatment discontinuation and dose reduction, without strong evidence of long-term benefit. This led to a lack of consensus to recommend platinum salts in this setting between the different breast cancer guidelines.”
The new BrighTNess data showed that the improved pCR rates translated into an EFS benefit in both platinum-containing groups of the trial, a finding that is consistent with the KEYNOTE-522 trial, which showed that adding pembrolizumab (Keytruda) to chemotherapy improved pCR in patients with early TNBC.
The BrighTNess results suggest that patients with high- or moderate-risk TNBC could be treated in the neoadjuvant setting with paclitaxel and carboplatin followed by standard chemotherapy concurrently with pembrolizumab, followed by surgery, and adjuvant therapy with pembrolizumab plus olaparib (Lynparza) for patients with germline BRCA mutations, or capecitabine for patients without mutations, Dr. Arnedos proposed.
BrighTNess study details
The BrighTNess trial involved 634 patients with previously untreated histologically or cytologically confirmed stage 2-3 TNBC who were candidates for potentially curative surgery and had a good performance status. They were randomly assigned to receive either paclitaxel plus carboplatin and veliparib, paclitaxel plus carboplatin only, or paclitaxel alone prior to four cycles of chemotherapy with doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide (AC).
Initial results, published in 2018 in The Lancet Oncology, showed that the addition of veliparib to carboplatin and paclitaxel improved pCR rates compared with paclitaxel alone but not paclitaxel plus carboplatin. The trial data supported the addition of carboplatin to standard neoadjuvant chemotherapy but not veliparib, the investigators stated at the time.
Now at the ESMO meeting, Dr. Loibl presented longer follow-up results.
After a median follow-up of 4.5 years, the hazard ratio (HR) for event-free survival with the paclitaxel/carboplatin/veliparib combination compared with paclitaxel alone was 0.63 (P = .016). In a post-hoc analysis, the adjusted HR was 0.57 (P = .018).
In a subgroup of 309 patients who had initial pCRs, the HR for EFS compared with patients without a pCR was 0.26 (P < .0001). Among patients with germline BRCA mutation, the HR for EFS for those who had a pCR was 0.14 (P = .0004), and among those with germline wildtype BRCA and a pCR the HR was 0.29 (P < .0001).
However, there were no significant differences in OS a median of 4.5 years after surgery.
An analysis of the frequency of myelodysplastic syndrome, acute myeloid leukemia, or other second primary malignancies also showed no significant differences between the groups, Dr. Loibl noted.
Although there were higher rates of hematologic malignancies with the addition of carboplatin, with or without veliparib, these adverse events did not compromise either treatment delivery of the benefits of carboplatin on the primary pCR endpoint, she added.
The BrighTNess trial was supported by AbbVie. Dr. Loibl has reported receiving grants and honoraria from AbbVie and others, including Medscape. Dr. Arnedos has reported receiving honoraria, travel grants, and/or research grants from AstraZeneca, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Most community-based oncologists skip biomarker testing
A recent survey shows that fewer than half of community oncologists use biomarker testing to guide patient discussions about treatment, which compares with 73% of academic clinicians.
The findings, reported at the 2020 World Conference on Lung Cancer, which was rescheduled for January 2021, highlight the potential for unequal application of the latest advances in cancer genomics and targeted therapies throughout the health care system, which could worsen existing disparities in underserved populations, according to Leigh Boehmer, PharmD, medical director for the Association of Community Cancer Centers, Rockville, Md.
The survey – a mixed-methods approach for assessing practice patterns, attitudes, barriers, and resource needs related to biomarker testing among clinicians – was developed by the ACCC in partnership with the LUNGevity Foundation and administered to clinicians caring for patients with non–small cell lung cancer who are uninsured or covered by Medicaid.
Of 99 respondents, more than 85% were physicians and 68% worked in a community setting. Only 40% indicated they were very familiar or extremely familiar with 2018 Molecular Testing Guidelines for Lung Cancer from the College of American Pathologists, the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer, and the Association for Molecular Pathology.
Clinicians were most confident about selecting appropriate tests to use, interpreting test results, and prognosticating based on test results, with 77%, 74%, and 74%, respectively, saying they are very confident or extremely confident in those areas. They were less confident about determining when to order testing and in coordinating care across the multidisciplinary team, with 59% and 64%, respectively, saying they were very confident or extremely confident in those areas, Dr. Boehmer reported at the conference.
The shortcomings with respect to communication across teams were echoed in two focus groups convened to further validate the survey results, he noted.
As for the reasons why clinicians ordered biomarker testing, 88% and 82% of community and academic clinicians, respectively, said they did so to help make targeted treatment decisions.
“Only 48% of community clinicians indicated that they use biomarker testing to guide patient discussions, compared to 73% of academic clinicians,” he said. “That finding was considered statistically significant.”
With respect to decision-making about biomarker testing, 41% said they prefer to share the responsibility with patients, whereas 52% said they prefer to make the final decision.
“Shedding further light on this situation, focus group participants expressed that patients lacked comprehension and interest about what testing entails and what testing means for their treatment options,” Dr. Boehmer noted.
In order to make more informed decisions about biomarker testing, respondents said they need more information on financial resources for patient assistance (26%) and education around both published guidelines and practical implications of the clinical data (21%).
When asked about patients’ information needs, 23% said their patients need psychosocial support, 22% said they need financial assistance, and 9% said their patients have no additional resource needs.
However, only 27% said they provide patients with resources related to psychosocial support services, and only 44% share financial assistance information, he said.
Further, the fact that 9% said their patients need no additional resources represents “a disconnect” from the findings of the survey and focus groups, he added.
“We believe that this study identifies key areas of ongoing clinician need related to biomarker testing, including things like increased guideline familiarity, practical applications of guideline-concordant testing, and … how to optimally coordinate multidisciplinary care delivery,” Dr. Boehmer said. “Professional organizations … in partnership with patient advocacy organizations or groups should focus on developing those patient education materials … and tools for improving patient-clinician discussions about biomarker testing.”
The ACCC will be working with the LUNGevity Foundation and the Center for Business Models in Healthcare to develop an intervention to ensure that such discussions are “easily integrated into the care process for every patient,” he noted.
Such efforts are important for ensuring that clinicians are informed about the value of biomarker testing and about guidelines for testing so that patients receive the best possible care, said invited discussant Joshua Sabari, MD, of New York University Langone Health’s Perlmutter Cancer Center.
“I know that, in clinic, when meeting a new patient with non–small cell lung cancer, it’s critical to understand the driver alteration, not only for prognosis, but also for goals-of-care discussion, as well as potential treatment option,” Dr. Sabari said.
Dr. Boehmer reported consulting for Pfizer. Dr. Sabari reported consulting and advisory board membership for multiple pharmaceutical companies.
A recent survey shows that fewer than half of community oncologists use biomarker testing to guide patient discussions about treatment, which compares with 73% of academic clinicians.
The findings, reported at the 2020 World Conference on Lung Cancer, which was rescheduled for January 2021, highlight the potential for unequal application of the latest advances in cancer genomics and targeted therapies throughout the health care system, which could worsen existing disparities in underserved populations, according to Leigh Boehmer, PharmD, medical director for the Association of Community Cancer Centers, Rockville, Md.
The survey – a mixed-methods approach for assessing practice patterns, attitudes, barriers, and resource needs related to biomarker testing among clinicians – was developed by the ACCC in partnership with the LUNGevity Foundation and administered to clinicians caring for patients with non–small cell lung cancer who are uninsured or covered by Medicaid.
Of 99 respondents, more than 85% were physicians and 68% worked in a community setting. Only 40% indicated they were very familiar or extremely familiar with 2018 Molecular Testing Guidelines for Lung Cancer from the College of American Pathologists, the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer, and the Association for Molecular Pathology.
Clinicians were most confident about selecting appropriate tests to use, interpreting test results, and prognosticating based on test results, with 77%, 74%, and 74%, respectively, saying they are very confident or extremely confident in those areas. They were less confident about determining when to order testing and in coordinating care across the multidisciplinary team, with 59% and 64%, respectively, saying they were very confident or extremely confident in those areas, Dr. Boehmer reported at the conference.
The shortcomings with respect to communication across teams were echoed in two focus groups convened to further validate the survey results, he noted.
As for the reasons why clinicians ordered biomarker testing, 88% and 82% of community and academic clinicians, respectively, said they did so to help make targeted treatment decisions.
“Only 48% of community clinicians indicated that they use biomarker testing to guide patient discussions, compared to 73% of academic clinicians,” he said. “That finding was considered statistically significant.”
With respect to decision-making about biomarker testing, 41% said they prefer to share the responsibility with patients, whereas 52% said they prefer to make the final decision.
“Shedding further light on this situation, focus group participants expressed that patients lacked comprehension and interest about what testing entails and what testing means for their treatment options,” Dr. Boehmer noted.
In order to make more informed decisions about biomarker testing, respondents said they need more information on financial resources for patient assistance (26%) and education around both published guidelines and practical implications of the clinical data (21%).
When asked about patients’ information needs, 23% said their patients need psychosocial support, 22% said they need financial assistance, and 9% said their patients have no additional resource needs.
However, only 27% said they provide patients with resources related to psychosocial support services, and only 44% share financial assistance information, he said.
Further, the fact that 9% said their patients need no additional resources represents “a disconnect” from the findings of the survey and focus groups, he added.
“We believe that this study identifies key areas of ongoing clinician need related to biomarker testing, including things like increased guideline familiarity, practical applications of guideline-concordant testing, and … how to optimally coordinate multidisciplinary care delivery,” Dr. Boehmer said. “Professional organizations … in partnership with patient advocacy organizations or groups should focus on developing those patient education materials … and tools for improving patient-clinician discussions about biomarker testing.”
The ACCC will be working with the LUNGevity Foundation and the Center for Business Models in Healthcare to develop an intervention to ensure that such discussions are “easily integrated into the care process for every patient,” he noted.
Such efforts are important for ensuring that clinicians are informed about the value of biomarker testing and about guidelines for testing so that patients receive the best possible care, said invited discussant Joshua Sabari, MD, of New York University Langone Health’s Perlmutter Cancer Center.
“I know that, in clinic, when meeting a new patient with non–small cell lung cancer, it’s critical to understand the driver alteration, not only for prognosis, but also for goals-of-care discussion, as well as potential treatment option,” Dr. Sabari said.
Dr. Boehmer reported consulting for Pfizer. Dr. Sabari reported consulting and advisory board membership for multiple pharmaceutical companies.
A recent survey shows that fewer than half of community oncologists use biomarker testing to guide patient discussions about treatment, which compares with 73% of academic clinicians.
The findings, reported at the 2020 World Conference on Lung Cancer, which was rescheduled for January 2021, highlight the potential for unequal application of the latest advances in cancer genomics and targeted therapies throughout the health care system, which could worsen existing disparities in underserved populations, according to Leigh Boehmer, PharmD, medical director for the Association of Community Cancer Centers, Rockville, Md.
The survey – a mixed-methods approach for assessing practice patterns, attitudes, barriers, and resource needs related to biomarker testing among clinicians – was developed by the ACCC in partnership with the LUNGevity Foundation and administered to clinicians caring for patients with non–small cell lung cancer who are uninsured or covered by Medicaid.
Of 99 respondents, more than 85% were physicians and 68% worked in a community setting. Only 40% indicated they were very familiar or extremely familiar with 2018 Molecular Testing Guidelines for Lung Cancer from the College of American Pathologists, the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer, and the Association for Molecular Pathology.
Clinicians were most confident about selecting appropriate tests to use, interpreting test results, and prognosticating based on test results, with 77%, 74%, and 74%, respectively, saying they are very confident or extremely confident in those areas. They were less confident about determining when to order testing and in coordinating care across the multidisciplinary team, with 59% and 64%, respectively, saying they were very confident or extremely confident in those areas, Dr. Boehmer reported at the conference.
The shortcomings with respect to communication across teams were echoed in two focus groups convened to further validate the survey results, he noted.
As for the reasons why clinicians ordered biomarker testing, 88% and 82% of community and academic clinicians, respectively, said they did so to help make targeted treatment decisions.
“Only 48% of community clinicians indicated that they use biomarker testing to guide patient discussions, compared to 73% of academic clinicians,” he said. “That finding was considered statistically significant.”
With respect to decision-making about biomarker testing, 41% said they prefer to share the responsibility with patients, whereas 52% said they prefer to make the final decision.
“Shedding further light on this situation, focus group participants expressed that patients lacked comprehension and interest about what testing entails and what testing means for their treatment options,” Dr. Boehmer noted.
In order to make more informed decisions about biomarker testing, respondents said they need more information on financial resources for patient assistance (26%) and education around both published guidelines and practical implications of the clinical data (21%).
When asked about patients’ information needs, 23% said their patients need psychosocial support, 22% said they need financial assistance, and 9% said their patients have no additional resource needs.
However, only 27% said they provide patients with resources related to psychosocial support services, and only 44% share financial assistance information, he said.
Further, the fact that 9% said their patients need no additional resources represents “a disconnect” from the findings of the survey and focus groups, he added.
“We believe that this study identifies key areas of ongoing clinician need related to biomarker testing, including things like increased guideline familiarity, practical applications of guideline-concordant testing, and … how to optimally coordinate multidisciplinary care delivery,” Dr. Boehmer said. “Professional organizations … in partnership with patient advocacy organizations or groups should focus on developing those patient education materials … and tools for improving patient-clinician discussions about biomarker testing.”
The ACCC will be working with the LUNGevity Foundation and the Center for Business Models in Healthcare to develop an intervention to ensure that such discussions are “easily integrated into the care process for every patient,” he noted.
Such efforts are important for ensuring that clinicians are informed about the value of biomarker testing and about guidelines for testing so that patients receive the best possible care, said invited discussant Joshua Sabari, MD, of New York University Langone Health’s Perlmutter Cancer Center.
“I know that, in clinic, when meeting a new patient with non–small cell lung cancer, it’s critical to understand the driver alteration, not only for prognosis, but also for goals-of-care discussion, as well as potential treatment option,” Dr. Sabari said.
Dr. Boehmer reported consulting for Pfizer. Dr. Sabari reported consulting and advisory board membership for multiple pharmaceutical companies.
REPORTING FROM WCLC 2020
Twelve-month overall survival benefit with ribociclib for metastatic breast cancer
“Based on these results, ribociclib and letrozole should be considered the preferred treatment option,” said lead investigator Gabriel N. Hortobagyi, MD, a breast cancer medical oncologist at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.
He presented the definitive overall survival results from MONALESSA-2 which randomized 668 patients equally and in the first line to either ribociclib or placebo on a background of standard dose letrozole.
At a median follow up of 6.6 years, median overall survival with ribociclib was 63.9 months versus 51.4 months in the placebo arm, a 24% reduction in the relative risk of death (P = .004).
It was the first report of a median overall survival (OS) exceeding 5 years in a phase 3 trial for advanced breast cancer. The estimated 6-year OS rate was 44.2% for ribociclib versus 32.0% with placebo.
“These are really impressive results” and support the use of CDK 4/6 inhibitors in the front-line setting,” said study discussant Gonzalo Gomez Abuin, MD, a medical oncologist at Hospital Alemán in Bueno Aires.
Ribociclib and other CDK 4/6 inhibitors have shown consistent progression-free survival benefit for metastatic disease, but ribociclib is the first of the major phase 3 trials with definitive overall survival results. They have “been long awaited,” Dr. Abuin said.
The overall survival benefit in MONALESSA-2 began to emerge at around 20 months and continued to increase over time.
Women had no prior CDK4/6 inhibitor treatment, chemotherapy, or endocrine therapy for metastatic disease. “They represented a pure first-line population,” Dr. Hortobagyi said.
Among other benefits, the time to first chemotherapy was a median of 50.6 months with ribociclib versus 38.9 months with placebo, so patients “had an extra year of delay before chemotherapy was utilized,” he said.
In general, Dr. Abuin said, we “see a consistent benefit with CDK 4/6 inhibitors in metastatic breast cancer across different settings.”
However, “it’s a little intriguing” that in a subgroup analysis of non–de novo disease, the overall survival benefit with ribociclib had a hazard ratio of 0.91, whereas the progression-free survival benefit was robust and statistically significant in an earlier report.
“This has been an important question, but I would caution all of us not to make too much out of the forest plot,” Dr. Hortobagyi said.
“There are a number of hypotheses one could come up with that could explain why the de novo and non–de novo populations faired differently in overall survival as opposed to progression-free survival, but there is also the simple possibility that this is a statistical fluke,” he said.
“We are in the process of analyzing this particular observation. In the meantime, I think we should just take the overall survival results of the entire population as the lead answer, and not follow the subgroup analysis until further information is available,” Dr. Hortobagyi said.
No new ribociclib safety signals were observed in the trial. The most common adverse events were neutropenia and liver function abnormalities, but they were “largely asymptomatic laboratory findings and completely reversible,” he said.
Twice as many patients treated with ribociclib developed prolonged QT intervals, but again, “no clinical consequences of this EKG finding were detected,” Dr. Hortobagyi said.
Less than 1% of patients in the ribociclib arm developed interstitial lung disease. The majority of safety events occurred in the first 12 months of treatment.
The work was funded by Novartis, maker of both ribociclib and letrozole. Dr. Hortobagyi reported receiving an institutional grant from the company and personal fees related to the trial. Other investigators disclosed ties to Novartis. Dr. Abuin reported relationships with many companies, including Novartis.
This article was updated 9/24/21.
“Based on these results, ribociclib and letrozole should be considered the preferred treatment option,” said lead investigator Gabriel N. Hortobagyi, MD, a breast cancer medical oncologist at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.
He presented the definitive overall survival results from MONALESSA-2 which randomized 668 patients equally and in the first line to either ribociclib or placebo on a background of standard dose letrozole.
At a median follow up of 6.6 years, median overall survival with ribociclib was 63.9 months versus 51.4 months in the placebo arm, a 24% reduction in the relative risk of death (P = .004).
It was the first report of a median overall survival (OS) exceeding 5 years in a phase 3 trial for advanced breast cancer. The estimated 6-year OS rate was 44.2% for ribociclib versus 32.0% with placebo.
“These are really impressive results” and support the use of CDK 4/6 inhibitors in the front-line setting,” said study discussant Gonzalo Gomez Abuin, MD, a medical oncologist at Hospital Alemán in Bueno Aires.
Ribociclib and other CDK 4/6 inhibitors have shown consistent progression-free survival benefit for metastatic disease, but ribociclib is the first of the major phase 3 trials with definitive overall survival results. They have “been long awaited,” Dr. Abuin said.
The overall survival benefit in MONALESSA-2 began to emerge at around 20 months and continued to increase over time.
Women had no prior CDK4/6 inhibitor treatment, chemotherapy, or endocrine therapy for metastatic disease. “They represented a pure first-line population,” Dr. Hortobagyi said.
Among other benefits, the time to first chemotherapy was a median of 50.6 months with ribociclib versus 38.9 months with placebo, so patients “had an extra year of delay before chemotherapy was utilized,” he said.
In general, Dr. Abuin said, we “see a consistent benefit with CDK 4/6 inhibitors in metastatic breast cancer across different settings.”
However, “it’s a little intriguing” that in a subgroup analysis of non–de novo disease, the overall survival benefit with ribociclib had a hazard ratio of 0.91, whereas the progression-free survival benefit was robust and statistically significant in an earlier report.
“This has been an important question, but I would caution all of us not to make too much out of the forest plot,” Dr. Hortobagyi said.
“There are a number of hypotheses one could come up with that could explain why the de novo and non–de novo populations faired differently in overall survival as opposed to progression-free survival, but there is also the simple possibility that this is a statistical fluke,” he said.
“We are in the process of analyzing this particular observation. In the meantime, I think we should just take the overall survival results of the entire population as the lead answer, and not follow the subgroup analysis until further information is available,” Dr. Hortobagyi said.
No new ribociclib safety signals were observed in the trial. The most common adverse events were neutropenia and liver function abnormalities, but they were “largely asymptomatic laboratory findings and completely reversible,” he said.
Twice as many patients treated with ribociclib developed prolonged QT intervals, but again, “no clinical consequences of this EKG finding were detected,” Dr. Hortobagyi said.
Less than 1% of patients in the ribociclib arm developed interstitial lung disease. The majority of safety events occurred in the first 12 months of treatment.
The work was funded by Novartis, maker of both ribociclib and letrozole. Dr. Hortobagyi reported receiving an institutional grant from the company and personal fees related to the trial. Other investigators disclosed ties to Novartis. Dr. Abuin reported relationships with many companies, including Novartis.
This article was updated 9/24/21.
“Based on these results, ribociclib and letrozole should be considered the preferred treatment option,” said lead investigator Gabriel N. Hortobagyi, MD, a breast cancer medical oncologist at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.
He presented the definitive overall survival results from MONALESSA-2 which randomized 668 patients equally and in the first line to either ribociclib or placebo on a background of standard dose letrozole.
At a median follow up of 6.6 years, median overall survival with ribociclib was 63.9 months versus 51.4 months in the placebo arm, a 24% reduction in the relative risk of death (P = .004).
It was the first report of a median overall survival (OS) exceeding 5 years in a phase 3 trial for advanced breast cancer. The estimated 6-year OS rate was 44.2% for ribociclib versus 32.0% with placebo.
“These are really impressive results” and support the use of CDK 4/6 inhibitors in the front-line setting,” said study discussant Gonzalo Gomez Abuin, MD, a medical oncologist at Hospital Alemán in Bueno Aires.
Ribociclib and other CDK 4/6 inhibitors have shown consistent progression-free survival benefit for metastatic disease, but ribociclib is the first of the major phase 3 trials with definitive overall survival results. They have “been long awaited,” Dr. Abuin said.
The overall survival benefit in MONALESSA-2 began to emerge at around 20 months and continued to increase over time.
Women had no prior CDK4/6 inhibitor treatment, chemotherapy, or endocrine therapy for metastatic disease. “They represented a pure first-line population,” Dr. Hortobagyi said.
Among other benefits, the time to first chemotherapy was a median of 50.6 months with ribociclib versus 38.9 months with placebo, so patients “had an extra year of delay before chemotherapy was utilized,” he said.
In general, Dr. Abuin said, we “see a consistent benefit with CDK 4/6 inhibitors in metastatic breast cancer across different settings.”
However, “it’s a little intriguing” that in a subgroup analysis of non–de novo disease, the overall survival benefit with ribociclib had a hazard ratio of 0.91, whereas the progression-free survival benefit was robust and statistically significant in an earlier report.
“This has been an important question, but I would caution all of us not to make too much out of the forest plot,” Dr. Hortobagyi said.
“There are a number of hypotheses one could come up with that could explain why the de novo and non–de novo populations faired differently in overall survival as opposed to progression-free survival, but there is also the simple possibility that this is a statistical fluke,” he said.
“We are in the process of analyzing this particular observation. In the meantime, I think we should just take the overall survival results of the entire population as the lead answer, and not follow the subgroup analysis until further information is available,” Dr. Hortobagyi said.
No new ribociclib safety signals were observed in the trial. The most common adverse events were neutropenia and liver function abnormalities, but they were “largely asymptomatic laboratory findings and completely reversible,” he said.
Twice as many patients treated with ribociclib developed prolonged QT intervals, but again, “no clinical consequences of this EKG finding were detected,” Dr. Hortobagyi said.
Less than 1% of patients in the ribociclib arm developed interstitial lung disease. The majority of safety events occurred in the first 12 months of treatment.
The work was funded by Novartis, maker of both ribociclib and letrozole. Dr. Hortobagyi reported receiving an institutional grant from the company and personal fees related to the trial. Other investigators disclosed ties to Novartis. Dr. Abuin reported relationships with many companies, including Novartis.
This article was updated 9/24/21.
FROM ESMO 2021
Call for a move or boycott of big Texas cancer meeting
Docs won’t attend in person
Held annually in December, SABCS is the world’s largest breast cancer meeting and welcomes thousands of attendees every year.
The law banning abortions after 6 weeks, at which time a woman may not even realize that she is pregnant, has been described as the most restrictive in the United States. It also enables private citizens to bring civil lawsuits against people who assist a pregnant person seeking an abortion in violation of the ban.
If the meeting remains in Texas this year, then UCSF’s Laura Esserman, MD, director of the Carol Franc Buck Breast Cancer Center, has said that she and other university faculty and professionals from elsewhere will attend only online — a form of boycotting the in-person event.
Dr. Esserman and UCSF colleague Mary Helen Barcellos-Hoff, PhD, professor of radiation oncology, have emailed conference leaders encouraging them to move the meeting, according to a press statement issued by UCSF.
SABCS organizers told this news organization via email that they “are having serious discussions about this matter” and will update the public via their website and social media channels.
“It’s a terrible law, and it is absolutely not protective of women. I think that if Texas officials understood that when they pass laws inhospitable to women, we will not hold a major conference about women’s health in their state,” said Dr. Esserman.
Dr. Esserman received support for the idea to move the meeting earlier this month from peers on Twitter.
“In light of the Texas law that prohibits abortion past 6 weeks of pregnancy AND promotes vigilantism, directly harming women and their caregivers, the 2021 SABCS breast cancer meeting should be moved out of Texas to a place that supports Women’s rights and public health #sabcs,” tweeted Dr. Esserman on September 5.
The post generated more than 3,300 likes and retweets and 40-plus comments from readers, many of whom were healthcare professionals.
Supporters of the proposed move included Michael Feldman, MD, PhD, pathologist, University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia; Sarah Sammons, MD, breast medical oncologist, Duke Cancer Center, Durham, N.C.; Anjali Thawani, MD, breast surgeon, Evanston, Ill.; Debora Barton, MD, Carisma Therapeutics, Philadelphia; Jane Hui, MD, surgical oncologist, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis; Erica Leith Mitchell, MD, surgeon, University of Tennessee, Memphis; and Rebecca Shatsky, MD, breast medical oncologist, University of California, San Diego.
Support for boycotting in-person attendance is growing nationally, Dr. Esserman said in the press statement, which also highlighted an “additional concern” about Texas laws prohibiting mandated masking and asking for vaccine status. Conference organizers said local ordinances will be used to require masking.
Notably, a Twitter search using #SABCS21, the meeting’s hashtag, indicates that COVID 19 — and not the restrictive abortion law — is the primary worry of would-be meeting attendees as of the last week or so.
Some said the combination of the two issues was influential in their decision not to attend in person.
Kelly Shanahan, MD, a former ob/gyn living with metastatic breast cancer in South Lake Tahoe, Calif., tweeted: “It’s a hybrid model this year. I was originally going in person but will not now because of their COVID behaviors and now this [the abortion law]. I will tune in virtually but I will not spend the $1500 on the hotel room, the hundreds of $$ on food and drink and Xmas presents. #SayNoToTX #SABCS21.”
Dr. Shanahan also replied to Dr. Esserman’s move-the-meeting-out-of-Texas tweet: “100% agree.”
UCSF’s Dr. Barcellos-Hoff believes moving the meeting would be a high-profile happening. “I think moving a meeting of that size would have an impact, largely because of the visibility of scientists who oppose the law.”
First organized in 1977, SABCS is jointly sponsored by the Cancer Therapy & Research Center at The University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, the American Association for Cancer Research, and Baylor College of Medicine.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Docs won’t attend in person
Docs won’t attend in person
Held annually in December, SABCS is the world’s largest breast cancer meeting and welcomes thousands of attendees every year.
The law banning abortions after 6 weeks, at which time a woman may not even realize that she is pregnant, has been described as the most restrictive in the United States. It also enables private citizens to bring civil lawsuits against people who assist a pregnant person seeking an abortion in violation of the ban.
If the meeting remains in Texas this year, then UCSF’s Laura Esserman, MD, director of the Carol Franc Buck Breast Cancer Center, has said that she and other university faculty and professionals from elsewhere will attend only online — a form of boycotting the in-person event.
Dr. Esserman and UCSF colleague Mary Helen Barcellos-Hoff, PhD, professor of radiation oncology, have emailed conference leaders encouraging them to move the meeting, according to a press statement issued by UCSF.
SABCS organizers told this news organization via email that they “are having serious discussions about this matter” and will update the public via their website and social media channels.
“It’s a terrible law, and it is absolutely not protective of women. I think that if Texas officials understood that when they pass laws inhospitable to women, we will not hold a major conference about women’s health in their state,” said Dr. Esserman.
Dr. Esserman received support for the idea to move the meeting earlier this month from peers on Twitter.
“In light of the Texas law that prohibits abortion past 6 weeks of pregnancy AND promotes vigilantism, directly harming women and their caregivers, the 2021 SABCS breast cancer meeting should be moved out of Texas to a place that supports Women’s rights and public health #sabcs,” tweeted Dr. Esserman on September 5.
The post generated more than 3,300 likes and retweets and 40-plus comments from readers, many of whom were healthcare professionals.
Supporters of the proposed move included Michael Feldman, MD, PhD, pathologist, University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia; Sarah Sammons, MD, breast medical oncologist, Duke Cancer Center, Durham, N.C.; Anjali Thawani, MD, breast surgeon, Evanston, Ill.; Debora Barton, MD, Carisma Therapeutics, Philadelphia; Jane Hui, MD, surgical oncologist, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis; Erica Leith Mitchell, MD, surgeon, University of Tennessee, Memphis; and Rebecca Shatsky, MD, breast medical oncologist, University of California, San Diego.
Support for boycotting in-person attendance is growing nationally, Dr. Esserman said in the press statement, which also highlighted an “additional concern” about Texas laws prohibiting mandated masking and asking for vaccine status. Conference organizers said local ordinances will be used to require masking.
Notably, a Twitter search using #SABCS21, the meeting’s hashtag, indicates that COVID 19 — and not the restrictive abortion law — is the primary worry of would-be meeting attendees as of the last week or so.
Some said the combination of the two issues was influential in their decision not to attend in person.
Kelly Shanahan, MD, a former ob/gyn living with metastatic breast cancer in South Lake Tahoe, Calif., tweeted: “It’s a hybrid model this year. I was originally going in person but will not now because of their COVID behaviors and now this [the abortion law]. I will tune in virtually but I will not spend the $1500 on the hotel room, the hundreds of $$ on food and drink and Xmas presents. #SayNoToTX #SABCS21.”
Dr. Shanahan also replied to Dr. Esserman’s move-the-meeting-out-of-Texas tweet: “100% agree.”
UCSF’s Dr. Barcellos-Hoff believes moving the meeting would be a high-profile happening. “I think moving a meeting of that size would have an impact, largely because of the visibility of scientists who oppose the law.”
First organized in 1977, SABCS is jointly sponsored by the Cancer Therapy & Research Center at The University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, the American Association for Cancer Research, and Baylor College of Medicine.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Held annually in December, SABCS is the world’s largest breast cancer meeting and welcomes thousands of attendees every year.
The law banning abortions after 6 weeks, at which time a woman may not even realize that she is pregnant, has been described as the most restrictive in the United States. It also enables private citizens to bring civil lawsuits against people who assist a pregnant person seeking an abortion in violation of the ban.
If the meeting remains in Texas this year, then UCSF’s Laura Esserman, MD, director of the Carol Franc Buck Breast Cancer Center, has said that she and other university faculty and professionals from elsewhere will attend only online — a form of boycotting the in-person event.
Dr. Esserman and UCSF colleague Mary Helen Barcellos-Hoff, PhD, professor of radiation oncology, have emailed conference leaders encouraging them to move the meeting, according to a press statement issued by UCSF.
SABCS organizers told this news organization via email that they “are having serious discussions about this matter” and will update the public via their website and social media channels.
“It’s a terrible law, and it is absolutely not protective of women. I think that if Texas officials understood that when they pass laws inhospitable to women, we will not hold a major conference about women’s health in their state,” said Dr. Esserman.
Dr. Esserman received support for the idea to move the meeting earlier this month from peers on Twitter.
“In light of the Texas law that prohibits abortion past 6 weeks of pregnancy AND promotes vigilantism, directly harming women and their caregivers, the 2021 SABCS breast cancer meeting should be moved out of Texas to a place that supports Women’s rights and public health #sabcs,” tweeted Dr. Esserman on September 5.
The post generated more than 3,300 likes and retweets and 40-plus comments from readers, many of whom were healthcare professionals.
Supporters of the proposed move included Michael Feldman, MD, PhD, pathologist, University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia; Sarah Sammons, MD, breast medical oncologist, Duke Cancer Center, Durham, N.C.; Anjali Thawani, MD, breast surgeon, Evanston, Ill.; Debora Barton, MD, Carisma Therapeutics, Philadelphia; Jane Hui, MD, surgical oncologist, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis; Erica Leith Mitchell, MD, surgeon, University of Tennessee, Memphis; and Rebecca Shatsky, MD, breast medical oncologist, University of California, San Diego.
Support for boycotting in-person attendance is growing nationally, Dr. Esserman said in the press statement, which also highlighted an “additional concern” about Texas laws prohibiting mandated masking and asking for vaccine status. Conference organizers said local ordinances will be used to require masking.
Notably, a Twitter search using #SABCS21, the meeting’s hashtag, indicates that COVID 19 — and not the restrictive abortion law — is the primary worry of would-be meeting attendees as of the last week or so.
Some said the combination of the two issues was influential in their decision not to attend in person.
Kelly Shanahan, MD, a former ob/gyn living with metastatic breast cancer in South Lake Tahoe, Calif., tweeted: “It’s a hybrid model this year. I was originally going in person but will not now because of their COVID behaviors and now this [the abortion law]. I will tune in virtually but I will not spend the $1500 on the hotel room, the hundreds of $$ on food and drink and Xmas presents. #SayNoToTX #SABCS21.”
Dr. Shanahan also replied to Dr. Esserman’s move-the-meeting-out-of-Texas tweet: “100% agree.”
UCSF’s Dr. Barcellos-Hoff believes moving the meeting would be a high-profile happening. “I think moving a meeting of that size would have an impact, largely because of the visibility of scientists who oppose the law.”
First organized in 1977, SABCS is jointly sponsored by the Cancer Therapy & Research Center at The University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, the American Association for Cancer Research, and Baylor College of Medicine.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Patients panic as docs cut off breast cancer drug
The discontinuance appears to be in reaction to an announcement by the manufacturer (Genentech) in late August that it has voluntarily withdrawn its application for accelerated approval of the drug for use in metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (mTNBC).
However, experts stress that discontinuing atezolizumab is not advised if a patient is responding to or is stable on the immune checkpoint inhibitor.
“I think the Genentech announcement has been misinterpreted,” Maryam Lustberg, MD, of Yale Cancer Center, New Haven, Conn., said in an interview. “The consensus opinion from all academic breast oncologists is that people should not be switching off atezolizumab if they are responding. They should not be changing their immunotherapy.”
Dr. Lustberg said the announcement had two major points: “don’t start a new patient on atezolizumab,” and the company is “committed” to supplying the drug to patients whose conditions are stable or responding.
Nevertheless, some patients with mTNBC were recently in a state of escalating emotional upset, said one patient advocate.
“The level of panic among those currently on & responding well to Atezo is growing quickly,” tweeted Janice Cowden on Sept. 5, a former nurse living with mTNBC in Bradenton, Fla.
Ms. Cowden explained that “at least 10-20 patients” were “pulled [off the drug by their oncologists] this past week who have been stable/no evidence of disease/no evidence of disease activity on Tecentriq.”
She estimated that as many as 50 patients in the 2,200-member Triple Negative BC Stage 4 Facebook group who have been responding to the drug were abruptly de-prescribed atezolizumab since the Aug. 27 announcement from Genentech.
Many women learned of the change via patient portals or text messaging, not directly from their physicians, Cowden told Medscape Medical News.
Some of the women had been taking atezolizumab for 2-3 years, including those with no evidence of disease, she said. “Finding out that their oncologist was discontinuing a treatment that was working for them has been driving so much anxiety and stress,” Ms. Cowden emphasized.
Most market withdrawals of drugs are related to safety, but that is not the case with atezolizumab, said Sara Horton, MD, of Howard University, Washington. She was speaking at the recent Facebook webinar on atezolizumab and mTNBC that was sponsored by the TNBC Foundation and the Young Survivors Coalition.
In the case of atezolizumab, it was a question about efficacy that prompted the withdrawal. After the indication was granted an accelerated approval on the basis of response data, a confirmatory trial set out to show clinical benefit. However, the confirmatory phase 3 IMpassion131 trial did not do so: it found that atezolizumab plus paclitaxel did not significantly reduce the risk for cancer progression and death in comparison with paclitaxel plus placebo among patients with TNBC with tumors that were positive for programmed cell death protein–1 (PD-L1), as reported by Medscape Medical News.
These results were discussed by the Food and Drug Administration on the first day of a historic 3-day meeting on accelerated approvals in April 2021. Despite the failure of confirmation of clinical benefit, the advisory panel voted 7-2 in favor of keeping the approval in place for atezolizumab in TNBC. At the same time, it urged Genentech to carry out more studies to show that the drug works in this patient population.
The company apparently decided not to do that and instead voluntarily withdrew the application for the indication some 4 months later.
During the recent TNBC Foundation webinar, Genentech official Lauren Davis said that the company sent letters about this decision to atezolizumab-prescribing physicians and included another letter that was to be shared with patients. Ms. Davis had not responded to this news organization’s request to review the communications at the time this article was published.
At the webinar, Ms. Davis did clarify that current atezolizumab patients (who are responding to the drug), who have commercial insurance, and who benefit from Genentech’s copay program will continue to receive the benefit until June 2022.
In its August announcement, Genentech said it decided to withdraw the atezolizumab approval on the basis of the FDA’s assessment of the “current mTNBC treatment landscape and in accordance with the requirements of the accelerated approval program.”
That landscape presumably includes pembrolizumab (Keytruda), which received a full approval for a TNBC indication similar to that of atezolizumab in July. That full approval was based on findings from the randomized, phase 3 KEYNOTE-522 trial, which showed significantly prolonged event-free survival with the pembrolizumab regimen in comparison with neoadjuvant chemotherapy alone for previously untreated stage II or III TNBC. Details of these clinical data will be presented at the upcoming annual meeting of the European Society of Medical Oncology.
Switching the immunotherapy?
Some U.S. oncologists have been telling patients with mTNBC that the atezolizumab withdrawal is “not an issue” because the new full approval of pembrolizumab in this setting will allow prescriptions to be switched, said patient advocate Ms. Cowden.
However, experts have said that no patient who is responding to or whose condition is stable with atezolizumab should switch immunotherapies. “This is a very aggressive disease,” reminded Dr. Lustberg.
Switching the immunotherapies is complicated by the difference in the respective drugs’ companion biomarker assays used to establish the presence of PD-L1.
Dr. Lustberg explained that patients who are not responding to atezolizumab and who now want to try pembrolizumab will have to be assessed with the CTS assay.
“About 22% of the patients who are positive for the atezolizumab biomarker assay SP-142 are not going to be positive for the CTS,” she said.
In other words, about one in four patients with mTNBC who are taking atezolizumab will not qualify for treatment with pembrolizumab.
Rebecca Shatsky, MD, of the University of California, San Diego, echoed those comments in an email to this news organization – and emphatically discouraged switching off atezolizumab (and going on pembrolizumab) if a patient is having success (i.e., stable disease or positive response).
“The two groups don’t always overlap, so it isn’t an easy switch. That’s why if they are already responding, I would NOT have them stop the drug,” she said.
Not every mTNBC patient receiving – and responding to – atezolizumab has had the unfortunate experience of having their prescription canceled.
Johanna Rauhala, of San Francisco, who is a former middle-school teacher and who writes the blog Pink Stinks, has been taking atezolizumab for 2 years. She has had a partial response and now, after taking the immunotherapy in combination with chemotherapy (gemcitabine and carboplatin), has stable disease. Currently, she is taking single-agent atezolizumab..
Ms. Rauhala has been living with mTNBC for 5 years. She said in an interview that she was “very surprised and concerned” to learn about Genentech’s withdrawal of its accelerated approval. She said that at her next treatment appointment, she was “probably going to ask the oncology nurse first [about the atezolizumab withdrawal] – because they are the front line, and I will then follow-up with my doctor. But I can’t imagine that they will take away something that is working.”
Dr. Shatsky, Dr. Horton, and Dr. Lunsberg report no relevant financial disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The discontinuance appears to be in reaction to an announcement by the manufacturer (Genentech) in late August that it has voluntarily withdrawn its application for accelerated approval of the drug for use in metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (mTNBC).
However, experts stress that discontinuing atezolizumab is not advised if a patient is responding to or is stable on the immune checkpoint inhibitor.
“I think the Genentech announcement has been misinterpreted,” Maryam Lustberg, MD, of Yale Cancer Center, New Haven, Conn., said in an interview. “The consensus opinion from all academic breast oncologists is that people should not be switching off atezolizumab if they are responding. They should not be changing their immunotherapy.”
Dr. Lustberg said the announcement had two major points: “don’t start a new patient on atezolizumab,” and the company is “committed” to supplying the drug to patients whose conditions are stable or responding.
Nevertheless, some patients with mTNBC were recently in a state of escalating emotional upset, said one patient advocate.
“The level of panic among those currently on & responding well to Atezo is growing quickly,” tweeted Janice Cowden on Sept. 5, a former nurse living with mTNBC in Bradenton, Fla.
Ms. Cowden explained that “at least 10-20 patients” were “pulled [off the drug by their oncologists] this past week who have been stable/no evidence of disease/no evidence of disease activity on Tecentriq.”
She estimated that as many as 50 patients in the 2,200-member Triple Negative BC Stage 4 Facebook group who have been responding to the drug were abruptly de-prescribed atezolizumab since the Aug. 27 announcement from Genentech.
Many women learned of the change via patient portals or text messaging, not directly from their physicians, Cowden told Medscape Medical News.
Some of the women had been taking atezolizumab for 2-3 years, including those with no evidence of disease, she said. “Finding out that their oncologist was discontinuing a treatment that was working for them has been driving so much anxiety and stress,” Ms. Cowden emphasized.
Most market withdrawals of drugs are related to safety, but that is not the case with atezolizumab, said Sara Horton, MD, of Howard University, Washington. She was speaking at the recent Facebook webinar on atezolizumab and mTNBC that was sponsored by the TNBC Foundation and the Young Survivors Coalition.
In the case of atezolizumab, it was a question about efficacy that prompted the withdrawal. After the indication was granted an accelerated approval on the basis of response data, a confirmatory trial set out to show clinical benefit. However, the confirmatory phase 3 IMpassion131 trial did not do so: it found that atezolizumab plus paclitaxel did not significantly reduce the risk for cancer progression and death in comparison with paclitaxel plus placebo among patients with TNBC with tumors that were positive for programmed cell death protein–1 (PD-L1), as reported by Medscape Medical News.
These results were discussed by the Food and Drug Administration on the first day of a historic 3-day meeting on accelerated approvals in April 2021. Despite the failure of confirmation of clinical benefit, the advisory panel voted 7-2 in favor of keeping the approval in place for atezolizumab in TNBC. At the same time, it urged Genentech to carry out more studies to show that the drug works in this patient population.
The company apparently decided not to do that and instead voluntarily withdrew the application for the indication some 4 months later.
During the recent TNBC Foundation webinar, Genentech official Lauren Davis said that the company sent letters about this decision to atezolizumab-prescribing physicians and included another letter that was to be shared with patients. Ms. Davis had not responded to this news organization’s request to review the communications at the time this article was published.
At the webinar, Ms. Davis did clarify that current atezolizumab patients (who are responding to the drug), who have commercial insurance, and who benefit from Genentech’s copay program will continue to receive the benefit until June 2022.
In its August announcement, Genentech said it decided to withdraw the atezolizumab approval on the basis of the FDA’s assessment of the “current mTNBC treatment landscape and in accordance with the requirements of the accelerated approval program.”
That landscape presumably includes pembrolizumab (Keytruda), which received a full approval for a TNBC indication similar to that of atezolizumab in July. That full approval was based on findings from the randomized, phase 3 KEYNOTE-522 trial, which showed significantly prolonged event-free survival with the pembrolizumab regimen in comparison with neoadjuvant chemotherapy alone for previously untreated stage II or III TNBC. Details of these clinical data will be presented at the upcoming annual meeting of the European Society of Medical Oncology.
Switching the immunotherapy?
Some U.S. oncologists have been telling patients with mTNBC that the atezolizumab withdrawal is “not an issue” because the new full approval of pembrolizumab in this setting will allow prescriptions to be switched, said patient advocate Ms. Cowden.
However, experts have said that no patient who is responding to or whose condition is stable with atezolizumab should switch immunotherapies. “This is a very aggressive disease,” reminded Dr. Lustberg.
Switching the immunotherapies is complicated by the difference in the respective drugs’ companion biomarker assays used to establish the presence of PD-L1.
Dr. Lustberg explained that patients who are not responding to atezolizumab and who now want to try pembrolizumab will have to be assessed with the CTS assay.
“About 22% of the patients who are positive for the atezolizumab biomarker assay SP-142 are not going to be positive for the CTS,” she said.
In other words, about one in four patients with mTNBC who are taking atezolizumab will not qualify for treatment with pembrolizumab.
Rebecca Shatsky, MD, of the University of California, San Diego, echoed those comments in an email to this news organization – and emphatically discouraged switching off atezolizumab (and going on pembrolizumab) if a patient is having success (i.e., stable disease or positive response).
“The two groups don’t always overlap, so it isn’t an easy switch. That’s why if they are already responding, I would NOT have them stop the drug,” she said.
Not every mTNBC patient receiving – and responding to – atezolizumab has had the unfortunate experience of having their prescription canceled.
Johanna Rauhala, of San Francisco, who is a former middle-school teacher and who writes the blog Pink Stinks, has been taking atezolizumab for 2 years. She has had a partial response and now, after taking the immunotherapy in combination with chemotherapy (gemcitabine and carboplatin), has stable disease. Currently, she is taking single-agent atezolizumab..
Ms. Rauhala has been living with mTNBC for 5 years. She said in an interview that she was “very surprised and concerned” to learn about Genentech’s withdrawal of its accelerated approval. She said that at her next treatment appointment, she was “probably going to ask the oncology nurse first [about the atezolizumab withdrawal] – because they are the front line, and I will then follow-up with my doctor. But I can’t imagine that they will take away something that is working.”
Dr. Shatsky, Dr. Horton, and Dr. Lunsberg report no relevant financial disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The discontinuance appears to be in reaction to an announcement by the manufacturer (Genentech) in late August that it has voluntarily withdrawn its application for accelerated approval of the drug for use in metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (mTNBC).
However, experts stress that discontinuing atezolizumab is not advised if a patient is responding to or is stable on the immune checkpoint inhibitor.
“I think the Genentech announcement has been misinterpreted,” Maryam Lustberg, MD, of Yale Cancer Center, New Haven, Conn., said in an interview. “The consensus opinion from all academic breast oncologists is that people should not be switching off atezolizumab if they are responding. They should not be changing their immunotherapy.”
Dr. Lustberg said the announcement had two major points: “don’t start a new patient on atezolizumab,” and the company is “committed” to supplying the drug to patients whose conditions are stable or responding.
Nevertheless, some patients with mTNBC were recently in a state of escalating emotional upset, said one patient advocate.
“The level of panic among those currently on & responding well to Atezo is growing quickly,” tweeted Janice Cowden on Sept. 5, a former nurse living with mTNBC in Bradenton, Fla.
Ms. Cowden explained that “at least 10-20 patients” were “pulled [off the drug by their oncologists] this past week who have been stable/no evidence of disease/no evidence of disease activity on Tecentriq.”
She estimated that as many as 50 patients in the 2,200-member Triple Negative BC Stage 4 Facebook group who have been responding to the drug were abruptly de-prescribed atezolizumab since the Aug. 27 announcement from Genentech.
Many women learned of the change via patient portals or text messaging, not directly from their physicians, Cowden told Medscape Medical News.
Some of the women had been taking atezolizumab for 2-3 years, including those with no evidence of disease, she said. “Finding out that their oncologist was discontinuing a treatment that was working for them has been driving so much anxiety and stress,” Ms. Cowden emphasized.
Most market withdrawals of drugs are related to safety, but that is not the case with atezolizumab, said Sara Horton, MD, of Howard University, Washington. She was speaking at the recent Facebook webinar on atezolizumab and mTNBC that was sponsored by the TNBC Foundation and the Young Survivors Coalition.
In the case of atezolizumab, it was a question about efficacy that prompted the withdrawal. After the indication was granted an accelerated approval on the basis of response data, a confirmatory trial set out to show clinical benefit. However, the confirmatory phase 3 IMpassion131 trial did not do so: it found that atezolizumab plus paclitaxel did not significantly reduce the risk for cancer progression and death in comparison with paclitaxel plus placebo among patients with TNBC with tumors that were positive for programmed cell death protein–1 (PD-L1), as reported by Medscape Medical News.
These results were discussed by the Food and Drug Administration on the first day of a historic 3-day meeting on accelerated approvals in April 2021. Despite the failure of confirmation of clinical benefit, the advisory panel voted 7-2 in favor of keeping the approval in place for atezolizumab in TNBC. At the same time, it urged Genentech to carry out more studies to show that the drug works in this patient population.
The company apparently decided not to do that and instead voluntarily withdrew the application for the indication some 4 months later.
During the recent TNBC Foundation webinar, Genentech official Lauren Davis said that the company sent letters about this decision to atezolizumab-prescribing physicians and included another letter that was to be shared with patients. Ms. Davis had not responded to this news organization’s request to review the communications at the time this article was published.
At the webinar, Ms. Davis did clarify that current atezolizumab patients (who are responding to the drug), who have commercial insurance, and who benefit from Genentech’s copay program will continue to receive the benefit until June 2022.
In its August announcement, Genentech said it decided to withdraw the atezolizumab approval on the basis of the FDA’s assessment of the “current mTNBC treatment landscape and in accordance with the requirements of the accelerated approval program.”
That landscape presumably includes pembrolizumab (Keytruda), which received a full approval for a TNBC indication similar to that of atezolizumab in July. That full approval was based on findings from the randomized, phase 3 KEYNOTE-522 trial, which showed significantly prolonged event-free survival with the pembrolizumab regimen in comparison with neoadjuvant chemotherapy alone for previously untreated stage II or III TNBC. Details of these clinical data will be presented at the upcoming annual meeting of the European Society of Medical Oncology.
Switching the immunotherapy?
Some U.S. oncologists have been telling patients with mTNBC that the atezolizumab withdrawal is “not an issue” because the new full approval of pembrolizumab in this setting will allow prescriptions to be switched, said patient advocate Ms. Cowden.
However, experts have said that no patient who is responding to or whose condition is stable with atezolizumab should switch immunotherapies. “This is a very aggressive disease,” reminded Dr. Lustberg.
Switching the immunotherapies is complicated by the difference in the respective drugs’ companion biomarker assays used to establish the presence of PD-L1.
Dr. Lustberg explained that patients who are not responding to atezolizumab and who now want to try pembrolizumab will have to be assessed with the CTS assay.
“About 22% of the patients who are positive for the atezolizumab biomarker assay SP-142 are not going to be positive for the CTS,” she said.
In other words, about one in four patients with mTNBC who are taking atezolizumab will not qualify for treatment with pembrolizumab.
Rebecca Shatsky, MD, of the University of California, San Diego, echoed those comments in an email to this news organization – and emphatically discouraged switching off atezolizumab (and going on pembrolizumab) if a patient is having success (i.e., stable disease or positive response).
“The two groups don’t always overlap, so it isn’t an easy switch. That’s why if they are already responding, I would NOT have them stop the drug,” she said.
Not every mTNBC patient receiving – and responding to – atezolizumab has had the unfortunate experience of having their prescription canceled.
Johanna Rauhala, of San Francisco, who is a former middle-school teacher and who writes the blog Pink Stinks, has been taking atezolizumab for 2 years. She has had a partial response and now, after taking the immunotherapy in combination with chemotherapy (gemcitabine and carboplatin), has stable disease. Currently, she is taking single-agent atezolizumab..
Ms. Rauhala has been living with mTNBC for 5 years. She said in an interview that she was “very surprised and concerned” to learn about Genentech’s withdrawal of its accelerated approval. She said that at her next treatment appointment, she was “probably going to ask the oncology nurse first [about the atezolizumab withdrawal] – because they are the front line, and I will then follow-up with my doctor. But I can’t imagine that they will take away something that is working.”
Dr. Shatsky, Dr. Horton, and Dr. Lunsberg report no relevant financial disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Flurry of cancer drug endorsements from EU panel
The CHMP recommended the granting of a conditional marketing authorization for pralsetinib (Gavreto) for the treatment of non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).
Specifically, pralsetinib is indicated as monotherapy for the treatment of adult patients with rearranged during transfection (RET) fusion-positive advanced NSCLC not previously treated with a RET inhibitor.
Available as 100 mg capsules, pralsetinib is a RET-receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor, targeting oncogenic RET fusion proteins (KIF5B-RET and CCDC6-RET).
Pralsetinib’s benefits are its objective response rate and response duration in patients with RET-fusion positive NSCLC, as observed in a pivotal phase 1/2, open-label, multi-cohort, single-arm study.
The most common side effects are anemia, increased aspartate aminotransferase, neutropenia, constipation, musculoskeletal pain, fatigue, leukopenia, increased alanine aminotransferase, and hypertension.
CHMP also recommended ripretinib (Qinlock) for the treatment of adult patients with advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST) who have received prior treatment with three or more kinase inhibitors, including imatinib (Gleevec).
Available as 50 mg tablets, ripretinib is a protein kinase inhibitor designed to selectively block the oncogenic KIT and PDGFRA kinases by inhibiting their active conformation.
Ripretinib improved progression-free survival in patients with GIST.
The most common side effects are fatigue, alopecia, nausea, myalgia, constipation, diarrhea, palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia syndrome, weight loss, and vomiting.
The third drug recommended for approval was zanubrutinib (Brukinsa) for the treatment of adult patients with Waldenström’s macroglobulinemia who have received at least one prior therapy or who are to receive the drug as first-line treatment (and are unsuitable for chemo-immunotherapy).
Available as 80 mg capsules, zanubrutinib is a Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitor that blocks the activity of BTK, inactivating the pathways necessary for B-cell proliferation, trafficking, chemotaxis, and adhesion.
Zanubrutinib has demonstrated a clinically meaningful rate of very good partial response and/or complete response.
The most common side effects are neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, upper respiratory tract infection, hemorrhage/hematoma, rash, bruising, anemia, musculoskeletal pain, diarrhea, pneumonia, and cough.
Two new indications for already marketed drugs
CHMP also recommended an extension of the indications for two immunotherapies.
Pembrolizumab (Keytruda) will now also have an indication for use in combination with chemotherapy for the treatment of locally recurrent unresectable or metastatic triple negative breast cancer in adults whose tumors express PD-L1 with a CPS greater than or equal to 10 and who have not received prior chemotherapy for metastatic disease
Nivolumab (Opdivo) received an extension of indication to include use, in combination with fluoropyrimidine- and platinum-based combination chemotherapy, in the firstline treatment of adult patients with HER2 negative advanced or metastatic gastric, gastroesophageal junction, or esophageal adenocarcinoma whose tumors express PD-L1 with a combined positive score (CPS) greater than or equal to 5.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The CHMP recommended the granting of a conditional marketing authorization for pralsetinib (Gavreto) for the treatment of non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).
Specifically, pralsetinib is indicated as monotherapy for the treatment of adult patients with rearranged during transfection (RET) fusion-positive advanced NSCLC not previously treated with a RET inhibitor.
Available as 100 mg capsules, pralsetinib is a RET-receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor, targeting oncogenic RET fusion proteins (KIF5B-RET and CCDC6-RET).
Pralsetinib’s benefits are its objective response rate and response duration in patients with RET-fusion positive NSCLC, as observed in a pivotal phase 1/2, open-label, multi-cohort, single-arm study.
The most common side effects are anemia, increased aspartate aminotransferase, neutropenia, constipation, musculoskeletal pain, fatigue, leukopenia, increased alanine aminotransferase, and hypertension.
CHMP also recommended ripretinib (Qinlock) for the treatment of adult patients with advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST) who have received prior treatment with three or more kinase inhibitors, including imatinib (Gleevec).
Available as 50 mg tablets, ripretinib is a protein kinase inhibitor designed to selectively block the oncogenic KIT and PDGFRA kinases by inhibiting their active conformation.
Ripretinib improved progression-free survival in patients with GIST.
The most common side effects are fatigue, alopecia, nausea, myalgia, constipation, diarrhea, palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia syndrome, weight loss, and vomiting.
The third drug recommended for approval was zanubrutinib (Brukinsa) for the treatment of adult patients with Waldenström’s macroglobulinemia who have received at least one prior therapy or who are to receive the drug as first-line treatment (and are unsuitable for chemo-immunotherapy).
Available as 80 mg capsules, zanubrutinib is a Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitor that blocks the activity of BTK, inactivating the pathways necessary for B-cell proliferation, trafficking, chemotaxis, and adhesion.
Zanubrutinib has demonstrated a clinically meaningful rate of very good partial response and/or complete response.
The most common side effects are neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, upper respiratory tract infection, hemorrhage/hematoma, rash, bruising, anemia, musculoskeletal pain, diarrhea, pneumonia, and cough.
Two new indications for already marketed drugs
CHMP also recommended an extension of the indications for two immunotherapies.
Pembrolizumab (Keytruda) will now also have an indication for use in combination with chemotherapy for the treatment of locally recurrent unresectable or metastatic triple negative breast cancer in adults whose tumors express PD-L1 with a CPS greater than or equal to 10 and who have not received prior chemotherapy for metastatic disease
Nivolumab (Opdivo) received an extension of indication to include use, in combination with fluoropyrimidine- and platinum-based combination chemotherapy, in the firstline treatment of adult patients with HER2 negative advanced or metastatic gastric, gastroesophageal junction, or esophageal adenocarcinoma whose tumors express PD-L1 with a combined positive score (CPS) greater than or equal to 5.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The CHMP recommended the granting of a conditional marketing authorization for pralsetinib (Gavreto) for the treatment of non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).
Specifically, pralsetinib is indicated as monotherapy for the treatment of adult patients with rearranged during transfection (RET) fusion-positive advanced NSCLC not previously treated with a RET inhibitor.
Available as 100 mg capsules, pralsetinib is a RET-receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor, targeting oncogenic RET fusion proteins (KIF5B-RET and CCDC6-RET).
Pralsetinib’s benefits are its objective response rate and response duration in patients with RET-fusion positive NSCLC, as observed in a pivotal phase 1/2, open-label, multi-cohort, single-arm study.
The most common side effects are anemia, increased aspartate aminotransferase, neutropenia, constipation, musculoskeletal pain, fatigue, leukopenia, increased alanine aminotransferase, and hypertension.
CHMP also recommended ripretinib (Qinlock) for the treatment of adult patients with advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST) who have received prior treatment with three or more kinase inhibitors, including imatinib (Gleevec).
Available as 50 mg tablets, ripretinib is a protein kinase inhibitor designed to selectively block the oncogenic KIT and PDGFRA kinases by inhibiting their active conformation.
Ripretinib improved progression-free survival in patients with GIST.
The most common side effects are fatigue, alopecia, nausea, myalgia, constipation, diarrhea, palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia syndrome, weight loss, and vomiting.
The third drug recommended for approval was zanubrutinib (Brukinsa) for the treatment of adult patients with Waldenström’s macroglobulinemia who have received at least one prior therapy or who are to receive the drug as first-line treatment (and are unsuitable for chemo-immunotherapy).
Available as 80 mg capsules, zanubrutinib is a Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitor that blocks the activity of BTK, inactivating the pathways necessary for B-cell proliferation, trafficking, chemotaxis, and adhesion.
Zanubrutinib has demonstrated a clinically meaningful rate of very good partial response and/or complete response.
The most common side effects are neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, upper respiratory tract infection, hemorrhage/hematoma, rash, bruising, anemia, musculoskeletal pain, diarrhea, pneumonia, and cough.
Two new indications for already marketed drugs
CHMP also recommended an extension of the indications for two immunotherapies.
Pembrolizumab (Keytruda) will now also have an indication for use in combination with chemotherapy for the treatment of locally recurrent unresectable or metastatic triple negative breast cancer in adults whose tumors express PD-L1 with a CPS greater than or equal to 10 and who have not received prior chemotherapy for metastatic disease
Nivolumab (Opdivo) received an extension of indication to include use, in combination with fluoropyrimidine- and platinum-based combination chemotherapy, in the firstline treatment of adult patients with HER2 negative advanced or metastatic gastric, gastroesophageal junction, or esophageal adenocarcinoma whose tumors express PD-L1 with a combined positive score (CPS) greater than or equal to 5.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Immunotherapy for cancer patients with poor PS needs a rethink
The findings have prompted an expert to argue against the use of immunotherapy for such patients, who may have little time left and very little chance of benefiting.
“It is quite clear from clinical practice that most patients with limited PS do very poorly and do not benefit from immune check point inhibitors (ICI),” Jason Luke, MD, UPMC Hillman Cancer Center and the University of Pittsburgh, said in an email.
“So, my strong opinion is that patients should not be getting an immunotherapy just because it might not cause as many side effects as chemotherapy,” he added.
“Instead of giving an immunotherapy with little chance of success, patients and families deserve to have a direct conversation about what realistic expectations [might be] and how we as the oncology community can support them to achieve whatever their personal goals are in the time that they have left,” he emphasized.
Dr. Luke was the lead author of an editorial in which he commented on the study. Both the study and the editorial were published online in JCO Oncology Practice.
Variety of cancers
The study was conducted by Mridula Krishnan, MD, Nebraska Medicine Fred and Pamela Buffett Cancer Center, Omaha, Nebraska, and colleagues.
The team reviewed 257 patients who had been treated with either a programmed cell death protein–1 inhibitor or programmed cell death–ligand-1 inhibitor for a variety of advanced cancers. The drugs included pembrolizumab (Keytruda), nivolumab (Opdivo), atezolizumab (Tecentique), durvalumab (Imfinzi), and avelumab (Bavencio).
Most of the patients (71%) had good PS, with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) PS of 0-1 on initiation of immunotherapy; 29% of patients had poor PS, with an ECOG PS of greater than or equal to 2.
“The primary outcome was OS stratified by ECOG PS 0-1 versus ≥2,” note the authors. Across all tumor types, OS was superior for patients in the ECOG 0-1 PS group, the investigators note. The median OS was 12.6 months, compared with only 3.1 months for patients in the ECOG greater than or equal to 2 group (P < .001).
Moreover, overall response rates for patients with a poor PS were low. Only 8%, or 6 of 75 patients with an ECOG PS of greater than or equal to 2, achieved an objective response by RECIST criteria.
This compared to an overall response rate of 23% for patients with an ECOG PS of 0-1, the investigators note (P = .005).
Interestingly, the hospice referral rate for patients with a poor PS (67%) was similar to that of patients with a PS of 1-2 (61.9%), Dr. Krishnan and colleagues observe.
Those with a poor PS were more like to die in-hospital (28.6%) than were patients with a good PS (15.1%; P = .035). The authors point out that it is well known that outcomes with chemotherapy are worse among patients who experience a decline in functional reserve, owing to increased susceptibility to toxicity and complications.
“Regardless of age, patients with ECOG PS >2 usually have poor tolerability to chemotherapy, and this correlates with worse survival outcome,” they emphasize. There is as yet no clear guidance regarding the impact of PS on ICI treatment response, although “there should be,” Dr. Luke believes.
“In a patient with declining performance status, especially ECOG PS 3-4 but potentially 2 as well, there is little likelihood that the functional and immune reserve of the patient will be adequate to mount a robust antitumor response,” he elaborated.
“It’s not impossible, but trying for it should not come at the expense of engaging about end-of-life care and maximizing the palliative opportunities that many only have a short window of time in which to pursue,” he added.
Again, Dr. Luke strongly believes that just giving an ICI without engaging in a frank conversation with the patient and their families – which happens all too often, he feels – is absolutely not the way to go when treating patients with a poor PS and little time left.
“Patients and families might be better served by having a more direct and frank conversation about what the likelihood [is] that ICI therapy will actually do,” Dr. Luke stressed.
In their editorial, Dr. Luke and colleagues write: “Overall, we as an oncology community need to improve our communication with patients regarding goals of care and end-of-life considerations as opposed to reflexive treatment initiation,” he writes.
“Our duty, first and foremost, should focus on the person sitting in front of us – taking a step back may be the best way to move forward with compassionate care,” they add.
The authors and editorialists have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The findings have prompted an expert to argue against the use of immunotherapy for such patients, who may have little time left and very little chance of benefiting.
“It is quite clear from clinical practice that most patients with limited PS do very poorly and do not benefit from immune check point inhibitors (ICI),” Jason Luke, MD, UPMC Hillman Cancer Center and the University of Pittsburgh, said in an email.
“So, my strong opinion is that patients should not be getting an immunotherapy just because it might not cause as many side effects as chemotherapy,” he added.
“Instead of giving an immunotherapy with little chance of success, patients and families deserve to have a direct conversation about what realistic expectations [might be] and how we as the oncology community can support them to achieve whatever their personal goals are in the time that they have left,” he emphasized.
Dr. Luke was the lead author of an editorial in which he commented on the study. Both the study and the editorial were published online in JCO Oncology Practice.
Variety of cancers
The study was conducted by Mridula Krishnan, MD, Nebraska Medicine Fred and Pamela Buffett Cancer Center, Omaha, Nebraska, and colleagues.
The team reviewed 257 patients who had been treated with either a programmed cell death protein–1 inhibitor or programmed cell death–ligand-1 inhibitor for a variety of advanced cancers. The drugs included pembrolizumab (Keytruda), nivolumab (Opdivo), atezolizumab (Tecentique), durvalumab (Imfinzi), and avelumab (Bavencio).
Most of the patients (71%) had good PS, with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) PS of 0-1 on initiation of immunotherapy; 29% of patients had poor PS, with an ECOG PS of greater than or equal to 2.
“The primary outcome was OS stratified by ECOG PS 0-1 versus ≥2,” note the authors. Across all tumor types, OS was superior for patients in the ECOG 0-1 PS group, the investigators note. The median OS was 12.6 months, compared with only 3.1 months for patients in the ECOG greater than or equal to 2 group (P < .001).
Moreover, overall response rates for patients with a poor PS were low. Only 8%, or 6 of 75 patients with an ECOG PS of greater than or equal to 2, achieved an objective response by RECIST criteria.
This compared to an overall response rate of 23% for patients with an ECOG PS of 0-1, the investigators note (P = .005).
Interestingly, the hospice referral rate for patients with a poor PS (67%) was similar to that of patients with a PS of 1-2 (61.9%), Dr. Krishnan and colleagues observe.
Those with a poor PS were more like to die in-hospital (28.6%) than were patients with a good PS (15.1%; P = .035). The authors point out that it is well known that outcomes with chemotherapy are worse among patients who experience a decline in functional reserve, owing to increased susceptibility to toxicity and complications.
“Regardless of age, patients with ECOG PS >2 usually have poor tolerability to chemotherapy, and this correlates with worse survival outcome,” they emphasize. There is as yet no clear guidance regarding the impact of PS on ICI treatment response, although “there should be,” Dr. Luke believes.
“In a patient with declining performance status, especially ECOG PS 3-4 but potentially 2 as well, there is little likelihood that the functional and immune reserve of the patient will be adequate to mount a robust antitumor response,” he elaborated.
“It’s not impossible, but trying for it should not come at the expense of engaging about end-of-life care and maximizing the palliative opportunities that many only have a short window of time in which to pursue,” he added.
Again, Dr. Luke strongly believes that just giving an ICI without engaging in a frank conversation with the patient and their families – which happens all too often, he feels – is absolutely not the way to go when treating patients with a poor PS and little time left.
“Patients and families might be better served by having a more direct and frank conversation about what the likelihood [is] that ICI therapy will actually do,” Dr. Luke stressed.
In their editorial, Dr. Luke and colleagues write: “Overall, we as an oncology community need to improve our communication with patients regarding goals of care and end-of-life considerations as opposed to reflexive treatment initiation,” he writes.
“Our duty, first and foremost, should focus on the person sitting in front of us – taking a step back may be the best way to move forward with compassionate care,” they add.
The authors and editorialists have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The findings have prompted an expert to argue against the use of immunotherapy for such patients, who may have little time left and very little chance of benefiting.
“It is quite clear from clinical practice that most patients with limited PS do very poorly and do not benefit from immune check point inhibitors (ICI),” Jason Luke, MD, UPMC Hillman Cancer Center and the University of Pittsburgh, said in an email.
“So, my strong opinion is that patients should not be getting an immunotherapy just because it might not cause as many side effects as chemotherapy,” he added.
“Instead of giving an immunotherapy with little chance of success, patients and families deserve to have a direct conversation about what realistic expectations [might be] and how we as the oncology community can support them to achieve whatever their personal goals are in the time that they have left,” he emphasized.
Dr. Luke was the lead author of an editorial in which he commented on the study. Both the study and the editorial were published online in JCO Oncology Practice.
Variety of cancers
The study was conducted by Mridula Krishnan, MD, Nebraska Medicine Fred and Pamela Buffett Cancer Center, Omaha, Nebraska, and colleagues.
The team reviewed 257 patients who had been treated with either a programmed cell death protein–1 inhibitor or programmed cell death–ligand-1 inhibitor for a variety of advanced cancers. The drugs included pembrolizumab (Keytruda), nivolumab (Opdivo), atezolizumab (Tecentique), durvalumab (Imfinzi), and avelumab (Bavencio).
Most of the patients (71%) had good PS, with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) PS of 0-1 on initiation of immunotherapy; 29% of patients had poor PS, with an ECOG PS of greater than or equal to 2.
“The primary outcome was OS stratified by ECOG PS 0-1 versus ≥2,” note the authors. Across all tumor types, OS was superior for patients in the ECOG 0-1 PS group, the investigators note. The median OS was 12.6 months, compared with only 3.1 months for patients in the ECOG greater than or equal to 2 group (P < .001).
Moreover, overall response rates for patients with a poor PS were low. Only 8%, or 6 of 75 patients with an ECOG PS of greater than or equal to 2, achieved an objective response by RECIST criteria.
This compared to an overall response rate of 23% for patients with an ECOG PS of 0-1, the investigators note (P = .005).
Interestingly, the hospice referral rate for patients with a poor PS (67%) was similar to that of patients with a PS of 1-2 (61.9%), Dr. Krishnan and colleagues observe.
Those with a poor PS were more like to die in-hospital (28.6%) than were patients with a good PS (15.1%; P = .035). The authors point out that it is well known that outcomes with chemotherapy are worse among patients who experience a decline in functional reserve, owing to increased susceptibility to toxicity and complications.
“Regardless of age, patients with ECOG PS >2 usually have poor tolerability to chemotherapy, and this correlates with worse survival outcome,” they emphasize. There is as yet no clear guidance regarding the impact of PS on ICI treatment response, although “there should be,” Dr. Luke believes.
“In a patient with declining performance status, especially ECOG PS 3-4 but potentially 2 as well, there is little likelihood that the functional and immune reserve of the patient will be adequate to mount a robust antitumor response,” he elaborated.
“It’s not impossible, but trying for it should not come at the expense of engaging about end-of-life care and maximizing the palliative opportunities that many only have a short window of time in which to pursue,” he added.
Again, Dr. Luke strongly believes that just giving an ICI without engaging in a frank conversation with the patient and their families – which happens all too often, he feels – is absolutely not the way to go when treating patients with a poor PS and little time left.
“Patients and families might be better served by having a more direct and frank conversation about what the likelihood [is] that ICI therapy will actually do,” Dr. Luke stressed.
In their editorial, Dr. Luke and colleagues write: “Overall, we as an oncology community need to improve our communication with patients regarding goals of care and end-of-life considerations as opposed to reflexive treatment initiation,” he writes.
“Our duty, first and foremost, should focus on the person sitting in front of us – taking a step back may be the best way to move forward with compassionate care,” they add.
The authors and editorialists have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
How knowledgeable are ObGyns about dense breasts?
